Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Transforming a Traditional Inquiry-Based Science Unit into a STEM Unit for Elementary Pre-service Teachers: A View from the Trenches

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The need to prepare students with twenty-first-century skills through STEM-related teaching is strong, especially at the elementary level. However, most teacher education preparation programs do not focus on STEM education. In an attempt to provide an exemplary model of a STEM unit, we used a rapid prototyping approach to transform an inquiry-based unit on moon phases into one that integrated technology in a meaningful manner to develop technological literacy and scientific concepts for pre-service teachers (PSTs). Using qualitative case study methodology, we describe lessons learned related to the development and implementation of a STEM unit in an undergraduate elementary methods course, focusing on the impact the inquiry model had on PSTs’ perceptions of inquiry-based science instruction and how the integration of technology impacted their learning experience. Using field notes and survey data, we uncovered three overarching themes. First, we found that PSTs held absolutist beliefs and had a need for instruction on inquiry-based learning and teaching. Second, we determined that explicit examples of effective and ineffective technology use are needed to help PSTs develop an understanding of meaningful technology integration. Finally, the rapid prototyping approach resulted in a successful modification of the unit, but caused the usability of our digital instructional materials to suffer. Our findings suggest that while inquiry-based STEM units can be implemented in existing programs, creating and testing these prototypes requires significant effort to meet PSTs’ learning needs, and that iterating designs is essential to successful implementation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abell SK, Appleton K, Hanuscin DL (2010) Designing and teaching the elementary science methods course. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson RD (2007) Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula. In: Abell SK, Lederman NG (eds) Handbook of research on science education. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 807–830

    Google Scholar 

  • Appleton K (2007) Elementary science teaching. In: Abell SK, Lederman NG (eds) Handbook of research on science education. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 493–536

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson RD, Mayo MJ (2010) Refueling the US innovation economy: fresh approaches to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1722822). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network

  • Banilower ER, Heck DJ, Weiss IR (2007) Can professional development make the vision of the standards a reality? The impact of the national science foundation’s local systemic change through teacher enhancement initiative. J Res Sci Teach 44(3):375–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branch RM, Kopcha TJ (2014) Instructional Design Models. In: Spector JM, Merrill MD, Elen J, Bishop MJ (eds) Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. Springer, New York, pp 77–87

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brown T (2008) Design thinking. Harv Bus Rev 86(6):84–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. (2010). Advancing STEM education: a 2020 vision. The technology and engineering teacher, September, 30–35

  • Chan K-W (2011) Preservice teacher education students’ epistemological beliefs and conceptions about learning. Instr Sci 39(1):87–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz K (2006) Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell JW (2012) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches, 3rd edn. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban L (2009) Oversold and underused: computers in the classroom. Harvard University Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies RS (2011) Understanding technology literacy: a framework for evaluating educational technology integration. TechTrends 55(5):45–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies RS, Dean DL, Ball N (2013) Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Educ Tech Res Dev 61(4):563–580. doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9305-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis EA, Petish D, Smithey J (2006) Challenges new science teachers face. Rev Educ Res 76(4):607–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desrosier J (2011) Rapid prototyping reconsidered. J Contin High Educ 59(3):135–145. doi:10.1080/07377363.2011.614881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dove A (2013) Students’ perceptions of learning in a flipped statistics class. In: McBride R, Searson M (eds) SITE 2013. Paper presented at the 24th Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, 25–29 March, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Chesapeake, VA, pp. 393–398

  • Dugger WE (2001) Standards for technological literacy. Phi Delta Kappan 82(7):513–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenkraft A (2010) Retrospective analysis of technological literacy of K-12 students in the USA. Int J Technol Des Educ 20(3):277–303. doi:10.1007/s10798-009-9085-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enfield J (2013) Looking at the impact of the flipped classroom model of instruction on undergraduate multimedia students at CSUN. TechTrends 57(6):14–27. doi:10.1007/s11528-013-0698-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein D, Miller RT (2011) Slow off the mark: elementary school teachers and the crisis in science, technology, engineering, and math education. Educ Dig: Essent Read Condens Quick Rev 77(1):4–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Frick T, Su B, An Y-J (2004) Building a large, successful website efficiently through inquiry-based design and content management tools. TechTrends 49(4):20–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulmer GW (2014) Undergraduates’ attitudes toward science and their epistemological beliefs: positive effects of certainty and authority beliefs. J Sci Educ Technol 23(1):198–206. doi:10.1007/s10956-013-9463-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulton L, Campbell B (2014) Science notebooks: writing about inquiry. Heinemann, Portsmouth

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser B (1999) The future of grounded theory. Qual Health Res 9(6):836–845

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg J, McKee A, Walsh K (2013) Teacher prep review: a review of the nation’s teacher preparation programs. National Council on Teacher Quality, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall C, Dickerson J, Batts D, Kauffmann P, Bosse M (2011) Are we missing opportunities to encourage interest in STEM fields? J Technol Educ 23(1):32–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofer BK, Pintrich PR (1997) The development of epistemological theories: beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Rev Educ Res 67(1):88–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howes EV, Lim M, Campos J (2009) Journeys into inquiry-based elementary science: literacy practices, questioning, and empirical study. Sci Educ 93(2):189–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingerman Å, Collier-Reed B (2011) Technological literacy reconsidered: a model for enactment. Int J Technol Des Educ 21(2):137–148. doi:10.1007/s10798-009-9108-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ITEA (2007) Standards for technological literacy: content for the study of technology, 3rd edn. International Technology Education Association, Reston

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen DH (2000) Computers as mindtools for schools: engaging critical thinking. Merrill, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen DH (2011) Learning to solve problems: a handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen DH, Davidson M, Collins M, Campbell J, Haag BB (1995) Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. Am J Distance Educ 9(2):7–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen DH, Howland J, Moore J, Marra RM (2003) Learning to solve problems with technology: a constructivist perspective. Merrill, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones A (2013) The role and place of technological literacy in elementary science teacher education. In: Appleton K (ed) Elementary science teacher education: international perspectives on contemporary issues and practice. Routledge, New York, pp 197–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones TS, Richey RC (2000) Rapid prototyping methodology in action: a developmental study. Educ Tech Res Dev 48(2):63–80. doi:10.1007/BF02313401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kober N, Rentner DS (2012) Year two of implementing the common core state standards: states’ progress and challenges. Center on Education Policy, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuenzi JJ (2006a) Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education issues and legislative options (No. RL33434). Congressional Research Service, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuenzi JJ (2006b) Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: background, federal policy, and legislative action (No. 35). Congressional Research Service, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn D (1999) A developmental model of critical thinking. Educ Res 28(2):16–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer R, Schauble L, Lucas D (2008) Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cogn Dev 23(4):512–529. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lelliott A, Rollnick M (2010) Big ideas: a review of astronomy education research 1974–2008. Int J Sci Educ 32(13):1771–1799. doi:10.1080/09500690903214546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason GS, Shuman TR, Cook KE (2013) Comparing the effectiveness of an inverted classroom to a traditional classroom in an upper-division engineering course. IEEE Trans Educ 56(4):430–435. doi:10.1109/TE.2013.2249066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam SB (2007) Qualitative research and case study applications in education, 2nd edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Minner DD, Levy AJ, Century J (2010) Inquiry-based science instruction—what is it and does it matter? results from a research synthesis years 1984–2002. J Res Sci Teach 47(4):474–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moravec M, Williams A, Aguilar-Roca N, O’Dowd DK (2010) Learn before lecture: a strategy that improves learning outcomes in a large introductory biology class. CBE Life Sci Educ 9(4):473–481. doi:10.1187/cbe.10-04-0063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulholland J, Ginns I (2008) College MOON project Australia: preservice teachers learning about the moon’s phases. Res Sci Educ 38(3):385–399. doi:10.1007/s11165-007-9055-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Center on Education and the Economy (2007) Tough choices or tough times: the report of the New commission on the skills of the American workforce. Josey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1996) National science education standards. National Academy Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2007) Rising above the gathering storm: energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. National Academies Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2011) Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. National Academies Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2012) A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen J, Loranger H (2006) Prioritizing web usability. New Riders, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110 § 115. (2001)

  • Osborne J (2014) Teaching scientific practices: meeting the challenge of change. J Sci Teach Educ 25(2):177–196. doi:10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson G, Young AT et al (2002) Technically speaking: why all Americans need to know more about technology. National Academies Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce R, Fox J (2012) Vodcasts and active-learning exercises in a “flipped classroom” model of a renal pharmacotherapy module. Am J Pharm Educ 76(10):196. doi:10.5688/ajpe7610196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Research Hanover (2011) K-12 STEM education overview. Hanover Research, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Riechert SE, Post BK (2010) From skeletons to bridges and other STEM enrichment exercises for high school biology. Am Biol Teach 72(1):20–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders M (2009) Stem, stem education, stemmania. Technol Teach 68(4):20–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval WA (2005) Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Sci Educ 89(4):634–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval WA, Reiser BJ (2004) Explanation-driven inquiry: integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Sci Educ 88(3):345–372. doi:10.1002/sce.10130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw G (2001) Current themes and future directions in epistemological research: a commentary. Educ Psychol Rev 13(4):451–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stake RE (1995) The art of case study research. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss A, Corbin JM (1998) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Szalay A, Gray J (2006) 2020 computing: science in an exponential world. Nature 440(7083):413–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanase M, Wang J (2010) Initial epistemological beliefs transformation in one teacher education classroom: case study of four preservice teachers. Teach Teach Educ 26(6):1238–1248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The State of the Union Address. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address

  • Tripp SD, Bichelmeyer B (1990) Rapid prototyping: an alternative instructional design strategy. Educ Tech Res Dev 38(1):31–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trundle KC, Atwood RK, Christopher JE (2002) Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of moon phases before and after instruction. J Res Sci Teach 39(7):633–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson BG, Jonassen DH, Cole P (1993) Cognitive approaches to instructional design. ASTD Handb Instr Technol. 4:21.1–21.2

    Google Scholar 

  • Wisitsen M (2012) Moon phases. Planetarian 41(4):14–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Worth K, Winokur J, Crissman S, Heller-Winokur M, Davis M (2009) The essentials of science and literacy: a guide for teachers. Heineman, Portsmouth

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (2014) Case study research: design and methods. Sage, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instructional Design and Technology Program, University of Cincinnati, 610 G Teachers College, Cincinnati, OH, 45221, USA

    Matthew Schmidt

  2. Institute for Teacher Education, Elementary Program, University of Hawaii, Manoa, 1776 University Ave., Everly Hall Rm 126, Honolulu, HI, 96822, USA

    Lori Fulton

Authors
  1. Matthew Schmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lori Fulton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew Schmidt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schmidt, M., Fulton, L. Transforming a Traditional Inquiry-Based Science Unit into a STEM Unit for Elementary Pre-service Teachers: A View from the Trenches. J Sci Educ Technol 25, 302–315 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9594-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9594-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation