Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies

2020 Edition
| Editors: Arthur Tatnall

Empowerment and Disempowerment in Peer Observation Within Pre-service Teacher, Technology-Assisted Integrated STEM Education

  • Duncan SymonsEmail author
  • Joanne Blannin
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10576-1_178
  • 4 Downloads

Introduction

STEM education has been receiving increasing attention over recent years. It is seen to offer the potential to enhance development of various “soft’ skills”; sometimes known as twenty-first century skills (Cronin 1996). These skills include, but are not limited to, creativity, innovation, critical thinking, decision-making, problem-solving, metacognition, collaboration, and communication.

STEM education is claimed to present a solution to preparing young people for jobs of the future. The Chief Scientist’s Office of Australia reports that there is a growing demand for STEM qualified employees (Prinsely and Barayai 2015).

Additionally, STEM education is seen as a potential approach to reversing high levels of disengagement with science and mathematics. Disengagement with these areas is reported to begin in primary school (Sullivan et al. 2006; Martin et al. 2012).

With the promise of STEM education as a rationale, academics within the University of Melbourne, Melbourne...

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

References

  1. Boud D, Cohen R, Sampson J (2014) Peer learning in higher education: learning from and with each other. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chaffee D (2009) Structuralist and post-structuralist social theory. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Ciampa K (2014) Learning in a mobile age: an investigation of student motivation. J Comput Assist Learn 30:82–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cosh J (1999) Peer observation: a reflective model. ELT J 53:22–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cronin C (1996) Bourdieu and Foucault on power and modernity. Philos Soc Crit 22(6):55–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Derrida J (2016) Of grammatology. JHU Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  7. Dillenbourg P (1999) What do you mean by collaborative learning? In: Dillenbourg P (ed) Collaborative-learning: cognitive and computational approaches. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 1–19Google Scholar
  8. Ekanayake SY, Wishart J (2015) Integrating mobile phones into teaching and learning: a case study of teacher training through professional development workshops. Br J Educ Technol 46:173–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. English LD (2015) STEM: challenges and opportunities for mathematics education. In: Proceedings of the 39th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, vol 1. PME, pp 4–18Google Scholar
  10. Foulger TS, Waker ML, Burke D, Hansen R, Kim Williams M, Slykhuis DA (2013) Innovators in teacher education: diffusing mobile technologies in teacher preparation curriculum. J Digit Learn Teach Educ 30:21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hammersley-Fletcher L, Orsmond P (2004) Evaluating our peers: is peer observation a meaningful process? Stud High Educ 29:489–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Iksan ZH, Nor SNAM, Mahmud SN, Zakaria E (2014) Applying the principle of “lesson study” in teaching science. Asian Soc Sci 10:108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Martin GA, Double JM (1998) Developing higher education teaching skills through peer observation and collaborative reflection. Innov Educ Train Int 35:161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Martin AJ, Anderson J, Bobis J, Way J, Vellar R (2012) Switching on and switching off in mathematics: an ecological study of future intent and disengagement among middle school students. J Educ Psychol 104:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Prinsley R, Baranyai K (2015) STEM skills in the workforce: what do employers want. Office of the Chief Scientist, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  16. Shortland S (2004) Peer observation: a tool for staff development or compliance? J Furth High Educ 28:219–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Stoll L, Bolam R, McMahon A, Wallace M, Thomas S (2006) Professional learning communities: a review of the literature. J Educ Chang 7:221–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sullivan P, Tobias S, McDonough A (2006) Perhaps the decision of some students not to engage in learning mathematics in school is deliberate. Educ Stud Math 62:81–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Symons D, Pierce R, Redman C (2016) Exploring collaborative online problem solving as opportunity for primary students’ development of positive mathematical identity. Australasian Association for Research in Education AARE, MelbourneGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Melbourne Graduate School of EducationThe University of MelbourneCarltonAustralia

Section editors and affiliations

  • Sam Goundar
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Information ManagementVictoria University of Wellington