nach oben

Journal of Science Education and Technology

Erschienen in:

01.10.2022

Examining Science and Technology/Engineering Educators’ Views of Teaching Biomedical Concepts Through Physical Computing

verfasst von: Tyler S. Love, Joshua P. Cysyk, Anilchandra Attaluri, Robert D. Tunks, Kevin Harter, Renee Sipos

Erschienen in: Journal of Science Education and Technology | Ausgabe 1/2023

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Programming and automation continue to evolve rapidly and advance the capabilities of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. However, physical computing (the integration of programming and interactive physical devices) integrated within biomedical contexts remains an area of limited focus in secondary STEM education programs. As this is an emerging area, many educators may not be well prepared to teach physical computing concepts within authentic biomedical contexts. This shortcoming provided the rationale for this study, to examine if professional development (PD) had a noticeable influence on high school science and technology and engineering (T&E) teachers’ (1) perceptions of teaching biomedical and computational thinking (CT) concepts and (2) plans to integrate physical computing within the context of authentic biomedical engineering challenges. The findings revealed a significant difference in the amount of biomedical and CT concepts that teachers planned to implement as a result of the PD. Using a modified version of the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI-A) Riggs and Enochs in Science Education, 74(6), 625–637 (1990), analyses revealed significant gains in teachers’ self-efficacy toward teaching both biomedical and CT concepts from the PD. Further analyses revealed that teachers reported increases in their perceived knowledge of biomedical and CT concepts and a significant increase in their intent to collaborate with a science or T&E educator outside of their content area. This study provides implications for researchers and educators to integrate more biomedical and physical computing instruction at the secondary education level.

Vorheriger Artikel A Study of Students Engaged in Electronic Circuit Wiring in an Undergraduate Course

Nächster Artikel Exploration of Students’ Social Presence in Web-Based Discussion for Conceptual Learning of Organic Chemistry

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Agu, P., & Ramsey, J. (2018). A validation of science teaching efficacy belief instrument for biology teachers. Journal of Education and Social Policy, 5(4), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.30845/jesp.v5n4p18CrossRef

Asante, C. K., Semerjian, A., Xu, P., Jackson, D., Cheng, Y., Chasen, A., Shah, A., Brett, J., & Broadstone, M. (2021). An integrated STEM and computing curriculum for the human-technology frontier. Connected Science Learning, 3(2). https://www.nsta.org/connected-science-learning/connected-science-learning-march-april-2021/integrated-stem-and

Asempapa, R. S., & Love, T. S. (2021). Teaching math modeling through 3D-printing: Examining the influence of an integrative professional development. School Science and Mathematics, 121(2), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12448CrossRef

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.

Battulga, B., Konishi, T., Tamura, Y., & Moriguchi, H. (2012). The effectiveness of an interactive 3-dimensional computer graphics model for medical education. Interactive Journal of Medical Research, 1(2), e2,1–12. https://doi.org/10.2196/ijmr.2172CrossRef

Bell, T. P. (2012). A letter from ITEEA’s president. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 71(5), 19.

Biswas, G., Hutchins, N., Lédeczi, Á., Grover, S., & Basu, S. (2019). Integrating computational modeling in K-12 STEM classrooms. Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 1288–1288. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3293757

Brown, P. M., Hamilton, N. M., & Denison, A. R. (2012). A novel 3D stereoscopic anatomy tutorial. The Clinical Teacher, 9(1), 50–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-498X.2011.00488.xCrossRef

Buchanan, W. W. (2013, February 4). Letter from Walter Buchanan to achieve. American Society for Engineering Education. http://www.asee.org/Walter_Buchanan_to_Achieve_re_NGSS_2-4-2013.pdf

Cápay, M., & Klimová, N. (2019). Engage your students via physical computing! Proceedings of the Annual IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, Dubai, UAE, pp. 1216–1223. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2019.8725101

Ching, Y., Yang, D., Wang, S., Baek, Y., Swanson, S., & Chittoori, B. (2019). Elementary school student development of STEM attitudes and perceived learning in a STEM integrated robotics curriculum. TechTrends, 63(5), 590–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00388-0CrossRef

Cunningham, J. B., & McCrum-Gardner, E. (2007). Power, effect and sample size using GPower: Practical issues for researchers and members of research ethics committees. Evidence Based Midwifery, 5(4), 132–136.

Denning, P. J. (2017). Computational thinking in science. American Scientist, 105(1), 13–17.CrossRef

Desimone, L. M., & Garet, M. S. (2015). Best practices in teachers’ professional development in the United States. Psychology, Society, & Education, 7(3), 252–263. https://doi.org/10.25115/psye.v7i3.515

eGFI. (2021). For teachers: Biomedical engineering. Retrieved August 22, 2021, from http://teachers.egfi-k12.org/tag/biomedical-engineering/. Published May 21, 2021.

Fauth, B., Decristan, J., Decker, A.-T., Büttner, G., Hardy, I., Klieme, E., & Kunter, M. (2019). The effects of teacher competence on student outcomes in elementary science education: The mediating role of teaching quality. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86, 102882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102882CrossRef

Ferrer-Torregrosa, J., Torralba, J., Jimenez, M. A., García, S., & Barcia, J. M. (2015). ARBOOK: Development and assessment of a tool based on augmented reality for anatomy. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24, 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9526-4CrossRef

Fontana, J., & Lapp, D. (2018). New data on teacher diversity in Pennsylvania. Research for Action. Retrieved June 25, 2022, from https://www.researchforaction.org/publications/new-data-on-teacher-diversity-in-pennsylvania/

Fuhrmann, T., Ahmed, D. I., Arikson, L., Wirth, M., Miller, M. L., Li, E., Lam, A., Blikstein, P. & Riedel-Kruse, I. (2021). Scientific inquiry in middle schools by combining computational thinking, wet lab experiments, and liquid handling robots. Proceedings of Interaction Design and Children 2021 (pp. 444–449). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3459990.3465180

Genota, L. (2019, January 23). ‘Physical computing’ connects computer science with hands-on learning. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/physical-computing-connects-computer-science-with-hands-on-learning/2019/01

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.569CrossRef

Holzberger, D., Philipp, A., & Kunter, M. (2013). How teachers’ self-efficacy is related to instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 774–786. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032198CrossRef

International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA). (2020). Standards for technological and engineering literacy: The role of technology and engineering in STEM education. https://www.iteea.org/stel.aspx

International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA). (2022). Computational thinking. Retrieved June 25, 2022, from https://www.iteea.org/Resources1507/ComputationalThinking.aspx

Jackson, A., Mentzer, N., & Kramer-Bottiglio, R. (2021). Increasing gender diversity in engineering using Soft Robotics. Journal of Engineering Education, 110(1), 143–160. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20378CrossRef

Kanar, C. (1995). The confident student. Houghton Mifflin.

Karara, A., Nan, A., Goldberg, B., & Shukla, R. (2021). Use of science lab simulation during a two-week virtual biomedical research training summer camp for underserved minority youth: A COVID-19 adjustment. Journal of STEM Outreach, 4(2), 1–15.CrossRef

Kaya, E., Newley, A., Yesilyurt, E., & Deniz, H. (2020). Measuring computational thinking teaching efficacy beliefs of preservice elementary teachers. Journal of College Science Teaching, 49(6), 55–64.

Kelley, T. R., Knowles, J. G., Holland, J. D., & Han, J. (2020). Increasing high school teachers self-efficacy for integrated STEM instruction through a collaborative community of practice. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(14), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00211-wCrossRef

Krüger, J. M., Palzer, K., & Bodemer, D. (2022). Learning with augmented reality: Impact of dimensionality and spatial abilities. Computers and Education Open, 3, 100065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100065CrossRef

Lab-Aids. (2021). Biomedical engineering: Designed for the NGSS. Retrieved August 22, 2021, from https://www.lab-aids.com/biomedical-engineering

Litowitz, L. S. (2014). A curricular analysis of undergraduate technology & engineering teacher preparation programs in the United States. Journal of Technology Education, 25(2), 73–84.CrossRef

Litowitz, L. S., Painter, D., & Kaskel, J. (2021). Comprehensive survey of technology & engineering education in PA. Technology and Engineering Education Association of Pennsylvania Journal, 68(4), 5–10.

Lodi, M., & Martini, S. (2021). Computational thinking, between Papert and Wing. Science & Education, 30, 883–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00202-5CrossRef

Love, T. S. (2017a). Perceptions of teaching safer engineering practices: Comparing the influence of professional development delivered by technology and engineering, and science educators. Science Educator, 26(1), 21–31.

Love, T. S. (2017b, July). Tools and materials in primary education: Examining differences among male and female teachers’ safety self-efficacy. In L. Litowitz, & S. Warner (Eds.), Technology and engineering education – Fostering the creativity of youth around the globe. Proceedings of the 34th pupil's attitude toward technology conference. Philadelphia, PA: Millersville University. Retrieved from https://www.iteea.org/File.aspx?id=115739&v=21dfd7a

Love, T. S. (2022). Examining the influence that professional development has on educators’ perceptions of integrated STEM safety in makerspaces. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 31(3), 289–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-09955-2CrossRef

Love, T. S., & Asempapa, R. S. (in press). A screen-based or physical computing unit? Examining secondary students’ attitudes toward coding. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction.

Love, T. S., Attaluri, A., Tunks, R. D., Cysyk, J., & Harter, K. (2022a). Examining changes in high school teachers’ perceptions of utilizing 3D printing to teach biomedical engineering concepts: Results from an integrated STEM professional development experience. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 23(2), 30–38.

Love, T. S., Bartholomew, S. R., & Yauney, J. (in press). Examining changes in teachers’ beliefs toward integrating computational thinking to teach literacy and math concepts in grades K-2. Journal for STEM Education Research.

Love, T. S., & Bhatty, A. (2019). The crumble: Integrating computer science through engineering design. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 79(2), 16–22.

Love, T. S., & Griess, C. J. (2020). Rosie revere’s orangutan dilemma: Integrating computational thinking through engineering practices. Science and Children, 58(2), 70–76.

Love, T. S., & Hughes, A. J. (2022). Engineering pedagogical content knowledge: Examining correlations with formal and informal preparation experiences. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(29), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00345-zCrossRef

Love, T. S., Roy, K. R., Gill, M., & Harrell, M. (2022b). Examining the influence that safety training format has on educators’ perceptions of safer practices in makerspaces and integrated STEM labs. Journal of Safety Research, 82, 112–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2022.05.003CrossRef

Love, T. S., & Strimel, G. (2016). Computer science and technology and engineering education: A content analysis of standards and curricular resources. The Journal of Technology Studies, 42(2), 76–88. https://doi.org/10.21061/jots.v42i2.a.2

Love, T. S., Tomlinson, J., & Dunn, D. (2016). The orange pi: Integrating programming through electronic technology. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 76(2), 24–29.

Love, T. S., & Wells, J. G. (2018). Examining correlations between the preparation experiences of U.S. technology and engineering educators and their teaching of science content and practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(2), 395–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9395-2

Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of stem integration and education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2

Miller, L. E., & Smith, K. L. (1983). Handling nonresponse issues. Journal of Extension, 21(5). https://archives.joe.org/joe/1983september/83-5-a7.pdf

Miller, R. B., & Wright, D. W. (1995). Detecting and correcting attrition bias in longitudinal family research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57(4), 921–929. https://doi.org/10.2307/353412CrossRef

Moallem, M., Morge, S. P., Narayan, S., & Tagliarini, G. A. (2018). The power of computational modeling and simulation for learning STEM content in middle and high schools. K-12 STEM education: Breakthroughs in research and practice (pp. 916–950). Information Resources Management Association. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-3832-5.ch043

National Consortium for Health Science Education (NCHSE). (2019). National health science standards. Author. Retrieved June 25, 2022, from https://healthscienceconsortium.org/standards/

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.

Novak, J. I. (2019). Re-educating the educators: Collaborative 3D printing education. In I. Santos, N. Ali, & S. Areepattamannil (Eds.), Interdisciplinary and International Perspectives on 3D Printing in Education (pp. 28–49). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-7018-9.ch002

Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: What can be done? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 301–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701293231CrossRef

Papert, S. (1980). Introduction: Computers for children. In Mindstorms children, computers, and powerful ideas (pp. 3–18). Basic Books.

Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism. Ablex Publishing.

Petersson, H., Sinkvist, D., Wang, C., & Smedby, Ö. (2009). Web-based interactive 3D visualization as a tool for improved anatomy learning. Anatomical Sciences Education, 2(2), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.76CrossRef

PLTW Biomedical Science (9–12). (2021). Project lead the way, Inc. Retrieved August 22, 2021, from https://www.pltw.org/our-programs/pltw-biomedical-science-curriculum

Riggs, I. M., & Enochs, L. G. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher’s science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74(6), 625–637. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730740605CrossRef

Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effects of coaching on student achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 17(1), 51–65.CrossRef

Rutherford, T., Long, J. J., & Farkas, G. (2017). Teacher value for professional development, self-efficacy, and student outcomes within a digital mathematics intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 51, 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.05.005CrossRef

Sari, U., Pektas, H. M., Sen, O. F., & Celik, H. (2022). Algorithmic thinking development through physical computing activities with Arduino in STEM education. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10893-0CrossRef

Savasci-Acikalin, F. (2014). A study of pre-service teachers’ science teaching efficacy beliefs during the elementary science laboratory course. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 221–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.038CrossRef

Schmitt, F., Piccin, O., Barbé, L., & Bayle, B. (2018). Soft robots manufacturing: A review. Frontiers in Robotics and A, I, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2018.00084CrossRef

Schunk, D. H. (2020). Learning theories: An educational perspective (8th ed.). Pearson.

Scrimsher, S., & Tudge, J. (2003). The teaching/learning relationship in the first years of school: Some revolutionary implications of Vygotskya’s theory. Early Education & Development, 14(3), 293–312. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1403_3CrossRef

Sengupta, P., Dickes, A., & Farris, A. (2018). Toward a phenomenology of computational thinking in STEM education. Computational thinking in the STEM disciplines (pp. 49–72). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93566-9_4

Simpson, C. (2017). Answering food insecurity: Serving the community with food and knowledge using technology. Purdue Journal of Service-Learning and Engagement, 4(1), 45–49. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284316528CrossRef

Sheskin, D. J. (2011). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures (5th ed.). Chapman and Hall.

Stebbins, M., & Goris, T. (2019). Evaluating STEM education in the U.S. secondary schools: Pros and cons of the project lead the way platform. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 9(1), 50–56.CrossRef

Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314653

TeachEngineering.org. (2007). Biomedical engineering and the human body. Retrieved August 22, 2021, from https://www.teachengineering.org/curricularunits/view/cub_biomed_curricularunit. Published 2007.

Texas Instruments (TI). (2017a). Modeling the four-chamber heart for the TI-Nspire CX. Retrieved June 25, 2022, from https://resources.tistemprojects.com/tistemprojects-home/?resource_id=2175

Texas Instruments (TI). (2017b). Smart irrigation system for TI-Nspire CX. Retrieved June 25, 2022, from https://resources.tistemprojects.com/tistemprojects-home/?resource_id=1802

Threeton, M. D., & Evanoski, D. C. (2014). Occupational safety and health practices: An alarming call to action. Career and Technical Education Research, 39(2), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.5328/cter39.2.119CrossRef

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Barr, M. (2004). Fostering student learning: The relationship of collective teacher efficacy and student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(3), 189–209.CrossRef

Volk, K. (2019). The demise of traditional technology and engineering education teacher preparation programs and a new direction for the profession. Journal of Technology Education, 31(1), 2–18.CrossRef

Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25, 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5CrossRef

Williams, N. (2019). The impact of project lead the way on student science achievement. Dissertation. Missouri Baptist University.

Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–36.CrossRef

Yadav, A., Mayfield, C., Zhou, N., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2014). Computational thinking in elementary and secondary teacher education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 14(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/2576872CrossRef

Ye, Z., Dun, A., Jiang, H., Nie, C., Zhao, S., Wang, T., & Zhai, J. (2020). The role of 3D printed models in the teaching of human anatomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medical Education, 20(1), 335. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02242-xCrossRef

Titel: Examining Science and Technology/Engineering Educators’ Views of Teaching Biomedical Concepts Through Physical Computing
verfasst von: Tyler S. Love
Joshua P. Cysyk
Anilchandra Attaluri
Robert D. Tunks
Kevin Harter
Renee Sipos
Publikationsdatum: 01.10.2022
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Journal of Science Education and Technology / Ausgabe 1/2023
Print ISSN: 1059-0145
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-1839
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-09996-7

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten

Die im Laufe eines Jahres in der „adhäsion“ veröffentlichten Marktübersichten helfen Anwendern verschiedenster Branchen, sich einen gezielten Überblick über Lieferantenangebote zu verschaffen.

Zur Marktübersicht

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2023

Computational Thinking to Learn Environmental Sustainability: A Learning Progression

A Phenomenography Study of STEM Teachers’ Conceptions of Using Three-Dimensional Modeling and Printing (3DMP) in Teaching

Effects of Wearable Hybrid AR/VR Learning Material on High School Students’ Situational Interest, Engagement, and Learning Performance: the Case of a Physics Laboratory Learning Environment

The Impact of Physics Education Technology (PhET) Interactive Simulation-Based Learning on Motivation and Academic Achievement Among Malawian Physics Students

The Go-Lab Platform, an Inquiry-learning Space: Investigation into Students’ Technology Acceptance, Knowledge Integration, and Learning Outcomes

Enhancing Students’ Understanding of Nerve Cells’ Structures and Their Symbiotic Functioning by Using Technology-Enhanced Instruction Incorporating Virtual Labs and Animations

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten