Advertisement

A Teacher Professional Development Program on Teaching STEM-Related Topics Using Augmented Reality in Secondary Education

  • Lasica Ilona-ElefteryjaEmail author
  • Maria Meletiou-Mavrotheris
  • Konstantinos Katzis
Chapter
  • 60 Downloads
Part of the Bridging Human and Machine: Future Education with Intelligence book series (BHMFEI)

Abstract

Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education is a field in which schools invest considerable resources and time to bring innovative solutions within their curricula. At the same time, Augmented reality (AR) is an emerging technology in the Immersive Learning Landscape. The EU-funded Erasmus + project Enlivened Laboratories in STEM (EL-STEM) aims to introduce a new approach, through the provision of integrated inquiry-based STEM learning approaches supported by Augmented Reality in school classrooms and laboratories. A multifaceted Teacher Professional Development (TPD) program has been designed within EL-STEM to familiarize teachers with the potential of AR technology for enhancing the teaching and learning processes in secondary STEM education. Teachers can, therefore, employ this technology, to further encourage student’s engagement and strengthen their twenty-first-century skills. This chapter highlights the necessity of designing and implementing such a TPD program, provides an overview of the pedagogical framework underlying the current state of the suggested EL-STEM TPD program and outlines its content and structure.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is being funded by the EU, under the Erasmus + Key Action 2 program [Enlivened Laboratories within STEM Education (EL-STEM)—Motivating EU students to choose STEM studies and careers and improving their performance in courses related to STEM education/Project No. 2017-1-CY01-KA201-026775]. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations presented in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the EU.

Glossary of Terms

Augmented Reality (AR)

an enhanced (augmented) version of the real environment overlaying digital information/objects being viewed through a device (such as a smartphone and/or tablet camera).

ELMG

The Enlivened Laboratories Methodological Guidelines (ELMG) consist of the “heart” of the EL-STEM approach, useful for enhancing the teaching and learning processes in the context of STEM-related disciplines by using the innovative technologies of AR and MR.

Learning Object

online resources or interactive software used for learning. A single image, a page of text, an interactive simulation, or an entire course could all be examples of learning objects.

STEM

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.

STEM pipeline

the decrease in the number of students pursuing STEM-related studies and careers.

STEM Skills

those skills expected to be held by people in the subjects of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Teachers

in-service lower and upper secondary education teachers of STEM-related courses, teaching Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Computer Science, etc. (unless stated otherwise).

References

  1. Aeschlimann, B., Herzog, W., & Makarova, E. (2016). How to foster students’ motivation in mathematics and science classes and promote students’ STEM career choice. A study in Swiss high schools. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akçayir, M., & Akçayir, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 20, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bacca, J., Baldiris, S., Fabregat, R., & Graf, S. (2014). Augmented reality trends in education: A systematic review of research and applications. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 133–149.Google Scholar
  4. Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30–35.Google Scholar
  5. Cannady, M. A., Greenwald, E., & Harris, K. N. (2014). Problematizing the STEM pipeline metaphor: Is the STEM pipeline metaphor serving our students and the STEM workforce? Science Education, 98(3), 443–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corlu, M. S., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2014). Introducing STEM education: Implications for educating our teachers for the age of innovation. Egitim ve Bilim, 39 (171).Google Scholar
  7. Delello, J. A. (2014). Insights from pre-service teachers using science-based augmented reality. Journal of computers in education, 1(4), 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dotong, C. I., De Castro, E. L., Dolot, J. A., & Prenda, M. T. B. (2016). Barriers for educational technology integration in contemporary classroom environment. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Arts and Sciences, 3(2), 13–20.Google Scholar
  9. Dunleavy, M., & Dede, C. (2014). Augmented reality teaching and learning. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 735–745). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & education, 59(2), 423–435.Google Scholar
  11. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., & Tondeur, J. (2014). Teachers’ beliefs and uses of technology to support 21st-century teaching and learning. International Handbook of Research on Teacher Beliefs, 403.Google Scholar
  12. EU Skills Panorama. (2016). STEM skills analytical highlight. Prepared by ICF and Cedefop for the European Commission.Google Scholar
  13. Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Collecting research data with questionnaires and interviews. Educational Research: An introduction, 227–261.Google Scholar
  14. Gasiewski, J. A., Eagan, M. K., Garcia, G. A., Hurtado, S., & Chang, M. J. (2012). From gatekeeping to engagement: A multicontextual, mixed method study of student academic engagement in introductory STEM courses. Research in Higher Education, 53(2), 229–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hornby, G., & Lafaele, R. (2011). Barriers to parental involvement in education: An explanatory model. Educational Review, 63(1), 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Howard, S. K., & Mozejko, A. (2015). Teachers: Technology, change and resistance. Teaching and digital technologies: Big issues and critical questions, 307–317.Google Scholar
  17. Ibáñez, M. B., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2018). Augmented reality for STEM learning: A systematic review. Computers & Education.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Kriek, J. (2016, March). A modified model of TPACK and SAMR in teaching for understanding. In Society for information technology & teacher education international conference (pp. 23–28). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google Scholar
  20. Lasica, I. E., Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., Katzis, K., Dimopoulos, C. & Mavrotheris E. (2018). Designing a Teacher Training Program on the integration of Augmented and Mixed Reality technologies within the educational process. In 12th annual international technology, education and development conference. Valencia, Spain.Google Scholar
  21. Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee, K. (2012). The Future of Learning and Training in Augmented Reality. InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching7, 31–42.Google Scholar
  23. Lieb, S., & Goodlad, J. (2005). Principles of adult learning.Google Scholar
  24. Lytridis, C., Tsinakos, A., & Kazanidis, I. (2018). ARTutor—an augmented reality platform for interactive distance learning. Education Sciences, 8(1), 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marrelli, A. F. (2007). Collecting data through case studies. Performance Improvement, 46(7), 39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mavrotheris, E., Lasica, I. E., Pitsikalis, S. & Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M. (2018). Project EL-STEM: Enlivened laboratories within STEM Education. In 12th international technology, education and development conference (pp. 9099–9107). IATED Digital Library.Google Scholar
  27. McNair, C. L., & Green, M. (2016). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of augmented reality. Literacy Summit Yearbook, 74–81.Google Scholar
  28. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. OECD. (2016). Education at a Glance 2016. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development Publications.Google Scholar
  30. Overbay, A., Patterson, A. S., Vasu, E. S., & Grable, L. L. (2010). Constructivism and technology use: Findings from the IMPACTing leadership project. Educational Media International, 47(2), 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pedaste, M., Lazonder, A., Raes, A., Wajeman, C., Moore, E., & Girault, I. (2016). Grand Challenge Problem 3: Empowering science teachers using technology-enhanced scaffolding to improve inquiry learning. In Grand challenge problems in technology-enhanced learning II: MOOCs and beyond (pp. 17–20). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., et al. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Phillips, M. (2013). Investigating in-service teachers’ workplace TPACK development. Australian Educational Computing28(2).Google Scholar
  34. Phillips, M. (2016). Re-contextualising TPACK: exploring teachers’(non-) use of digital technologies. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(5), 555–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ruey, S. (2010). A case study of constructivist instructional strategies for adult online learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 706–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sanders, M. E. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher (pp. 20–26). Retrieved from https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/51616/STEMmania.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
  37. Stake, R. E. (2003). Case Studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications, Incorporated.Google Scholar
  38. Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using expectancy–value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM fields. Developmental Review, 33(4), 304–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Chang, H. Y., & Liang, J. C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education, 62, 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Xue, Y., & Larson, R. C. (2015). STEM crisis or STEM surplus: Yes and yes. Monthly Lab. Rev., 138, 1.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lasica Ilona-Elefteryja
    • 1
    Email author
  • Maria Meletiou-Mavrotheris
    • 1
  • Konstantinos Katzis
    • 1
  1. 1.European University CyprusEngomiCyprus

Personalised recommendations