Advertisement

Deliberate Pedagogical Thinking with Technology in STEM Teacher Education

  • Marina Milner-BolotinEmail author
Chapter
  • 62 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter explores how current research on technology-enhanced science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education can find its way into STEM teacher education practice. To support this goal, a novel theoretical framework, Deliberate Pedagogical Thinking with Technology (DPTwT), is introduced. This framework emphasizes the growth of teacher knowledge as a result of collaboration with peers and more experienced colleagues. While this collaboration is often aided by technology, the focus of this framework is on facilitating teacher growth through collaboration and not on using technology. The DPTwT framework is used to guide the design, implementation, and evaluation of technology-enhanced pedagogies implemented in STEM methods courses for future teachers. Three examples of these technology-enabled pedagogies are provided in this chapter. The chapter also focusses on the implications of modeling deliberate use of technology in STEM teacher education, where future teachers are invited: first, to experience these collaborative technologies as learners; secondly, to reflect on them as future teachers; and thirdly, to implement these collaborative technology-enhanced pedagogies during their school practicum. Finally, the pedagogical value of providing these collaborative technology-enhanced experiences for future STEM teachers during their teacher education are also considered.

Keywords

Collaborative Learning Annotation System (CLAS) Deliberate Pedagogical Thinking with Technology (DPTwT) STEM teacher education Teacher Zone of Proximal Development (T-ZPD) Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) Peer Instruction PeerWise 

References

  1. Bates, S. P., Galloway, R. K., Riise, J., & Homer, D. (2014). Assessing the quality of a student-generated question repository. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 10, 020105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2015). Building students success: BC’s new curriculum. Author. https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/. 2018.
  3. Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative at the University of British Columbia. (2012). CWSEI – UBC. http://www.cwsei.ubc.ca/. 2015.
  4. Chachashvili-Bolotin, S., Milner-Bolotin, M., & Lissitsa, S. (2016). Examination of factors predicting secondary students’ interest in tertiary STEM education. International Journal of Science Education, 38, 366–390.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1143137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chien, Y.-T., Chang, Y.-H., & Chang, C.-Y. (2015). Do we click in the right way? A meta-analytic review of clicker-integrated instruction. Educational Research Review, 17, 1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing learning and instruction (Vol. 1, pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 813–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dang, T. (2018). Collaborative Learning Annotation System. Vancouver, BC: UBC ETS.Google Scholar
  10. DeCoito, I. (2016). STEM education in Canada: A knowledge synthesis. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 16, 114–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Denny, P. (2010). Motivating online collaborative learning. ITiCSE, 37, 300.Google Scholar
  12. Denny, P. (2018). PeerWise. Auckland, NZ: The University of Auckland. http://peerwise.cs.auckland.ac.nz/. Accessed 22 Apr 2016.
  13. Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. E. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332, 862–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dweck, C. S. (2016). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Penguin Random House.Google Scholar
  15. Etkina, E. (2010). Pedagogical content knowledge and preparation of high school physics teachers. Physical Review Special Topics, 6, 020110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fagen, A. P., Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2002). Peer Instruction: Results from a range of classrooms. The Physics Teacher, 40, 206–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Finkelstein, N. D., Adams, W. K., Keller, C. J., Kohl, P. B., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., … LeMaster, R. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 1, 010103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hardy, J., Bates, S. P., Casey, M. M., Galloway, K. W., Galloway, R. K., Kay, A. E., … McQueen, H. A. (2014). Student-generated content: Enhancing learning through sharing multiple-choice questions. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 2180–2194.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.916831 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41, 393–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jonassen, D., & Land, S. (2012). Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Jones, M. G., & Leagon, M. (2014). Science teacher attitudes and beliefs: Reforming practice. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abel (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 830–847). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Kalman, C. S., Milner-Bolotin, M., & Antimirova, T. (2010). Comparison of the effectiveness of collaborative groups and Peer Instruction in a large introductory physics course for science majors. Canadian Journal of Physics, 88, 325–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Khan, S. (2013). Khan Academy. http://khanacademy.org/. 2013.
  26. 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, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  27. Kolikant, Y. B.-D. (2010). “Clickers” as catalysts for transformation of teachers. College Teaching, 58, 127–135.  https://doi.org/10.1080/87567551003774894 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lasry, N. (2008). Clickers or flashcards: Is there really a difference? The Physics Teacher, 46, 242–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lasry, N., Mazur, E., & Watkins, J. (2008). Peer Instruction: From Harvard to the two-year college. American Journal of Physics, 76, 1066–1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  31. Let’s Talk Science. (2013). Spotlight on science learning: The high cost of dropping science and math. Toronto, ON: Author.Google Scholar
  32. Let’s Talk Science. (2016). PISA 2015 gives cause for celebration but not complacency. Toronto, ON: Author.Google Scholar
  33. Levin, I., & Tsybulsky, D. (2017). Digital tools and solutions for inquiry-based STEM learning. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.  https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-2525-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maciel, T. (2015). Smartphones in the classroom help students see inside the black box. APS News, 24, 5–6.Google Scholar
  35. Manny-Ikan, E., Berger Tikochinski, T., & Bashan, Z. (Eds.). (2013). Does the use of ICT-based teaching encourage innovative pedagogical interaction in the classroom? A presentation of CLI-O: Class learning interactions – Observation tool. Jerusalem, Israel: Henrietta Szold Institute.Google Scholar
  36. Manny-Ikan, E., & Dagan, O. (2011). Using the interactive white board in teaching and learning – An evaluation of the SMART CLASSROOM Pilot Project. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 7, 249–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Martinovic, D. (2015). Computer-supported Mathematics learning: Technology as a partner in learning Mathematics. In L. A. H. Rebollar, J. Antonio, J. López, & J. S. Ignjatov (Eds.), Tendencias en la educación matemática basada en la investigación [Trends in research-based mathematics education] (Vol. 1, pp. 53–66). Mexico, Mexico: Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla.Google Scholar
  38. Martinovic, D. (2016). Educators as researchers: Connecting educational research and practice within a Teacher Education Program. In J. C. McDermott & A. Kožuh (Eds.), Theoretical framework of education (pp. 7–20). Los Angeles, CA: Antioch University.Google Scholar
  39. Martinovic, D., & Manizade, A. G. (2014). Technology as a partner in geometry classrooms. The Electronic Journal of Mathematics and Technology, 8, 69–87.Google Scholar
  40. Martinovic, D., Muller, E., & Buteau, C. (2013). Intelligent partnership with technology: Moving from a mathematics school curriculum to an undergraduate program. Computers in the Schools, 30, 76–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Martinovic, D., & Zhang, Z. (2012). Situating ICT in the Teacher Education Program: Overcoming challenges, fulfilling expectations. Teachers and Teacher Education, 28, 461–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2018). MIT open courseware. Author. https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm. Accessed 6 May 2018.
  43. Mazur, E. (1997a). Peer Instruction: Getting students to think in class. In E. F. Redish & J. S. Rigden (Eds.), Changing role of physics departments in modern universities: Proceedings of ICUPE, The University of Maryland (p. 8). College Park, MD: American Institute of Physics.Google Scholar
  44. Mazur, E. (1997b). Peer Instruction: User’s manual. Prentice Hall series in educational innovation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  45. Mazur, E. (2009). Farewell, lecture? Science, 323, 50–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McQueen, H. A., Shields, C., Finnegan, D. J., Higham, J., & Simmen, M. W. (2014). PeerWise provides significant academic benefits to biological science students across diverse learning tasks, but with minimal instructor intervention. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 42, 371–381.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20806 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Milner-Bolotin, M. (2012). Increasing interactivity and authenticity of chemistry instruction through data acquisition systems and other technologies. Journal of Chemical Education, 89, 477–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Milner-Bolotin, M. (2014). Using PeerWise to promote student collaboration on design of conceptual multiple-choice questions. Physics in Canada, 70, 149–150.Google Scholar
  49. 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.Google Scholar
  50. Milner-Bolotin, M. (2016b). Rethinking technology-enhanced physics teacher education: From theory to practice. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 16, 284–295.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2015.1119334 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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 (Advances in educational technologies and instructional design (AETID) book series) (Vol. 1, pp. 252–281). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Milner-Bolotin, M. (2018a). 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 (Mathematics education in the digital era) (p. 22). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  53. Milner-Bolotin, M. (2018b). Promoting reflective physics teaching through the use of Collaborative Learning Annotation System. The Physics Teacher, 56, 313–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Milner-Bolotin, M. (2018c). Science & math education videos for all. UBC. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHKp2Hd2k_dLjODXydn2-OA. Accessed 20 Mar 2018.
  55. Milner-Bolotin, M., Egersdorfer, D., & Vinayagam, M. (2016). Investigating the effect of question-driven pedagogy on the development of physics teacher-candidates’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Physics Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 12, 1–16.Google Scholar
  56. Milner-Bolotin, M., Fisher, H., & MacDonald, A. (2013). Modeling active engagement pedagogy through classroom response systems in a physics teacher education course. LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 1, 523–542.Google Scholar
  57. Milner-Bolotin, M., Kotlicki, A., & Rieger, G. (2007). Can students learn from lecture demonstrations: The role and place of interactive lecture experiments in large introductory science courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36, 45–49.Google Scholar
  58. Milner-Bolotin, M., & Milner, V. (2017). Family Mathematics and Science Day at UBC Faculty of Education. Physics in Canada, 73, 130–132.Google Scholar
  59. Muller, D. (2018a). This will revolutionize education. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEmuEWjHr5c. 2018.
  60. Muller, D. (2018b). Veritasium. https://youtube.com/veritasium. Accessed 5 May 2018
  61. NRC. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, USA National Research Council.Google Scholar
  62. OECD. (2016a). PISA 2015 results in focus. Paris, France: Author.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. OECD. (2016b). PISA 2015 results: Excellence and equity in education vol I. Paris, France: Author.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. OECD. (2016c). PISA 2015 results: Policies and practices for successful schools vol II. Paris, France: Author.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Postman, N. (1985). Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show business. New York, NY: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  66. Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants Part I: A new way to look at ourselves and our kids. On the Horizons, 9, 1–6.Google Scholar
  67. Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants Part II: Do they really think differently? On the Horizons, 9, 1–9.Google Scholar
  68. Quinn, H. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education. American Physical Society News, 20, 1–3. https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201111/backpage.cfm?renderfo
  69. Schmid, R. F., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Surkes, M. A., … Woods, J. (2014). The effects of technology use in postsecondary education: A meta-analysis of classroom applications. Computers & Education, 72, 271–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schmidt, D., Baran, E., Thompson, A., Koehler, M. J., Shin, T., & Mishra, P. (2009, April). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Paper presented at the 2009 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 13–17, San Diego, California.Google Scholar
  71. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Krauter, K., & Knight, J. K. (2011). Combining peer discussion with instructor explanation increases student learning from in-class concept questions. CBE Life Sciences Education, 10, 55–63.  https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-08-0101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. The Royal Society Science Policy Centre. (2014). Vision for science and mathematics education report. Author. http://www.interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=25298. Accessed 18 Apr 2017
  74. Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education Next, 12, 82–83.Google Scholar
  75. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. In Learning in dong: Social, cognitive, and computational perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Wieman, C. E., Adams, W. K., Loeblein, P., & Perkins, K. K. (2010). Teaching physics using PhET simulations. The Physics Teacher, 48, 225–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wieman, C. E., Rieger, G., & Heiner, C. (2014). Physics exams that promote collaborative learning. The Physics Teacher, 52, 51–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy, Faculty of EducationUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations