Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
ATZ-Fachkongress

Chassis.tech plus 2024


4 Kongresse in einer Veranstaltung

Treffen Sie in München die Fachleute von Chassis, Lenkung, Bremsen sowie Reifen/Räder.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Technology, Knowledge and Learning
Erschienen in: Technology, Knowledge and Learning 3/2015

01.10.2015 | Original research

Project NEO: A Video Game to Promote STEM Competency for Preservice Elementary Teachers

verfasst von: Richard N. Van Eck, Mark Guy, Timothy Young, Austin T. Winger, Scott Brewster

Erschienen in: Technology, Knowledge and Learning | Ausgabe 3/2015

Einloggen

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

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The need for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors for our future workforce is growing, yet fewer students are choosing to major in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics areas, and many are underprepared, in part because elementary school preservice teachers are also underprepared. This National Science Foundation-supported project developed and tested the first of several planned modules of a video game based on the Next Generation Science Standards. Results suggest that preservice teachers who play the video game demonstrate improved science content knowledge. The study also found that preservice teachers had positive attitudes toward video games as instructional tools. Implications for preservice teacher education relating to games and science education are discussed.
Nächster Artikel Using a Flipped Classroom Approach to Support Problem-Based Learning

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
Fußnoten
1
Note that the postinstruction measures also served as the pregame measures.
 
Literatur
AAAS, American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: A project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: Author.
Atwood, V., & Atwood, R. (1995). Pre-service elementary teachers’ conceptions of what causes night and day. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 290.CrossRef
Baker, D., & Leary, R. (1995). Letting girls speak out about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(1), 3–27.CrossRef
Baltra, A. (1990). Language learning through computer adventure games. Simulation and Gaming, 21(4), 445–452.CrossRef
Barbas, A., & Psillos, D. (1997). Causal reasoning as a base for advancing a systemic approach to simple electrical circuits. Research in Science Education, 27(3), 445–459.CrossRef
Barrett, K. A., & Johnson, W. L. (2010). Developing serious games for learning language-in-culture. In R. Van Eck (Ed.), Gaming and cognition: Theories and perspectives from the learning sciences (pp. 282–315). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Beggs, T. (2000). Influences and barriers to the adoption of instructional technology. In Proceedings of the Mid-South Instructional Technology Conference. Murfreesboro, TN (ED446764).
Bell-Basca, B., Grotzer, T. A., Donis, K., & Shaw, S. (2000, April). Using domino and relational causality to analyze ecosystems: Realizing that what goes around comes around. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
Bingimlas, K. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: A review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education, 5(3), 235–245.
Brotman, J. S., & Moore, F. M. (2008). Girls and science: A review of four themes in the science education literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 971–1002.CrossRef
Broussard, S. R., La Lopa, J. M., & Ross-Davis, A. (2007). Synergistic knowledge development in interdisciplinary teams. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, 36, 129–133.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.CrossRef
Brown, A., Davis, J., Onarheim, K., & Quitadamo, I. (2002). Carrots, velvet whips, and propeller beanies: Providing incentives that facilitate institutional change. In D. Willis, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2002 (pp. 1521–1523). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Bunch, W., & Broughton, P. (2002). New instructional technology and faculty development: Negotiating the Titanic through the North Atlantic. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (Vol. 2002, No. 1, pp. 748–751).
Butler, D., & Sellbom, M. (2002). Barriers to adopting technology for teaching and learning. Educause Quarterly, 22(2), 22–28.
Bybee, R. W., et al. (1989). Science and technology education for the elementary years: Frameworks for curriculum and instruction. Washington, DC: The National Center for Improving Instruction.
CCF, Committee on Conceptual Framework for the New K–12 Science Education Standards & National Research Council. (2012). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Christiansen, R. (2002). Effects of technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers and students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 411–434.CrossRef
Cole, N. S. (1997). The ETS gender study: How females and males perform in educational settings. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
CTGV, Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2–10.CrossRef
CTGV, Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992a). An anchored instruction approach to cognitive skill acquisition and intelligent tutoring. In J. W. Regian & V. J. Shute (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to automated instruction (pp. 135–170). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
CTGV, Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992b). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 65–80.CrossRef
CTGV, Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 33(3), 52–70.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.
Dede, C. (2000–2003). Museum-related multimedia and virtual environments for teaching and learning science. [DRL project]. Funded by the National Science Foundation for $359,510.
Dede, C. (2003–2005). Studying situated learning and knowledge transfer in a multi-user environment. [DRL project]. Funded by the National Science Foundation for $784,244.
Dempsey, J. V., & Van Eck, R. (2003). Modality and placement of a pedagogical adviser in individual interactive learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 1–16.CrossRef
Dewey, J. (1971). How we think. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company. Originally published in 1910.
Drury, B. J., Siy, J. O., & Cheryan, S. (2011). When do female role models benefit women? The importance of differentiating recruitment from retention in STEM. Psychological Inquiry: An International Journal for the Advancement of Psychological Theory, 22(4), 265–269.CrossRef
Durndell, A., Glissov, P., & Siann, G. (1995). Gender and computing: Persisting differences. Educational Research, 37(3), 219–227.CrossRef
Ertmer, P. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61.CrossRef
Fraser, B. J. (1981). Test of science-related attitudes (TOSRA). Australia: The Australian Council for Educational Research Limited.
Fullan, M. G., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Gaydos, M., & Squire, K. (2010). Citizen science: Designing a game for the 21st century. In R. Van Eck (Ed.), Interdisciplinary models and tools for serious games: Emerging concepts and future directions. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Gee, J. P. (2007a). Games and learning: Issues, perils and potentials. In J. P. Gee (Ed.), Good video games and good learning: Collected essays on video games, learning and literacy (pp. 129–174). New York: Palgrave/Macmillan.
Gee, J. P. (2007b). Learning and games. In K. Salen (Ed.), The ecology of games: Connecting youth, games, and learning (pp. 21–40). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Gehring, J. (2001). Not enough girls. Education Week, 20(35), 18–19.
Glaser, R. (1994). Learning theory and instruction. In G. d’Ydewalle, P. Eelen, & P. Bertelson (Eds.), International perspectives on psychological science: Vol. 2. The state of the art (pp. 341–357). Hove, UK: Erlbaum.
Graham, C., Culatta, R., Pratt, M., & West, R. (2004). Redesigning the teacher education technology course to emphasize integration. Computers in the Schools, 21(1), 127–148.CrossRef
Green, D. W. (1997). Explaining and envisaging an ecological phenomenon. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 199–217.CrossRef
Hayden, K., & Ouyang, Y. (2009–2012). iQUEST: Investigators for quality understanding and engagement for students and teachers [ITEST project]. Sponsored by University Auxiliary and Research Services Corporation. Funded by the National Science Foundation for $1,493,541.
Heiss, E. D., et al. (1950). Modern science teaching. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Herbart, J. (1901). Outlines of educational doctrine. (C. DeGarmo, trans); A. Lange (Ed). New York: Macmillan.
Hill, H., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371.CrossRef
Jarret, O. S. (1999). Science interest and confidence among preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 11(1), 49–59.CrossRef
Kaiser Family Foundation. (2010). Generation M 2 : Media in the lives of 8- to 18-year-olds. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.
Kennedy-Clark, S. (2011). Pre-service teachers’ perspectives on using scenario-based virtual worlds in science education. Computers & Education, 57, 2224–2235.CrossRef
Kenny, R. F., & McDaniel, R. (2011). The role teachers’ expectations and value assessments of video games play in their adopting and integrating them into their classrooms. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 197–213.CrossRef
Kiili, K. (2007). Foundation for problem-based gaming. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 394–404.CrossRef
Koch, M., Locwood, J., Malhotra, R., Harris, C., & Johnson, K. (2008–2012). Strategies: Girls innovating with technology as entrepreneurial engineers [ITEST project]. Sponsored by SRI International. Funded by the National Science Foundation for $1,599,208.
Leemkuil, H., de Jong, T., de Hoog, R., & Christoph, N. (2003). KM Quest: A collaborative Internet-based simulation game. Simulation & Gaming, 34, 89–111.CrossRef
Lim, K. (2002). Impacts of personal characteristics on computer attitude and academic users information system satisfaction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(4), 395–406.CrossRef
Llewellyn, D. (2002). Inquire within: Implementing inquiry-based science standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Lott, K. H. (2003). Evaluation of a statewide science in-service and outreach program: Teacher and student outcomes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(1), 65–80.CrossRef
Maddux, C., & Johnson, L. (2010). Information technology in higher education: Tensions and barriers. Computers in the Schools, 27(2), 71–75.CrossRef
Mayo, M. J. (2009). Video games: A route to large-scale STEM education? Science, 323(5910), 72–89.CrossRef
McGinnis, J. R., & Watanabe, T. (1999, Spring). The use of research to inform the evaluation of the Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation. Journal of Mathematics and Science: Collaborative Explorations, 2, 91–104.
McGinnis, J. R., Watanabe, T., Roth McDuffie, A., Kramer, S., & Shama, G. (1997). The Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation: Making sense of the enactment of reform in the preparation of specialist teachers of mathematics and science. In P. Rubba, P. Keig, & J. Rye, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1997 Association for the education of teachers of science (pp. 326–347). Pensacola, FL: Association for the Education of Teachers of Science.
McGinnis, J. R., Kramer, S., Shama, G., Graeber, A. O., Parker, C. A., & Watanabe, T. (2002). Undergraduates’ attitudes and beliefs about subject matter and pedagogy measured periodically in a reform-based mathematics and science teacher preparation program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(8), 713–737.CrossRef
Mueller, J., Wood, W., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited integration. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1523–1537.CrossRef
O’Hanlon, C. (2009). Resistance is futile. Technological Horizons in Education Journal, 36(3), 32–36.
O’Neil, H. F., Wainess, R., & Baker, E. (2005). Classification of learning outcomes: Evidence from the computer games literature. The Curriculum Journal, 16(4), 455–474.CrossRef
Perkins, D. N., & Grotzer, T. A. (2000, April). Models and moves: Focusing on dimensions of causal complexity to achieve deeper scientific understanding. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, April, New Orleans, LA. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 441698.
Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (2012). Knowledge to go: A motivational and dispositional view of transfer. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 248–258.CrossRef
Pianta, R. C., Belsky, J., Houts, R., Morrison, F., & The NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2007). Opportunities to learn in America’s elementary classrooms. Science, 315, 1795–1796.CrossRef
Powell, S. D. (2015). Introduction to middle level education (3rd ed.). Pearson: Boston.
Ray, B., & Coulter, G. A. (2010). Perceptions of the value of digital mini-games: Implications for middle school classrooms. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 26(3), 92–100.
Russell, M., O’Dwyer, L., Bebell, D., & Tao, W. (2007). How teachers’ uses of technology vary by tenure and longevity. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(4), 393–417.CrossRef
Schoepp, K. (2005). Barriers to technology integration in a technology-rich environment. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 2(1), 1–24.
Shaffer, D. W. (2006). How computer games help children learn. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef
Smith, S. M., Smith, R., Smith, J., & Orgill, S. (2002). Qualtrics [online software]. Provo, UT: Qualtrics.
Sneider, C., Bar, V., & Kavanagh, C. (2011). Learning about seasons: A guide for teachers and curriculum developers. Astronomy Education Review, 10, 3–22.CrossRef
Squire, K. (2008–2012). CAREER: Scientific role-playing games for 21st-century citizenship [DRL project]. Funded by the National Science Foundation for $795,809.
Stevens, C., & Wenner, G. (1996). Elementary preservice teachers’ knowledge and beliefs regarding science and mathematics. School and Science Mathematics, 96(1), 2–9.CrossRef
Teo, T., Chai, C. S., Hung, D., & Lee, C. B. (2008). Beliefs about teaching and uses of technology among pre-service teachers. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(2), 165–176.CrossRef
Tobias, S., Fletcher, J. D., Dai, D. Y., & Wind, A. P. (2011). Review of research on computer games. In S. Tobias & J. D. Fletcher (Eds.), Computer games and instruction (pp. 127–221). Charlotte, NC: IAP.
Trumper, R. (2006). Teaching future teachers basic astronomy concepts—seasonal change—at a time of reform in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 879–906.CrossRef
Van Eck, R. (2006). The effect of contextual pedagogical advisement and competition on middle-school students’ attitude toward mathematics and mathematics instruction using a computer-based simulation game. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(2), 165–195.
Van Eck, R. (2007). Six ideas in search of a discipline. In M. Spector, N. Seel, & K. Morgan (Eds.), The design and use of simulation computer games in education. New York: Sense Publishing.
Van Eck, R., & Dempsey, J. (2002). The effect of competition and contextualized advisement on the transfer of mathematics skills in a computer-based instructional simulation game. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 23–41.CrossRef
Vogel, J. F., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C. A., Muse, K., & Wright, M. (2006). Computer gaming and interactive simulations for learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34, 229–243.CrossRef
Voss, J. F., & Means, M. L. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction, 16, 337–350.CrossRef
Weinburgh, M. (1995). Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 387–398.CrossRef
Yair, Y., Schur, Y., & Mintz, R. (2003). A “thinking journey” to the planets using scientific visualization technologies: Implications to astronomy education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(1), 43–49.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Project NEO: A Video Game to Promote STEM Competency for Preservice Elementary Teachers
verfasst von
Richard N. Van Eck
Mark Guy
Timothy Young
Austin T. Winger
Scott Brewster
Publikationsdatum
01.10.2015
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Technology, Knowledge and Learning / Ausgabe 3/2015
Print ISSN: 2211-1662
Elektronische ISSN: 2211-1670
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-015-9245-9

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2015

Technology, Knowledge and Learning 3/2015 Zur Ausgabe

Online learning

Using a Flipped Classroom Approach to Support Problem-Based Learning

Original research

Cortical Activations During a Computer-Based Fraction Learning Game: Preliminary Results from a Pilot Study

BookReview

J. A. Larusson, B. White (eds): Learning Analytics: From Research to Practice

Work-in-Progress

Cognitive Demand of Model Tracing Tutor Tasks: Conceptualizing and Predicting How Deeply Students Engage

Book review

Walling, D. R.: Designing Learning for Tablet Classrooms: Innovations in Instruction

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
    Bildnachweise