Preparing Teachers in Science through Technology for STEM Education 37
Table 1. New Literacy Supporting Science Inquiry
Principles of scientific inquiry
New literacy Engaged by Give Formulate Evaluate Communicate
components questions priority to explanations explanation and justify the
and generate explanations
evidence alternative
explanations
Identify X
important
questions
Locate X X X X
information
Evaluate XX X X
information
Synthesize XXX
information
Communicate X
answers
Note. Hsu, H.Y., Wang, S. K., and Runco, L. (2013). Middle school science teachers‘ confidence and
pedagogical practice of new literacies. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 22(3), 314-
324.
The National Research Council (2012) released the first public draft of the Next
Generation Science Standards whose goals are to recalibrate the focus of scientific practices
and reform science teaching methods, as well as to engage students in inquiry practices using
cross-curriculum knowledge such as engineering, math, and technology. The advocacy of
these core ideas is based on the need to promote inquiry in the classroom and to develop
students‘ 21st century skills and college and career readiness in science. The components of
the New Common Core Standards of Literacy are aligned with scientific literacy. Table 1
illustrates how the New Common Core Standards of Literacy can support scientific literacy.
The following examples illustrate how students‘ proficiencies in ICTs support new
literacy practices in science classrooms and the inquiry and learning processes:
Identifying important questions that engage students by asking them scientifically
testable questions. Students use research tools, such as search engines and cyber
databases, to identify scientifically testable questions from text-based or multimedia-
based resources.
Locating information and giving priority to evidence provides students credible
resources, determine the usefulness of information, and organize multimodal formats
of information (i.e., numerical data, graphs, diagrams, charts, media, and so on)
relevant to the research questions.
Evaluating information and formulating explanations to analyze and interpret
multimodal formats of information collected to answer questions.
38 Shiang-Kwei Wang and Hui-Yin Hsu
Synthesizing information, evaluating explanations, and generating alternative
explanations permit students to use productivity tools to gather information to
present their research findings using multimedia and texts.
Communicating answers and justifying explanations allow students to use ICTs and
social networking tools to facilitate collaboration and share research results with
peers or audience.
The new literacy practices in science classrooms vary depending on the level of the
inquiry tasks. Students usually have more opportunities to conduct ―confirmatory‖ exercises
and ―structured‖ inquiry activities and have relatively fewer chances to work on ―guided‖ or
―open‖ inquiry activities (Wallace and Kang, 2004). Therefore, the new literacy practices in
science classrooms can be flexible, based on the level of the inquiry activities. Teachers can
help students to critically evaluate content and credible sources using search engines for news
articles and/or scholarly articles. Current events and academic articles can help students to
reflect on how a scientific research study relates to the phenomena or topics they are studying,
what research methods and procedures scientists use to carry out their investigations, what
evidence supports the scientists‘ hypotheses, and what questions the students may suggest for
further study. Students can then develop their research questions, hypotheses, and research
methods. To gather data, students can use scientific equipment that is available to them to
collect data or they can use credible public cyber databases maintained by scientists to collect
authentic data. There is increasing public access to reliable scientific databases for
educational purposes, such as the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and Google Public Data Explorer. Students need to
learn how to locate and evaluate data to develop their hypotheses. Sometimes, students have
to collect multimodal formats of data, for example, using time-lapsed video to document and
observe the phenomena such as plants growing or fruits and vegetables decomposing, during
an extended period of time. Once data is collected, students must analyze it and synthesize
information using texts, images, video, or charts to communicate their research results.
The level of fluency of new literacy skills is determined by students‘ ICT, cognitive, and
literacy skills (see Figure 1). In order to be fully ―literate‖ in the digital era, students must be
fluent in the operational skills of hardware and software of ICTs. They need to be fluent in
literacy skills because the use of literacy while learning science content helps to extend and
expand their scientific reasoning and allows them to clarify their ideas, make claims, present
arguments, and record and communicate findings. In addition, students need to apply their
cognitive skills in reference to critical thinking, problem solving, and information processing.
Here is an example of a new literacy-saturated classroom: Students use ICTs as cognitive
tools to support scientific inquiry and develop their new literacy skills. When studying a unit
on earthquakes and volcanoes, the teacher may design a mini inquiry activity that asks
students to research and identify volcanoes using credible cyber databases (e.g., NOAA,
National Geophysical Data Center); then they must use spreadsheets to record data, such as
locations, types of volcanoes, recent volcanic activity, altitudes, etc., depending on the
questions students are interested in researching (Figure 2).
Next, students use Google Earth or Google Map to create landmarks to mark volcano
locations using latitude and longitude information. They can use a variety of colors to create
landmarks to color-code different types of volcanoes. For instance, students can use red to
represent stratovolcanoes or blue to represent volcanoes located above 2,000 feet.
Preparing Teachers in Science through Technology for STEM Education 39
Journal of Science Education and Technology. 22(3), 314-324.
Figure 1. The level of fluency of new literacy skills is determined by students‘ ICT, cognitive, and
literacy skills. Hsu, H.Y., Wang, S. K., and Runco, L. (2013). Middle school science teachers‘
confidence and pedagogical practice of new literacies.
They can even use GeoPhotos to examine geographical environments or pictures of
specific volcanoes. The teacher can ask students to submit their work to social networking
sites (e.g., Edmodo) and have them critique each other‘s projects. Figure 3 is an example of
the use of Google Map to present volcanoes that have erupted during the last 20 years.
Through the use of visual data representation, students can better make inferences about the
most active volcanic eruptions that have occurred in the area between the Indo-Australian
Plate and the Pacific Plate during the past 20 years (Figure 3).
During this process, students develop researchable questions, form hypotheses, and
search for and locate useful information from credible sources. Students create visual
information to confirm their hypotheses and generate explanations and present their results
using images to communicate their research findings. Using social networking sites, students
can discuss their findings and explore alternative explanations. The NOAA database provides
authentic data that enable students to conduct research related to the real world. This example
demonstrates the seamless integration of ICTs to support scientific inquiry and new literacy
skills. The skills students develop from this process can be transferred to other topics (e.g.,
evolution theory, biodiversity, earthquakes), other academic contexts, and even to solve real-
world problems.
40 Shiang-Kwei Wang and Hui-Yin Hsu
Recorded Data from NOAA Database
Figure 2. Identification of earthquakes and volcanoes using the NOAA database displayed on
spreadsheets to record data, such as locations, types of volcanoes, recent volcanic activity, and altitudes.
The ICTs students use include search engines, cyber databases, spreadsheets, word
processing programs, maps, and image editing tools. In order to help students practice new
literacy skills, it is essential for teachers to master the ICTs skills, understand the new literacy
framework, and implement the new literacy pedagogical practices in science classrooms.
Factors Affecting the Integration of ICTs as Cognitive Tools
Before discussing the strategies to enhance science teachers‘ ability to develop students‘
new literacy and inquiry skills, barriers that prevent teachers from integrating technology
must be eliminated. Factors affecting technology integration are usually categorized along
two levels: the school level and the teacher level (Anderson, 2002; Hsu and Kuan, 2012). The
school level refers to factors such as the availability and reliability of technology resources,
technical support, school culture, in-service training, and administrator support (Hew and
Brush, 2006; Inan and Lowther, 2009). The teacher level refers to teachers‘ personal beliefs
in the constructivist teaching approach, their confidence in using technology, their
understanding of pedagogical practices using technology, and their willingness to commit
time to creating a technology-saturated learning environment (Sang, Valcke, van Braak, and
Tondeur, 2010; Vannatta and Fordham, 2004).
The adoption of ICTs and social networking sites has the potential to overcome some of
the aforementioned challenges. As ICTs have become an increasingly integral part of
everyday life, they provide great potential and opportunities to reduce the barriers to
technology integration in classrooms. The availability and reliability of technology resources
will no longer become barriers for technology integration.
Preparing Teachers in Science through Technology for STEM Education 41
Figure 3. Google Map presentation of the most active volcanic eruptions that have occurred in the area
between the Indo-Australian Plate and the Pacific Plate during the past 20 years. The map shows active
volcanic eruption activities since 1990.
The concept of ―classroom‖ has expanded and broadened; learners now have numerous
choices to access information and knowledge from various sources using the Internet
(Greenhow and Robelia, 2009). Learners become information producers using accessible
ICTs. With the popularity, reliability, and maturity of ICTs, technology integration does not
have to occur within the four walls of a classroom or a computer lab and should not be limited
by the number of computers available to students. Even though ICTs offer great educational
potential, each teacher needs a central class learning management tool to integrate ICTs in the
classroom. In a sense, educational social networking sites offer the best solution to help
teachers organize classroom materials, distribute digital learning content, form learning
communities, and resolve technology availability issues.
Teachers should consider taking advantage of social networking sites, using them as
mediators to bridge the gap between formal and informal learning and facilitating students‘
use of ICTs at home to conduct inquiry tasks. Edmodo is a popular K-12 social networking
site. It provides a secure environment to allow students to share and exchange multi-modal
information beyond classroom limitations (Wang, Hsu, and Green, 2013). Social networking
sites have advantages and the potential to help teachers to design student-centered,
collaborative, technology-saturated learning communities without the need for additional
resources. Moreover, social networking sites allow teachers to form communities to share
professional development materials, exchange information, and support each other‘s
technology integration initiatives. The administrator‘s responsibility is to facilitate
communication with parents, help them to understand the importance of developing students‘
new literacy skills, prepare them to be successful in the digital age, and explain the risks of
using social networking sites and precautions and procedures in terms of the ethical use of
ICTs and social networking sites.
42 Shiang-Kwei Wang and Hui-Yin Hsu
It is worthwhile to revisit the volcano project and examine how social networking sites
can help teachers to conduct this activity. Some students might not know how to use Google
Map, how to create landmarks on a map, how to use cyber databases, or how to use
spreadsheets to record data. Teachers can create instructional materials by using text-based
information or recording video clips or screenshots that capture videos to explain the
procedures. These tutorials can be archived on social networking sites for students to review.
This is a concept called ―The Flipped Classroom‖ (Tucker, 2012), which refers to the idea of
posting annotated lessons as video clips online for students to view at home and devoting
classroom time to more discussions, learning activities, or/and hands-on projects. The online
materials can be used to reinforce students‘ learning, allow those who may have been absent
from classes to catch up, and to review learning materials at their own pace. Once these
materials have been developed, teachers no longer need to spend classroom time going over
the procedures to use ICTs. If some students still have technological issues, they can post
their questions on the social networking site, and other students will immediately offer to
help, which would greatly reduce the burden on teachers. Teachers can also distribute lab
report templates and digital learning resources using the social networking sites to facilitate
students‘ work on the project. The integration of social networking sites and the ICT
approach not only helps teachers to develop paperless classrooms, but holds students
accountable for their own learning. Students become unable to make excuses for losing
learning materials, assignments, instructions, or files. After students post their projects on the
social networking site, they can view each other‘s research questions; learn why they are
interested in studying those questions, and offer alternative explanations on the basis of their
prior knowledge and experience.
Research has shown that teachers are the key to the success of the reformation of
teaching (Fullan, 2001). When teachers have the support of administrators and have access to
technology, the most crucial part affecting the success of technology integration is the
professional development they receive (Supovitz and Turner, 2000).
Preparing Science Teachers to Develop Students’ New Literacy Skills
Teachers in the 21st century are responsible for developing students‘ new literacy skills.
Not only are these skills important in reference to supporting their content learning, but also
supporting their college and career readiness. The support of school administrators is critical
to teachers‘ commitment to the reformed use of technology; nevertheless, technology
integration is much more complicated than merely providing computers and software to
teachers and students. It takes time and planning to help teachers establish a holistic view of
technology integration. Professional development is the most effective approach to help
teachers develop strategies to overcome technology integration barriers and prepare them to
translate those practices to classroom use to develop students‘ new literacy skills. In this
section, we will discuss effective strategies to develop pre-service and in-service science
teachers‘ skills in technology integration.
The characteristics of effective professional development (PD) in terms of preparing
science teachers‘ technology integration have been discussed extensively in the literature.
Common features of effective PD include (1) discussions of technology integration
frameworks, (2) connecting PD to classroom content, (3) engaging teachers in inquiry-based
Preparing Teachers in Science through Technology for STEM Education 43
learning experiences, (4) modeling the pedagogical practices of technology use, (5)
supporting ongoing learning, (6) aligning PD with subject content, (7) allowing for sufficient
PD duration, and (8) the formation of supportive networks (Capps, Crawford, and Constas,
2012; Greenleaf et al., 2010; Heller, Daehler, Wong, Shinohara, and Miratrix, 2012; Lawless
and Pellegrino, 2007; Sang et al., 2010). The professional development needs to focus on
teacher changes in terms of improved ICTs skills, reformed pedagogical practices, and
increased belief in technology integration.
Discussion of technology integration framework. Teachers‘ beliefs in technology
integration directly affect their attitudes and willingness to use technology (Ertmer, 2005;
Inan and Lowther, 2009; O‘Dwyer, Russell, and Bebel, 2004). Establishing a technology
integration framework (in this case, the new literacy framework) is crucial in changing
teachers‘ beliefs in adopting technology and helping them to adopt a common vision and
expectation for students‘ new literacy practices. The technology integration framework can
help teachers to understand (a) the fundamental issues of technology integration, (b) how to
seamlessly integrate technology into pedagogical practices, (c) how technology can benefit
students‘ science learning and cultivate their new literacy skills, and (d) strengthen teachers‘
beliefs in technology integration. In order to make sure that technology saturated activities
occur in the science classroom, teachers, first need to be introduced to the technology
integration framework to help them learn the rationale of integrating ICTs. ICTs have to be
effectively embedded within the subjects to allow teachers to transform their content
knowledge (Sutherland et al., 2004). Therefore, it is not suggested that teachers be introduced
to the decontextualized use of technology. For example, knowing how to use spreadsheet
tools to create charts does not automatically help teachers and students to analyze and
compare data collected from different conditions. The PD should involve several scenarios
that allow students to apply technological tools to enhance content learning that is closely
related to the standards. Providing teachers with a technology framework can help to
strengthen their beliefs in technology integration in the classroom, build their knowledge of
pedagogical practices, and help them to transfer the use of technology across topics and
curricula once they learn to master the features and strengths of each ICT. One effective
strategy to help teachers transfer the use of ICTs to other topics is to have them lay out the
science learning activities they usually conduct in the classroom and have them align the
activities with the new literacy framework. This practice helps teachers to reflect on the
possibilities to transform the existing activities with ICT integration and facilitate their
students‘ use of ICTs to conduct scientific activities. In this way, teachers do not need to re-
invent the wheel to develop and squeeze in new activities in their already busy schedules.
Teachers can easily connect these activities to specific standards for students‘ learning
performance.
Providing immersive inquiry experiences. It is important to understand how inquiry-
based instruction is defined. Inquiry-based instruction should be multifaceted and have
multiple levels for teachers to scaffold students‘ inquiry skills (Abrams, Southerland, and
Evans, 2008). On the levels of the inquiry continuum, teachers tend to implement
confirmatory or structured inquiry instruction because it is less time-consuming and
comparatively easier to control than conducting independent inquiries, although it lacks
flexibility and room for new research ideas (Bybee, 2004). At the confirmatory level of
inquiry, students are provided with questions and procedures (method) and the results are
known in advance. At the structured level of inquiry, teachers still provide questions and
44 Shiang-Kwei Wang and Hui-Yin Hsu
procedures, but students collect evidence and generate their own explanations. Confirmatory
and structure inquiry are considered lower-level inquiries. Even though they are important to
enable students to gradually build their foundational skills to conduct guided or open
inquiries, many teachers rarely move to guided or open inquiry because they were prepared in
the same process when they were in their teacher preparation programs. They often learn how
to conduct laboratory investigations as opposed to practicing inquiry-based instruction; this is
not what reformed science teaching neither advocates nor does it develop students‘
understanding of the nature of science. Reformed-based science teaching lies in the
foundation of the constructivist view of learning and engages learners in investigating
scientific questions related to their lives. Therefore, the PD should prepare teachers to learn
the nature of science and levels of inquiry and provide them with immersive inquiry
experiences.
Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995) suggested that an effective strategy to prepare
teachers is to have them do the same activities that are expected of their students. They
argued that ―teachers learn by doing, reading and reflecting (just as students do); by
collaborating with other teachers; by looking closely at students and their work; and by
sharing what they see…To understand deeply, teachers must learn about, see, and experience
successful learning-centered and learner-centered teaching‖ (p. 598).
PD training should include activities to allow teachers to go through the same scientific
inquiry process facilitated through the use of ICTs that is expected of their students. In PD,
teachers should be given opportunities to conduct authentic, real-world scientific
investigations that require inquiry skills so they can translate inquiry-based experiences into
their instructional practices. In addition, PD should integrate content knowledge and inquiry
skills. During the inquiry process, teachers devote extensive amounts of time to researching
background information and examining the explanations yielded from data. This constructive
process helps teachers to strengthen their content knowledge of topics under investigation.
This kind of authentic experience allows them to reflect on their own inquiry experiences and
helps them to envision the difficulties and challenges students might encounter when
conducting similar inquiry activities. Furthermore, it helps them to learn the credibility of
resources used by students to locate information, understand about ICTs that can be used to
collect and analyze data, learn about tools that can help them to effectively present
information and communicate results. In order to have teachers conduct the in-depth and
immersive inquiry activities facilitated by using ICTs, the PD must include sufficient contact
time to enable a coherent PD experience (Capps, Crawford, and Constas, 2012; Supovitz and
Turner, 2000). Inquiry-based instruction and technology integration strategies are both
complex and sophisticated for teachers. Only through repetitive practice and prolonged
engagement with these activities can these skills be internalized.
Strengthening teachers’ ICT skills and confidence. Teachers‘ levels of ICTs skills are
considered as the most influential factors in terms of technology integration (Inan and
Lowther, 2009; Kanaya, Light, and Culp, 2005; Voogt, 2010). Teachers who have high ICTs
skills are more likely to integrate technology in their classrooms (Hernandez-Ramos, 2005;
Wang and Hsu, 2013). However, both inquiry-based instruction and technology integration
strategies are complex for teachers. Teachers need multiple opportunities to practice and
experience technology integration activities so they can master the ICT skills. There are
several approaches that teachers can use to prepare their technology integration skills
(Lawless and Pellegrino, 2007). The most common approach is to provide one-time
Preparing Teachers in Science through Technology for STEM Education 45
workshops to address how to operate equipment or software. The second approach is to help
teachers to use specific technologies to meet individualized instructional needs. The third
approach is to use a mentoring or coaching method in which technology–savvy colleagues or
virtual mentors provide assistance to teachers. The last approach is the train-the-trainers
approach, in which a group of teachers is trained, at which point they become seed teachers
who disseminate the PD content. Each approach has its strengths and weaknesses and each
addresses different learning outcomes. No matter which PD approach is adopted, the flipped
classroom concept (Tucker, 2012) is a strategy that PD providers should consider in order to
maximize the effect of PD. The development and internalization of ICT skills requires
repetitive practice. Teachers might know how to perform ICT tasks during the PD, but forget
the procedures once the PD has been completed. It is strongly suggested that PD providers
archive the tutorial video clips for teachers to use after PD sessions. That is also a great way
to model the concept of flipped classrooms.
Modeling the pedagogical practices of cognitive tools. Mastering skills related to
operating technology is not the greatest challenge for teachers. Many PD sessions focus on
developing teachers‘ specific technology skills (e.g., how to use spreadsheets or Google Doc),
as opposed to the pedagogical practices. PD providers should be familiar with not only the
technology skills, but also how those technologies can be integrated to support students‘
learning. Unfortunately, most of the technology training at schools is supplied by school-
based technology coordinators (Toudeur, Valcke, van Braak, and Valcke, 2008). Their
primary role is to solve technical problems and help make decisions on the choices related to
technology adoption. Their impact on the effective use of technology in various subjects
seems to be limited (Toudeur et al., 2008). Successful integration of the student-centered use
of technology requires teachers to have sufficient technology skills and knowledge of how
students can use technology to support cognitive performance. Technology coordinators can
work with teachers who demonstrate promising use of technology in their classrooms to
further explore the effective use of ICTs as cognitive tools. Those teachers can be considered
teacher leaders or teacher trainers and can provide PD training to their colleagues. The most
effective strategy to help teachers learn the pedagogical practices of cognitive tools is to
model the use of technology to enhance the students‘ cognitive powers during activities
involving thinking, problem solving, and learning (Jonassen and Reeves, 1996). PD should
help teachers translate what they learn to their classroom teaching and to student learning. PD
providers should use few lectures and facilitate the PD by scaffolding, coaching, modeling,
and enacting critical thinking and problem solving behaviors. Technology integration
activities should be directly aligned with curricula and be readily relevant to what teachers
cover in their lessons to better help them to use technology in their classrooms. A learning
community should also be formed to allow teachers to share how they use technology to solve
inquiry tasks, reflect on their implementations, and exchange their learning experiences.
Forming a community to support teachers’ continuous learning. A supportive community
is extremely important to facilitate teachers‘ engagement in professional discourse and reflect
upon their teaching practices. Traditionally, teachers from the same school district are invited
to participate in PD so they can continue to support each other after the PD is over
(Jeanpierre, Oberhauser, and Freeman, 2005). The proximity enables them to develop a
shared vision of technology integration and allows them to share strategies, clarify questions,
discuss how to overcome challenges, and communicate with administrators to receive
administrative support. With the availability and maturity of social networking sites, more
46 Shiang-Kwei Wang and Hui-Yin Hsu
and more PD providers have adopted these applications as a tool for curriculum management
and to establish a sense of community. For example, blogs are popular tools to promote
teacher interactions, exchange points of view, and acquire content knowledge (Brandon,
2003). Blogs can connect participants from different locations, facilitate discussions in
asynchronous formats, archive previous discussions for later searches, and enable the sharing
of multimedia formats of information (Wang and Hsu, 2008). The problem with using blogs
to facilitate PD is that they are not secure learning environments. Some educators prefer to
use classroom management tools (e.g., Blackboard, Moodle) to facilitate PD interactions.
However, classroom management tools are usually confined to closed learning environments
and only benefit PD participants rather than large numbers of teachers from different
locations. Moreover, PD discussions last only a certain period of time and the content is not
accessible to the next cohort of participants; therefore, valuable discussions are over once the
PD session has been completed. Another popular choice is to use educational social
networking sites to conduct PD, as in the case of Edmodo. Edmodo allows teachers from all
over the world to form a virtual learning community, share and archive multimedia formats of
resources, and support each other by engaging in professional discourse. New ICTs are
continuously emerging and there will always be some teachers who are able to figure out the
best practices of these ICTs. The virtual learning community becomes the best source for
them to continuously share new technology and pedagogical strategies to support teaching
and learning once PD is over. Administrators can be invited to join social networking sites to
learn the discussion themes of the community and provide necessary support for teachers‘
technology integration.
Social networking sites have great educational potential to support reform-based
teaching. Even so, teachers and educators do have concerns about students‘ use of social
networking sites for schoolwork. Concern involving the use of specific ICTs comes from a
lack of understanding regarding their strengths, functions, and the strategies for using them.
During PD sessions, teachers need to experience modeling and be guided to use social
networking sites to fully understand the benefits of the educational use of social networking
sites and how they can be used to implement learning activities with full control over the
virtual learning environment.
In this way, social networking sites serve as a virtual community to facilitate teachers‘
communication and professional discourse and facilitate the dissemination of professional
development content. For instance, PD providers can use social networking sites to archive
instructional video clips and resources for teachers who need repetitive practices or for new
teacher training.
Providing opportunities for preservice teachers to gain access to technology. The
preservice teaching training period is the most optimal time to change teacher candidates‘
beliefs regarding technology integration and expose them to a variety of technologies.
Unfortunately, teacher education programs usually rely on one or two add-on technology
courses to address preservice teachers‘ technology skills, and the focus is on teacher-centered
use of technology to create products, support administrative tasks, or present information. The
implementation of a single introductory educational technology course might help to improve
preservice teachers‘ technology attitudes (Bai and Ertmer, 2008). However, it does not help
them to use technology as a student-centered approach to connect the use of technology with
different types of content learning across the curriculum. Teacher educators need to model the
use of technology as cognitive tools in different subject areas and to help preservice teachers
Preparing Teachers in Science through Technology for STEM Education 47
to develop strategies for technology integration. A new generation of teachers may feel
comfortable using technology, but they need additional training in the pedagogical practices
of using technology as cognitive tools (Russell, Bebell, O‘Dwyer, and O‘Connor, 2003).
They should be exposed to different types of technology throughout the entire program and
learn how to use technology to optimize students‘ learning. In order to achieve that goal, the
teacher education faculty must become proficient in technology use and understand the
technology integration framework and the pedagogical practices of ICTs in their own
curricula (Otero et al., 2005). This has long been recognized as a challenge to teacher
education programs since university faculty may have their own beliefs regarding technology
integration and may be resistant to the use of technology. Teacher education programs must
establish a shared vision of the role of technology, faculties‘ pedagogical practices of
technology, and their commitment to modeling the successful integration of technology in
classrooms. Questions such as ―What are science educators‘ technology integration practices
in their classrooms?‖ and ―Are these technology integration activities being translated into
teachers‘ classroom practices?‖ should be examined as a group in order to encourage teacher
educators‘ commitment to technology integration.
CONCLUSION
Computers, network connections, and ICTs are more common in schools than ever
before. Students‘ use of technology outside of school is much more frequent than in school.
Students are familiar with the concept of multimedia, cloud computing, mobile devices, and
social networking, not simply because these technologies provide a communication function,
but because they help them to solve problems and analyze information on a personal level.
Schools should see the educational benefits of these technologies as opposed to their being
perceived as barriers to learning. The proper use of technology can enhance students‘ learning
motivation and help them to overcome academic challenges. Science learning should not be
about memorizing and retrieving information. Students should have sufficient opportunities to
practice their inquiry skills to conduct investigations related to real life, engage in the inquiry
process, and use technology to facilitate scientific practices. This new literacy framework
provides them a means to investigate the nature of science, test their own ideas, and
communicate their findings to authentic audiences. In the meantime, they will be able to
practice the new literacy skills that are essential for science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM), which are the wellsprings of innovation in our economy. In order to
maximize the educational potential of these ICTs, teachers need to be trained to utilize the
technology integration framework to strengthen their ICTs skills. For science teachers, the use
of ICTs is a logical implementation in classroom instruction because the new literacy
framework we propose in this chapter seamlessly aligns with the scientific literacy
components. The new literacy framework empowers teachers to shift their teaching paradigm
from teacher-centered to student-centered, assigns learning responsibilities to the student, and
encourages active learning. The cultivation of students‘ new literacy skills is extremely
important because it helps students to develop the skills they will need to succeed in college
and in the modern workforce. It allows them to practice their digital citizenship in a 21st
century global digital society.
48 Shiang-Kwei Wang and Hui-Yin Hsu
REFERENCES
Abrams, E., Southerland, S. A., and Evans, C. A. (2008). Inquiry in the classroom:
Identifying necessary components of a useful definition. In E. A. Abrams, S. A.
Southerland and P. Silva (Eds.), Integrating inquiry in the classroom: Realities and
opportunities (pp. xi-xlii). Hartford, CT: Age of Information Press.
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12.
Bai, H., and Ertmer, P. (2008). Teacher educators‘ beliefs and technology uses as predictors
of preservice teachers‘ beliefs and technology attitudes. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 16(1), 93-112.
Brandon, B. (2003). Using RSS and weblogs for e-learning: An overview. The E-learning
Developer’s Journal. Retrieved from http://www.elearningguild.com
Bybee, R. W. (2004). Scientific inquiry and science teaching. In L. B. Flick and N. G.
Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching,
learning, and teacher education. (pp. 1-14). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Capps, D. K., Crawford, B. A., and Constas, M. A. (2012). A review of empirical literature
on inquiry professional development: Alignment with best practices and a critique of the
findings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23, 291–318.
Castek, J., Leu, D. J., Coiro, J., Gort, M., Henry, L. A., and Lima, C. (2007). Developing new
literacies among multilingual learners in the elementary grades. In L. Parker (Ed).,
Technology-mediated learning environments for young English learners: Connections in
and out of school (pp. 111 -153). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Coiro, J. (2003). Reading comprehension on the Internet: Expanding our understanding of
reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading Teacher, 23(5), 458-
464.
Darling-Hammond, L., and McLaughlin, M. (1995). Policies that support professional
development in an era of reform. Phi. Delta Kappan., 76, 597–604.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for
technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4),
25–39.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Greenhow, C., and Robelia, B. (2009). Informal learning and identity formation in online
social networks. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 119–140.
Greenleaf, C. L., Litman, C., Hanson, T. L., Rosen, R., Boscardin, C. K., Herman, J., and
Schneider, S. A. (2010). Integrating literacy and science in biology: Teaching and
learning impacts of reading apprenticeship professional development. American
Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 647–717.
Hagood, M. C. (2003). New media and online literacies: No age left behind. Reading
Research Quarterly, 38(3), 387-391.
Heller, J. I., Daehler, K. R., Wong, N., Shinohara, M., and Miratrix, L. W. (2012).
Differential effects of three professional development models on teacher knowledge and
student achievement in elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
49(3), 333–362.
Preparing Teachers in Science through Technology for STEM Education 49
Hernandez-Ramos, P. (2005). If not here, where? Understanding teachers‘ use of technology
in Silicon Valley schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(1),
39–64.
Hew, K. F., and Brush, T. (2006). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning:
current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252.
Hsu, S., and Kuan, P. Y. (2012). The impact of multilevel factors on technology integration:
The case of Taiwanese grade 1–9 teachers and schools. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 61(1), 25–50.
Hsu, H. Y., and Wang, S. K. (2010). Using gaming literacies to cultivate new literacies.
Simulation and Gaming, 41(3),400-417.
Hsu, H. Y., and Wang, S. K. (2011). The impact of using blogs on college students‘ reading
comprehension and learning motivation. Literacy Research Instruction, 50(1),68-88.
Hsu, H. Y., Wang, S. K., and Runco, L. (2013). Middle school science teachers‘ confidence
and pedagogical practice of new literacies. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 22(3), 314-324.
Inan, F. A., and Lowther, D. L. (2009). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12
classrooms: A path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2),
137–154.
Jeanpierre, B., Oberhauser, K., and Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of professional
development that effect change in secondary science teachers‘ classroom practices.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 668–690.
Jonassen, D. H., and Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as
cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen, (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational
communications and technology, (pp. 693–719). Macmillan: New York.
Kanaya, T., Light, D., and Culp, K. M. (2005). Factors influencing outcomes from a
technology-focused professional development program. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 37(2), 313–329.
Kim, B., and Reeves, T. (2007). Reframing research on learning with technology: In search of
the meaning of cognitive tools. Instructional Science, 35, 207-256.
Lajoie, S. P. (2000). Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls, (Vol 2). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lawless, K. A., and 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.
Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L. and Cammack, D. W. (2004).Toward a theory of new
literacies emerging from the Internet and other communication technologies. In R.
Ruddell and N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed.).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/
downloads/publications/books/bk502-54-Leu.pdf
Luu, K., and Freeman, J. G. (2011). An analysis of the relationship between information and
communication technology (ICT) and scientific literacy in Canada and Australia.
Computers and Education, 56(4), 1072–1082.
Morrison, G. M., and Lowther, D. L. (2010). Integrating computer technology into the
classroom (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill Prentice Hall.
50 Shiang-Kwei Wang and Hui-Yin Hsu
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices,
crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press. Washington, D.C.
O‘Dwyer, L., Russell, M., and Bebel, D. (2004). Elementary teachers‘ use of technology:
Characteristics of teachers, schools, and districts associated with technology use. Boston,
MA: Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative, Boston College.
Otero, V., Meymaris, K. A., Ford, P., Garvin, T., Harlow, D., Reidel, M., Waite, B., and
Mears, C. (2005). Integrating technology into teacher education: A critical framework for
implementing reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(1), 8-23.
Russell, M., Bebell, D., O‘Dwyer, L., and O‘Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher
technology use: Implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of
Teacher Education, 54(4), 297-310.
Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., and Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers‘ thinking
processes and ICT integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with
educational technology. Computers and Education, 54(1), 103–112.
Schmid, R. F., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R., Abrami, P. C., Wade, C. A., and
Surkes, M. A. (2009). Technology‘s effect on achievement in higher education: A stage I
meta-analysis of classroom applications. Journal of Computing in Higher Education,
21(2), 95–109.
Supovitz, J. A., and Turner, H. M. (2000).The effects of professional development on science
teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
37(9), 963–980.
Sutherland, R., Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Brawn, R., Breeze, N., and Gall, M. (2004).
Transforming teaching and learning: Embedding ICT into everyday classroom practices.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 413–425.
Teale, W. H., Leu, D. J., Labbo, L. D., and Kinzer, C. (2002). The CTELL project: New ways
technology can help educate tomorrow's reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 55(7),
654-659.
Toudeur J., Valcke, M., van Braak J., and Valcke, M. (2008). ICT integration in the
classroom: challenging the potential of a school policy. Computers and Education, 51,
212-223.
Tucker, B. (2012, Winter). The flipped classroom: Online instruction at home frees class time
for learning. Education Next, Retrieved from http://hdexplorations.eportalnow.net/
uploads/7/1/0/0/7100009/ednext_20121_btucker.pdf
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. (2012). Science Assessment.
National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP), Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov
Vannatta, R. A., and Fordham, N. (2004). Teacher dispositions as predictors of classroom
technology use. Technology, 5191, 253–271.
Voogt, J. (2010). Teacher factors associated with innovative curriculum goals and
pedagogical practices: Differences between extensive and non-extensive ICT-using
science teachers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 453-464.
Wallace, C. S., and Kang, N. H. (2004). An investigation of experienced secondary science
teachers‘ beliefs about inquiry: An examination of competing belief sets. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 41(9), 936–960.
Preparing Teachers in Science through Technology for STEM Education 51
Wang, S. K., and Hsu, H. Y. (2008). Reflection from using blogs to expand in-class
discussion. Tech. Trend, 52(3), 81-85.
Wang, S. K., and Hsu, H. Y. (2013). The impact of infusing using ICT as cognitive tools
approach on science teachers classroom practices. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Wang, S., Hsu, H., and Campbell, T. (2009). Science learning, literacy, and the development
of 21stcentury digital literacy. In K. D. Besnoy and C. Lane (Eds.), High-tech teaching
success! A step-by-step guide to using innovative technology in your classroom (pp. 71-
119). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Wang, S. K., Hsu, H. Y., and Green, S. (2013). Using social networking site to facilitate
teaching and learning in science classroom. Science Scope, 36(7), 74-80.
Wang, S. K., McPherson, S., Hsu, H. Y., and Tseui, M. P. (2008). Information and
communication technologies (ICTs) to develop teachers‘ global awareness. International
Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 4(2). Retrieved from http://
ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/viewarticle.php?id=453andlayout=html
In: STEM Education ISBN: 978-1-62808-514-3
Editor: Satasha L. Green © 2014 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 4
STRATEGIES AND RESOURCES FOR INTEGRATING
TECHNOLOGY INTO STEM TEACHING
AND LEARNING
Sarah McPherson, Ed.D
New York Institute of Technology, New York, US
ABSTRACT
The frameworks, principles and standards constructs reviewed in this chapter can be
applied to STEM education for hands-on, inquiry, and project-based learning to meet the
goal of preparing students for pursuing STEM related fields in college and careers.
Teacher preparation in content, pedagogy and technology assists teachers to be able to
help their students reach their goals. This chapter will provide an overview of Project
2061 designed with the purpose to reform curriculum to encourage study and careers in
STEM. The technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK) framework will be
presented as a guide for integrating technology in content and pedagogy. The principles
and guidelines for Universal Design for Learning provide more specific direction for
features of technology and instructional materials so that all students have the
opportunity to participate and make progress in the general education curriculum and
instruction. Common Core Standards call for procedural learning including (a)
comprehension in reading (b) communication in writing, (c) speaking and listening as
basic tenets of English Language Arts, and (d) problem solving, reasoning, precision and
logic in the standards for Mathematical Practice. These standards will be reviewed for
alignment to strategies and resources for STEM education. Also included in the chapter
are ideas, examples and student reactions from teachers teaching STEM in their
classrooms. A resource section is provided that lists web 2.0 tools, web-based resource
sites, iPad application sites, and professional organizations that provide STEM resources.
INTRODUCTION
Knowledge in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) is becoming
increasingly important for students‘ academic success and their preparation for the workforce.
54 Sarah McPherson
STEM related fields are increasing and, as they increase, the demand increases for more
people with STEM skills. The discoveries and innovations in STEM fields can drive the
future of our economy and the job prospects of our young people. Therefore, preparing
teachers for teaching STEM is a national priority (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
However, in order to prepare teachers in technology to teach STEM we need a framework
that establishes the relevance and interdisciplinary connections of science, technology,
engineering and mathematics. There are several approaches to consider including Project
2061, technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK) as it relates to STEM,
Common Core Curriculum, and the application of principles of Universal Design for
Learning in STEM. In this chapter these approaches will be introduced and explored as
dimensions to consider for preparing teachers to teach STEM. The chapter will include
examples from teachers in the field who are teaching STEM at the elementary and secondary
levels. Resources that can be used for STEM education come in many formats. In this chapter
tools will be described that support standards for integrating technology and teaching STEM
concepts, resources developed by federal agencies for STEM, and technologies that teachers
use in their teaching. These resources are merely examples, suggesting types available, rather
than an exhaustive list. STEM educators should be continuously vigilant for resources
through their own professional networks, associations and research for instructional materials.
AN OVERVIEW OF PROJECT 2061
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) developed Project
2061 to reform curriculum to encourage study and careers in STEM (Kesidou & Koppal,
2004). The project‘s focus is on what it takes to help all students become literate in science,
mathematics and technology. The philosophy behind this initiative is that all citizens should
be science literate with basic knowledge of the natural world and the principles of science and
scientific thinking. They should understand the interdependence of science, mathematics and
technology and its human, personal and social purpose and impact on our global society.
Project 2061 established benchmarks to describe the levels of understanding and skills that
students are expected to reach at incremental grade levels. The benchmarks address the
elements of science literacy so that all students will be sufficiently scientifically literate to
make informed decisions that affect their personal well-being and society as a whole. The
benchmarks serve as goals for what the students should learn about their world through a lens
that focuses on science. Project 2061 reviews curriculum resources that are available for
teaching to meet the benchmarks. Based on the reviews Project 2061, it provides us with
three recommendations for all teachers to consider when developing curriculum and
instruction for teaching STEM.
Recommendation One
Making instruction relevant is key to students‘ learning (Kesidou & Koppal, 2004). Key
questions a teacher should consider are: (1) Does the activity or materials address critical
thinking and problem solving?, (2) Does the activity or materials focus on the ‗big ideas‘ that
Strategies and Resources for Integrating Technology into STEM Teaching … 55
provoke questioning and research?, and (3) Does the activity or material reflect the
appropriate level of the learner? Teachers should consider these questions when planning
their STEM instruction so that students are engaged and challenged to explore and find
information. This ownership of their own learning will develop their knowledge and skills
toward becoming scientifically literate.
An example assignment that demonstrates instruction relevant to student learning is a
project on the human impact on the environment. A New York City high school teacher
introduced this lesson to her students that illustrated how to make instruction relevant to
student learning. Students in the class were to identify environmental issues within their own
neighborhood. Once they identified a problem, the students then had to develop the solution.
One student identified the problem of insufficient drinking water in crowded homes in an
impoverished area of the city.
The solution involved many aspects of STEM. For example, population density needed to
be calculated to determine the capacity of people in a home to have sufficient water supply
(mathematics), where people could find new water sources needed to be investigated
(science), and aspects of cleanliness and sanitation of existing water sources needed to be
examined (engineering). This high school teacher reported that she learned the value of
creating community-based projects that engage students. The process was to find out the
students‘ interests and then allow the students to identify problems and issues they have seen
in their neighborhoods and to design possible solutions. These projects gave students the
opportunity to consider their design solutions from multiple perspectives and to apply
scientific methodologies to their experiments with various solutions. These types of student-
developed projects exemplify the interdisciplinary curriculum of STEM as well as included
disciplines of reading, writing and geography.
Recommendation Two
It is important to pay attention to what students are thinking (Kesidou & Koppal, 2004).
Students‘ perceptions of scientific phenomena should be explored and expanded – not
dismissed as incorrect. Questioning related to validity and plausibility can expand, or perhaps,
change students‘ perceptions to better develop their understanding of the scientific concepts.
For example, a fifth grade teacher in New York City had her class conduct an experiment
about chromatography as a hands-on investigation of colors. Her students already had notions
of what colors were, of course, but with a simple experiment of dipping coffee filters in water
they observed formation of colors from a completely new perspective, thus expanding their
understanding of color and light. Students began explaining what they saw and drawing
scientific conclusions from their observations. While the students conducted the investigation
and developed their own conceptual knowledge of color theory, the teacher became the
facilitator of the learning.
The learning was no long teacher-centered but rather student-driven. Students were
leading the discussions, asking questions, and drawing each other into the learning process
through scientific inquiry-based learning.
56 Sarah McPherson
Recommendation Three
Use effective instructional strategies. Evidence-based strategies include hands-on
projects; use of appropriate age, grade and reading level materials; real-world activities; and
connections to background knowledge. According to the 2011 Nation‘s Report Card,
―students doing hands-on projects in class more frequently scored higher‖ on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2011 Science Assessment (p.10). The Nation‘s
Report Card for 2011 also reported that students who work together often, at least weekly, on
science projects scored higher than students who did not have the same opportunity. These
assessment results indicate that learning by doing helps students understand STEM concepts
and apply them in the discovery and development of their own scientific knowledge.
For example, the concept of erosion can be rather abstract since it happens over an
extended period - often thousands of years. However, a New York City elementary teacher
was able to simulate the process with a hands-on experiment using materials such as rocks,
sand, and spray bottles.
As students observed what happened to the sand, rocks and water, they developed their
own explanations and descriptions of the erosion process. The teacher reported that the
students were the drivers of their own learning as they collaborated with their classmates
about their observations. The hands-on approach, experimentation and collaboration used in
this experiment have proven to be effective pedagogical strategies for instruction, particularly
in STEM content areas.
TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (TPACK)
The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework serves as a
useful way to explore technologies and how they support learning in any content area
(Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
The TPACK framework is the complex interplay of technology, pedagogy and content.
As the diagram in Figure 1 suggests, TPACK is three dimensional to represent the complex
interaction at the intersection of each circle and at the intersection of all three circles, which is
at the center where the TPACK occurs.
Koehler and Mishra (2009) described planning for effective technology integration in any
specific subject area as a dynamic thought process for considering the relationship between
the content, the pedagogy and the technology in the context of the unique learning
environment. Every learning environment is unique depending on the teacher, the students,
the grade level, the demographics, and the school culture. Therefore, the combination of
technology, content and pedagogy is different for every teacher and every class. The rapid
changes in technology available for teaching complicate the process of integrating technology
into teaching and learning. Therefore, the TPACK framework is an approach to guide the
design of effective technology integration for specific content areas and in specific classroom
contexts.
Strategies and Resources for Integrating Technology into STEM Teaching … 57
Figure 1. TPACK diagram. The TPACK framework is the complex interplay of technology, pedagogy
and content. As the figure suggests, TPACK is three dimensional to represent the complex interaction at
the intersection of each circle and at the intersection of all three circles, which is at the center where the
TPACK occurs. Reproduced by permission of the publisher, © 2012 by tpack.org.
Step One
Plan for technology integration. This means to consider the content – what should be
taught? If an integrated content area, such as STEM, is the subject, then the teacher will need
to be knowledgeable in each discipline and understand how they interconnect with each other.
STEM is a combination of unique content areas that acknowledges the interdependence
of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. STEM teachers will have content
knowledge that includes the scientific method, evidence-based reasoning, principles of
engineering design and constraints, and mathematical theories and constructs, and technology
applications that support their content knowledge.
Step Two
Consider the pedagogy. What methods of teaching and learning are used? Pedagogy is
the knowledge of how students learn, classroom management skills, lesson planning and
assessment (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Teachers who understand and apply cognitive, social
and development theories of learning in the classroom have deep pedagogical knowledge.
58 Sarah McPherson
Pedagogy may be different for specific content areas. Project-based learning, hands-on
instruction, or inquiry learning may be more applicable to STEM instruction. The depth of
pedagogical knowledge coupled with content knowledge leads to effective teaching and
learning in a STEM classroom. The challenge is to have sufficient STEM content knowledge,
and effective pedagogical knowledge to make the learning effective, challenging and
engaging.
Step Three
Consider appropriate and effective technology. What technology will enhance the
teaching and learning of the content? Koehler and Mishra (2009) defined technology
knowledge broadly, as applications for productivity, information processing, communication,
and problem solving. As technology changes it is important to consider the evolution of
applications and open-ended interactions that technology brings into the context of teaching
and learning environments.
In a professional development project, called Research Experience for Teachers, teachers
designed lessons for integrating technology into engineering topics with science and
mathematics (Grable, Molyneaux, Dixon, & Holbert, 2011). The researchers applied the
TPACK framework for integrating the content and student learning process. The professional
development program included resources to enhance conceptual understanding, strategies for
the design of inquiry-based lessons, and opportunities for collaboration. At the time, the
university researchers had access to a suite of technology tools for teaching engineering, and
the teachers had access to online resources such as Discovery Learning. However, technology
quickly changes and evolves therefore, it was useful to use a framework that supports the
flexible knowledge teachers need to integrate technology into their teaching.
The TPACK framework allows teachers to focus on technology as an ‗ecological‘
approach to integrating technology rather than an ‗add-on‘ as they consider the
interconnectedness of technology, content and pedagogy in the context of the educational
setting (Basham, Israel, & Maynard, 2010). We know that the educational setting includes a
diverse student population with varying demographics, ability levels, and socio-economic
backgrounds. An ecological view of STEM education takes into account the complexity and
variability of the classroom context.
Teachers need to focus on the successful learning of all students including those with
disabilities (Basham, Israel, & Maynard, 2010). If the focus of STEM education is to increase
STEM literacy, critical thinking, higher student achievement, and to prepare all students for
the 21st century workforce, then the focus includes all. Therefore it is increasingly important
to provide all students with access and opportunities to meaningful learning experiences so
that they are successful in gaining knowledge and skills in STEM content. Access and
opportunities may entail a redesign of curriculum and modern instructional materials
including technology integrated into instruction. Traditional instruction may not benefit all
students, especially those with disabilities. For example, textbooks are often written at
inappropriate reading levels making it difficult for students who struggle with traditional
instruction involving extensive reading and writing.
Strategies and Resources for Integrating Technology into STEM Teaching … 59
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING
All too often classroom instruction is text-based, reading and writing, using the textbook
layouts for presenting material for students to read and checking for understanding by their
answering questions at the end of the chapter. However this approach does not serve all
students, especially those with diverse learning styles and reading levels below grade level.
The challenge is for general education to provide learning opportunities that are inclusive and
effective for all students. Researchers at the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST)
have develop a framework called Universal Design for Learning (UDL) that ―provides a
blueprint for creating instructional goals, methods, materials, and assessments that work for
everyone -not a single, one-size-fits-all solution, but rather flexible approaches that can be
customized and adjusted for individual needs‖ (CAST, 2011). Following the principles of
UDL can facilitate the design of curriculum that provides options for how information is
presented, how students demonstrate what they have learned, and how students are engaged
in learning. The principles of UDL are based on brain research that identified three major
neural networks for learning: recognition, strategic and affective as shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Universal Design for Learning
UDL Principle Network
Provide multiple, varied, and flexible Recognition
means of representation The what of learning
Provide multiple, varied, and flexible Strategic
means of action and expression The how of learning
Provide multiple, varied and flexible Affective
means of engagement The why of learning
Note. Center for Applied Special Technology. (2011). Principles of UDL Retrieved from http://
website, www.cast.org.
In the STEM classroom the UDL principles can easily apply to designing curriculum and
instructional activities that will be engaging for all learners. According to Ralabate (2011),
four interrelated components are considered in the UDL curriculum development process.
Goals refer to learning expectations. The Goals are what is being taught in the lesson. When
designing STEM instruction it is important to define the learning expectations – the
knowledge, concepts and skills the student needs to know and be able to do. We have the
standards in the Common Core curriculum (discussed later in this chapter), which are
procedural for learning in content areas to attain critical thinking skills. STEM curriculum and
instruction have specific topics such as erosion, water quality, and chromatography - the
examples we read about earlier. Ralabate (2011) next mentioned Methods which refers to the
instructional strategies to support student learning – the how will students be active learners
and express their understanding of the knowledge, concepts and skills of the lesson. The
hands-on exploratory inquiry based activities used in the erosion and chromatography lessons
are examples of how students can be active learners, expressing their observations and
understandings in multiple ways. The author goes on to suggest that designing instruction that
follows the principles of UDL consider the Materials for multiple, varied and flexible content
presentation and demonstration of learning. And finally, the Assessment refers to the variety
60 Sarah McPherson
of methods and materials for monitoring student progress. Following the principles of UDL
the STEM teacher designs assessments that provide evidence of student learning using varied
and flexible tools. Assessments can facilitate students self-monitoring of their own progress,
can guide self–regulation for sustaining interest and support efforts to stay on task. The
student engagement in monitoring progress can provide the why for learning. The STEM
classroom assessments are not paper/pencil tests but rather assess student‘s communication of
what they learn through Web 2.0 tools, such as comic strip makers, graphic organizer mind
maps, authoring e-books, Glogsters, wikis and blogs – the possibilities are endless. Web 2.0
tools are interactive web-based tools that allow users to write to the web. The format is
usually limited as a template with features that allow users to import graphics, video, sound,
music, and add text to create a web-based publication. The use of these tools is engaging for
students and, to quote a New York City fifth grade teacher - it makes learning fun again.
Table 2. Graphic Organizer Web 2.0 Tools for Universal Design for Learning
Graphic Recall Plu shttp://www.recallplus.com/index.php
Organizer Web Text2MindMap http://www.text2mindmap.com/
2.0 Tools Prezi http://prezi.com/
Animoto http://animoto.com/
UDL Principle UDL Guideline Alignment
Representation Perception These programs allow the customization of
information in an alternative visual display. For a
unit on Plate Tectonics, information is provided
using these tools to support the presentation of
the concepts.
Language, Graphical representation of information clarifies
Expressions, and vocabulary, symbols and illustrations. Terms
Symbols specific to the topic of volcanoes are used.
Provide options for Visuals can activate or supply background
comprehension knowledge, highlight big ideas, critical features,
and relationships and guide information
processing, visualization, manipulation, and
maximize transfer. Students can see relevance of
information presented on plate tectonics and
volcanoes.
Action and Provide an option Students can use multiple tools for construction
Expression for expression and and composition of their notes on concepts
communication related to plate tectonics and volcanic activity.
Engagement Provide options for Students can optimize their individual choice or
recruiting interest autonomy, as well as their relevance, value, and
authenticity. Students can delve into aspects of
plate tectonics and volcanoes that pique their
interest.
Note. Adapted from ―Plate Tectonics unit plan,‖ by Amanda Brideson, High School Earth Science
teacher, Comsewogue School District, New York.
Strategies and Resources for Integrating Technology into STEM Teaching … 61
Researchers at CAST have developed UDL Guidelines for each principle (a)
Representation, (b) Action and Expression, and (c) Engagement (CAST, 2011). For each
principle the guidelines provide options that teachers can use in designing their curriculum.
Suggestions for Representation options for perception, for language, mathematical expression
and symbol, and for comprehension are provided. Action and Expression options can include
physical action, expression and communication, and executive functions, such as goal setting,
strategies, organization, and progress monitoring. The options for Engagement deal with
student interest, effort and persistence, and self-regulation. The CAST researchers suggested
that using these guidelines to develop curriculum will result in learners who are resourceful
and knowledgeable, strategic and goal-directed, and purposeful and motivated. The guidelines
and options are very specific in their direction and can be useful in the STEM classroom as a
way to approach planning that will be appropriate for all learners.
Table 3. Writing Web 2.0 Tools for Universal Design for Learning
Writing Web 2.0 Text Compactor http://textcompactor.com/
Tools ToonDoo http://www.toondoo.com/
Xtranormal http://www.xtranormal.com/
Voki http://www.voki.com/
UDL Principle UDL Guideline Alignment
Representation Perception Web 2.0 tools for writing provide templates for
customizing alternative displays of information in
templates, cartoons and talking avatars. The auditory
option of presentation is helpful to some students.
Concepts of volcano study are represented in both visual
and auditory media.
Language, Expressions, The writing tools help clarify syntax, structure, and
and Symbols decoding of text and understand vocabulary related to the
study of volcanoes.
Provide options for Visuals as alternative writing tools helps activate
comprehension background knowledge, highlight big ideas, critical
features, and relationships. The text in the visual graphic
may guide information processing, visualization,
manipulation, and maximize transfer and generalization
of the concepts of plate tectonics and volcanoes.
Action and Provide an option for Students construct and compose demonstrate evidence of
Expression expression and their understanding. The tools build fluency and support
communication summarization and communication of knowledge.
Provide options for Digital tools provide varied methods for responses and
physical action navigation.
Provide options for Students are able to plan, develop strategies for learning,
executive functions and organize and manage information.
Engagement Provide options for Students can optimize their individual choice or
recruiting interest autonomy, as well as relevance, value, and authenticity
of the topic, volcanoes. Writing tools minimize threats
and distractions.
Note. Adapted from ―Plate Tectonics unit plan,‖ by Amanda Brideson, High School Earth Science
teacher, Comsewogue School District, New York.
62 Sarah McPherson
In working with an Earth Science high school teacher in a School District in New York,
we conducted an analysis of some Web 2.0 tools used in teaching to see how they align with
UDL Guidelines for a Plate Tectonics unit. The unit included concepts of plate tectonics,
zones of crustal activity, earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes as a natural disaster. Students
could use a variety of Web 2.0 tools to expand their knowledge of plate tectonics and seismic
activity. In preparation for teaching the unit the teacher listed the Web 2.0 tools that would be
used to compare their features to the options listed in the UDL guidelines. As a result,
features of a number of Web 2.0 programs that corresponded very closely with UDL
guidelines options were found.
Graphic Organizer Web 2.0 Tools and Table 3. Writing Web 2.0 Tools, show examples of
the alignments discovered for the three UDL principles and associated UDL guidelines
options.
The pedagogy planned in this lesson included note taking, labs, research, manipulative
models, review and assessment. The Web 2.0 tools listed were used to organize information
found from Internet research using sites such as Hippocampus and Google Earth. Hands-on
activities planned were to construct models using play dough and paper mache. Students were
given choices and flexibility in ways to explore and research plate tectonics and volcanoes.
They were also given choices in the assessment. They could choose how to demonstrate their
knowledge and understanding by creating a comic strip, a Prezi presentation, Animoto video,
or any other tool they wanted to use to communicate the concepts they learned.
STEM AND COMMON CORE STANDARDS
A challenge in classrooms today is how to engage students (Bybee, 2010). If instruction
is provided at the appropriate age, grade and developmental level then students can engage in
the challenge or problem that is set forth in an inquiry-based classroom. Students can research
and explore information and data to better understand the problem and then use critical
thinking to analyze the problem. As they understand the problem, STEM instruction, projects
and hands-on inquiry methods can lead to the design of solutions. The process for research,
data analysis, posing arguments, and solving problems are elements of the procedural
knowledge in the Common Core State Standards.
The Common Core State Standards address conceptual understandings and procedures to
prepare students for college and careers (National Governors Association Center for Best
Practices, 2010). Although the Standards are divided into Mathematics and English Language
Arts standards for content areas, of science, history, and social studies; technical subjects
beginning in sixth grade are integrated into the English Language Arts Standards. The
procedural learning called for in the Standards reduces the compartmentalization of content
and allows students to explore and develop critical thinking expertise using a range of
modalities.
The key concepts in English Language Arts and Reading for students are to master
comprehension of increasingly complex text as they advance through the grades. In Writing,
they are to master various types and text and be able to produce written responses to reading
and research. Speaking and Listening requires a mastery of comprehension, communication
and collaboration through oral and interpersonal skills. In our digital age, communication
Strategies and Resources for Integrating Technology into STEM Teaching … 63
includes use of media and social media for communication and collaboration. The concept of
Language applies to reading, writing, speaking and listening using the proper conventions of
grammar, syntax, and spelling, effective use of language and vocabulary for communication.
These areas are basic tenets of literacy vital in our society. The Common Core Standards
bring to education a 21st century interpretation of literacy with the mastery of new
technologies as a component for preparing for college and careers in the workforce.
The Common Core Standards for Mathematical Practice are equally as robust in basic
processes for understanding mathematics. The standards require not only understanding
mathematical concepts but also critical thinking, beyond computation, for how to use
mathematical concepts to solve problems. As students apply higher-order thinking skills to
mathematics, they develop a level of awareness of the authenticity and prevalence of
mathematics in the real world. This leads to using mathematics and mathematical tools for
reasoning, constructing arguments based on plausible assumptions with quantifiable and
precise data for justification.
These tenets of the Common Core Standards for English Language Arts and
Mathematical Practice are grounded in procedural learning handily applicable to STEM. The
pedagogy in project-based learning develops the procedural, strategic learning strategies
students need to know for mastery of the Common Core Standards. Teachers in a STEM
certificate program at the New York Institute of Technology (NYIT) use IntelTM Teach
Elements as a resource for how to integrate technology into STEM instruction. The IntelTM
Teach Elements used in the certificate program are 1) Project-based Approaches, 2)
Collaboration in the Digital Classroom, and 3) Inquiry in the Science Classroom. In 2012,
the American Institutes for Research aligned the Elements with the Common Core Standards
for English Language Arts and Mathematical Practices (Palacios, 2012).
The IntelTM Teach Elements Project-based Approaches guides teachers in the process of
designing project-based instruction – for organizing the curriculum, the learning environment,
and the technology for 21st century projects. Assessment strategies include ways that students
demonstrate their knowledge and skills in open-ended projects. The Mathematical Practice
standards addressed include making sense of problems and problem solving, using tools
appropriately and with precision. A New York City teacher in the NYIT STEM program
reported that she used project-based learning and assessment strategies for teaching STEM in
her classroom. The projects engaged her students and allowed them to identify issues and
design their own solutions while applying the English Language Arts standards for reading,
writing, speaking and listening, and applying Mathematical Practice standards for problem
solving, developing arguments with quantifiable data, and using appropriate tools for
mathematical practice and communication. Students create interactive multimedia final
projects using web-based tools. Tools for projects are usually free online multimedia Web 2.0
tools such as Animoto, Glogster, Voice Thread, or Prezi, in addition to the many new web-
based tools that are rapidly becoming available. Interdisciplinary project-based learning for
STEM instruction works hand in hand with the procedural learning components of the
Interdisciplinary Common Core Standards.
The IntelTM Teach Elements Inquiry in the Science Classroom (2012) explained the
inquiry process and interactive activities that can be used in grades three through nine. It
provides in-depth information about the scientific process and inquiry, benefits, basic steps in
the process, data collection methods; how to design inquiry projects for the classroom and
assessment strategies. CAST has free online tools that can facilitate the writing process for
64 Sarah McPherson
science inquiry including Science Writer (CAST, 2010) and the Book Builder (CAST, 2009).
The Science Writer guides students through the process of using research-based strategies for
a science report. Teachers and students can use the Book Builder to write e-books combining
text, images, and audio in a book format. CAST has developed animated characters called
learning agents to provide prompts and clues to model the particular reading skill. The creator
of the book can script what the animated characters say to support the reading skills. See
Figure 2 for a page from a student-authored book on recycling.
Figure 2. CAST Book Builder Student Page. Example of an e-book on recycling created by a student
using Book Builder which combines text, images, and audio in a book format.
Another frequently used interactive writing tool is Storybird which allows students to put
together stories and illustrations using basic ‗drag and drop‘ to insert pictures and add text as
a caption for the pictures. You can see an example from Storybird in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Storybird Student Page. An example of a story created by a student using Storybird which
allows students to put together stories and illustrations using basic ‗drag and drop‘ to insert pictures and
add text.
Cartoon builders such as Professor Garfield Comic Creator, Make Belief Comix and
Toon Doo are popular writing tools for engaging students. Creative uses of comic strips are
effective for developing students‘ English Language Arts, reading, writing, and
Strategies and Resources for Integrating Technology into STEM Teaching … 65
communication skills. Comprehension, vocabulary and critical thinking are skills students
need to successfully create comics. Thematic topics can be assigned, students can collaborate,
content knowledge can be demonstrated and even contests can be used to evaluate the
students‘ creativity in their comic strips. A comic strip explaining the digestive system can be
seen in Figure 4.
Figure 4. MAKEBELIEFSCOMIX.com Student Comic. An example of a comic strip on the digestive
system created by a student using MAKEBELIEFSCOMIX.com. Thematic topics can be assigned,
students can collaborate, and content knowledge can be demonstrated.
The IntelTM Teach Elements Collaboration in the Digital Classroom (2010) focused on
online collaboration tools. Teachers explore ways to use collaboration tools to help students
develop thinking skills and content understanding relevant to authentic global issues.
Teachers learn to design projects that integrate collaborative tools for use with other
classrooms locally or around the world. Strategies for safe collaboration are included. As
teachers develop STEM classroom collaboration tools, they can be easily applied for
generating projects at multiple sites, collecting data remotely or collaboratively with students
in other classes, and applying analytical thinking skills to data interpretation and problem
solving.
The issues students identify in their neighborhoods, such as available clean water, can be
researched and become topics for collaboration with students in other parts of the world.
These tools enhance STEM instruction and provide tools that engage students and develop
skills to make decisions on STEM related issues which may develop an interest in pursuing
careers in STEM fields.
The integration of technology using interdisciplinary project-based learning is key for
effective STEM instruction. For example, a high school special education teacher at a School
in Brooklyn utilizes interdisciplinary project-based learning projects with his students. One
project that the class participated in was the High Cost of Fashion in Space for a literacy fair
held in District 75, the New York City special education district. Students were to select parts
of a space suit, research the layers of the suit and construct a sample space suit. Another
project used Lego NXT robotics in the classroom.
66 Sarah McPherson
Figure 5. Student Robot Built using Lego NXT Robotics Tools. An example of a student constructed
robot using Lego NXT to create different types of sensors such as solar array and wind turbine to
conduct an investigation into the effects of the limited usable surface area on the energy generated by a
damaged solar panel within a fixed period of time and to test and evaluate the effects of the reduced
energy source.
In this robotics lesson, students play the role of scientists on a space station and a solar
panel on the station has been partially damaged or covered with debris. Their assignment is to
conduct an investigation into the effects of the limited usable surface area on the energy
generated by the damaged solar panel within a fixed period of time and to test and evaluate
the effects of the reduced energy source. Students constructed a robot using different types of
sensors such as solar array and wind turbine. Students then measured the amount of light from
a flashlight or wind from a fan needed to generate power to the robot.
This robotics lesson described the real world connections to renewable energy and
alternative energy sources such as solar power. The lesson plan included vocabulary,
research, critical thinking, data collection and analysis, collaboration, hands-on design and
development, testing, and evaluation. This integrated unit is steeped in STEM and meets the
Common Core Standards for English Language Arts and Mathematical Practice. Students
were required to understand the problem in the context of a scenario in space, create
solutions, test the solutions, research, comprehend, reason, problem solve, collect data, and
use the appropriate mathematical tools with precision. All the key components of Common
Core Standards are evident in this instructional activity as well as using robotics to engage
students. This lesson on robotics illustrates the depth and breadth of knowledge and skills
students can gain from an integrated hands-on project-based learning experience. The intent
of the Common Core Standards is to prepare students for college and careers. Implementing
lesson plans that require students to (a) understand a problem, (b) create solutions, (c) test the
solutions, (d) research, (e) comprehend, (f) reason, (g) problem solve, (h) collect data, and (i)
use the appropriate mathematical tools will assist them in preparing high school students for a
future in college or technical careers.
Strategies and Resources for Integrating Technology into STEM Teaching … 67
CONCLUSION
Preparing teachers for STEM instruction requires a change in the approach to teaching
and learning. An elementary special education teacher from Queens, New York said,
Before learning about STEM I did a lot of direct teaching. The end result was a
boring lesson. I knew I needed to change my teaching style but did not know how to do
it. I never dreamed that STEM would change the way I present my lessons to my
students. My lessons are now more motivating and interesting because I incorporate a lot
of technology in them. I put more thought into my lessons now than I ever did before. I
feel that I have become a more effective teacher because of STEM.
STEM education can change the paradigm in the classroom. Teachers become the
facilitators of learning while students discover, explore, design, and question. Students take
charge of their learning – teachers are not on the stage, but rather they set the stage with
scenarios, materials, technology, and essential questions that trigger critical thinking, that are
relevant to the real-world, and that engage students.
This chapter has provided an overview of Project 2061 designed with the purpose to
reform curriculum to encourage education and careers in STEM. The TPACK framework was
introduced as a guide for integrating technology in content and pedagogy – a logical
application for STEM education. The principles and guidelines for UDL give a more specific
direction for features of technology and instructional materials so that all students have the
opportunity to participate and make progress in the general education curriculum and
instruction. The principles of UDL for representation, action and expression, and engagement
are clearly evident in the interdisciplinary hands-on approach to STEM. STEM education and
Common Core Standards are aligned in that both call for procedural learning –
comprehension in reading and communication in writing, speaking and listening as basic
tenets of English Language Arts, and problem solving, reasoning, precision and logic in the
standards for Mathematical Practice. These frameworks, principles and standards constructs
suggest that strategies applied to STEM education for hands-on, inquiry, and project-based
learning will meet the goals of effectively preparing students for pursuing STEM related
fields in college and careers. Teacher preparation in content, pedagogy and technology helps
teachers to be able to help their students reach their goals.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many thanks for the contributions of graduate students in the NYIT School of Education
STEM for Educators Advanced Certificate program for their creativity and dedication to
teaching STEM in New York City Schools.
Haydee Ciampo, PS 199Q, Long Island City, Queens, NY. Special education science
grades K-4.
Kathleen Hagerty, PS 68 Bronx, NY. Fifth grade teacher.
Denis Hogan, Brooklyn School for Career Development, Brooklyn NY. Special
education high school teacher.
68 Sarah McPherson
Abigail Mente, High School for Leadership and Public Service, Manhattan, NY,
Environmental science teacher.
Also thanks goes to Amanda Brideson, NYIT School of Education Master of Science
Instructional Technology student and high school earth science teacher in Comsewogue
School District, NY, for her diligent work with web 2.0 tools for Universal Design for
Learning.
REFERENCES
Basham, J. D., Israel, M., & Marynard, K. (2010). An ecological model of STEM education:
Operationalizing STEM for all. Journal of Special Education Technology, 25(3), 9-19.
Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and
Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30-35.
CAST. (2009). Universal design book builder. Retrieved from http://bookbuilder.cast.org/
CAST. (2010). Perspectives on large-scale assessment, universal design, and universal
design for learning. Retrieved from http:// www.cast.org/publications/statements/
assessment/index.html
CAST. (2011). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.0. Wakefield, MA: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines.
Grable, L., Molyneaux, K., Dixon, P., & Holbert, K. (2011). STEM and TPACK in renewable
professional development. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for
Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (pp. 2480-
2485). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Intel Corporation. (2009). IntelTM Teach Elements Project-Based Approaches.
Intel Corporation. (2010). IntelTM Teach Elements Collaboration in the Digital Classroom.
Intel Corporation. (2012). IntelTM Teach Elements Inquiry in the Science Classroom.
Kesidou, S., & Koppal, M. (2004). Supporting goals-based learning with STEM outreach,
Journal of STEM Education, Vol. 5 (3 and 4). AAAS Project 2061.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge?
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education. 9(1), 60-70.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2011). National assessment of educational
Progress: Science assessment. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
pdf/main2011/2012465.pdf
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. (2010). Common Core State
Standards. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief
State School Officers, Washington D.C., Author.
Palacios, L. (2012). IntelTM Teach Elements and Alignment to Common Core. Washington,
D.C: American Institutes for Research.
Ralabate, P. K. (2011). Universal design for learning: Meeting the needs of all students.
ASHA Leader. Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/publications/leader/2011/110830/
Universal-Design-for-Learning--Meeting-the-Needs-of-All-Students/
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design
for learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Strategies and Resources for Integrating Technology into STEM Teaching … 69
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.
(2010). ESEA blueprint for reform, Washington, D.C.: Author.
Frequently Used Web 2.0 Resources for STEMDONE
Animoto, a video presentation tool. http://animoto.com/
CAST Book Builder Book Creator, http://bookbuilder.cast.org/
CAST iSolve It Math Puzzles, http://isolveit.cast.org/home
CAST Science Writer, a writing tool for science report. http://sciencewriter.cast.org/welcome
Glogster, a presentation tool. http://edu.glogster.com/presentation/glog-flow/3006572
Google Earth, an interactive satellite-mapping tool. http://www.google.com/earth/
Make Beliefs Comix, a comic strip maker. http://www.makebeliefscomix.com/Comix/
Professor Garfield Comic Creator, A comic strip maker.
http://www.professorgarfield.org/StarSleeper/comiccreator.html
Prezi, a presentation tool. http://prezi.com
Recall Plus, a graphic organizer tool. http://www.recallplus.com/index.php
Storybird, a writing tool with graphics. http://storybird.com/
Text Compactor, a writing tool for summarizing. http://textcompactor.com/
Text2MindMap, a graphic organizer tool. https://www.text2mindmap.com/
ToonDoo, a comic strip maker. http://www.toondoo.com/
Voki, a multimedia animation. http://www.voki.com/
Voice Thread, a multimedia slide show that allow audio narration. http://voicethread.com/
Other Suggested Resources for STEM
Burns and McDonnell World 10 Must-Download STEM iPad Apps for Kids
http://www.burnsmcdblog.com/2012/06/06/10-must-download-stem-ipad-apps-for-kids/
50 Best iPad Apps for STEM Education http://www.onlineuniversities.com/blog/2012/05/50-
best-ipad-apps-for-stem-education/
Conceptual Mathematics http://conceptualmath.org/
EDTECH Solutions: Teaching Every Student
http://teachingeverystudent.blogspot.com/2007/06/free-technology-toolkit-for-udl-in-all.html
Engineering Go For It http://www.egfi-k12.org/
Free Technology Toolkit for UDL in All Classrooms http://udltechtoolkit.wikispaces.com
NASA The Space Place http://spaceplace.nasa.gov
National Library of Virtual Manipulatives http://nlvm.usu.edu/en/nav/vlibrary.html
NBC Learn Higher Education
http://www.highered.nbclearn.com/portal/site/HigherEd/coursenavigator?
NSF Classroom Resources http://www.nsf.gov/outage.html
NYSCI Try Science http://www.nysci.org
PBS Design Your World http://pbskids.org/designsquad/
Science for All Americans http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/sfaatoc.htm
Simple K12 http://community.simplek12.com/scripts/student/home.asp?#cat0
Smithsonian Science and Nature http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/
70 Sarah McPherson
STEM Makes Sense: Make it a Snap! Learning.com
http://www.learning.com/stem/?utm_source=BigDealBook-News1006&utm_medium=3P-
Newsletter&utm_content=Text-
Sponsor&utm_campaign=stem&THEBIGDEALBOOK=634106499596618490
Tools for Student-Centered Learning Intel http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/
education/k12/teachers.html
UDL List of Links by Categories http://setsig.iste.wikispaces.net/UDL+Resource+Lists+
of+Links+by+Categories
Watch Know Learn Videos http://www.watchknowlearn.org/default.aspx
In: STEM Education ISBN: 978-1-62808-514-3
Editor: Satasha L. Green © 2014 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 5
PREPARING TEACHERS IN ENGINEERING FOR
STEM EDUCATION
Moussa Ayyash, Ph.D. and Kimberly Black, Ph.D.
Chicago State University, Chicago, Illinois, US
ABSTRACT
Engineering education is considered the most overlooked area of STEM learning at
the K-12 level. Much of the current teaching practice in the area was introduced into
curricula in the 1990s and found its way, in various forms, into state student learning
standards soon after. Despite its persistent presence, engineering education is still not
well understood in the context of K-12 learning. This chapter provides (a) a discussion of
the term, ―engineering,‖ (b) a discussion of the teaching and learning of engineering in K-
12 settings, (c) a description of the many challenges of engineering education, and (d)
recommendations on how to prepare K-12 teachers for engineering education.
INTRODUCTION
Even though K-12 science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education
has been under the scrutiny of researchers and policy makers over the past several years,
much of the attention has been paid to enhancing science and mathematics education in
elementary and secondary schools. Technology education (―T‖ in STEM) has received ample
attention through information and communication technology (ICT) initiatives and funding
programs. Conversely, engineering education (―E‖ in STEM) has gotten almost no attention
at the national level (The Opportunity Equations, 2013). A study of the student learning
standards in the 50 US states has shown that engineering skills and knowledge were found in
41 states‘ learning standards, but have largely been integrated with science, technology or
vocational standards; one state integrated engineering in its math standards. In some state
standards, there is a vague mention of engineering standards without any specific details that
Corresponding author: Moussa Ayyash. E-mail: [email protected].
72 Moussa Ayyash and Kimberly Black
describe it (Carr, Bennett, and Strobel, 2010). Due to the nature of the engineering discipline
and its clear connection to STEM areas, introducing engineering concepts at early ages can
produce future innovators, problem solvers, and designers (Locke, 2009). Similarly, a solid
engineering education provides excellent support for future career pursuits in science and
technology (The Opportunity for Equations, 2013). Studies show that K-12 engineering
education helps students to excel when they transition to college. An excellent supporting
example of this is Project Lead The Way [PLTW] (2013). PLTW has a comprehensive K-12
engineering curriculum designed by teachers, professionals, and university educators that is
meant to promote critical thinking, creativity, innovation, and problem-solving. Exposure to
such a curriculum at early educational stages has resulted in PLTW alumni to study
engineering at five to ten times the average of all students.
Additionally, PLTW students had a higher retention rate in college engineering, science,
and related programs than other students in those areas: 97% of PLTW seniors intended to
pursue a four-year degree or higher, whereas the national average is 67%, 80% of PLTW
seniors said they would study engineering, technology, or computer science in college,
whereas the national average is 32%, and PLTW students achieved significantly higher scores
in reading, mathematics, and science than Career and Technical Education (CTE) students in
the same schools in similar CTE fields (Project Lead the Way, 2013).
Drawing attention to the importance of engineering education requires clear
understanding of what is meant by engineering and how to teach engineering in K-12 settings.
It is also important to discuss the challenges faced when introducing engineering concepts at
early grade levels and recommendations for the inclusion of engineering as a part of K-12
STEM learning. This chapter provides a discussion of the term, ―engineering,‖ it describes
engineering teaching and learning in K-12 settings, the engineering education challenges and
finally it discusses recommendations on how to prepare K-12 teachers for engineering
education.
THE ENGINEERING TERM
Engineering is an interesting field that combines many branches of knowledge such as
math, science, technology, and art, to solve problems and to make life livable, and most
interestingly, enjoyable. It is extremely hard to imagine our life without the role of engineers.
The word ―engineer‖ is derived from the Medieval Latin verb ―ingeniare‖ which means to
design or devise (Flexner, 1987).
Engineers are the backbone for innovation and entrepreneurship (Byers, Seelig,
Sheppard, and Weilerstein, 2013). This comes from the practical and applied nature of the
engineering field which is focused on modifying our world to fulfill our needs and wants.
Therefore, engineering is meant to apply theoretical concepts, to construct usable products, to
design feasible solutions, to imagine realistic yields, etc. For instance, devising a robot to help
the elderly in housekeeping is an aggregate of different engineering efforts to combine several
fields of knowledge. Engineering practice starts by embracing the idea that there is an
important problem that needs to be solved.
Preparing Teachers in Engineering for STEM Education 73
Figure 1. The Engineering Design Process. A sample diagram of the engineering process. Adapted from
Boehm, B. (1986). A spiral model of software development and enhancement. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng.
Notes 11(4), 14–24.
Once the problem is recognized, data needs to be collected to identify key design
elements, specifications, requirements, challenges, feasibility, and functions.
Once most of these key elements are identified, the query stage begins and there is
consideration of how to engineer the desired solution. The ―how‖ engineering process is vital
to a doable plan and practical solution.
Thus, the planning phase relies on the data collection and the ―how‖ phase on devising
the solution. Once the plan is clear, it needs to be executed and then tested. The execution and
testing phases need to be complemented with realistic ―what-if‖ scenarios to anticipate points
of failure and to troubleshoot needs. A sample diagram of the engineering process is depicted
in Figure 1.
The engineering approach for problem solving is design. The design approach relies on
and repeats the steps shown in Figure 1. These steps are necessary for the problem-solving
process to be conclusive.
For engineering teachers to be successful, they must be clear about the design approach
of engineering. Therefore, K-12 engineering education programs must take into account all
design process phases while considering age, skill set, and resource availability.
74 Moussa Ayyash and Kimberly Black
ENGINEERING IN K-12 SETTINGS
In order to prepare teachers to teach engineering in K-12 settings, it is important to
discuss the goals of engineering education. The purpose of engineering education in K-12
settings is to develop and prepare future workforce engineers and/or to educate well-rounded
citizens who are ready to face life‘s challenges. Therefore, introducing engineering into the
classroom at early stages can have an impact on the future of students‘ educational choices as
well as their life options. Understanding what engineering education can contribute to
students‘ learning moves the discussion from ―do we need engineering education at K-12?‖ to
―how to teach engineering education in K-12?‖ In fact, engineering is an interdisciplinary
field and it requires skills from all fields of learning such as math, science, technology,
reading, and writing. Existing curricula in K–12 engineering education do not fully explore
the other three STEM subjects. One option to involve other STEM areas is to use engineering
as a pedagogical strategy for science laboratory activities (National Research Council, 2009).
According to Rogers and Portsmore (2004), when designing an engineering lesson (building
something that stays together and the beginning stages of understanding the design process)
there are engineering concepts that are related to other STEM subjects. For example, in
kindergarten an appropriate engineering concept is building sturdy structures. This concept is
related to both science and math concepts of forces. The engineering concept of building
sturdy structures may also be used at the first grade level along with gearing and motion and
the related science and math concepts may be forces, torque, prediction and estimation. When
teaching engineering concepts there should be a basic sequence of topics that are related to
other STEM subjects (see Rogers and Portsmore).
Preparing K-12 teachers to teach engineering is very critical because most teachers are
neither engineers by profession nor equipped by Colleges of Education to teach engineering.
Generally, the five most important competencies imparted by engineering teachers are (1)
curiosity, (2) enthusiasm for learning, (3) self-confidence, (4) how to dig for answers, and (5)
how to test the validity of answers (Rogers and Portsmore, 2004).
Curiosity. Engineering teachers must provide an environment that generates curiosity.
According to Herrick (2013), there are five strategies to generate curiosity: (1) revisit old
questions: focusing on unanswered old questions should produce curiosity in an attempt to
answer such questions. For example, how does one improve engine efficiency? (2) model and
promote ambition: ambition is necessary to stimulate curiosity. An ambitious student is
curious to achieve his/her goals. (3) play game-based learning stimulates curiosity in order to
achieve the goals of the game, (4) the right collaboration at the right time: seeing what peers
can accomplish is a powerful actuator for curiosity. This is usually key to push learners to ask
questions in order to imitate others‘ successes, and (5) use diverse and unpredictable content:
teachers can generate curiosity through continuous improvement of lessons and projects. New
things and ideas always encourage curious students.
Enthusiasm for Learning. When it comes to enthusiasm to learn, successful engineering
teachers need to trigger and enable what‘s called the neuroplastic messenger substances in
students‘ brains in order for students to cause an emotional activation towards engineering
learning. This activation, which is usually very enjoyable, can be referred to as ―enthusiasm‖
(Heuther, 2013). Triggering enthusiasm to learning is challenging especially with today‘s
learners.
Preparing Teachers in Engineering for STEM Education 75
Thus, students pay attention to what‘s happening in the environments around them in
terms of what is significant and what is not. Therefore, successful engineering teachers
usually need to relate the importance or significance of engineering concepts to life aspects.
Self-confidence. Building self-confidence in the classroom is critical for students‘
success. Engineering teachers need to promote self-confidence in learners by offering
students opportunities to display their abilities and skills. Because some engineering concepts
can be very intimidating for some students, it is important for the teaching environment to be
encouraging for students to practice what they learn while they gain confidence in
understanding and mastering such concepts.
How to Dig for Answers. Building the necessary mental muscles of engineering students
requires teachers to teach them how to dig for answers. The ―teaching how to fish‖ approach
is what should be kept in the mind of engineering teachers. This requires critical thinking
activities by which students can be challenged to dig for answers by themselves. Sometimes,
when a teacher notices that his/her students‘ struggle to "think outside of the box", he/she will
precipitously step in and give the answers, or remove the deeper learning activity all together,
assuming that the students are not ready for it. Therefore, for teachers to be able to embrace
the teaching how to fish approach, they will need to be patient and ready to work with
students on building their advanced thinking tools (Johnson, 2013).
How to Test the Validity of Answers. The ability to test the validity of answers is a vital
skill that should be addressed by engineering teachers. Therefore, engineering teachers need
to train their students to verify the accuracy of the answers. The nature of the engineering
discipline mandates that information retrieval is supported by a skill set to validate the
information retrieved.
K-12 Engineering Education Challenges
K-12 engineering education faces several challenges at the national level. In this section,
we outline key challenges that should be considered during the process of giving attention to
the ―E‖ in STEM which include (a) lack of widely accepted vision, (b) lack of formal
engineering education programs, (c) lack of informal support to engineering education, (d)
uneven treatment of engineering key ideas, (e) gender gap, and (f) technical difficulties.
Lack of Widely Accepted Vision. Generally, current engineering education curricula are
designed on ad hoc basis without strategic vision of what should be covered in K-12
engineering. Due to this ad hoc approach, it is very hard to draw conclusions about the impact
of early exposure to engineering education at the national level. This, in turn has led to an
engineering education which is spontaneous and largely vague (National Research Council,
2009). Indeed, the ―qualifications‖ for engineering educators at the K–12 level have not even
been described. Graduates from a handful of teacher preparation programs have strong
backgrounds in STEM subjects, including engineering, but few if any of them teach
engineering classes in K–12 schools.
Lack of Formal Engineering Education Programs. Most teachers do not have engineering
degrees. It is generally true that engineering school graduates are trained to work as
professionals in industry and are not equipped nor certified to teach in K-12 schools. A quick
review of US Colleges of Education program offerings reveals that there is no dedicated
training for engineering education.
76 Moussa Ayyash and Kimberly Black
Therefore, it is hard to hire qualified/certified engineering teachers who are prepared to
teach K-12 engineering education curricula. Compared to professional development for
teaching other STEM areas, programs for teaching engineering are few and far between.
Katehi, Pearson, and Feder (2009) acknowledged that the majority if not all teacher
professional development initiatives utilize a few existing curricula, and many do not provide
ongoing in-class and/or online support subsequent to formal training. There are no consistent
professional development programs that follow-up after training that has been proven to
facilitate teacher learning.
Currently, there are no pre-service initiatives that are likely to contribute significantly to
the supply of qualified engineering teachers in the near future. To address this major gap, the
American Society of Engineering Education‘s Division of K–12 and Pre-College Education
suggests to begin a national dialogue. This committee will also address the preparation of K–
12 engineering teachers‘ different needs and circumstances of elementary and secondary
teachers and the pros and cons of establishing a formal credentialing process (Katehi,
Pearson, and Feder, 2009).
Lack of Informal Support to Engineering Education. Generally, there is an intergenera-
tional gap in education and specifically in engineering education. For example, parents and
family members may not be aware of what it takes to educate a successful engineer, what is
the importance of engineering in K-12, etc.
Consequently, parents are not involved in the push towards strong and strategic
engineering education curricula (Rogers and Portsmore, 2004).
Uneven Treatment of Engineering Key Ideas. In most engineering curricula, engineering
design is the focus in most K-12 curricular and professional development activities. It is true
that engineering design is the primary idea/activity in engineering; however, other important
aspects (e.g., engineering knowledge vitals and skills, connection to other aspects of STEM,
engineering/age correlation, etc.) are not adequately addressed by curriculum developers
(National Research Council, 2009).
Gender Gap. Girls and boys are different in embracing engineering approaches. Girls
tend to design then build and boys tend to build then design. This difference presents an
important challenge to teachers and curriculum developers in K-12 engineering education.
For example, mixed-gender classroom activities often lead to problems and delays in
achieving activity goals (Rogers and Portsmore, 2004).
Gender gap and ethnic variations are usually not considered in preparing curricular
materials. They do not portray engineering in ways that are culturally responsive to students
from a variety of ethnic and cultural backgrounds.
Technical Difficulties. The fact that engineering lessons and activities require
experimentation and testing, several technical issues might arise (equipment malfunctioning,
lack of regular maintenance, etc.).
These technical issues usually present an obvious challenge to teachers who are focused
on their lesson plans.
To cope with such technical issues, some teachers have to cancel vibrant lessons due to
the absence of immediate technical support or shortage of resources and funding.
Preparing Teachers in Engineering for STEM Education 77
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENGINEERING
EDUCATION IN K-12 SETTINGS
Engineering education at the K-12 level is a still-developing enterprise. The National
Research Council (2009), Engineering in K-12 Education: Understanding the Status and
Improving the Prospects Report, provides a lot of basic information about the current state of
its development. There are nine key recommendations presented here to improve, define and
further develop the landscape of engineering education at the K-12 level. These
recommendations include both aspirational and practical strategies to improve the preparation
of teachers of engineering content and strategies.
Recommendation 1: Improve popular attitudes and beliefs about engineering. The first
recommendation addresses the attitudes, assumptions and beliefs of teachers about
engineering. Nathan, Tran, Atwood, Prevost, and Phelps, (2010) observed that ―for effective
engineering education reform to take place, it is necessary to incorporate teachers‘ attitudes
and beliefs about instruction and learning and about the subjects that they teach‖ (p. 410).
Many teachers, including those who teach in STEM areas, have negative or uninformed
attitudes about engineering (Crippen and Archambault, 2012). Engineering is often seen as
―drab and uninteresting‖ (Elton, Hanson and Shannon, 2006, p. 125) or boring (Hew and
Brush, 2007). Teachers often hold stereotypical or biased ideas about engineers themselves
and what engineering practice entails. These views and beliefs held by some teachers about
the field of engineering may be a sign that there is a lack of understanding and a need to
educate teachers on what engineers do (Yasar, Baker, Robinson-Kurpius, Crause, and
Roberts, 2006). Kimmel, Carpinelli and Rockland (2007) recognized that many teachers did
not have positive attitudes or beliefs towards engineering. These attitudes and beliefs are
often transmitted to students. Carr et al. (2012) noted that many students perceive the field of
engineering as manual labor and does not require higher order thinking skills. Similarly,
many teachers perceive engineers as builders and construction workers, instead of considering
engineering as a creative, worthwhile and profitable field (Carr et al., 2012). Notwithstanding
the notion that all honest labor has value, misrepresentation of engineering concepts and
practices among teachers is a key area that must be addressed.
Related to this is the necessity to improve or broaden understanding and appreciation of
not only engineering, but also technology. Oftentimes teachers limited experiences with
technology result in their use and interpretation of technology from a narrow perspective of
the subjects they teach (Yasar et al., 2006). Teachers need to understand and appreciate
engineering and technology as a part of the larger human enterprise. Working to improve
teachers‘ understanding and dispositions about technology and engineering is an important
pre-condition to the existence of engineering education itself. Teachers‘ knowledge and
perceptions of a subject are closely related to their self-confidence in teaching that subject;
the lack of teacher knowledge about design engineering technology (DET) in the US ensures
that it will not be taught (Yasar et al., 2006). The integrity of the engineering practice and
content taught to students and the development of effective professional development and
teacher preparation in the area of engineering hinges on the existence of positive attitudes and
beliefs about the subject (Nathan et al., 2010).
78 Moussa Ayyash and Kimberly Black
Recommendation 2: Clearly define what constitutes engineering education at the K-12
level.
The next recommendation stems from the lack of clarity and familiarity among teachers
about what constitutes engineering. Engineering education is well defined at the collegiate
level, but the goals, aims and purpose of engineering education at the K-12 level is still
underdeveloped, poorly defined and poorly implemented in curricula (Carr et al., 2012; Diaz
and Cox, 2012). A critical area of defining engineering education at the K-12 level rests in
developing clarity around its exact purpose in learning at this level. Why should young people
learn engineering concepts and practices? Most discussions of engineering education are
prefaced by a reference to a STEM ―crisis‖ in the US. This crisis involves a concern over the
lack of an adequate technological workforce in the future and the fact that US students are
having a lower level of achievement in science and mathematics compared to their peers in
other developed nations. Thus, many discussions of the purpose of engineering education
focus on the end goal of developing a technological workforce for the future (Atkinson, 2012;
Crippen and Archambault, 2012; Diaz and Cox, 2012; Elton et al., 2006; Kimmel et al., 2007;
Locke, 2009; Moyer-Packenham, Kitsantas, Bolyard, Huie, and Irby, 2009; Museus, Palmer,
Davis, and Maramba, 2011; National Research Council, 2009; Nugent, Kunz, Rilett, and
Jones, 2010; Pater, Evans, and Matthews, 2009). Preparing a workforce is a specific goal for
all of education, but should this be the single or the most important goal for engineering
education of all children? Atkinson (2012) provided a provocative argument against universal
STEM education, instead arguing for ‗All STEM for Some‘ – that national efforts and
resources for STEM learning should be allocated towards enough individual students to serve
the actual national workforce needs. Atkinson (2012) suggested that it is ―wasteful‖ to spend
the time and effort of developing K-12 STEM curricula or requiring a certain level of STEM
competency of all students. Insights from critical pedagogy suggest that workforce
preparation is neither the sole nor necessarily the most important purpose of education and
this can also be true of engineering education. Frantz, Miranda and Stiller (2011) argued for
another purpose, that K-12 education should provide meaningful preparation for its graduates,
so that they can fully participate in the opportunities available to them in society. A
fundamental precondition for full participation in society is an understanding that the world
they live in is engineered and that it takes shape through human choice and activity. There
should be clarity about the purpose of engineering education.
The National Research Council (2009) outlined three approaches to implementing
engineering education at the K-12 level: (1) ad hoc infusion of engineering ideas into existing
curricula, (2) creating standalone courses for engineering education, or (3) creating fully
integrated STEM education. Which option to pursue is contingent on how the definition and
purpose of the education has been defined.
Clarification of purpose is a critical recommendation. Currently, there is a competing set
of purposes between increasing the pipeline of engineers versus engineering education being
something that everyone should be taught (Nathan et al., 2010).
One of the confounding issues with the identification of purpose is how engineering
education is defined. There are many, competing definitions, constructs and competencies
currently in use in the literature to describe engineering education (e.g., Science, Technology,
Engineering, Mathematics (STEM/STEM literacy), Technology and Engineering Literacy
(TEL), ―technological literacy,‖ Design Engineering Technology (DET), ―engineering
design,‖ ―technological design,‖ etc.). Carr, Bennett and Strobel (2012) documented the
Preparing Teachers in Engineering for STEM Education 79
presence of engineering education concepts in a majority of the state K-12 education
standards, yet what ―engineering education‖ actually means varies in its articulation.
There is also ambiguity about the understanding of engineering as a content area to be
mastered versus engineering as a set of practices – whether engineering is best thought of as a
noun or verb (Nathan et al., 2010).
Much of the literature suggests that engineering education should be focused around
understanding engineering design (Badran, 2007; Keller and Pearson, 2012; Locke, 2009;
Mehalik, Doppelt, and Schuun, 2008; National Research Council, 2009; Yasar et al., 2006).
Keller and Pearson (2012) suggested that engineering design practices emphasize a basic
approach to problem solving which can involve many different practices. They include (a)
problem, (b) definition, (c) model development and use, (d) investigation, (e) analysis and
interpretation of data, (f) application of mathematics and computational thinking, and (g)
determination of solutions. In addition, these engineering practices incorporate knowledge
about criteria and constraints, modeling and analysis, and optimization and trade-offs (Keller
and Pearson, 2012). Mehalik, Doppelt and Schuun (2008) argued that a focus on engineering
design permits student autonomy, multiple modes of thinking, student accountability for
achievement, and scaffolding with learning. Badran (2007) emphasized the elements of
creativity and innovation that are inherent in the engineering design practice – that
engineering creativity is predicated upon the ―talents, education, and motivation to conceive,
develop, design and implement creative and innovative outcomes‖ (p. 576).
There is some consensus that education for understanding of engineering design is an
important goal, however, in practice, curricular implementations of engineering design have
not always been satisfactory.
According to the National Research Council (2009), ―engineering design…is pre-
dominant in most K-12 curricular and professional development programs‖ (p.7). Closely
related to engineering design which encompass key ideas in engineering are dispro-
portionately utilized in curriculum which suggests a lack of understanding on the part of
curriculum developers (National Research Council, 2009). Thus, there needs to be an
improved clarity about the purpose of engineering education at the K-12 level, and about the
meaning of specific educational goals of such an education.
Recommendation 3: Develop national and state content standards for K-12 engineering
education. The development of stable and consistent content standards for engineering
education is another important recommendation. There are well-established and well-
understood standards for engineering education at the collegiate level, yet, pre-collegiate
curricula lacks continuity and are driven by local community standards despite the nationwide
presence of standards and entrance requirements for college (Carr et al., 2012). There appears
to be some reticence for practicing engineers and professional engineering associations to
assert specific educational standards at the K-12 level (Carr et al., 2012).
However, to transform engineering into actual, operational and relevant instructional
strategies standards are necessary (Carr et al., 2012).
Many official bodies have recently produced learning standards and conceptual
frameworks for learning science and technology that engage engineering design concepts and
practices at some level, but just as the purpose of engineering education is unclear, the
understanding of which of these standards best encapsulate engineering content is also
unclear. The International Technology Education Association (2007) produced Standards for
Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology (2000). The International
80 Moussa Ayyash and Kimberly Black
Society for Technology in Education (2007) has long produced the National Education
Technology Standards for Students.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (2009) Benchmarks for
National Educational Technology Standards for Students Science Literacy: A Tool for
Curriculum Reform summarized the basic science literacy goals outlined in its Science for All
Americans (1989); these goals for science education also engage engineering knowledge. The
National Research Council‘s (2012) A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices,
Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (2011) included many contributors from the National
Academies of Engineering and infused explicit engineering content throughout the core ideas
and crosscutting concepts.
The National Research Council implemented its framework in the Next Generation
Science Standards: For States, By States (2013). Finally the National Assessment Governing
Board has produced Technology and Engineering Literacy Framework to measure national
achievement in technology literacy for the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP). In addition to this number of standards are a number of professional associations
that may bear some responsibility for learning standards for engineering content (e.g.,
National Research Council‘s National Academy of Engineering, the American Society for
Engineering Education, the International Technology Education Association, the International
Society for Technology in Education, the National Science Teachers Association) and the
educational working groups of all of the many professional engineering societies.
In this national K-12 learning standards landscape, the articulation of engineering
standards is scattered across many content areas at the state level (Kimmel, Carpinelli, and
Rockland, 2007; National Research Council, 2009). Carr, Bennett and Strobel (2012) found
that 36 states had a ―strong presence of engineering‖ in their state education standards where
―12 have engineering content that can be found in science standards, 8 in technology
standards, 5 in engineering and technology standards, 2 in STEM standards, 8 in career and
vocational standards and 1 in math standards‖ (p.551). The competing standards and
frameworks in the various content areas create a complicated situation for teachers. Keller
and Pearson (2012) identified problems in relation to the role of competing standards and
frameworks that evoke engineering education because it is unclear as to whether the new
science framework is meant to supplement or replace Standards for Technological Literacy
(STL), or are the two documents meant to be independent of one another? The framework is
not explicit on that question (Keller and Pearson, 2012).
There is yet another confounding situation inhibiting the creation of distinct and clear
engineering learning standards for K-12 settings. The No Child Left Behind Act serves as a
practical barrier to the establishment of another set of separate and distinct standards for
engineering content and practice (Kimmel et al., 2007). The combined pressures of already
cramped curricula, high-stakes state testing and increased requirements to become certified as
highly qualified teachers leaves little room for the addition of any new competencies or
knowledge that is not already well-defined, long-established and institutionalized as a part of
K-12 education. Therefore, teachers have to navigate between state content standards and
expectations for improved student performance on required state standardized tests. Because
teachers will only be accountable for what is in the standards, it becomes important to make
their new knowledge [of engineering] a part of instruction for student learning (Kimmel et al.,
2007). Thus, engineering principles and design must be a part of the state science standards
Preparing Teachers in Engineering for STEM Education 81
(Kimmel et al., 2007). Engineering content and practice do exhibit differences from scientific
inquiry and technology literacy and need careful articulation in learning standards.
State and national standards for student learning still need to be developed so that
engineering content and engineering design are clearly delineated.
Recommendation 4: Establish quality teacher preparation programs. Quality engineering
education will not happen in the absence of well-educated and prepared teachers; creating
quality teacher preparation programs is an important recommendation. Teachers‘ preparation
and qualifications in the subject they teach have an impact on their students‘ learning
outcomes and furthermore affects success among all students in STEM education (Museus et
al., 2011). There is a lack of qualified teachers able to deliver engineering instruction at the
K-12 level; furthermore, the National Research Council (2009) found that current pre-service
initiatives are unlikely to produce the quantity of qualified engineering teachers needed in the
near future. Additionally, requirements for engineering educators at the K-12 level have not
been specified (National Research Council, 2009). Engineering education as a unique
discipline has been developing; Purdue University, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Utah State
University, and Clemson University have created doctoral-granting engineering education
programs within their Colleges of Engineering (Diaz and Cox, 2012), however, this emerging
discipline has not yet produced programs to educate K-12 engineering teachers.
There are many excellent existing science and technology teachers but exceedingly few
are specifically trained educators of engineering at the K-12 level (Kimmel et al., 2007;
National Research Council, 2009; Yasar et al., 2006). Kimmel, Carpinelli and Rockland
(2007) noted that K-12 science teachers lack the professional preparation and are not trained
in the content of engineering. They lack the skills of engineering and are not prepared to teach
principles of engineering (Kimmel et al., 2007). Significantly, science and technology
teachers generally lack the ability to instruct and provide guidance in the critical area of
engineering design. Sneider (2012) asserted that students may be engaged and come up with
creative solutions [to assignments of design challenges], however, need specific guidance,
otherwise they are unlikely to learn about the value of defining problems in terms of criteria
and constraints, ―how to use the problem definition to systematically evaluate alternative
solutions, how to construct test models, how to use failure analysis, or how to prioritize
constraints and use trade-offs to optimize design‖ (p. 11). Teachers must be prepared to
instruct in the area of engineering and currently, science and technology educators are ill-
equipped to do so.
Recommendation 5: Provide professional development and outreach activities available
for existing science and technology teachers. An important immediate recommendation to
improve engineering instruction with the current teacher workforce is to provide more
opportunities for professional development among existing science and technology teachers
who have a desire to teach engineering (Hew and Brush, 2007; National Research Council,
2009; Yasar et al., 2006; Zarske, Sullivan, and Carlson, 2004). Many of these professional
development activities have been accomplished through partnerships with universities,
science centers, and engineering societies (Keller and Pearson, 2012; Zarske, Sullivan, and
Carlson, 2004; Zhang, McInerney, and Frechtling, 2010). Moyer-Packenham et al. (2009)
observed that ―school-university partnerships are an effective way of addressing a variety of
issues in education … particularly improvement in mathematics and science‖ (p. 16).
Examples in the literature of effective partnerships include the Summer Institute for teachers
at the University of Nebraska Lincoln which includes demonstrations, learning about
82 Moussa Ayyash and Kimberly Black
engineering problems, field trips, and opportunities for teachers to develop lesson plans
(Nugent et al., 2010), the Integrated Teaching and Learning Program at the University of
Colorado at Boulder which includes summer workshops for students and teachers (Poole,
Degrazia, and Sullivan, 2001), the Institute for P-12 Engineering Research and Learning
(INSPIRE) at Purdue University (Crippen and Archambault, 2012) and the Tufts University‘s
Center for Engineering Education Outreach (Rogers and Portsmore, 2004). Some universities
and centers partner with school districts such as Georgia Tech Research Institute and the
Barrow County, Georgia school district in the Direct to Discovery (D2D) project which
connects classroom teachers with university professors/researchers (Pater et al., 2009).
Similarly, the Colorado School of Mines partners with 11 school districts in Colorado on
several different projects involving graduate students, faculty, pre-service and in service
teachers (Moskal, Skokan, Kosbar, Dean, Westland, Barker, and Tafoya, 2007). The most
often cited partnerships are between universities and K-12 schools and teachers, but
partnerships can also be made with industry which can have an important role to play in
improving engineering education (Badran, 2007). One of the challenges to university
partnerships where university faculty provide professional development and consulting for the
improvement of engineering curricula is the system for tenure and promotion in higher
education that rewards faculty more for research and university teaching rather than service.
University faculty often report being ―stretched‖ for time to participate in these initiatives and
junior faculty are often actively discouraged from this type of service pursuit (Zhang,
McInerney, and Frechtling, 2010). Zhang et al. (2010) also noted that some STEM faculty
may be more comfortable working independently rather than working collaboratively with
people who have varying levels of content knowledge.
Recommendation 6: Use engineering to integrate teaching and learning in math, science
and technology. The sixth recommendation is a suggested approach to teaching engineering
that dominates the literature. The National Research Council (2009) outlined three possible
approaches to implementing engineering education at the K-12 level: (1) the ad hoc infusion
of engineering ideas and concepts into existing science curricula, (2) creating standalone
courses for engineering education at various grade levels, or (3) crafting a fully integrated
STEM education curriculum that leverages connections among STEM disciplines. The
National Academy of Engineering and many others highly recommend engineering content
integration with other STEM areas through concept mapping (Carr et al., 2012; Diaz and Cox,
2012; Hew and Brush, 2007; National Research Council, 2009). The National Research
Council (2009) report noted that ―as STEM is currently structured and implemented in US
classrooms, it does not reflect the natural connections among the four subjects, which are
reflected in the real world of research and technology development‖ (p.12). Keller and
Pearson (2012) echoed this concern and suggested that there is a need to assist science and
math teachers in K-12 settings to approach STEM in more interdisciplinary ways, instead of
approaching STEM subject areas separately (e.g., S,T,E,M). Engineering can serve as a
bridge between abstract knowledge obtained from inquiry and applied innovation through
practice. Even though engineering and science have common practices, engineering is a
distinct field with specific practices and core concepts that are different from science
(Sneider, 2012). Crismond (2013) suggested content integration between science and
engineering should reconcile the sometimes problematic relationship between the traditional
scientific inquiry process versus the engineering design practice. Crismond (2013) related the
two approaches – understanding scientific principles by asking questions and constructing
Preparing Teachers in Engineering for STEM Education 83
explanations in science and defining problems, using them to create and design solutions in
engineering.
Bybee (2011a) strongly recommended the idea of emphasizing practice as an approach to
learning over scientific inquiry as an approach. For example, practices in science and
engineering should be considered mutually as learning outcomes and instructional strategies
that represent educational ends and instructional means. According to Bybee (2011b) students
must acquire the skills represented in the practices, and they should be able to comprehend
how science knowledge and engineering products are produced as a result of the practices.
The practices, as instructional strategies, provide a way for students to learn the core ideas
and crosscutting concepts expressed in the Framework for K-12 Science Education.
Engineering can be used to integrate content learning for subjects beyond the STEM
disciplines. Engineering can also be integrated with learning in the language arts and
communications. Rogers and Portsmore (2004) have used their ROBOLAB toolset and
curriculum in order to assist in teaching reading and writing in K-12 settings by using
engineering projects. Keller and Pearson (2012) go so far to suggest that learning should be
coordinated across ALL disciplines. Further, they observed that learners do not see the
connections between the different subject areas that they study due to the need for universal
curriculum and instructional planning among teachers as well as the need for consistency in
the use of terms across disciplines. Keller and Pearson (2012) argued that content integration
should be coordinated across all disciplines using universal vocabulary, terms and concepts
with science, math, and English language arts teachers. Engineering utilized as a means of
integrating content across disciplines has implications for the entire K-12 curriculum.
Recommendation 7: Reconsider how we asses technology learning. A more minor
recommendation involves reconsidering how technology learning is assessed, particularly
when the strategy of technology content integration is employed as an approach for
instruction in engineering design (Hew and Brush, 2007; Kimmel et al., 2007). Hew and
Brush (2007) cited the current assessment environment as a critical barrier when it comes to
integrating technology and engineering content in the classroom. Curriculum and assessment
are interconnected, therefore we need to re-evaluate the assessment approaches especially
when technology is integrated into the school curriculum; otherwise we need to think about
utilizing technology to meet the demands of standards-based accountability (Hew and Brush,
2007). As a result ―alternative modes of assessment strategies may be formulated‖ (p. 239). If
there is a focus on the practice and process of design, rather than on mastery of content, then
new approaches of assessment that evaluate the dimensions of creativity and innovation are in
order.
Recommendation 8: Designate resources to support engineering instruction. Quality
engineering instruction, no matter how it is introduced, is not likely to occur without the
availability of adequate resources and infrastructure to support it. The resources that impact
engineering education include space in the curriculum, time for teachers to learn more about
engineering design, time to develop engaging lesson plans, and the support of school
administration. Locke (2009) observed that K-12 school day schedules are full with many
mandated subjects as well as that the resources needed to implement engineering curriculum
are limited. Therefore, ―only the most important engineering analytic content knowledge can
be attempted to be infused into the curriculum‖ (p. 27). As mentioned earlier, K-12 curricula
and teachers are already overburdened, so any new content must be carefully considered.
84 Moussa Ayyash and Kimberly Black
Engineering design integration across subjects has the potential to ultimately make an entire
curriculum more effective and efficient, but adequate resources are necessary.
The time for teachers to learn has also been cited as an important resource. Yasar et al.
(2006) found that teachers regardless of their years of teaching experience had a willingness
to learn, however, time was considered the greatest barrier to learning more about DET.
Recommendation 9: Conduct more basic research in teaching and learning to determine
what makes engineering education effective. The final recommendation is perhaps the most
critical in many ways. There is very little research available about the teaching and learning
of engineering at the K-12 levels – engineering education is an understudied area in education
research. Hailey, Erekson, Becker and Thomas (2005) in their discussion of the work of the
National Centers for Engineering and Technology Education noted with concern that ―as
engineering design and analysis are infused into K-12 schools, we know little about how
students learn engineering and how teachers can effectively teach it‖ (p. 25). There must be
more basic research in understanding engineering at the pre-college level. Funding is needed
from many different groups and organizations (e.g., The National Science Foundation, US
Department of Education) in order to conduct research on how science inquiry and
mathematical reasoning can be linked to engineering design in K-12 curricula and teacher
professional development (National Research Council, 2009).
In their 2012 analysis of over 50 papers on P-12 engineering education, Diaz and Cox
(2012) found ―few programs or interventions [described in the literature that] explicitly state
research as their primary focus. The disadvantage of this approach is that engineering
education research seems to be incidental or dependent upon initiatives devoted mainly to
service‖ (p.14). That is, when engineers, scientists and educators create programs or
interventions related to improving engineering education, they approach these enterprises as a
form of service rather than as the subject of rigorous research. A few researchers have noticed
a resistance to the production of serious scholarship on teaching and learning by engineering
faculty (Hailey et al., 2005; Moskal et al., 2007; Zhang, McInerney, and Frechtling, 2010).
Rogers and Portsmore (2004) and Moskal et al., (2007) have been hopeful to suggest that
university engineering faculty participating in partnerships with teachers and schools would
augment the acceptance of educational research as a form of scholarship in the field of
engineering. Similarly, among university faculty, there is a prevailing stereotype and biases
against technologists who elect to work with K-12 education persist. A Program Officer with
the National Academy of Engineering candidly stated, ―let‘s face it, engineering is filled with
elitists, and technology education is for blue collar academic washouts‖ (Hailey et al., 2005,
p. 23). Despite the stereotypes and biases that may exist, the creation of scholarship on
engineering education remains a serious need. Diaz and Cox (2012) suggested that there is a
reciprocal relationship between developing an understanding of engineering as a content area
and engineering education: ―the emerging nature of the field of engineering education
requires that the content and the nature of interventions should be related to advances about
the understanding of engineering‖ (p. 16).
Preparing Teachers in Engineering for STEM Education 85
CONCLUSION
Engineering education is considered the most overlooked area of STEM learning at the
K-12 level.
Despite its persistent presence, engineering education is still not well understood in the
context of K-12 learning. Many of the aforementioned discussions and recommendations are
interlinked or operate in tandem and are dependent upon each other. Improving the
scholarship in engineering education, creating learning standards and new assessment systems
and developing better pre-service, in-service and professional development experiences for
teachers can all go a long way towards the realization of engineering education which has the
capacity to integrate all learning.
REFERENCES
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2009). Benchmarks for science
literacy: A tool for curriculum reform. Retrieved from http://www.project2061.org/
publications/bsl/online/index.php.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Project 2061: Science for all
Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
Atkinson, R. D. (2012). Why the current education reform strategy won‘t work. Issues in
Science and Technology, 29–36.
Badran, I. (2007). Enhancing creativity and innovation in engineering education. European
Journal of Engineering Education, 32(5), 573–585.
Bybee, R. W. (2011a). K-12 engineering education standards: Opportunities and barriers.
Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(5), 21–29.
Bybee, R. W. (2011b). Scientific and engineering practices in K-12 classrooms. Science and
Children, 10-16.
Byers, T., Seelig, T., Sheppard, S., and Weilerstein, P. (2013). Linking engineering and
society, entrepreneurship: Its role in engineering education. The Bridge, 43(2), 35-40.
Carr, R. L., Bennett, L. D. and 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.
Crippen, K. J. and Archambault, L. (2012). Scaffolded inquiry-based instruction with
technology: A signature pedagogy for STEM education. Computers in the Schools, 29,
157-173.
Crismond, D. (2013). Design practices and misconceptions: Helping engineers in engineering
design. Science Teacher, 50–54.
Diaz, N. V. and Cox, M. F. (2012). An overview of the literature: Research in P-12
engineering education. Advances in Engineering Education 3(2), 1–37.
Elton, D. J., Hanson, J. L. and Shannon, D. M. (2006). Soils magic: Bringing civil
engineering to the K-12 classroom. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering
Education and Practice, 132(2), 125–132.
86 Moussa Ayyash and Kimberly Black
Fantz, T., Miranda, M. and Siller, T. (2011). Knowing what engineering and technology
teachers need to know: An analysis of pre-service teachers engineering design problems.
International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(3), 307–320.
Flexner, S. B. (1987). Engineering. The random house dictionary of the English language,
second edition—Unabridged. New York: Random House.
Hailey, C. E., Erekson, T., Becker, K., and Thomas, M. (2005). National center for
engineering and technology education. The Technology Teacher, 23–25.
Herrick, T. (2013). Learning strategies that make students curious. Retrieved from http://
www.teachthought.com/learning/5-learning-strategies-that-make-students-curious/
Heuther, G. (2013). Learning enthusiastically. Retrieved from http://www.gerald-huether.
de/populaer/english/learning-enthusiastically/index.php.
Hew, K. F. and Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning:
Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Education Tech.
Research Dev., 55, 223–252.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). National Educational Technology
Standards for Students. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/
NETS/ForStudents/2007Standards/NETS_for_Students_2007.htm.
International Technology Education Association. (2007). Standards for technological
literacy: content for the study of technology. Retrieved from http://www.iteaconnect.org/
TAA/PDFs/xstnd.pdf.
Johnson, B. (2013). Teaching students to dig deeper. Edutopia. Retrieved from http://www.
edutopia.org/blog/teaching-students-dig-deeper-ben-johnson.
Katehi, L., Pearson, G. and Feder, M. (2009). The status and nature of K–12 engineering
education in the United States. The Bridge, 43(2): 35-40.
Keller, T. E. and Pearson, G. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Increasing
opportunities for student learning. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 71(5), 12–18.
Kimmel, H., Carpinelli, J. and Rockland, R. (2007). Bringing engineering into K-12 schools:
A problem looking for solutions? Presented at the International Conference on
Engineering Education – ICEE 2007, Coimbra, Portugal.
Locke, E. (2009). Proposed model for a streamlined, cohesive, and optimized K-12 STEM
curriculum with a focus on engineering. Journal of Technology Studies, 35(2), 23–35.
Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y. and Schuun, C. D. (2008). Middle-School science through
design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and
equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 71–82.
Moskal, B. M., Skokan, C., Kosbar, L., Dean, A., Westland, C., Barker, H., and Tafoya, J.
(2007). K-12 outreach: Identifying the broader impacts of four outreach projects, Journal
of Engineering Education 96(3), 173–189.
Moyer-Packenham, P. S., Kitsantas, A., Bolyard, J. J., Huie, F., and Irby, N. (2009).
Participation by STEM faculty in mathematics and science partnership activities for
teachers. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 10(2), 17–36.
Museus, S. D., Palmer, R. T., Davis, R. J., and Maramba, D. C. (2011). Racial and ethnic
minority students success in STEM Education. San Francisco: CA, Jossey and Bass.
Nathan, M. J., Tran, N. A., Atwood, A. K., Prevost, A., and Phelps, L. A. (2010). Beliefs and
expectations about engineering preparation exhibited by high school STEM teachers.
Journal of Engineering Education, 99(4), 409–426.
The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
STEM education how to train 21st century teachers
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search