Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 187–201 | Cite as

Run! Spot. Run!: vocabulary development and the evolution of STEM disciplinary language for secondary teachers

  • Luciana R. Barroso
  • Ali Bicer
  • Mary M. Capraro
  • Robert M. Capraro
  • Alexandra L. Foran
  • Melva R. Grant
  • Yvonna S. Lincoln
  • Sandra B. Nite
  • Ayse Tugba Oner
  • Devyn Rice
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to explore the development of discourses that emerge as a result of inservice teachers being engaged in a richly situated technological task that incorporated geometric spatial sense development and the engineering design processes. Typically, learning has been approached as a discrete set of tasks to be mastered without regard for how expressed language within context develops. Secondary teachers (N = 26) who attended a week-long residential professional development program at a land grant university learned to use Google Sketch-Up® to design 3-dimensional (3-D) objects that were created using 3-D printers. Data were collected during an aural spatial visualization test that required language be used to describe 3-D objects to others who created 2-D drawings. Digital audio recordings of these interactions were analyzed. Results indicated language emerged through a variety of discourses each characterized by distinct languages: analogous, technical, and clarifying. The discourses were mediated by cognitive negotiation that allowed meaning to ascribe with sense carrying capacity that was occasionally hindered by terminological ambiguity. Implications of this study are that designing and creating 3-D objects using 3-D printers in classrooms may support opportunities for engaging in and practicing engineering design processes while developing disciplinary language, and spatial ability.

Keywords

STEM Disciplinary language Secondary teachers Qualitative Discourse 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This manuscript is based upon work supported by the Texas Education Agency (TEA-146944107110003). Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this manuscript are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agency.

References

  1. Alexander, K. A. (2012). Sexual safety and sexual security: Broadening the sexual health discourse. Dissertations ProQuest Paper AAI3550742.Google Scholar
  2. Altheide, D. L., & Johnson, J. M. (1994). Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 485–499). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Association for Psychological Science, 1(2), 164–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beauducel, A. (2003). Fluid and crystallized intelligence. In R. Fernandez-Ballesteros (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychological assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, T. A., Williams, C. B., Ivanova, O. S., & Garrett, B. (2011). Could 3D printing change the world? Strategic Foresight Report. Washington, DC: Atlantic Council.Google Scholar
  6. Capraro, M. M., Bicer, A., Grant, M. R., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2017). Using precision in STEM language: A qualitative look at how working in groups may help. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(1), 29–39. doi: 10.18404/ijemst.15709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Capraro, R. M. (2016). Catalyzing fundamental STEM paradigms and practices. The nexus of ethical responsibility for co-constructors. Keynote address at the International Conference on Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology (ICEMST), Bodrum, Turkey.Google Scholar
  8. Capraro, R. M., Barroso, L. R., Nite, S., Rice, D., Lincoln, Y., Young, J., & Young, J. (2017). Developing a useful and integrative STEM disciplinary language. International. Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology. doi: 10.18404/ijemst.31232.Google Scholar
  9. Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., & Morgan, J. (Eds.) (2013). STEM Project-based learning: An integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach (2nd ed.). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  10. Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., & Rupley, W. H. (2011). Reading-enhanced word problem solving (REPS): A theoretical model. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 27(1), 91–114. doi: 10.1007/s10212-011-0068-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carr, R. L., Bennett, L. D., & Strobel, J. (2012). Engineering in the K-12 STEM standards of the 50 US states: An analysis of presence and extent. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(3), 539–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  13. Clark, G., & Phillips, A. (2014). Inside book publishing. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Council, T. A. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  15. Craig, D. V. (2000). Technology, mathematics, and the early learner: Models for learning. Early Childhood Education Journal, 27(3), 179–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Mora, J. C., & Wood, K. (2014). Practical knowledge in teacher education: Approaches to teacher internship programmes. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Dian, S. (2013). 3D printing in the classroom: 5 Tips for bringing new dimensions to your students’ experiences. Retrieved February 1, 2016, from https://thejournal.com/Articles/2013/12/11/3D-Printing-in-the-Classroom-5-Tips-for-Bringing-New-Dimensions-to-Your-Students-Experiences.aspx?Page=1.
  18. Dix, K. (1999). Enhanced mathematics learning: Does technology make a difference? Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, 2, 192–199.Google Scholar
  19. Fisher, T. (2016) The professional practice of educators. Retrieved February 3, 2016, from http://3dprintingsystems.com/wp-content/uploads/EDP416-Assessment-2.pdf.
  20. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Guth, H. P., Squire, J. R., & Boynton, R. (1989). A symposium: The textbook gap: A teacher-author-publisher dialogue. English Journal, 78(6), 14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Han, S. Y., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2016). How science, technology, engineering, and mathematics project based learning affects high-need students in the US. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hart, S. M., & Bennett, S. M. (2013). Disciplinary literacy development of STEM preservice teachers. Teacher Education and Practice, 26(2), 221–241.Google Scholar
  24. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  25. Janesick, V. J. (1994). The dance of qualitative research design. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 209–219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Kay, J. (2005). Crystallized intelligence versus fluid intelligence. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 68(1), 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kearsley, G. (2010). Andragogy (M. Knowles). The theory into practice database. Retrieved December 17, 2015, from http://tip.psychology.org.
  28. Knowles, M. (1984). Andragogy in action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  29. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  30. Lewis, T. (2006). Design and inquiry: Bases for an accommodation between science and technology education in the curriculum? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(3), 255–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. National Governors Association Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Council of Chief State School Officers.Google Scholar
  32. Pannoni, A. (2014). 3-D printing becomes accessible for high school teachers. Retrieved November 23, 2015, from http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes/2014/07/21/3-d-printing-becomes-accessible-for-high-school-teachers.
  33. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd edn.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Segerman, H. (2012). 3D printing for mathematical visualization. The Mathematical Intelligencer, 34(4), 56–62. doi: 10.1007/s00283-012-9319-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith, M. K. (1996, 1999). ‘Andragogy’, The encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved February 3, 2016, from http://www.infed.org/lifelonglearning/b-andra.htm.
  36. Smith, M. K. (2002) ‘Malcolm Knowles, informal adult education, self-direction and andragogy’. The encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved February 3, 2016, from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-knowl.htm.
  37. Stotsky, S. (2014). Common core doesn’t add up to STEM success: The high-school mathematics standards are too weak to give us more engineers or scientists. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved January 4, 2016, from http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304020704579278060483138096.
  38. Vardeman, J. E., & Aldoory, L. (2008). A qualitative study of how women make meaning of contradictory media messages about the risks of eating fish. Health Communications, 23(3), 282–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Webb, N. E. (2009). Fluid and crystallized intelligence. In B. Kerr (Ed.), Encyclopedia of giftedness, creativity, and talent. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Wickman, P.-O., & Östman, L. (2002). Learning as discourse change: A sociocultural mechanism. Science Education, 86, 601–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wolfe, J. (2012). 3D printing, shapeways, and the future of personal products. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshwolfe/2012/06/19/3d-printing-shapeways-and-the-future-of-personal-products/.
  42. Wu, L., & Hoyoung, A. (2010). Making sense of conflicting health information: An exploratory study. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 47(1), 1–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luciana R. Barroso
    • 1
  • Ali Bicer
    • 1
  • Mary M. Capraro
    • 1
  • Robert M. Capraro
    • 1
  • Alexandra L. Foran
    • 1
  • Melva R. Grant
    • 2
  • Yvonna S. Lincoln
    • 1
  • Sandra B. Nite
    • 1
  • Ayse Tugba Oner
    • 1
  • Devyn Rice
    • 1
  1. 1.Texas A&M University, Aggie STEMCollege StationUSA
  2. 2.Old Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options