RESEARCH PAPER
Instructional Methods in STEM Education: A Cross-contextual Study
 
More details
Hide details
1
University of Education Ludwigsburg, Ludwigsburg, GERMANY
Online publish date: 2018-05-12
Publish date: 2018-05-12
 
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2018;14(7):2969–2986
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
This study contributes to an integrative view on STEM subjects from an educational point of view. The focus is on the assessment of instructional methods in relation to knowledge processes. By a questionnaire, computer science teachers and mathematics teachers assessed 20 instructional methods in terms of knowledge processes (build, process, apply, transfer, evaluate, and integrate). The findings show that computer science teachers and mathematics teachers differ on the rating of instructional methods. However, the findings also allow a common way of looking at instructional methods by computer science teachers and mathematics teachers. This is an important result for pre- and in-service training programs and for the introduction of computer science as a new school subject.
 
REFERENCES (60)
1.
Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories. Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Milton Keynes: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
 
2.
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segal, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (2002). Cross-cultural psychology. Cambridge, UK: University Press.
 
3.
Breiner, J., Harkness, M., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949....
 
4.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). The process of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
 
5.
Collins, A., Brown, & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship. Teaching the crafts of reading, writing. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
 
6.
Committee on Integrated STEM Education (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education. Washington: The National Academies Press.
 
7.
Cruickshank, D. R., Jenkins, D. B., & Metcalf, K. K. (2011). The act of teaching. Boston: McGraw Hill.
 
8.
Davis, G. B. (2009). Tools for teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
 
9.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: the tailored design method. New York: Wiley.
 
10.
Ericson, B. (2008). Ensuring exemplary teaching in an essential discipline. Addressing the crisis in computer science teacher certification. New York, NY: ACM.
 
11.
European Schoolnet (2015). Computing our future. Computer programming and coding – Priorities, school curricula and initiatives across Europe. Retrieved on February 24, 2018 from http://fcl.eun.org/documents/1....
 
12.
Federal Ministry of Education and Research (2013). Perspektive MINT. Berlin: BMBF.
 
13.
Fincher, S., & Petre, M. S. (2004). Computer science education research. London: Routledge Falmer.
 
14.
Gagné, R. M., Wagner, W. W., Golas, K., & Keller, J. M. (2004). Principles of instructional design. London: Wadsworth Publishing.
 
15.
Ginnis, P. (2001). The teacher’s toolkit. Classroom achievement. Carmarthen: Crown House Publishing.
 
16.
Gowda, N. S. (2010). Learning and the learner: Insights into the processes of learning and teaching. Delhi: PHI Learning.
 
17.
Gugel, G. (2011). 2000 Methoden für Schule und Lehrebildung. Weinheim: Beltz.
 
18.
Harkness, J., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Mohler, P. (2003). Cross-cultural survey methods. New York: Wiley.
 
19.
Hartmann, W., Näf, M., & Reichert, R. (2006). Informatikunterricht planen und durchführen. Berlin: Springer.
 
20.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. New York: Routledge.
 
21.
Hazzan, O., Lapidot, T., & Ragonis, N. (2011). Guide to teaching computer science: an activity-based approach. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-....
 
22.
Heddens, J. W., Speer, W. R., & Brahier, D. J. (2008). Today’s mathematics: Concepts, methods, and classroom activities. New York: Wiley.
 
23.
Huber, S.G., & Hader-Popp, S. (2007). Unterrichtsentwicklung durch Methodenvielfalt im Unterricht fördern: das Methodenatelier als schulinterne Fortbildung. In A. Bartz,. J. Fabian, S.G. Huber, Kloft, C. H. Rosenbusch, H. Sassenscheidt (Eds.), PraxisWissen Schulleitung (30.31). München: Wolters Kluwer.
 
24.
Huynh, H., & Feldt, L. S. (1976). Estimation of the Box correction for degrees of freedom from sample data in randomised block and split-plot designs. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1, 69–82. https://doi.org/10.3102/107699....
 
25.
Informatics Europe & ACM Europe Working Group (2013). Informatics education: Europe cannot afford to miss the boat. Report of the joint Informatics Europe & ACM Europe Working Group on Informatics Education. New York: ACM.
 
26.
Iron, S., Alexander, S., & Alexander, S. (2004). Improving computer science education. London: Routledge Chapman & Hall.
 
27.
Johnson, C. C. (2013). Conceptualizing integrated STEM education. School Science and Mathematics, 113(8), 367–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12....
 
28.
Joyce, B. R., & Weil, M. (2008). Models of teaching. New York: Prentice-Hall.
 
29.
Kidwell, P. A., & Ackerberg-Hastings, A. (2008). Tools of American mathematics teaching, 1800-2000. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
 
30.
Kirk, E. (1994). Experimental design. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
 
31.
Koffmann, E., & Brinda, T. (2003). Teaching programming and problems solving. In L. Cassel, & R.A. Reis (2003). Informatics curricula and teaching methods. (pp. 125-130). Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-....
 
32.
Ladner, R., & Israel, M. (2016): ‘For All’ in ‘Computer Science for All. Communications of the ACM, 9, 26–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/297132....
 
33.
Lerner, R. M., Easterbrooks, M., Mistry, J., & Weiner, B. (2003). Handbook of psychology, Vol. 6: Developmental psychology. New York: Wiley.
 
34.
Li, Y., Silver, E. A., & Li, S. (2014). Transforming mathematics instruction: Multiple approaches and practices. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-....
 
35.
Menzel, C., & Mayer, R. (2005). The IDEF Family of Languages. In P. Bernus, K. Martins, & G. Schmidt (Eds.), Handbook on Architectures of Information Systems (pp. 215–250). Berlin: Springer.
 
36.
Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (2006). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide. New York: Bass.
 
37.
Meyer, H. (2002). Unterrichtsmethoden. In H. Kiper, H. Meyer, & W. Topsch (Eds.), Einführung in die Schulpädagogik (pp. 109–121). Berlin: Cornelsen.
 
38.
Mueller, K. E., & Barton, C. N. (1989). Approximate power for repeated-measures ANOVA lacking sphericity. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 84(406), 549–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/016214....
 
39.
Mueller, K. E., LaVange, L. E., Ramey, S. L., & Ramey, C. T. (1992). Power calculations for general linear multivariate models including repeated measures applications. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 87(420), 1209–1226. https://doi.org/10.1080/016214....
 
40.
Muller. O., & Haberman, B. (2008). Supporting abstraction processes in problem solving through pattern-oriented instruction. Computer Science Education, 18(3), 187–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/089934....
 
41.
Olson, D. R. (2007). Jerome Bruner: The cognitive revolution in educational theory. New York: Continuum.
 
42.
Petrina, S. (2006). Advanced teaching methods for the technology classroom. New York: Information Science Publishing.
 
43.
Petty, G. (2009). Teaching today: a practical guide. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.
 
44.
Saraswathi, T. S. (2003). Cross-cultural perspectives in human development: Theory, research and applications. New York: Sage.
 
45.
Spohrer, M. (2009). Konzeption und Analyse neuer Maßnahmen in der Fort- und Weiterbildung von Informatiklehrkräften (Dissertation). Technische Universität, München.
 
46.
The Center for Teaching and Learning (2018). 150 teaching methods. Retrieved on February 24, 2018 from http://teaching.uncc.edu/learn....
 
47.
The National Academies of Science Engineering (2018). STEM Integration in K-12 education. Retrieved on February 24, 2018 from https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18....
 
48.
The White House (2016). Obama’s computer science for all initiative is gaining Momentum. Retrieved on February 24, 2018 from https://cacm.acm.org/careers/2....
 
49.
Titterton, N., Lewis, C. M., & Clancy, M. J. (2010). Experiences with lab-centric instruction. Computer Science Education, 20, 2, 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/089934....
 
50.
Treagust, D. (2007). General instructional methods and strategies. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 373–441). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
 
51.
Treagust, D., & Tsui, C.-Y. (2014). General instructional methods and strategies. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education II (pp. 303–320). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
 
52.
US Department of Energy (2007). Building the basic PVC wind turbine. Saint Paul: Kidwind Project.
 
53.
van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 
54.
Vaux, A., & Briggs, C. S. (2006). Conducting mail and internet surveys. In F. T. L. & J.T. Austin (Eds.), The psychology research handbook (pp. 186–209). London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/978141....
 
55.
Windwise Education (2018). Transforming the energy of wind into powerful minds. Retrieved on February 24, 2018 from https://www.scientrific.com.au....
 
56.
Winer, B. J., Brown, D. R., & Michels, K. M. (1991). Statistical principles in experimental design. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
 
57.
Zendler, A. (Ed.) (2018). Unterrichtsmethoden in MINT-Fächern. Berlin: Springer.
 
58.
Zendler, A., & Klaudt, D. (2014). The Booklet I. Instructional methods to computer science education. Berlin: epubli.
 
59.
Zendler, A., Klaudt, D., & Seitz, C. (2018). Instructional methods in STEM and English subjects: A validation study. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (accepted).
 
60.
Zendler, A., Seitz, C., & Klaudt, D. (2015). The Booklet II. Instructional methods to mathematics education. Berlin: epubli.
 
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215