Abstract
The overarching aim of this chapter is to explore how modern technologies can become catalysts for design, implementation, and evaluation of effective STEM teacher education opportunities for both pre-service and in-service teachers. The chapter sets two specific goals: (a) to develop a novel theoretical framework for examining STEM teacher knowledge; and (b) to use this framework to examine two different examples of STEM teacher education and professional development: the UBC Master of Educational Technology Program, and the STEM Education Videos for All project in a teacher education program. A novel theoretical framework—4D Theoretical Framework for examining knowledge for teaching was proposed in the chapter. This framework focuses on four dimensions of teacher knowledge: the Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) (D1), the Teacher Zone of Proximal Development (T-ZPD) (D2), the Deliberate Pedagogical Thinking with Technology (D3); and the teacher knowledge growth (time) dimension (D4). Thus, the 4D Framework focuses not only on the acquisition of knowledge by teachers (D1), but also on their ability to learn and grow through collaboration with peers (D2), and to think deliberately about the use of technology to promote student learning (D3). Most importantly, the 4D Theoretical Framework pays careful attention to the growth of knowledge for teaching, thus, it perceives teacher knowledge as a dynamic construct, as opposed to a static one. This is especially relevant for twenty-first-century educators who live in the time of rapid changes of curriculum, expectations from teachers and students, as well as rapid expansion of educational technologies. While the 4D Theoretical Framework can be applied to the study of teacher knowledge in general, in this chapter, it is specifically applied to the examination of the STEM knowledge for teaching. Through examining two different but complementary cases of technology-enhanced STEM teacher education and professional development using the 4D Theoretical Framework, it became clear that both pre-service and already practicing teachers should experience technology-enhanced learning environments as learners before they are ready to implement these environments as teachers. In both examples, educational technology helped engage STEM educators in collaborative design of technology-enhanced STEM education resources relevant to their teaching context. In addition, teachers had an opportunity to reflect on the theoretical underpinnings behind these resources, the purpose of using technology, the ways the pedagogical effectiveness of these resources could be evaluated, as well as on their own learning. The opportunity to choose the project they would like to work on, to collaborate, provide and accept peer feedback, examine, and reflect on their learning was essential for helping educators to gain ownership of the technology-enhanced educational materials they were designing. Thus, educational technology became a catalyst for designing educational resources and empowering STEM teachers to adapt their pedagogies to twenty-first-century students. Finally, the chapter ponders over the future role of technology in STEM teacher education and professional development, as well as on potential avenues for future research.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
An, Y.-Y. (2015). Games to promote inquiry learning. In M. J. Spector (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educational technology (Vol. 1, pp. 318–321). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.
Blömeke, S., & Delaney, S. (2012). Assessment of teacher knowledge across countries: A review of the state of research. ZDM Mathematics Education, 44, 223–247.
Bogler, R., & Somech, A. (2004). Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers’ organizational commitment, professional commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(3), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.02.003.
British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2015). Building students success: BC’s new curriculum. Retrieved from https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/.
Burridge, P., & Carpenter, C. (2013). Expanding pedagogical horizons: A case study of teacher professional development. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(9), 10–24.
Clark, C., Moss, P. A., Goering, S., herter, R. J., Lamar, B., Leonard, D., . . . Wascha, K. (1996). Collaboration as dialogue: Teachers and researchers engaged in conversation and professional development. American Educational Research Journal, 33(1), 193–231.
Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K–12 Science Education Standards. (2013). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001, Winter). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834.
Daniels, H. (2001). Applications of sociocultural activity theory to education. In Vygotsky and pedagogy (Vol. 1, pp. 96–130). New York: Routledge Falmer: Taylor & Francis Group.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and Abroad. Retrieved from https://learningforward.org/docs/default-source/pdf/nsdcstudytechnicalreport2009.pdf.
Enghag, M. (2004). Miniprojects and context rich problems: Case studies with qualitative analysis of motivation, learner ownership and competence in small group work in physics. (Ph.D. Thesis), Linköping University, Norrköping.
Faculty of Education UBC. (2018, May 2018). Master of educational technology program. Retrieved from http://www.met.ubc.ca/.
Feder, T. (2010). Europe reflects on a decade of higher education reforms. Physics Today, 63(May), 24–27. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3431323.
Friedman, R. (2012). Exploring the status of science outreach in science teaching. (Master of Arts M.A.), University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Hake, R. R. (2007). Six lessons from the physics education reform effort. Latin-American Journal of Physics Education, 1(1), 24–31.
Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2011). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers’ curriculum-based, technology-related instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 211–229.
Jonassen, D., & Land, S. (Eds.). (2012). Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Jones, M. G., & Leagon, M. (2014). Science teacher attitudes and beleifs: Reforming practice. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abel (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 830–847). New York: Routledge.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2015). Technological pedagogical content knowledge. In M. J. Spector (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educational technology (Vol. 2, pp. 782–785). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Krajcik, J. S., & Mun, K. (2014). Promises and challenges of using learning technologies to promote student learning of science. In N.G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 337–360). New York: Routledge.
Lave, J. (1990). The culture of acquisition and the practice of understanding. In D. Kirschner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic and psychological perspectives (Vol. 1, pp. 17–35). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Let’s Talk Science. (2015). Exploring parental influence: Shaping teen decisions regarding science education. Retrieved from Toronto, Canada: http://www.letstalkscience.ca/Portals/0/Documents/RPS/Spotlight/LTS-Exploring-parental-influence-EN.pdf.
Let’s Talk Science. (2017). Canada-2067: The science of a successful tomorrow. Retrieved from https://canada2067.ca/en/.
Lewis, C. (2000, April 28). Lesson study: The core of Japanese professional development. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Liberman, N., Kolikant Ben-David, Y., & Beeri, C. (2012). “Regressed experts” as a new state in teachers’ professional development: lessons from computer science teachers’ adjustments to substantial changes in the curriculum. Computer Science Education, 22(3), 257–283.
Luft, J. A., & Hewson, P. W. (2014). Research on teacher professional development knowledge in science. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abel (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 889–909). New York: Routledge.
Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and in the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
MacArthur, J., Jones, L., & Suits, J. (2011). Faculty viewpoints on teaching large-enrollment science courses with clickers. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 30(3), 251–270.
Manizade, A. G., & Martinovic, D. (2016). Developing interactive instrument for measuring teachers’ professionally situated knowledge in geometry and measurement. In P. MoyerPackenham (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching and learning mathematics with virtual manipulatives (pp. 323–342). Switzerland: Springer Publishers.
Milner-Bolotin, M. (2001). The effects of the topic choice in project-based instruction on undergraduate physical science students’ interest, ownership, and motivation. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), The University of TX at Austin, Austin, TX.
Milner-Bolotin, M. (2014). Making online graduate teacher education courses matter—from theory to successful technology-enhanced practice. In T. G. Ryan & D. C. Young (Eds.), Teaching online: Stories from within (pp. 10–31). Champaign, IL, USA: Common Ground.
Milner-Bolotin, M. (2015). Making online graduate teacher education courses matter—From theory to successful technology-enhanced practice. Paper presented at the 18th UBC Investigating Our Practices Conference, Vancouver, BC.
Milner-Bolotin, M. (2016a). Promoting deliberate pedagogical thinking with technology in physics teacher education: A teacher-educator’s journey. In T. G. Ryan & K. A. McLeod (Eds.), The physics educator: Tacit praxes and untold stories (pp. 112–141). Champaign, IL: Common Ground and The Learner.
Milner-Bolotin, M. (2016b). Rethinking technology-enhanced physics teacher education: From theory to practice. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 16(3), 284–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2015.1119334.
Milner-Bolotin, M. (2017). Technology-supported inquiry in STEM teacher education: Collaboration, challenges and possibilities. In I. Levin & D. Tsybulsky (Eds.), Digital tools and solutions for inquiry-based STEM learning (Vol. 1, pp. 252–281). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Milner-Bolotin, M. (2018a). Family math and science day at UBC faculty of education. Retrieved from http://blogs.ubc.ca/mmilner/outreach/family-math-science-day-at-ubc-faculty-of-education/.
Milner-Bolotin, M. (2018b). Nurturing creativity in future mathematics teachers through embracing technology and failure. In V. Freiman, J. Tassell, & D. Martinovic (Eds.), Creativity and technology in math education (pp. 251–278). Switzerland: Springer.
Milner-Bolotin, M. (2018c). Science & math education videos for all. YouTube channel of online STEM resources. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHKp2Hd2k_dLjODXydn2-OA.
Milner-Bolotin, M., & Marotto, C. C. F. (2018). Examination of parental engagement in children’s STEM education. Part I: Meta-analysis of the Literature. LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 41–59.
Milner-Bolotin, M., & Milner, V. (2017). Family mathematics and science day at UBC faculty of education. Physics in Canada, 73(3), 130–132.
Milner-Bolotin, M., & Oh, J. (2016, October 28). A comparative study of STEM educators’ views of technology: A case of Canada, China and Korea. Paper presented at the 4th STEM in Education Conference, Beijing, China.
NRC. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington DC: The National Academies Press, USA National Research Council.
OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 results in focus. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Panizzon, D., Corrigan, D., Dillon, J., & Gunstone, R. (2011). Teaching secondary science in rural and remote schools: Exploring the critical role of a professional learning community. In The professional knowledge base of science teaching (pp. 173–187). Netherlands: Springer.
Perera, L. D. H. (2014). Parents’ attitudes towards science and their children’s science achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 36(18), 3021–3041. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.949900.
Polman, J. L. (1999). Designing project-based science: Connecting learners through guided inquiry. New-York, NY: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Quinn, H. (2011). A framework for K–12 science education. American Physical Society News, 20(10).
Schmidt, W. H., Blömeke, S., Tatto, M. T., Hsieh, F.-J., Cogan, L. S., Houang, R. T., et al. (2011). Teacher education matters: A study of middle school mathematics teacher preparation in six countries. New York: Teachers College Press.
Scientists and Innovators in the Schools. (2017, February 2007). Scientists and Innovators in the Schools. Retrieved from http://www.scienceworld.bc.ca/teachers_outreach/in_your_community/scientistsandinnovators.htm.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Spector, J. M. (Ed.). (2015). The SAGE encyclopedia of educational technology. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Inc.
Tembrevilla, G., & Milner-Bolotin, M. (2019). Engaging physics teacher-candidates in the production of science demonstration videos. Physics Education, 54(2), 025008.
Tobias, S., & Baffert, A. (2009). Science Teaching as a profession: Why it isn’t how it could be. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation for Science Advancement.
Troen, V., & Boles, K. C. (2003). Who’s teaching your children? Why the teacher crisis is worse than you think and what can be done about it. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
van Driel, J. H., & Berry, A. (2012). Teacher professional development focusing on Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Educational Researcher, 41(1), 26–28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11431010.
van Driel, J. H., Berry, A., & Meirink, J. (2014). Research on science teacher knowledge. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abel (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 848–870). New York: Routledge.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Milner-Bolotin, M. (2019). Technology as a Catalyst for Twenty-First-Century STEM Teacher Education. In: Yu, S., Niemi, H., Mason, J. (eds) Shaping Future Schools with Digital Technology. Perspectives on Rethinking and Reforming Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9439-3_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9439-3_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-9438-6
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-9439-3
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)