Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 51, Issue 6, pp 955–965 | Cite as

Developing mathematics teachers’ 21st century competence for teaching in STEM contexts

  • Kim BeswickEmail author
  • Sharon Fraser
Original Article
  • 117 Downloads

Abstract

Teachers are increasingly being called upon to teach in ways that develop 21st century learning skills in their students. Various frameworks for 21st century learning have been proposed and while they differ, all agree on four components for development—creativity, collaboration, communication and critical thinking. Both individually and together, STEM subject areas contribute to the development and enactment of these skills through inquiry-based approaches to learning. Although integrated approaches to teaching the STEM disciplines afford enhanced opportunities to develop these skills, they rely on teachers having expertise in at least one and ideally more than one of the relevant underpinning disciplines. At a time when many countries are experiencing shortages of adequately qualified teachers of mathematics and some science disciplines, this presents an especially difficult challenge. Similarly, if teachers are to facilitate their students’ 21st century competence they need to have this competence themselves—a fact that appears to have been largely ignored to date. In this paper we present a framework that enables novice teachers (novice to teaching in general, teaching a STEM discipline, or teaching integrated STEM) to think in detail about what they need to know, find out, or think about as they plan for teaching, enact teaching, and reflect on teaching. As well as explicating the complexity of the knowledge of teachers of individual and integrated STEM disciplines, the framework highlights the importance of teachers’ own 21st century skills. Finally, we suggest ways in which teachers might use or adapt the framework to assist their students to develop their own 21st century competence.

Keywords

STEM education Mathematics teacher expertise 21st Century competence 21st Century learning STEMCrAfT framework 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding for the project reported here was provided by the Australian Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education, through the Australian Mathematics and Science Partnerships Program (AMSPP) Priority Projects.

References

  1. Archambault, I., Janosz, M., & Chouinard, R. (2012). Teacher beliefs as predictors of adolescents’ cognitive engagement and achievement in mathematics. Journal of Educational Research, 105(5), 319–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson, R. D., & Mayo, M. (2010). Refuelling the US innovation economy: Fresh approaches to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Washington DC: The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.Google Scholar
  3. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2018). The Australian curriculum: Mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Mathematics/Curriculum/F-10.
  4. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it so special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beswick, K., Fraser, S., & Crowley, S. (2016). “No wonder out-of-field teachers struggle!”: Unpacking the thinking of expert teachers. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 72(4), 16–20.Google Scholar
  6. Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30–35.Google Scholar
  7. Caprile, M., Palmén, R., Sanz, P., & Dente, G. (2015). Encouraging STEM studies: Labour market situation and comparison of practice targeted at young people in different member states. Brussels: European Union.Google Scholar
  8. DuPlessis, A. E. (2018). The lived experience of out-of-field STEM teachers: A quandary for strategizing quality teaching in STEM? Research in Science Education.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9740-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fraser, S., Beswick, K., & Crowley, S. (2019). Making tacit knowledge visible: Uncovering the knowledge of science and mathematics teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of education change. New York: Teachers College Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grootenboer, P. (2013). The praxis of mathematics teaching: Developing mathematical identities. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 21(2), 321–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hansen, V. L. (2002). Popularizing mathematics: From eight to infinity. In L.I. Tatsien (Ed.). Proceedings of the international congress of mathematicians (Vol. 3, pp. 885–888). Beijing, China. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0305019.pdf.
  13. Hill, J. G., & Dalton, B. (2013). Student math achievement and out-of-field teaching. Educational Researcher, 42(7), 403–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hobbs, L. (2013). Teaching ‘out-of-field’ as a boundary-crossing event: Factors shaping teacher identity. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(2), 271–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hobbs, L., Clark, J. C., & Plant, B. (2018). Successful students–STEM program: Teacher learning through a multifaceted vision for STEM education. In R. Jorgensen & K. Larkin (Eds.), STEM education in the junior secondary (pp. 133–168). Singapore: Springer Nature.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holton, D., Muller, E., Oikkonen, J., Sanchez Valenzuela, O. A., & Zizhao, R. (2009). Some reasons for change in undergraduate mathematics enrolments. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40(1), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hossain, M., & Robinson, M. G. (2012). How to motivate US students to pursue STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) careers. US-China Education Review A, 4, 442–451.Google Scholar
  19. Jerald, C. D. & Ingersoll, R. (2002). All talk and no action: Putting an end to out-of-field teaching. Retrieved from http://reprository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/142.
  20. Kereluik, K., Mishra, P., Fahnoe, C., & Terry, L. (2013). What knowledge is of most worth: Teacher knowledge for 21st century learning. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 29(4), 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Killion, J. P., & Todnem, G. A. (1991). A process for personal theory building. Educational Leadership, 48(6), 14–16.Google Scholar
  22. Kivunja, C. (2013). Embedding digital pedagogy in pre-service higher education, to better prepare teachers for the digital generation. International Journal of Higher Education, 2(4), 131–142.  https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v2n4p131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kivunja, C. (2014). Do you want your students to be job-ready with 21st century skills? Change pedagogies: A pedagogical paradigm shift from Vygotskyian social constructivism to critical thinking problem solving and Siemen’s digital connectivism. International Journal of Higher Education, 3(3), 81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Konold, C., & Miller, C. D. (2005). Tinkerplots: Dynamic data exploration. Emeryville: Key Curriculum Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lyons, T., Cooksey, R., Panizzon, D., Parnell, A., & Pegg, J. (2006). Science, ICT and mathematics education in rural and regional Australia: The SiMERR national survey. National Centre of Science: Armidale.Google Scholar
  27. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  28. McCain, T. (2007). Teaching for tomorrow: Teaching content and problem-solving skills. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  29. McConney, A., & Price, A. (2009). Teaching out-of-field in Western Australia. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34(6), 86–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McIntosh, A., & Dole, S. (2004). Mental computation: A strategies approach. Hobart: Department of Education.Google Scholar
  31. McPhan, G., Morony, W., Pegg, J., Cooksey, R., & Lynch, T. (2008). Maths? Why not. Canberra: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.Google Scholar
  32. Ministerial Council on Education Employment and Youth Affairs. (2008). Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Retrieved from Melbourne, Australia: http://www.mceecdya.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf.
  33. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moody, B. (2011). Decipipes: Helping students to “Get the point”. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 16(1), 10–15.Google Scholar
  35. Moyer, J. C., Robison, V., & Cai, J. (2018). Attitudes of high-school students taught using traditional and reform mathematics curricula in middle school: A retrospective analysis. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 98(2), 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Office of the Chief Scientist. (2014). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Australia’s future. Canberra: Australian Government.Google Scholar
  37. Prieto, E., & Dugar, N. (2017). An enquiry into the influence of mathematics on students’ choice of STEM careers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(8), 1501–1520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Redish, E. F., & Kuo, E. J. S. (2015). Language of physics, language of math: disciplinary culture and dynamic epistemology. Science & Education, 24(5), 561–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rotherham, A. J. & Willingham, D. T. (2010). “21st century skills: Not new but a worthy challenge. American Educator, Spring, 17–20. Retrieved from https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/RotherhamWillingham.pdf.
  40. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith.Google Scholar
  41. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  42. Science and Technology Policy Division of the OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation. (2016). In Policy profiles (OECD STI Outlook 2016). Retrieved from https://www.innovationpolicyplatform.org/content/policy-profiles-oecd-sti-outlook-2016.
  43. Sigsworth, A., & Solstad, K. J. (Eds.). (2008). Small rural schools: A small inquiry. Nesna, Norway: Nesna University College. Retrieved from https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/145678/64.pdf?sequence=1.
  44. Steyn, G. M., & du Plessis, E. (2007). The implications of the out-of-field phenomenon for effective teaching, quality education and school management. Africa Education Review, 4(2), 144–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sullivan, P., Clarke, D., & Clarke, B. (2009). Converting mathematics tasks to learning opportunities: An important aspect of knowledge for mathematics teaching. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 21(1), 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sullivan, A., & Johnson, B. (2012). Questionable practices? Relying on individual teacher resilience in remote schools. Australian and International Journal of Rural Education, 22(3), 101–116.Google Scholar
  47. Thomson, S., Wernert, N., O’Grady, E., & Rodrigues, S. (2016). TIMSS 2015: A first look at Australia’s results. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  48. Timms, M., Moyle, K., Weldon, P. R., & Mitchell, P. (2018). Challenges in STEM learning in Australian schools. Retrieved from Melbourne.Google Scholar
  49. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st Century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  50. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2016). Preparing and supporting teachers to meet the challenges of 21st century learning in Asia-Pacific. UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002460/246052E.pdf.
  51. Wienk, M. (2017). Discipline profile of the mathematical sciences. Retrieved from https://amsi.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/discipline-profile-2017-web.pdf.
  52. Zhou, Y. (2014). The relationship between school organisational characteristics and reliance on out-of-field teaching in mathematics and science: Cross-national evidence from TALIS 2008. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23(3), 483–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.University of TasmaniaLauncestonAustralia

Personalised recommendations