Innovative teaching and technology in the service of science: Recruiting the next generation of STEM students

Main Article Content

Thomas McNally


This article examines innovative approaches to augmenting science lessons taught in middle and high school, with special emphasis on theimportance of the early teen years, when experiences both in and out of school have significant impact on career decisions. This is a reflective essay on the recent work of science educators and educational researchers hoping to increase science literacy in American students and inspire them to choose STEM careers. The creativity and breadth of the techniques discussed have important implications for the way in which student teachers are prepared within college secondary education programs.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
McNally, T. (2012). Innovative teaching and technology in the service of science: Recruiting the next generation of STEM students. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(1), 49–58. Retrieved from
Author Biography

Thomas McNally, Kutztown University

English Department, Kutztown University, Kutztown, PA 19530.


Atkinson, R., & Mayo, M. (2010). Refueling the U.S. innovation economy: Fresh approaches to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Retrieved from

Brown, A. (2009). What engineering shortages? The Bent of Tau Beta, Summer, 21-25.

Chi, M. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73-105.

Dorph, R., Goldstein, D., Lee, S., Lepori, K., Schneider, S., & Venkatesan, S. (2007). The status of science education in bay area: Research brief. Lawrence Hall of Science. University of California Berkeley, California. Retrieved from

Falk, J., & Dierking, L. (2010). The 95% solution. American Scientist, 98, 486-493.

Hess, K., Corda, C., & Lanese, K. (2011). Science buddies: Advancing informal science education. Science, 332, 550-551.

Korb, M., & Thakkar, U. (2011). Facilitating scientific investigations and training data scientists. Science, 333, 534-535.

Krajcik, J., & Sutherland, L. (2010). Supporting students in developing literacy in science. Science, 328, 456-459.

Lorch, R., Lorch, E., & Inman, W. (1993). Effects of signaling topic structure on text recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 281-290.

McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality Is Broken. New York: The Penguin Press.

Medina, J., (2008). Brain Rules: 12 Principles for Surviving and Thriving at Work, Home And School. Seattle: Pear Press.

Mervis, J. (2011). Report alters definition of what students should learn. Science, 333, 510.

Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463-466.

Palinscar, A., & Magnusson, S. (2001). Cognition and Instruction: Twenty-Five Years of Progress. Mahwah: Earlbaum.

Pearson, P., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literary and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328, 459-463.

Snow, C. (2002). Reading and Understanding: Toward a Research and Development Program in Reading Comprehension. Rand. Retrieved from

Van den Broek, P. (2010). Using texts in science education: Cognitive processes and knowledge representation. Science, 328, 453-456.

Venville, G., Gribble, S., & Donovan, J. (2005). An exploration of young children’s understandings of genetics concepts from ontological and epistomological perspectives. Science Education, 89(4), 614-633.

Witze, A. (2010). Confronting a third crisis in U.S. science education. Science News, 177(11), 32.

Xie, C., Tinker, R., Tinker, B., Pallant, A., Damelin, D., & Berenfeld, B. (2011). Computational experiments for science education. Science, 332, 550-551.

Yazzie-Mintz, E. (2010). Charting the path from engagement to achievement: A report on the 2009 High School Survey of Student Engagement. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation & Education Policy.