Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Emerging Technologies for STEAM Education pp 17–37Cite as

Active Learning Approaches to Integrating Technology into a Middle School Science Curriculum Based on 21st Century Skills

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

In order to prepare our next generation of scientists, continual improvements in the curriculum are required to capture students’ interest in the sciences early in their developmental years. Improving students’ conceptual understanding, perceived value and enjoyment of science is critical in creating the scientific literacy that is necessary for the 21st century. This chapter describes active learning strategies that are not currently widely adopted but have been shown to be effective in enhancing middle school deep learning of content, as well as fostering positive dispositions toward science and related fields. The authors propose that mechanisms such as these can be institutionalized in the middle school science curriculum. Reasons for why these more innovative strategies are not currently employed by a wider community and steps conducive to wide scale adoption are discussed. Examples of successful programs that use the strategies of active, engaged learning are described as well as ways in which these innovative approaches can be implemented into the classroom.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Akinoglu, O., & Tandogan, R. O. (2007). The effects of problem-based active learning in science education on students’ academic achievement, attitude and concept learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(1), 71–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alajmi, M. (2010). Faculty members’ readiness for e-learning in the college of basic education in Kuwait. Doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas, August, 2010. http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc31523/?q=Kuwait.

  • Alexander, C., Knezek, G., Christensen, R., & Tyler-Wood, T. (2014). (Unpublished manuscript submitted for review). Piloting Innovative Learning Experiences: Measuring Outcomes of Digital Fabrication Activities across Five Classrooms.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aschbacher, P. R., Ing, M., & Tsai, S. M. (2013). Boosting student interest in science. Kappan Magazine, 95(2), 47–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentley, M., Ebert, E., & Ebert, S. (2007). Teaching constructivist science, K-8: Nurturing natural investigators in the standards-based classroom. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bevan, B., & Semper, R. (2006). Mapping informal science institutions onto the science education landscape. http://www.exploratorium.edu/CILS/documents/RTsystemsBB.pdf.

  • Bloom, B. (1984). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Book I: Cognitive domain. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonwell, C., & Eison, J. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. AEHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, D. C.: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In R. C. Calfee & D. Berliner (Eds.), Handbook on educational psychology (pp. 673–708). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bull, G., Knezek, G., & Gibson, D. (2009). Editorial: A rationale for incorporating engineering education into the teacher education curriculum. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(3), 222–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantrell, P., Pekcan, G., Itani, A., & Velasquez-Bryant, N. (2006). The effects of engineering modules on student learning in middle school science classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 95, 301–309. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00905.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caskey, M. M., & Anfara, V. A., Jr. (2007). Research summary: Young adolescents’ developmental characteristics. Westerville: National Middle School Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casner-Lotto, J., & Barrington, L. (2006). Are they really ready to work? Employers’ perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century U.S. Washington, D. C.: The Conference Board, Inc., the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, Corporate Voices for Working Families, and the Society for Human Resource Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ching-Huei, C., & Howard, B. (2010). Effect of live simulation on middle school students’ attitudes and learning toward science. Educational Technology & Society, 13, 133–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, R. (2002). Impact of technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers and students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 411–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2001). Equity and diversity in K-12 applications of information technology: Key instructional design strategies (KIDS) project findings for 2000–2001, Year Two Report. Denton, TX: Institute for the Integration of Technology into Teaching and Learning (IITTL).

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, R., Knezek, G., Standish, N., Kjellstrom, W., & Tyler-Wood, T. (Unpublished manuscript submitted for review, 2014). Gains in content knowledge from middle school students participating in digital fabrication activities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, R., Knezek, G., & Tyler-Wood, T. (2015). A retrospective analysis of STEM career interest among mathematics and science academy students. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 10(1), 45–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, V., Nicholson, H., Chen, M., & Bitgood, S. (Eds.). (1994). Informal science learning: What the research says about television, science museums, and community-based projects. Dedham: Research Communications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K. S. (2002). Change is hard: What science teachers are telling us about reform and teacher learning of innovative practices. Science Education, 87(1), 3–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C. (2006). Scaling up: Evolving innovations beyond ideal settings to challenging contexts of practice. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 551–556). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C. (2010). Technological supports for acquiring 21st century skills. In E. Baker, B. McGaw & P. Peterson (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier. http://learningcenter.nsta.org/products/symposia_seminars/iste/files/Technological_Support_for_21stCentury_Encyclo_dede.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C., & Rockman, S. (2007). Lessons learned from studying how innovations can achieve scale. Threshold: Exploring the Future of Education, 5(1), 4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. A touchstone book. New York: Kappa Delta Pi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dierking, L. D., & Falk, J. H. (2003). Optimizing youth’s out-of-school time: The role of free choice learning. New Directions for Youth Development, 97, 75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, R. (2006). Linking science & literacy in the K-8 classroom. Arlington: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eiseman, J. W., Fleming, D. S., & Roody, D. S. (1990). Making sure it sticks: The school improvement leader’s role in institutionalizing change. Andover: The Regional Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ely, D. P. (1999) New perspectives on the implementation of educational technology innovations. Paper presented at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology Annual Conference, Houston, TX. ED427775.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science (DBS) and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1081–1110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (1996). Curriculum implementation. In D. P. Ely & T. Plomp (Eds.), International encyclopedia of educational technology (2nd ed.) (pp. 273–281). New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, S. (1997). Problem-based learning: Where did it come from, what does it do and where is it going? Journal for Education of the Gifted, 29(4), 332–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glock, J., Meyer, M., & Wertz, S. (1999). Discovering the naturalist intelligence: Science in the school yard. Tucson: Zephyr Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, K. (2007). Watt-waster phantom loads steal electricity, pour carbons into air. Emory Report, 60(8), n.p. http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/erarchive/2007/October/Oct22/WattWasterPhantom.htm.

  • Hall, G. E., Loucks, S. F., Rutherford, W. L., & Newlove, B. W. (1975). Levels of use of the innovation: A framework for analyzing innovation adoption. Journal of Teacher Education, 26(1), 52–56. doi:10.1177/002248717502600114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller, R., Calderon, S., & Medrich, E. (2003). Academic achievement in the middle grades: What does research tell us? A review of literature. Atlanta: Southern Regional Education Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, S. (2012). The NMC horizon report: 2012 higher education edition. Austin: The New Media Consortium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J. L., Moore, J. L., & Marra, R. M. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River: Merrill Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. T., & Eick, C. J. (2007). Implementing inquiry kit curriculum: Obstacles, adaptations, and practical knowledge development in two middle school science teachers. Science Education, 91(3), 492–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2000). Refining best teaching practices for technology integration: KIDS project findings for 1999–2000. Denton: Institute for the Integration of Technology into Teaching and Learning (IITTL).

    Google Scholar 

  • Knezek, G., Christensen, R., Hancock, R., & Shoho, A. (2000). Toward a structural model of technology integration. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lachapelle, C. P., & Cunningham, C. M. (2007). Engineering is elementary: Children’s changing understandings of science and engineering. Presented at the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Honolulu, HI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning—legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maday, T. (2008). Stuck in the middle: Strategies to engage middle-level learners. Washington, D. C.: The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maeda, J. (2. October 2012). STEM to STEAM: Art in K-12 is key to building a strong economy. Edutopia: What works in education. http://www.edutopia.org/blog/stem-to-steam-strengthens-economy-john-maeda.

  • Means, B. (2003). Technology and constructivist learning. http://www.ncrel.org/cscd/pubs/lead51/51means.htm.

  • Miller, J. (2013). STEAM for student engagement. In R. McBride & M. Searson (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference 2013 (pp. 3288–3298). Chesapeake: AACE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller. J. (2014). Dublin independent school district STEAM camp overview. Dublin ISD, TX. http://www.dublin.k12.tx.us/Page/1424.

  • Miller, J., & Phillips. L. (2014). Middle school STEAM camp perspectives and attitudes towards STEM. In M. Ocha & M. Searson (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference 2014 (pp. in press). Chesapeake: AACE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morales, C. (2007). Testing predictive models of technology integration in Mexico and the United States. Computers in the Schools, 24(3/4), 153–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects committee on K-12 engineering education. Washington, D. C.: The National Academies Press (L. Katechi, G. Pearson, & M. Feder. (Eds.)).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Nolte, P., & Harris, D. (June 2010). Middle schoolers out to save the world, June 30, 2010 Evaluation Report. The University of North Texas, Institute for the Integration of Technology into Teaching and Learning, website: http://iittl.unt.edu/IITTL/itest/msosw_web/evaluations/MSOSW_External_Evaluators_Report_2010.pdf.

  • Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21). (2007). The international ICT literacy panel, digital. Washington, D. C.: Partnership for 21st Century Skills. http://www.p21.org.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21). (2011). P21 common core toolkit: A guide to aligning the common core state standards with the framework for 21st century skills. The partnership for 21st Century Skills, Washington, D. C.: Partnership for 21st Century Skills

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1983). Piaget’s theory. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (4th ed. Vol. 1). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, H., Schweingruber, H., & Keller, T. (Eds.). (2013). The next generation science standards for today’s students and tomorrow’s workforce. Washington, D. C.: Committee on Conceptual Framework for the New K-12 Science Education Standards; Board on Science Education (BOSE); Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (DBASSE); National Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resta, P., Searson, M., Patru, M., Knezek, G., & Voogt, J. (Eds.). (8–10 June 2011). Summary report of the EDUsummIT 2011. Invitational summit held at UNESCO, Paris. edusummit.nl/results2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J. P., & Meier, A. (2000, September). Whole-house measurements of standby power consumption. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Energy Efficiency in Household Appliances, Naples, Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, A. L. (1995). Stages in learning new technology: Naive adult email users. Computers in Education, 25(4), 173–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage, R. N., Chen, K. C., & Vanasupa, L. (2009). Integrating project-based learning throughout the undergraduate engineering curriculum. Engineering Management Review, 37(1), 15–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherrod, S. E., Dwyer, J., & Narayan, R. (2009). Developing science and math integrated activities for middle school students. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40, 247–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silk, E. M., Schunn, C. D., & Strand Cary, M. (2009). The impact of an engineering design curriculum on science reasoning in an urban setting. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(3), 209–223. doi:10.1007/s10956-009-9144-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, J. M. (2012). Foundations of educational technology. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • STEM to STEAM (2014). What is STEAM? Rhode island independent school district: STEM to STEAM initiative. http://stemtosteam.org.

  • Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1). http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ijpbl/vol3/iss1/4/.

  • Surry, D. W., & Ely, D. P. (1999). Adoption, diffusion, implementation, and institutionalization of educational technology. http://www.usouthal.edu/coe/bset/surry/papers/adoption/chap.htm.

  • Tyler-Wood, T. L., Ellison, A., Lim, O., & Periathiruvadi, S. (2011). Bringing up girls in science (BUGS): The effectiveness of an afterschool environmental science program for increasing female student’s interest in science careers. Journal of Science Education Technology, 21(1), 46–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verma, A. K., Dickerson, D., & McKinney, S. (2011). Engaging students in STEM careers with project-based learning—marine tech project. Technology & Engineering Teacher, 71(1), 25–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiske, M. S., & Perkins, D. (2005). Dewey goes digital: Scaling up constructivist pedagogies and the promise of new technologies. In C. Dede, J. Honan, & L. Peters (Eds.), Scaling up success: Lessons learned from technology- based educational innovation (pp. 27–47). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of North Texas, Denton, USA

    Rhonda Christensen & Gerald Knezek

Authors
  1. Rhonda Christensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gerald Knezek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rhonda Christensen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA

    Xun Ge

  2. University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany

    Dirk Ifenthaler

  3. College of Information, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA

    J. Michael Spector

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Christensen, R., Knezek, G. (2015). Active Learning Approaches to Integrating Technology into a Middle School Science Curriculum Based on 21st Century Skills. In: Ge, X., Ifenthaler, D., Spector, J. (eds) Emerging Technologies for STEAM Education. Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02573-5_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation