Research in Science Education

, Volume 47, Issue 2, pp 283–303 | Cite as

Science Teacher Education in the Twenty-First Century: a Pedagogical Framework for Technology-Integrated Social Constructivism

  • Miri BarakEmail author


Changes in our global world have shifted the skill demands from acquisition of structured knowledge to mastery of skills, often referred to as twenty-first century competencies. Given these changes, a sequential explanatory mixed methods study was undertaken to (a) examine predominant instructional methods and technologies used by teacher educators, (b) identify attributes for learning and teaching in the twenty-first century, and (c) develop a pedagogical framework for promoting meaningful usage of advanced technologies. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected via an online survey, personal interviews, and written reflections with science teacher educators and student teachers. Findings indicated that teacher educators do not provide sufficient models for the promotion of reform-based practice via web 2.0 environments, such as Wikis, blogs, social networks, or other cloud technologies. Findings also indicated four attributes for teaching and learning in the twenty-first century: (a) adapting to frequent changes and uncertain situations, (b) collaborating and communicating in decentralized environments, (c) generating data and managing information, and (d) releasing control by encouraging exploration. Guided by social constructivist paradigms and twenty-first century teaching attributes, this study suggests a pedagogical framework for fostering meaningful usage of advanced technologies in science teacher education courses.


Twenty-first century competencies Cloud applications Social constructivism Science teacher education Technology-integrated learning 


  1. Atwater, M. M. (1996). Social constructivism: infusion into the multicultural science education research agenda. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 821–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: an agentive perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barak, M. (2014). Closing the gap between attitudes and perceptions about ICT-enhanced learning among preservice STEM teachers. The Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(1), 1–14. doi: 10.1007/s10956-013-9446-8.
  5. Barak, M., & Rafaeli, S. (2004). Online question-posing and peer-assessment as means for Web-based knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 61(1), 84–103.Google Scholar
  6. Barak, M., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). Enhancing higher order thinking skills among in-service science education teachers via embedded assessment. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(5), 459–474. doi: 10.1007/s10972-009-9141-z.
  7. Barak, M., Lipson, A., & Lerman, S. (2006). Wireless laptops as means for promoting active learning in large lecture halls. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 245–264. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2006.10782459.
  8. Barak, M., Ben-Chaim, D., & Zoller, U. (2007). Purposely teaching for the promotion of higher-order thinking skills: a case of critical thinking. Research in Science Education, 37(4), 353–369. doi: 10.1007/s11165-006-9029-2.
  9. Barak, M., & Hussein- Farraj, R. (2013). Integrating modelbased learning and animations for enhancing students’ understanding of proteins’ structure and function. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 619–636. doi: 10.1007/s11165-012-9280-7.
  10. Bell, R. L., Maeng, J. L., & Binns, I. C. (2013). Learning in context: technology integration in a teacher preparation program informed by situated learning theory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 348–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O. (2011). Learning from failure: a case study of where an extracurricular science program went wrong. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 592–607. doi: 10.1007/s10956-011-9327-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Berenfeld, B., & Yazijian, H. (2010). Global Lab: harnessing the cloud and social networking for K-12 science learning since 1991. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), In: Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 3544–3547). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  13. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chao, L. (Ed.). (2012). Cloud computing for teaching and learning: strategies for design and implementation. Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  15. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: an introduction (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn-Bacon.Google Scholar
  17. Griffin, P., McGaw, B., & Care, E. (Eds.). (2012). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Hsieh H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.Google Scholar
  19. Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers professional development. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1259–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson, C. C. (2006). Effective professional development and change in practice: barriers science teachers encounter and implications for reform. School Science and Mathematics, 106, 150–161. doi: 10.1111/j1949-85942006tb18172x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential learning theory: previous research and new directions. Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles, 1, 227–247.Google Scholar
  22. Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 296–316.Google Scholar
  23. Mell, P., Grance, T. (2011). The NIST definition of cloud computing, National Institutes of Technology. US Department of Commerce, Special Publication 800-145, March 2013, available at
  24. Mishra, P., & Kereluik, K. (2011). What 21st century learning? A review and a synthesis. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (pp. 3301–3312). Chesapeake: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google Scholar
  25. National Research Council [NRC]. (2012a). Education for life and work: developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington: National Academies.Google Scholar
  26. National Research Council [NRC]. (2012b). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a conceptual framework for new k-12 science education standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington: National Academies.Google Scholar
  27. NGSS Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington: National Academies.Google Scholar
  28. Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509–523. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. OECD. (2013). Trends shaping education 2013. Paris: OECD . doi: 10.1787/trends_edu-2013-en.
  30. Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Palmer, D. (2005). A motivational view of constructivist-informed teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 27(15), 1853–1881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures: the central problem of intellectual development (T. Brown & K. L. Thampy, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  33. Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C. E., & Inan, F. (2010). Evidence of impact: transforming teacher education with preparing tomorrow’s teachers to teach with technology. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 863–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 679–744). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  35. Romeo, G., Lloyd, M., & Downes, T. (2012). Teaching Teachers for the Future (TTF): building the ICT in education capacity of the next generation of teachers in Australia. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(6), 949–964.Google Scholar
  36. Rowe, P. G. (1987). Design thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  37. Segers, M., Dochy, F., & Cascallar, E. (Eds.) (2003). Optimising new modes of assessment: in search of qualities and standards. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  38. Steffe, L., & Gale, J. (Eds.). (1995). Constructivism in education. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Taylor, J., & Cox, B. D. (1997). Microgenetic analysis of group-based solution of complex two-step mathematical word problems by fourth graders. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 183–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 237–246. doi: 10.1177/1098214005283748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  42. Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind: a sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Department of Education in Science and TechnologyTechnion-Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations