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

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: May 24, 2012
Keywords:
science literacy, informal learning, analogies, metaphors, argumentation, science mentoring, science education

Main Article Content

Thomas McNally
Kutztown University

Abstract

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.

Downloads

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 https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/josotl/article/view/1975
Issue
Volume 12, Number 1
Section
Articles
  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC-BY) 4.0 International, allowing others to share the work with proper acknowledgement and citation of the work's authorship and initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
     
  2. Authors are able to enter separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.

  3. In pursuit of manuscripts of the highest quality, multiple opportunities for mentoring, and greater reach and citation of JoSoTL publications, JoSoTL encourages authors to share their drafts to seek feedback from relevant communities unless the manuscript is already under review or in the publication queue after being accepted. In other words, to be eligible for publication in JoSoTL, manuscripts should not be shared publicly (e.g., online), while under review (after being initially submitted, or after being revised and resubmitted for reconsideration), or upon notice of acceptance and before publication. Once published, authors are strongly encouraged to share the published version widely, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
Author Biography

Thomas McNally, Kutztown University

English Department, Kutztown University, Kutztown, PA 19530.

References

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 http://www.itif.org/files/2010-refuelinginnovation-economy.pdf

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 http://lawrencehallofscience.org/rea/bayareastudy/index.html.

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 www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1465

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.