Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Deliberate Pedagogical Thinking with Technology in STEM Teacher Education

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
STEM Teachers and Teaching in the Digital Era

Abstract

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

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bates, S. P., Galloway, R. K., Riise, J., & Homer, D. (2014). Assessing the quality of a student-generated question repository. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 10, 020105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2015). Building students success: BC’s new curriculum. Author. https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/. 2018.

  • Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative at the University of British Columbia. (2012). CWSEI – UBC. http://www.cwsei.ubc.ca/. 2015.

  • Chachashvili-Bolotin, S., Milner-Bolotin, M., & Lissitsa, S. (2016). Examination of factors predicting secondary students’ interest in tertiary STEM education. International Journal of Science Education, 38, 366–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1143137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chien, Y.-T., Chang, Y.-H., & Chang, C.-Y. (2015). Do we click in the right way? A meta-analytic review of clicker-integrated instruction. Educational Research Review, 17, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.10.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing learning and instruction (Vol. 1, pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 813–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dang, T. (2018). Collaborative Learning Annotation System. Vancouver, BC: UBC ETS.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeCoito, I. (2016). STEM education in Canada: A knowledge synthesis. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 16, 114–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denny, P. (2010). Motivating online collaborative learning. ITiCSE, 37, 300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denny, P. (2018). PeerWise. Auckland, NZ: The University of Auckland. http://peerwise.cs.auckland.ac.nz/. Accessed 22 Apr 2016.

  • Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. E. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332, 862–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. S. (2016). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Penguin Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etkina, E. (2010). Pedagogical content knowledge and preparation of high school physics teachers. Physical Review Special Topics, 6, 020110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fagen, A. P., Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2002). Peer Instruction: Results from a range of classrooms. The Physics Teacher, 40, 206–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, N. D., Adams, W. K., Keller, C. J., Kohl, P. B., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., … LeMaster, R. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 1, 010103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, J., Bates, S. P., Casey, M. M., Galloway, K. W., Galloway, R. K., Kay, A. E., … McQueen, H. A. (2014). Student-generated content: Enhancing learning through sharing multiple-choice questions. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 2180–2194. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.916831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41, 393–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D., & Land, S. (2012). Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. G., & Leagon, M. (2014). Science teacher attitudes and beliefs: Reforming practice. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abel (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 830–847). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalman, C. S., Milner-Bolotin, M., & Antimirova, T. (2010). Comparison of the effectiveness of collaborative groups and Peer Instruction in a large introductory physics course for science majors. Canadian Journal of Physics, 88, 325–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, S. (2013). Khan Academy. http://khanacademy.org/. 2013.

  • Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2015). Technological pedagogical content knowledge. In M. J. Spector (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educational technology (Vol. 2, pp. 782–785). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolikant, Y. B.-D. (2010). “Clickers” as catalysts for transformation of teachers. College Teaching, 58, 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567551003774894

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasry, N. (2008). Clickers or flashcards: Is there really a difference? The Physics Teacher, 46, 242–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasry, N., Mazur, E., & Watkins, J. (2008). Peer Instruction: From Harvard to the two-year college. American Journal of Physics, 76, 1066–1069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J. (1990). The culture of acquisition and the practice of understanding. In D. Kirschner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic and psychological perspectives (Vol. 1, pp. 17–35). London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Let’s Talk Science. (2013). Spotlight on science learning: The high cost of dropping science and math. Toronto, ON: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Let’s Talk Science. (2016). PISA 2015 gives cause for celebration but not complacency. Toronto, ON: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, I., & Tsybulsky, D. (2017). Digital tools and solutions for inquiry-based STEM learning. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-2525-7

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maciel, T. (2015). Smartphones in the classroom help students see inside the black box. APS News, 24, 5–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manny-Ikan, E., Berger Tikochinski, T., & Bashan, Z. (Eds.). (2013). Does the use of ICT-based teaching encourage innovative pedagogical interaction in the classroom? A presentation of CLI-O: Class learning interactions – Observation tool. Jerusalem, Israel: Henrietta Szold Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manny-Ikan, E., & Dagan, O. (2011). Using the interactive white board in teaching and learning – An evaluation of the SMART CLASSROOM Pilot Project. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 7, 249–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinovic, D. (2015). Computer-supported Mathematics learning: Technology as a partner in learning Mathematics. In L. A. H. Rebollar, J. Antonio, J. López, & J. S. Ignjatov (Eds.), Tendencias en la educación matemática basada en la investigación [Trends in research-based mathematics education] (Vol. 1, pp. 53–66). Mexico, Mexico: Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinovic, D. (2016). Educators as researchers: Connecting educational research and practice within a Teacher Education Program. In J. C. McDermott & A. Kožuh (Eds.), Theoretical framework of education (pp. 7–20). Los Angeles, CA: Antioch University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinovic, D., & Manizade, A. G. (2014). Technology as a partner in geometry classrooms. The Electronic Journal of Mathematics and Technology, 8, 69–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinovic, D., Muller, E., & Buteau, C. (2013). Intelligent partnership with technology: Moving from a mathematics school curriculum to an undergraduate program. Computers in the Schools, 30, 76–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinovic, D., & Zhang, Z. (2012). Situating ICT in the Teacher Education Program: Overcoming challenges, fulfilling expectations. Teachers and Teacher Education, 28, 461–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2018). MIT open courseware. Author. https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm. Accessed 6 May 2018.

  • Mazur, E. (1997a). Peer Instruction: Getting students to think in class. In E. F. Redish & J. S. Rigden (Eds.), Changing role of physics departments in modern universities: Proceedings of ICUPE, The University of Maryland (p. 8). College Park, MD: American Institute of Physics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, E. (1997b). Peer Instruction: User’s manual. Prentice Hall series in educational innovation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, E. (2009). Farewell, lecture? Science, 323, 50–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McQueen, H. A., Shields, C., Finnegan, D. J., Higham, J., & Simmen, M. W. (2014). PeerWise provides significant academic benefits to biological science students across diverse learning tasks, but with minimal instructor intervention. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 42, 371–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milner-Bolotin, M. (2012). Increasing interactivity and authenticity of chemistry instruction through data acquisition systems and other technologies. Journal of Chemical Education, 89, 477–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milner-Bolotin, M. (2014). Using PeerWise to promote student collaboration on design of conceptual multiple-choice questions. Physics in Canada, 70, 149–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milner-Bolotin, M. (2016a). Promoting deliberate pedagogical thinking with technology in physics teacher education: A teacher-educator’s journey. In T. G. Ryan & K. A. McLeod (Eds.), The physics educator: Tacit praxes and untold stories (pp. 112–141). Champaign, IL: Common Ground and The Learner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milner-Bolotin, M. (2016b). Rethinking technology-enhanced physics teacher education: From theory to practice. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 16, 284–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2015.1119334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milner-Bolotin, M. (2017). Technology-supported inquiry in STEM teacher education: Collaboration, challenges and possibilities. In I. Levin & D. Tsybulsky (Eds.), Digital tools and solutions for inquiry-based STEM learning (Advances in educational technologies and instructional design (AETID) book series) (Vol. 1, pp. 252–281). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Milner-Bolotin, M. (2018a). Nurturing creativity in future mathematics teachers through embracing technology and failure. In V. Freiman, J. Tassell, & D. Martinovic (Eds.), Creativity and technology in math education (Mathematics education in the digital era) (p. 22). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milner-Bolotin, M. (2018b). Promoting reflective physics teaching through the use of Collaborative Learning Annotation System. The Physics Teacher, 56, 313–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milner-Bolotin, M. (2018c). Science & math education videos for all. UBC. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHKp2Hd2k_dLjODXydn2-OA. Accessed 20 Mar 2018.

  • Milner-Bolotin, M., Egersdorfer, D., & Vinayagam, M. (2016). Investigating the effect of question-driven pedagogy on the development of physics teacher-candidates’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Physics Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 12, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milner-Bolotin, M., Fisher, H., & MacDonald, A. (2013). Modeling active engagement pedagogy through classroom response systems in a physics teacher education course. LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 1, 523–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milner-Bolotin, M., Kotlicki, A., & Rieger, G. (2007). Can students learn from lecture demonstrations: The role and place of interactive lecture experiments in large introductory science courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36, 45–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milner-Bolotin, M., & Milner, V. (2017). Family Mathematics and Science Day at UBC Faculty of Education. Physics in Canada, 73, 130–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller, D. (2018a). This will revolutionize education. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEmuEWjHr5c. 2018.

  • Muller, D. (2018b). Veritasium. https://youtube.com/veritasium. Accessed 5 May 2018

  • NRC. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, USA National Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2016a). PISA 2015 results in focus. Paris, France: Author.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2016b). PISA 2015 results: Excellence and equity in education vol I. Paris, France: Author.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2016c). PISA 2015 results: Policies and practices for successful schools vol II. Paris, France: Author.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Postman, N. (1985). Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show business. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants Part I: A new way to look at ourselves and our kids. On the Horizons, 9, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants Part II: Do they really think differently? On the Horizons, 9, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, H. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education. American Physical Society News, 20, 1–3. https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201111/backpage.cfm?renderfo

  • Schmid, R. F., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Surkes, M. A., … Woods, J. (2014). The effects of technology use in postsecondary education: A meta-analysis of classroom applications. Computers & Education, 72, 271–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, D., Baran, E., Thompson, A., Koehler, M. J., Shin, T., & Mishra, P. (2009, April). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Paper presented at the 2009 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 13–17, San Diego, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Krauter, K., & Knight, J. K. (2011). Combining peer discussion with instructor explanation increases student learning from in-class concept questions. CBE Life Sciences Education, 10, 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-08-0101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Royal Society Science Policy Centre. (2014). Vision for science and mathematics education report. Author. http://www.interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=25298. Accessed 18 Apr 2017

  • Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education Next, 12, 82–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. In Learning in dong: Social, cognitive, and computational perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wieman, C. E., Adams, W. K., Loeblein, P., & Perkins, K. K. (2010). Teaching physics using PhET simulations. The Physics Teacher, 48, 225–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wieman, C. E., Rieger, G., & Heiner, C. (2014). Physics exams that promote collaborative learning. The Physics Teacher, 52, 51–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Marina Milner-Bolotin

Authors
  1. Marina Milner-Bolotin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marina Milner-Bolotin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Seymour Fox School of Education, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

    Yifat Ben-David Kolikant

  2. Faculty of Education, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, Canada

    Dragana Martinovic

  3. Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Marina Milner-Bolotin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Milner-Bolotin, M. (2020). Deliberate Pedagogical Thinking with Technology in STEM Teacher Education. In: Ben-David Kolikant, Y., Martinovic, D., Milner-Bolotin, M. (eds) STEM Teachers and Teaching in the Digital Era. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29396-3_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29396-3_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-29395-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-29396-3

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation