Confusion Over Models
Exploring Discourse in a STEM Professional Development
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 3271948 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Todd Reynolds (0000-0002-0445-1082, University of Wyoming), Andrea C Burrows (0000-0001-5925-3596, University of Wyoming, corresponding author), Mike Borowczak (0000-0001-9409-8245, University of Wyoming) |
| Year | 2022 |
| Volume | 12 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Publication date | 2022-04-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | SAGE Open (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2158-2440 • E-ISSN: 2158-2440 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/21582440221097916 |
| OpenAlex | W4280594437 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 36 |
For 2 weeks in the summer of 2018, K-12 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) teachers ( n = 40) attended a professional development (PD) that included four sessions focused on computer science modeling with follow-up academic year sessions; however, overall, the teachers did not incorporate or utilize modeling means or how as the instructors intended. The purpose of the study is to examine why this occurred, and the authors looked at the teachers' modeling discourse. Using two theories to connect to practice (terministic screens, and schema theory), the authors collected data via the surveys, interviews, and email reflections. The authors analyzed the results via coding to explore participants' concept of models and the potential difficulties of implementing computer modeling in their classrooms. Findings show that the term model was interpreted differently by the PD's faculty team and participants. Further, the authors found that the majority of presenters held differing theories of models than the participants. Participant concepts of models did improve slightly after the PD, but lingering model concepts caused confusion with the anticipated PD results. Conclusions include five general modeling concepts which are presented and explained. Implications are provided showcasing articulated keys for delivering PD that assists in eliminating discursive and theoretical issues. Included are considerations for STEM teacher educators, PD providers, and K-12 teachers. The main study limitations include mixed K-12 teaching participants, distance between participants, a self-selected population, and non-generalizable findings based on qualitative work. Future directions are outlined
Axial coding · Confusion · Grounded theory · Mathematics education · Pedagogy · Population · Professional development · Qualitative research · Sociology · Computer Science · Gender and Technology in Education · Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods · Medicine · Psychology · Teaching and Learning Programming
Handbook of Research on STEM Education
Defining Computational Thinking for Mathematics and Science Classrooms
Toward a more dialogic pedagogy
Effects of Professional Development on Teachers’ Instruction
Assessing teacher education and professional development needs for the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education
Bringing computational thinking to K-12
Computational thinking and thinking about computing
Effective Teacher Professional Development
The Research Act
Comparing the Effects of Analysis-of-Practice and Content-Based Professional Development on Teacher and Student Outcomes in Science
What Makes Professional Development Effective? Results From a National Sample of Teachers
Collaborative Inquiry Learning
An array of qualitative data analysis tools
| Citations per year | 0.5 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2022 - 2024 (3) |
| Highly cited | No |