Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Research and design activities are becoming more important in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) and D&T (design and technology) education. Research and design are often taught separately from each other, while in professional STEM practices, many projects are neither ‘research only’ or ‘design only’—they are both. In this study, we aimed to provide insights in teachers’ personal and shared knowledge on how research and design can be connected. To this end, we examined the development of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and beliefs of six teachers of the Dutch STEM subject O&O (research and design), who participated in a professional learning community (PLC) aimed at connecting research and design within this subject. Results of pre and post-PLC interviews showed that teachers’ personal PCK was very diverse, probably due to their different beliefs, backgrounds and teaching contexts. Through jointly designing instructional strategies for connecting research and design, teachers contributed to a collective knowledge base. The results of this study indicate that a professional learning community in which teachers with varying backgrounds construct knowledge and instructional strategies together, can be a powerful method to enhance personal PCK and collective knowledge. These are promising outcomes in the light of shaping professional development activities for STEM and D&T teachers, which in turn aims to provide students with a holistic and realistic view on current professional STEM fields.
Anderson, C. W. (2003). Teaching science for motivation and understanding. East Lansing: Michigan State University. Retrieved April 19, 2018, from www.msu.edu/~andya/TEScience/Assets/Files/TSMU.pdf.
Apedoe, X. S., Reynolds, B., Ellefson, M. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Bringing engineering design into high school science classrooms: The heating/cooling unit. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(5), 454–465.
Barendsen, E., & Henze, I. (2017). Relating teacher PCK and teacher practice using classroom observation. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9637-z.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.
Borko, H., Mayfield, V., Marion, S., Flexer, R., & Cumbo, K. (1997). Teachers’ developing ideas and practices about mathematics performance assessment: Successes, stumbling blocks, and implications for professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(3), 259–278.
Burghardt, M. D., & Hacker, M. (2004). Informed design: A contemporary approach to design pedagogy as the core process in technology. Technology Teacher, 64(1), 6–8.
Butler, D. L., Lauscher, N. H., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Beckingham, B. (2004). Collaboration and self-regulation in teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(5), 435–455.
Carlson, J. & Daehler, K. R. (2019). The refined consensus model of pedagogical content knowledge in science education. In A. Hume, R. Cooper & A. Boroswki (Eds.), Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers’ professional knowledge (pp. 77–92). Singapore: Springer.
Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947–967.
Coenders, F., Terlouw, C., Dijkstra, S., & Pieters, J. (2010). The effects of the design and development of a chemistry curriculum reform on teachers’ professional growth: A case study. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(5), 535–557.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Five qualitative approaches to inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design, 2, 53–80.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797.
De Jong, T., & Van der Voordt, T. (2002). Criteria for scientific study and design. Ways to study and research (pp. 19–32). Delft: DUP Science Publishers.
De Vries, M. J. (2005). Teaching about technology: An introduction to the philosophy of technology for non-philosophers (Vol. 27). Springer.
De Vries, M. J. (2006). Two decades of technology education in retrospect. In M. J. de Vries & I. Mottier (Eds.), International handbook of technology education: Reviewing the past twenty years (pp. 3–11). Rotterdam, Taipei: Sense Publishers.
De Vries, M. J. (2015). Research challenges for the future. In P. J. Williams, A. Jones, & C. Buntting (Eds.), The future of technology education (pp. 253–269). Dordrecht: Springer.
Downton, P. (2003). Design research. Melbourne: RMIT University Press.
Doyle, A., Seery, N., Gumaelius, L., Canty, D., & Hartell, E. (2018). Reconceptualising PCK research in D&T education: proposing a methodological framework to investigate enacted practice. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9456-1.
Engelbrecht, W., & Ankiewicz, P. (2016). Criteria for continuing professional development of technology teachers’ professional knowledge: A theoretical perspective. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(2), 259–284.
Faikhamta, C. (2013). The development of in-service science teachers’ understandings of and orientations to teaching the nature of science within a PCK-based NOS course. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 847–869.
Fallman, D. (2003). Design-oriented human–computer interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 225–232). ACM.
Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., Levi, L., & Fennema, E. (2001). Capturing teachers’ generative change: A follow-up study of professional development in mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 653–689.
Frankel, L., & Racine, M. (2010). The complex field of research: For design, through design, and about design. In Proceedings of the Design Research Society (DRS) international conference (No. 043).
Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Secondary teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about subject matter and their impact on instruction. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 51–94). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gess-Newsome, J. (2015). A model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK: Results of the thinking from the PCK Summit. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education. London: Routledge.
Gunckel, K. L. (2010). Using experiences, patterns, and explanations to make school science more like scientists’ science. Science and Children, 48(1), 46–49.
Hathcock, S. J., Dickerson, D. L., Eckhoff, A., & Katsioloudis, P. (2015). Scaffolding for creative product possibilities in a design-based STEM activity. Research in Science Education, 45(5), 727–748.
Henze, I., van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2007). Science teachers’ knowledge about teaching models and modelling in the context of a new syllabus on public understanding of science. Research in Science Education, 37(2), 99–122.
Henze, I., Van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2008). Development of experienced science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of models of the solar system and the universe. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1321–1342.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
Hultén, M., & Björkholm, E. (2016). Epistemic habits: primary school teachers’ development of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) in a design-based research project. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(3), 335–351.
International Technology Education Association (ITEA). (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology (3rd ed.). Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association (ITEA).
Jones, M. G., & Legon, M. (2014). Teacher attitudes and beliefs: Reforming practice. In N. Lederman & S. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science teaching (pp. 830–847). New York: Routledge.
Justi, R., & Van Driel, J. (2005). The development of science teachers’ knowledge on models and modelling: Promoting, characterizing, and understanding the process. International Journal of Science Education, 27(5), 549–573.
Kagan, D. M. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: Inferences concerning the Goldilocks Principle. Review of Educational Research, 60, 419–469.
Käpylä, M., Heikkinen, J. P., & Asunta, T. (2009). Influence of content knowledge on pedagogical content knowledge: The case of teaching photosynthesis and plant growth. International Journal of Science Education, 31(10), 1395–1415.
Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., et al. (2003a). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design (tm) into practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547.
Kolodner, J. L., Gray, J., & Fasse, B. B. (2003b). Promoting transfer through case-based reasoning: Rituals and practices in learning by design classrooms. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 3(2), 119–170.
Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J. G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 75–95.
Lewis, H. (1990). A question of values. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Loughran, J. J., Berry, A., & Mulhall, P. (2006). Understanding and developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Love, T. S., & Wells, J. G. (2018). Examining correlations between preparation experiences of US technology and engineering educators and their teaching of science content and practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(2), 395–416.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht: Springer.
Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schuun, C. D. (2008). Middle-school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 71–85.
Mulhall, P., Berry, A., & Loughran, J. (2003). Frameworks for representing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. In Asia- Pacific forum on science learning and teaching (Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 1–25). Department of Science and Environmental Studies, The Education University of Hong Kong.
National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K- 12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press. Retrieved February 2, 2015, from https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13165/a-framework-for-k-12-science-education-practices-crosscutting-concepts.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press. Retrieved November 26, 2014, from https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18290/next-generation-science-standards-for-states-by-states.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.
Park, S., & Chen, Y.-C. (2012). Mapping out the integration of the components of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): Examples from high school biology classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 922–941.
Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102–119). New York: Macmillan.
Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Rollnick, M., Toerien, R., & Kind, V. (2017). The impact of a professional development intervention on teachers’ knowledge of chemical equilibrium. Paper presented at the 12th conference of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), Dublin, Ireland.
Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-design, 4(1), 5–18.
Schneider, B. (2007). Design as practice, science and research. In R. Michel (Ed.), Design research now (pp. 207–218). Basel: Birkhäuser.
Shernoff, D. J., Sinha, S., Bressler, D. M., & Ginsburg, L. (2017). Assessing teacher education and professional development needs for the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 13.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23.
SLO (Nationaal Expertisecentrum Leerplanontwikkeling), Bruning, L. & Michels, B. (2014). Handreiking schoolexamen Onderzoek & ontwerpen in de tweede fase (Instruction manual for school exams Research & design in upper secondary education). Retrieved February 6, 2019, from http://www.slo.nl/organisatie/recentepublicaties/handreikingonderzoek/.
Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 4.
Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 963–980.
Van Breukelen, D., Schure, F., Michels, K., & de Vries, M. (2016). The FITS model: An improved learning by design approach. Australasian Journal of Technology Education, 3(1).
Van Dooren, E., Boshuizen, E., van Merriënboer, J., Asselbergs, T., & van Dorst, M. (2014). Making explicit in design education: Generic elements in the design process. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(1), 53–71.
Van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137–158.
Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–695.
Veal, W. R. (2004). Beliefs and knowledge in chemistry teacher development. International Journal of Science Education, 26(3), 329–351.
Vezino, B. (2018). Preservice and mentor teachers co- learning to teach engineering in elementary classrooms. Students’ attitudes towards doing research and design activities. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) 2018 Annual International Conference, Atlanta, USA.
Vossen, T. E., Henze, I., Rippe, R. C. A., Van Driel, J. H., & De Vries, M. J. (2018). Attitudes of secondary school students towards doing research and design activities. International Journal of Science Education, 40(13), 1629–1652.
Wahbeh, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2014). Revisiting the translation of nature of science understandings into instructional practice: Teachers’ nature of science pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 36(3), 425–466.
Williams, J., Eames, C., Hume, A., & Lockley, J. (2012). Promoting pedagogical content knowledge development for early career secondary teachers in science and technology using content representations. Research in Science & Technological Education, 30(3), 327–343.
Willison, J., & O’Regan, K. (2008). The researcher skill development framework. Retrieved January 14, 2016, from https://www.adelaide.edu.au/rsd/framework/rsd7/.
- Finding the connection between research and design: the knowledge development of STEM teachers in a professional learning community
T. E. Vossen
M. J. De Vries
J. H. Van Driel
- Springer Netherlands
International Journal of Technology and Design Education
Print ISSN: 0957-7572
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-1804
BorgWarner, dSpace, FEV, Valeo Logo/© Valeo, TE Connectivity Corporation/© TE Connectivity Corporation, Smalley