Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
DOI 10.1007/s11165-015-9501-y
Abstract Changes in our global world have shifted the skill demands from acquisition
of structured knowledge to mastery of skills, often referred to as twenty-first century
competencies. Given these changes, a sequential explanatory mixed methods study
was undertaken to (a) examine predominant instructional methods and technologies
used by teacher educators, (b) identify attributes for learning and teaching in the
twenty-first century, and (c) develop a pedagogical framework for promoting meaningful usage of advanced technologies. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected via an online survey, personal interviews, and written reflections with science
teacher educators and student teachers. Findings indicated that teacher educators do
not provide sufficient models for the promotion of reform-based practice via web 2.0
environments, such as Wikis, blogs, social networks, or other cloud technologies.
Findings also indicated four attributes for teaching and learning in the twenty-first
century: (a) adapting to frequent changes and uncertain situations, (b) collaborating
and communicating in decentralized environments, (c) generating data and managing
information, and (d) releasing control by encouraging exploration. Guided by social
constructivist paradigms and twenty-first century teaching attributes, this study suggests a pedagogical framework for fostering meaningful usage of advanced technologies in science teacher education courses.
Keywords Twenty-first century competencies . Cloud applications . Social constructivism .
Science teacher education . Technology-integrated learning
* Miri Barak
bmiriam@technion.ac.il
1
Introduction
Due to rapid advancement in digital technologies and changes in the way communication and
information flows, the twenty-first century is perceived as an era of transformations and reforms. In
the past decade, experts in science education and policy makers have emphasized the need for
advancing science and technology education (NGSS Lead States 2013; NRC 2012a). There is a
growing interest among educators in the development of twenty-first century competencies and their
assimilation in science classrooms, in particular, competencies that are associated with the science
education guidelines and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States 2013). Such
competencies are problem solving, critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and information
literacy. These guidelines encourage science literacy through the use of constructivist and socialconstructivist approaches, emphasizing student-centered instruction, collaboration, and inquirybased learning (NGSS Lead States 2013; NRC 2012b). The new guidelines to teaching science
require substantial changes in teachers education and practice. However, new practices are not
easily implemented and many science teachers still practice teacher-centered and lecture-based
instruction (Barak 2014; Bell et al. 2013).
There are several barriers to effective implementation of new practices in science education.
In some cases, science teachers lack the motivation and/or resources (time, computers, learning
materials, etc.) to make the necessary changes (Bell et al. 2013). But in many cases, science
teachers refrain from applying new practices because they themselves had little exposure to
advanced instructional methods while learning science or engineering at university
(Jimoyiannis 2010; Johnson 2006). At university, students are mostly subjected to traditional
teaching that includes lectures, exercise sessions, and laboratory work. It is therefore the
responsibility of teacher educators to set better examples for innovative ways for teaching.
Using the framework of social constructivism, this study was undertaken to examine the
instructional technologies used by science teacher educators in higher education and to
develop a pedagogical framework that harnesses the strength of advanced technologies for
promoting reform-based practices among pre-service science teachers. The studys main goal
was to develop a pedagogical framework for preparing science education students to teach in
the twenty-first century. Our underpinning assumption was that allowing pre-service teachers
to experience the use of advanced cloud-based technologies and pedagogy, they will be better
prepared to teach in schools in the era of transformations and reforms.
Social Constructivism
Social constructivist perspectives on learning maintain that cognitive development is a social
process and reject the idea that it is an individual process (Atwater 1996; Lemke 2001;
Palincsar 1998; Rogoff 1998). Accordingly, learning is viewed as a social, cultural, and
motivational process, derived from subconscious discourse and communication with people
who are meaningful to the learner (Lemke 2001; Rogoff 1998). Learning relies on significant
relationships in two facets: learning with fellow students and learning with a skillful partner,
such as a teacher or instructor (Palincsar 1998; Palmer 2005). Social constructivism includes a
variety of theories and approaches, such as Vygotskys sociocultural theory (1978); Piagets
(1985), sociocognitive conflict theory and Banduras (1986) social cognitive theory. The
following paragraphs present a short description of each theory.
Sociocultural theory is a prominent learning theory based on the work of Vygotsky (1978) and
extended by others (Lemke 2001; Palincsar 1998; Wertsch 1991). It maintains three main suppositions: the origins of higher mental functions are found in social interactions; learning occurs while
using mediator tools and signs, such as spoken and written words; and learners can advance within
the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) by mediation (Lemke 2001; Wertsch 1991). ZPD is
conceptualized as the distance between a persons cognitive development level as determined by
independent learning and the level of potential cognitive development as determined through
collaboration with peers. According to Vygotskys (1978), ZPD includes the variety of cognitive
operations that a person cannot achieve independently, only with assistance from others.
Socioculturalism focuses on the unity and interdependence of learning and development. Accordingly, learning processes that involve peer interactions challenge the learner to think at a higher level
and move forward to the next cognitive development stage.
Piagets (1985), sociocognitive conflict theory maintains that cognitive conflict, created by
social interaction, is the locus at which knowledge is developed. Sociocognitive conflicts allow
students to become conscious of the relativity and weaknesses of their conceptions as well as
acquire techniques for communicating and negotiating with and about the knowledge they
possess. Differences in learners perceptions and/or gaps between learners existing understanding give rise to a cognitive imbalance, which, in turn, may lead the learner to question
her/his ideas, modify existing ideas, or adopt new ones. The development of new understanding can be explained by cognitive dissonance, generated through interactions with peers
(Palincsar 1998). Accordingly, social interactions that create cognitive conflicts and disagreements are perceived to be the engine driving intellectual development.
While sociocultural theory highlights interactions with emphasis on the exchange of spoken and
written words, and sociocognitive conflict theory highlights cognitive conflicts, social cognitive
theory emphasizes behavioral and environmental factors as the promoter of learners cognitive
development (Bandura 1986). According to this view, learning is shaped by factors within the
learning environment as well as by learners own thoughts and self-beliefs. Learners have the ability
to monitor, control, and change the learning environment and their own behavior in a purposeful
way, according to predefined goals (Bandura 2001). The theory was initially developed with an
emphasis on the acquisition of social behaviors, indicating how people learn through observation of
models. Accordingly, observational learners go through four stages: attention, retention, production,
and motivation. Learning is viewed as most effective when students monitor and control their
motivation and behavior.
Social constructivists believe that interpersonal dynamics and subconscious discourse enhance
cognitive change. They also believe that for meaningful learning, learners should share knowledge
and be actively engaged in large or small groups (Barak and Rafaeli 2004; Ben-Zvi Assaraf 2011;
Palincsar 1998). In the context of science education, social constructivism asserts that meaningful
learning occurs though collaboration and interchange of scientific ideas (Barak and Dori 2009;
Ben-Zvi Assaraf 2011; Palincsar 1998). Taylor and Cox (1997) describe how socially assisted
learning that included peer collaboration, reflective questioning, shared ownership, and feedback,
resulted in higher learning achievements, compared to a control group. In addition, scientific literacy
and higher order thinking can be developed through discourse among learners and collaborative
assignments (Atwater 1996; Barak et al. 2007).
Science teachers with a social constructivist perspective can provide instruction that
facilitates deep learning and conceptual change (Atwater 1996). Science teachers are therefore
encouraged to apply a social constructivist curriculum that support interactions among
learners, scaffolding, and inner discourse (Atwater 1996; Barak and Dori 2009). From this
perspective, the role of the science teacher has been expanded from that of an information
transmitter to include the role of facilitator to challenge ideas and negotiate meaning through
multiple interactions among students (Bell et al. 2013; Palmer 2005). In light of the aforesaid,
in this study, social constructivism provided the benchmark for examining contemporary
predominant instructional methods and technologies used by science and technology teachers.
It also provided the pedagogical framework for promoting meaningful usage of advanced
technologies in the twenty-first century classroom.
cognitive and social competencies with emphasis on advanced technologies. It is the role of
science teacher educators to encourage and inspire reform-based practices and set good examples
for educational innovations (Barak 2014). The professional experience of teacher educators can
provide a pathway for transforming traditional practices to constructivist and social-constructivist
approaches. However, in many science education programs, students spend more time learning in
regular lecture halls, exposed to traditional teaching rather than practicing strategies that may
develop deep scientific understanding (Barak et al. 2006; Jimoyiannis 2010).
Over the past two decades, studies have indicated that information and communication
technologies (ICTs) can support cognitive development essential for deep learning (Bell
et al. 2013; Jimoyiannis 2010). However, there are teacher educators, teachers, and students
that still practice traditional instruction methods (Barak 2014; Bell et al. 2013; Johnson
2006). This situation can largely be explained by disinclination to change familiar instructional approaches (Romeo et al. 2012). This study was therefore undertaken to examine
science teacher educators predominant instructional technologies, in the context of teacher
education in Israel. Guided by international reports (Griffin et al. 2012; NRC 2012a; OECD
2013), this study also sought to identify attributes for teaching and learning in the twentyfirst century. The study focused on significant attributes that should be practiced in teacher
education programs.
Research Goal
This study is the first part of a longitudinal research project that was initiated to develop and
evaluate a pedagogical framework for technology-integrated social constructivism. The current
study describes the rationale that led to the development of the pedagogical framework, its
design, and implementation. Further study is now being conducted among additional courses
in science education for reinforcing external validity and strengthening the generalization of
results across a larger number of participants.
The main goal of the study reported here was to develop a pedagogical framework
for preparing science education students to teach in the twenty-first century. The
operative aim was threefold: to examine predominant instructional methods that
teacher educators apply; to identify significant attributes for teaching and learning in
the twenty-first century; and to develop a social constructivist pedagogical framework
for promoting meaningful usage of advanced technologies. These aims raised the
following research questions:
1. What are the predominant instructional technologies and methods that lecturers in teacher
education institutions apply?
2. What are the significant attributes for teaching and learning that should be practiced in
contemporary teacher education programs according to the teacher educators?
3. What characterizes a pedagogical framework that is based on the integration of social
constructivism and cloud technologies?
Method
The study included two parts: Exploration and Implementation. The first part, Exploration,
examined the predominant instructional technologies and methods used by teacher educators
from humanities and science education. The second part, Implementation, included the design
and development of the social constructivist pedagogical framework, entitled cloud pedagogy,
set to integrate twenty-first century competencies into the curriculum of science teacher
courses. The pedagogical framework was implemented in a 14-week-long course entitled
Methods of Teaching Science and Technology. This course was selected as an exemplary
course since it is a mandatory course and the students come from diverse science and
engineering backgrounds. The course objective was to promote the understanding of science
teaching in middle schools with an emphasis on the integration of advanced educational
technologies. The course topics were: energy, forces and motion, materials, living organisms,
and environmental science, emphasizing multi- and inter-disciplinary approaches to science
education.
Participants
The study included 63 teacher educators who participated in the Exploration part of the
study and 52 science student teachers who participated in the Implementation part. Table 1
presents the participants demographic data according to gender, academic discipline, and
experience in teaching. It also includes participants self-report data about their level of
expertise in ICT: novicethose who are somewhat familiar with educational ICTs and
rarely use them; experiencedthose who are familiar with educational ICTs, somewhat
interested in learning more about new technologies, and use them when necessary; and
expertthose who are very familiar with educational ICTs, very interested in learning
more about new technologies, and frequently use them for teaching. Participants demographics and academic background distribution are presented in Table 1.
Experience in teaching
ICT expertise
Female
53
70
Male
47
30
Science
24
64
11
27
36
Humanities
38
None
87
13 years
24
13
410 years
35
Over 11 years
41
Novice
21
Experienced
Expert
44
35
35
56
educator, what are the key attributes for teaching and learning in the twenty-first century?
(2) Why are they essential in our era? (3) Explain your answers and provide examples.
The interviews among the teacher educators were conducted by the author, taking
30-to-45 min. The data were collected via researcher-logs and audio-tape recorders. In
order to strengthen the validity, a second interviewer collected data in 60 % of the
interviews, depending on the interviewees consent. The transcripts were analyzed
from a descriptive-interpretive perspective while applying the general inductive approach (Thomas 2006).
The research tools in the Implementation part of the study included written reflections
and personal interviews. Both tools were administered among science student teachers to
examine their views about the pedagogical framework. The reflections were written by
52 student teachers at the last session of the course. The personal interviews were
administered a month after the course ended, according to student teachers availability
and consent. Among those who were willing to participate, 13 student teachers were
selected as a representative sample of the course population. Directed by the general
interview guide approach (Gall et al. 2003), the student teachers were asked to answer
the following general questions:
a. Describe your learning experience in terms of group activities, accomplishments, and
difficulties. Relate your answer to each component of the social constructivist pedagogical
framework.
b. Have you experienced the need to adapt to frequent changes? Collaborate in a
decentralized environment? Generate data and manage information? Release control
and encourage exploration? Explain your answers and provide examples.
c. Will you apply this pedagogical frameworkstudio instruction, embedded assessment,
and cloud applicationsin future teaching? If yes, in what way? If no, why?
The interviews took 30-to-45 min, using researcher-logs and audio-tape recorders for
data collection. Unlike the interviews in the first part of the study, the interviews in this
part were analyzed according to the deductive (not inductive) content analysis approach
(Hsieh and Shannon 2005). They were conducted to validate the key attributes for
teaching and learning in the 21st century that were identified in the first part of the
study. For the analysis process, the author, together with a research assistant, read the
texts a number of times and highlighted sentences that indicated student teachers views
about the social constructivist pedagogical framework. The data supporting the categories were gathered and re-divided into emerging sub-categories. Differences between
researchers during the joint categorization process were discussed by three researchers
until full agreement was reached.
Findings
This section includes three parts, each addresses one of the research questions. The first two
parts describe the predominant instructional technologies and methods that teacher educators
apply, and the four attributes they identified for learning and teaching in the twenty-first
century. The third part provides a description of the social constructivist pedagogical framework and students views about it.
Fig. 1 Teacher educators usage of technologies and their expectations from student teachers, *p<0.001
philosophy; and that it has potential to improve the quality of teaching and learning.
However, less than 50 % believe that technologies can enhance the communication
between teachers and students and among the students themselves. In addition, less than
50 % feel that they have sufficient pedagogical knowledge to efficiently integrate ICTs in
their courses, or that they have the required technical knowledge. Data indicated that
among the teacher educators, five (8 %) cling systematically to traditional face-to-face
practices with no inclination for change.
No statistically significant differences were found among teacher educators from different
disciplines related to their attitudes about the use of technologies. However, teacher educators
with teaching experience of more than 10 years indicated greater concern about not having the
required technological knowledge. This difference was statistically significant (2(2)=10.70,
p<0.001). Conversely, teacher educators with teaching experience of only one-to-four years
indicated greater concern about not having sufficient pedagogical knowledge, although the
statistical significance of this difference was not strong (2(2)=5.90, p=0.052). Findings
indicated that the use of advanced technologies matches the teaching philosophy of teacher
educators who are ICT experts, significantly more strongly than their peers (2(2)=6.50,
p<0.05). The ICT experts indicated high confidence about having sufficient pedagogical and
technological knowledge to efficiently integrate ICT in their courses compared to their peers
(2(2)=38.40, p<0.001).
The above results led to a series of interviews among teacher educators who are also ICT experts,
to identify key attributes for teaching and learning in the twenty-first century.
A.K., a math teacher educator with 13 years of experience, asserted that: Learners need to
manage a huge amount of information. One can literally find everything on the web. Students
need to be able to validate the information, manage it, and create their own entries and posts.
S.D. discussed the use of thin client devices: It is important to harness personal
devices such as smart phones and i-pods The use of such devices for
education makes learning more personal and relevant for the learner. They
can take relevant pictures, create animations, and design learning games they
control their own learning environment.
D. Releasing control by encouraging explorationbeing able to openly and fearlessly
explore new venues, uncover information and relationships that are new to the learner,
discover unexpected lessons, make mistakes, and learn from them.
E.M., a science teacher educator with 7 years of experience, asserted that: Teachers
should be prepared to be surprised, not knowing in advance all the answers and be
prepared to act accordingly. Teachers nowadays should not be trained to lead the way
to the students but to allow them to explore different paths. This requires a lot of
knowledge, experience, and confidence on behalf of the teacher. They should be able
to evaluate risks, minimize them, and allow students to experience the real world.
Likewise, O.P. asserted that: The ability to explore new venues, to encourage students to
leave the classroom and not to be afraid to explore unfamiliar grounds, this is one of the
most important attributes for teaching and learning in the 21st century.
R.B. asserted that: It is important that teachers release control. They need to understand
that they do not have to manage the students but to help them better develop cognitively
and socially. This can be done if students have the opportunity to discover unexpected
information, make mistakes, and learn from them.
All the ICT experts emphasized the need for efficient use of advanced technologies, especially
the use of web-based cloud applications, for enhancing active and collaborative learning. This view
guided the design and development of a social constructivist pedagogical framework for promoting
meaningful usage of advanced technologies.
Fig. 3 The cloud pedagogical framework: the social constructivism inner layer and the techno-instructional outer
layer
The second layer, the techno-instructional layer, details how the social constructivist
principles, described above, can be implemented in a hybrid learning environment by using
a distinctive teaching method, assessment approach, and learning environment. Accordingly,
this layer includes three components: studio instruction, embedded assessment, and cloud
applications, as detailed below.
I. Studio instructionan instructional method that consists of short lecture sessions
interchanged with long periods of active learning. In the short lecture session, 20-to30 min long, the lecturer explains one or two main concepts. Then after, the lecturer
gives a class assignment that encourages the implementation of the new concepts,
and so the active learning session begins. In the active learning sessions, about
30 min long, the lecturer acts as a guide, encouraging students to express new ideas
and ask questions (Barak et al. 2006). This approach makes no distinction between
the instructional methods and the content that is central to scientific practice. It is
aligned with the constructivism approach since it instigates active, hands-on, experiential, and collaborative learning (Steffe and Gale 1995). In studio-based learning,
learners are engaged in assignments that require inquiry and problem-solving skills
(Barak et al. 2006; Rowe 1987). Students propose solutions through the design of
artifacts, which may be physical, textual, and/or conceptual. Through discourse,
students experience failure and improvement, thus constructing knowledge and
conceptual understanding (Rowe 1987).
II. Embedded assessmentan assessment approach that includes both formative and summative evaluations, embedded in and linked to learning activities. It is a collection of
assessment tools that are administrated at different points throughout a course, facilitating
the process of self-discovery of strengths and weakness (Barak and Dori 2009; Segers
et al. 2003). It is based on the idea that assessment is conducted for learning and not of
learning (Black and Wiliam 1998), namely, that knowledge is constructed during the
assessment process and that students discover knowledge for themselves. Following a
continuous process of feedback from the teacher and peers, the students can refine their
work and resubmit a better and improved outcome. This assessment approach acknowledges the diverse academic, cultural, and social needs of learners as well as the context in
which the learning occurs. It has potential to scaffold effective learning and high achievement (Barak and Dori 2009; Segers et al. 2003).
III. Cloud applicationsare conceptualized as a unique family of ICT tools that allow
synchronized collaborative learning in digital environments (Chao 2012). Cloud
applications facilitate real-time collaborative writing and editing where several users
can simultaneously work on the same file. Since they are browser-based applications,
there is no need for local installation, and they can be used on mobile and thin
devices. They facilitate studio instruction since they enable active and experiential
learning. Teachers, as shared editors, can track students progress and provide realtime feedback.
As a case test, this pedagogical framework was implemented in a course entitled:
Methods of Teaching Science and Technology, which included 52 science student teachers.
The students were divided by the instructors into 13 heterogeneous groups of four. Each
group included students from diverse STEM disciplines, teaching experience, and ICT
expertise. The students were not familiar with each other at the beginning of the semester
and they had to learn new content and work with new and advanced technologies. Their
learning environment included a physical environmentthe classroom, and a virtual
environmenta Google document that was used as a digital binder for producing
and displaying all their learning assignments. In this course, the learning assignments
included the following: a literature review on a scientific concept or principle (i.e., heat
balance, energy conservation, water purification, blood flow), the design of an inquirybased laboratory experiment, the design of a learning game, the production of a short
video clip (see Fig. 4), and a digital mind-map that summarized related concepts. The
digital binder, in the form of a shared Google doc, allowed the teaching team to provide
constructive comments and timely formative feedback. The digital binder served as a
collection of text, photos, and links to web-based audio and video recordings that each
group of students co-created.
At the end of the 14-week semester, the science student teachers were asked to
express their views about the pedagogical framework that they experienced as students. A deductive content analysis of the personal interviews and written reflections
identified all four attributes of the framework within the students learning experience.
Selected examples are presented in the paragraphs below. All names are pseudonyms.
Fig. 4 Examples of students videos of laboratory experiments: a seed germination; b water purification; c water
uptake in plants; d states of matter
necessary for working and learning in the twenty-first century (NRC 2012a; OECD 2013). The
integrative and collaborative approach of the pedagogical framework follows studies that
claim that social constructivism and advanced technologies, woven together, should be a
vital part of any teacher education program (Barak 2014; Niess 2005; Polly et al. 2010).
The science student teachers who experienced learning via the cloud-pedagogy framework asserted positive views about it and its implementation in their present (teacher
education) or future (school-based) classrooms. Since they were actively engaged in
learning, the transfer of knowledge and skills from academia to schools is more likely to
happen. This follows the study of Kolb et al. (2001) that emphasized direct experience as
a process for constructing knowledge and transferable skills.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Question 3: How strongly do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements
about the use of advanced educational technologies?
Scale: Strongly agree (5), Agree (4), Undecided (3), Disagree (2), Strongly disagree (1)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
References
Atwater, M. M. (1996). Social constructivism: infusion into the multicultural science education research agenda.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 821837.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: an agentive perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 126.
Barak, M. (2014). Closing the gap between attitudes and perceptions about ICT-enhanced learning among
preservice STEM teachers. The Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(1), 114. doi:10.1007/
s10956-013-9446-8.
Barak, M., & Rafaeli, S. (2004). Online question-posing and peer-assessment as means for Web-based knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 61(1), 84103.
Barak, M., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). Enhancing higher order thinking skills among in-service science education
teachers via embedded assessment. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(5), 459474. doi:10.1007/
s10972-009-9141-z.
Barak, M., Lipson, A., & Lerman, S. (2006). Wireless laptops as means for promoting active learning in large
lecture halls. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 245264. doi:10.1080/15391523.
2006.10782459.
Barak, M., Ben-Chaim, D., & Zoller, U. (2007). Purposely teaching for the promotion of higher-order thinking
skills: a case of critical thinking. Research in Science Education, 37(4), 353369. doi:10.1007/s11165-0069029-2.
Barak, M., & Hussein- Farraj, R. (2013). Integrating modelbased learning and animations for enhancing students
understanding of proteins structure and function. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 619636. doi:10.
1007/s11165-012-9280-7.
Bell, R. L., Maeng, J. L., & Binns, I. C. (2013). Learning in context: technology integration in a teacher
preparation program informed by situated learning theory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3),
348379.
Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O. (2011). Learning from failure: a case study of where an extracurricular science program went
wrong. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 592607. doi:10.1007/s10956-011-9327-y.