Advertisement

Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 179–194 | Cite as

Measuring Pedagogy and the Integration of Engineering Design in STEM Classrooms

  • Tory WilliamsEmail author
  • Jonathan Singer
  • Jacqueline Krikorian
  • Christopher Rakes
  • Julia Ross
Article

Abstract

The present study examined changes in high school biology and technology education pedagogy during the first year of a three-year professional development (PD) program using the INSPIRES educative curriculum. The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) calls for the integration of science and engineering through inquiry-based pedagogy that shifts the burden of thinking from the teacher to the student. This call is especially challenging for teachers untrained in inquiry teaching and engineering or science concepts. The INSPIRES educative curriculum materials and PD provided a mechanism for teachers to transform their teaching to meet the NGSS challenges. This study followed a longitudinal triangulation mixed methods design. Selected lessons were video recorded, scored on the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) rubric, and examined for qualitative trends. Year 1 results indicated that teachers had begun to transform their teaching and pointed to particular lessons within the INSPIRES curriculum that most facilitated the reform. Instructional practices of participants improved significantly as a result of the INSPIRES PD program and also aligned with previous, similar studies. These findings provide insights for rethinking the structure of professional development, particularly in the integrated use of an educative curriculum aligned with intended professional development goals.

Keywords

Educative curriculum Engineering education Mixed methods Pedagogical reform Professional development 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the teachers, administrators, and program staff of our partner school district for their time and efforts in this study. The following UMBC students assisted in the collection of classroom recordings: Abby Singer, Ahmed Al-Salihi, Goureesh Paranjpe, Garrett Bockmiller, Marcus Foster, and Ekaterina DiBenedetto.

Funding Information

This project was funded by a Discovery Research K–12 National Science Foundation grant (DRL 1418183).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Amolins, M. W., Ezrailson, C. M., Pearce, D. A., Elliott, A. J., & Vitiello, P. F. (2015). Evaluating the effectiveness of a laboratory-based professional development program for science educators. Advances in Physiology Education, 39(4), 341–351.Google Scholar
  2. Arias, A. M., Davis, E. A., Marino, J. C., Kademian, S. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (2016). Teachers’ use of educative curriculum materials to engage students in science practices. International Journal of Science Education, 38(9), 1504–1526.Google Scholar
  3. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: what is—or might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Research, 25, 6–8.Google Scholar
  4. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 369–398.Google Scholar
  5. Bryan, L. A., & Atwater, M. M. (2002). Teacher beliefs and cultural models: a challenge for science teacher preparation programs. Science Education, 86(6), 821–839.Google Scholar
  6. Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., & Grunow, A. (2011). Getting ideas into action: building networked improvement communities in education. In Frontiers in sociology of education (pp. 127–162). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluation normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychology Assessment, 6(4), 284–290.Google Scholar
  8. Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: complementary research strategies (pp. 54–82). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Cuban, L. (2013). Inside the black box of classroom practice: change without reform in American education. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  10. Darling-Hammond, L., & Mclaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 597–604.Google Scholar
  11. Davis, E., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.Google Scholar
  12. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers' professional development: toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Research, 38(3), 181–199.Google Scholar
  13. Enderle, P., Dentzau, M., Roseler, K., Southerland, S., Granger, E., Hughes, R., & Saka, Y. (2014). Examining the influence of RETs on science teacher beliefs and practice. Science Education, 98(6), 1077–1108.Google Scholar
  14. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.Google Scholar
  15. Faber, A., & Mazlish, E. (2008). How to talk so kids can learn. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  16. Fishman, E. J., Borko, H., Osborne, J., Gomez, F., Rafanelli, S., Reigh, E., Tseng, A., Million, S., & Berson, E. (2017). A practice-based professional development program to support scientific argumentation from evidence in the elementary classroom. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(3), 222–249.Google Scholar
  17. Knaggs, C., & Schneider, R. (2012). Thinking like a scientist: using vee-maps to understand process and concepts in science. Research in Science Education, 42(4), 609–632.Google Scholar
  18. Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Project-based learning (pp. 317–334).Google Scholar
  19. Krajcik, J. (2015). Project-based science: engaging students in three-dimensional learning. The Science Teacher, 82(1), 25.Google Scholar
  20. Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 491–525.Google Scholar
  21. Lotter, C., Rushton, G., & Singer, J. E. (2013). Teacher enactment patterns: how can we help move all teachers to reform-based inquiry practice through professional development? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 1263–1291.Google Scholar
  22. Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, E., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. (2010). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
  23. Luft, J. A., & Hewson, P. W. (2014). Research on teacher professional development programs in science. Handbook of Research on Science Education, 2, 889–909.Google Scholar
  24. MacIsaac, D., Sawada, D., & Falconer, K. (2001). Using the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) as a catalyst for self-reflective change in secondary science teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  25. Marco-Bujosa, L. M., McNeill, K. L., González-Howard, M., & Loper, S. (2017). An exploration of teacher learning from an educative reform-oriented science curriculum: case studies of teacher curriculum use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(2), 141–168.Google Scholar
  26. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., & Tal, R. T. (2004). Inquiry-based science in the middle grades: assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1063–1080.Google Scholar
  27. McAleer, S. D. (2008). Professional growth through mentoring: a study of experienced mathematics teachers participating in a content-based online mentoring and induction program. Dissertation Abstracts International-A, 69 (08).Google Scholar
  28. McNeill, K. L., González-Howard, M., Katsh-Singer, R., & Loper, S. (2017). Moving beyond pseudoargumentation: teachers’ enactments of an educative science curriculum focused on argumentation. Science Education, 101(3), 426–457.Google Scholar
  29. McNeill, K. L., & Knight, A. M. (2013). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation: the impact of professional development on K–12 teachers. Science Education, 97(6), 936–972.Google Scholar
  30. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165.Google Scholar
  31. Next Generation Science Standards. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. [Website]. Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Science Teachers Association, & American Association for the Advancement of Science Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/.Google Scholar
  32. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.Google Scholar
  33. Piburn, M., & Sawada, D. (2000). Reformed teaching observation protocol (RTOP): reference manual (ACEPT technical report IN00-3). Tempe: Arizona State University, Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers.Google Scholar
  34. Pringle, R. M., Mesa, J., & Hayes, L. (2017). Professional development for middle school science teachers: does an educative curriculum make a difference? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(1), 57–72.Google Scholar
  35. Reeves, R., & Ross, J. (2010). AC 2010–1952: a novel approach to professional development. American Society for Engineering Education, Conference Proceedings, 15, 1.Google Scholar
  36. Reiser, B. J. (2014). Designing coherent storylines aligned with NGSS for the K-12 classroom. Paper presented at the Professional Development Institute of the National Science Education Leadership Association, Boston, MA. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/6884962/Designing_Coherent_Storylines_Aligned_with_NGSS_for_the_K-12_Classroom. Accessed 22 June 2017.
  37. Remillard, J. T. (2000). Can curriculum materials support teachers’ learning? Two fourth-grade teachers’ use of a new mathematics text. The Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 331–350.Google Scholar
  38. Richmond, G., Parker, J. M., & Kaldaras, L. (2016). Supporting reform-oriented secondary science teaching through the use of a framework to analyze construction of scientific explanations. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(5), 477–493.Google Scholar
  39. Roseman, J. E., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., & Reiser, B. J. (2015). Curriculum materials for Next Generation Science Standards: what the science education research community can do. In NARST Annual International Conference, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  40. Roseman, J. E., Herrmann-Abell, C. F., & Koppal, M. (2017). Designing for the Next Generation Science Standards: educative curriculum materials and measures of teacher knowledge. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(1), 111–141.Google Scholar
  41. Ross, J., Bayles, T., & Singer, J. (2015). The inspires curriculum. In C. Sneider (Ed.), The go-to guide for engineering curricula, grades 9–12 (pp. 19–30). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.  https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483388373.n3.Google Scholar
  42. Rushton, G., Lotter, C., & Singer, J. (2011). Chemistry teachers’ emerging expertise in inquiry teaching: the effect of an authentic professional development model on beliefs and practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22, 23–52.Google Scholar
  43. Saderholm, J., Ronau, R. N., Rakes, C. R., Bush, S. B., & Mohr-Schroeder, M. (2016). The critical role of a well-articulated conceptual framework to guide professional development: an evaluation of a state-wide two-week program for mathematics and science teachers. Professional Development in Education.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2016.1251485.
  44. Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2005). Enacting reform-based science materials: the range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 283–312.Google Scholar
  45. Singer, J., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J., & Clay Chambers, J. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 165–178.Google Scholar
  46. Singer, J., Lotter, C., Feller, R., & Gates. (2011). Exploring a model of situated professional development: impact on classroom practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(3), 203–227.Google Scholar
  47. Singer, J. E., Ross, J. M., & Jackson-Lee, Y. (2016). Professional Development for the Integration of Engineering in High School STEM Classrooms. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 6(1), 30–44.Google Scholar
  48. Southerland, S. A., Nadelson, L., Sowell, S., Saka, Y., Kahveci, M., & Granger, E. M. (2012). Measuring one aspect of teachers’ affective states: development of the science teachers’ pedagogical discontentment scale. School Science and Mathematics, 112(8), 483–494.Google Scholar
  49. Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.Google Scholar
  50. Sztajn, P. (2011). Research commentary: standards for reporting mathematics professional development in research studies. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(3), 220–236.Google Scholar
  51. Willis, M. B. (2018). Examination of novice science teachers' use of project-based instructional strategies (Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Lowell).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationUniversity of Maryland Baltimore CountyBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.College of EngineeringVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations