Online STEM Integration: Pre-Service Science Teachers in the Director's Chair

Transcription

1 Online STEM Integration: Pre-Service Science Teachers in the Director's Chair Dr. Andrea C. Burrows Secondary Science Education, College of Secondary Education The University of Wyoming, Wyoming, USA Dr. Mike Borowczak Data Scientist/Chief Engineer Erebus Labs, Wyoming, USA Abstract: This paper outlines the development, implementation, and assessment of a newly created online college course to teach science laboratory and demonstration skills and techniques to pre-service science teachers. The participants in the class were required, along with more traditional coursework, to create six science content videos (post to YouTube) and critique the videos (using YouDemo.info) of their classmates. The creation, direction, and critique of the videos became the highlight of the course. Overall, the participants reported that the video production allowed them to connect more closely with the science content as well as improve their ability to teach that science content to others. The instructor learned, through an action research study, four major lessons about video productions and critique, which are outlined. Implications for moving towards preservice science teacher video creation and critique are also discussed. Introduction Teaching is sometimes like directing film, since the instructor usually controls all of the aspects of the material while guiding the attention and behavior of the students. The most effective instructors, working with any grade level K-20, consider differing students needs and how to meet them when designing and implementing courses. This article describes how an online college laboratory and demonstration course was developed, implemented, and assessed, and shares the struggles and successes of teaching action skills (e.g. gaining student attention) and techniques (e.g. safety) through personal, online (e.g. YouTube and YouDemo.info) means. This course required guiding pre-service secondary science teachers, referred to as participants for the remainder of the article, to display laboratory and demonstration techniques to each other online as the first step to using the techniques in a science classroom with their future K-12 students. In turn, they adopted the video creation and critique technique, so that their future K-12 students could become the directors of short science films. As Clary and Wandersee (2010) remind us, A new challenge in science education at the university level is the implementation of effective field components within online courses (p. 50). Often, instructors strive to offer individualized student instruction and attention to create more effective learning environments (Arends, 2009). One effective learning environment is when pre-service teachers using video move from a didactic perspective of teaching toward a student-centered perspective (Friel and Carboni, 2000). The online field component, or video, of the outlined course was designed to engage the participants to guide their future K-12 students to interact more meaningfully with the science content while showcasing real world applications. STEM Integration What is STEM integration? According to Burrows and Slater (in press) integrated STEM (or istem) is integrated teaching of STEM and non-stem subjects, interactions among students and teachers, and investigations with holistic and authentic approaches. In this paper the authors show integration of STEM subjects - especially science, technology, and engineering practices - along with the student teacher context, and finally the authentic

2 creation and critique of demonstrations through videos. Thus, the authors used an istem framework for the foundation of this course. The e-learning connection in this istem approach isn't only the creation of the videos, or the critiquing of peer videos, but in the interactions and authentic practices with the STEM subjects. There are other articles that also highlight the importance of STEM integration and authentic practices in context (Burrows, Breiner, Keiner, & Behm, 2014; Burrows, Borowczak, Slater, & Haynes, 2012; Burrows, Herfat, Truesdell,& Miller, 2013; and Burrows, Wickizer, Meyer, & Borowczak, 2013). Although this paper describes pre-service teachers creating and critiquing videos, the act of creating and critiquing videos has been highlighted in the literature for at least a decade (e.g. Sherin & van ES, 2005; Santagata & Guarino, 2011) and is not the novel innovation highlighted here. What is innovative in the approach presented is the ability for the pre-service teachers to get real-time feedback on their videos in addition to the creation and critique of the videos during an authentic, integrated STEM, interactive experience. Development of the Course Scientific literacy, supported by laboratories and demonstrations, is an important part of the K-20 science curriculum (AAAS, 1993; Hodson, 2009; Martin-Hansen, 2002; NGSS, 2014; NRC, 2000; Singer, Hilton, & Schweingruber, 2005; Singer, Lotter, Feller, & Gates, 2011). The course instructor (first author) adapted a face-toface course into an online college course for pre-service science teachers that focused specifically on STEM laboratory and demonstration techniques. The instructor had previously taught these skills to undergraduates in the college classroom through modeling, participation, and interaction. Initially she thought that an online course on laboratory and demonstration techniques would be difficult to execute, but the idea of the participants creating online videos as class focal point seemed to have potential to make authentic interaction possible. The online video products created by the participants were peer reviewed (Figure 1) and critiqued using traditional means and YouDemo.info (created by the authors), and this aspect became the foundation of the course. The participants read America's Lab Report (Singer, Hilton, & Schweingruber, 2005; free online: as they created science content videos throughout the course. It was the peer critique of the laboratory and demonstration videos using YouDemo.info - that brought the science content and pedagogy up for discussion online. On a discussion board for the online class, 50% of the participants posted items that included: content they were teaching, questions about the content, where they were teaching, the grade level they taught, common places of interest, concerns, offered empathy about teaching, offered each other encouragement, and asked each other questions, all without prompting from the instructor. The participants lived in places from Alaska to Florida and U.S. states in between, yet they shared an interest in improving scientific literacy in their science classrooms. In the instructor s other online courses without a video creation and peer critique component, the participants were similarly isolated but did not interact online without an assignment to require interaction. In this online laboratory and demonstration course, the participants were interested in the science content and each other, and the instructor believes it was the almost immediate peer review process of their videos that promoted the openness to ask questions of both the peers and the instructor. The video component of the course created an intellectual space for visualization of content and techniques to improve science instruction through laboratories and demonstrations. Figure 2 outlines the general guidelines, created by the participants, that they used to construct their first laboratory or demonstration videos.

3 Figure 1. Peer critique rubric for participants (traditional method).

4 Figure 2. Laboratory and demonstration guidelines for participants. Implementation of the Course An explanation of implementation of this course will enable others to adjust the conditions for different contexts. Over the summer, the instructor taught a college course during a five-week period. The time schedule was extremely tight, and the participants created and posted (on YouTube and then YouDemo.info) three laboratory and three demonstration videos that lasted three to six minutes each. In addition to creating their own videos, the participants critiqued 10 peer laboratory or demonstration videos and five Project STEP videos ( that were created for the American Association for the Advancement of Science: Science in a Minute competition ( Although portions of the class assignments were traditional (e.g. reading articles), the participant video critique and production was an inquiry process. According to Martin-Hansen (2002), inquiry is the work scientists do when they study the natural world, proposing explanations that include evidence gathered from the world around them (p. 35). Additionally, there are several levels of inquiry, including: open/full inquiry, guided inquiry, coupled inquiry, and structured inquiry (Martin-Hansen, 2002, p. 35). The laboratory and demonstration course video creation fell into the open/full category of inquiry as the instructor required the participants to identify the laboratory or demonstration science content, then design and conduct an investigation with that content, and finally communicate those concepts through video to other science teachers, future K-12 science teachers, and the instructor. This required critical higher order thinking skills on the part of the participants. The participants engaged in open inquiry as they designed and directed laboratories or demonstrations. They recorded laboratories or demonstrations of science content and honed their videos, through trial and error. They prepared these videos to show their future K-12 students in the upcoming academic year, and they searched for the best way to highlight the science content to their learning audience. Finding the preeminent pedagogy to engage learners immersed them in the science content. The pre-service teachers first produced videos filled with lackluster how to comments directly spoken to the camera. After these initial attempts, the instructor encouraged the participants to converse directly with their future K-12 students, as if those students were watching. The instructor asked them to consider any cooking show from television, and asked them to show the ingredients, demonstrate how to mix them up, exhibit the dish, and finally highlight the real world connection of the science laboratory or demonstration. By following this format the participants improved their video presentation. They showcased the important parts, without the intermediate steps that were too long or cumbersome. The result of the final videos translated into more concrete science content examples, varied essential questions, and overall authentic feel and flow of the inquiry process.

5 The participants directed six videos in total, consisting of three laboratory videos and three demonstration videos. The instructor expected all of the laboratory and demonstration videos to contain quality science content, be connected to real world questions, and showcase science content applications. Figure 3 highlights the directions to create the science content laboratory and demonstration videos. The directions for the participants contained information to create the science content sheet (used by future K-12 students), direction sheet (used by the participants), and video itself (used by any learner). Figure 3. Directions to create the laboratory and demonstration videos. Creating and critiquing these science content videos put the participants squarely in the director's seat. As stated earlier, the first video attempts needed improvement. One participant said, I really enjoyed reviewing the work of my peers. I learned a lot from watching [the videos]. I was out of my element for this class, and my peers helped me to refocus on what and how [the science content] was important. The participants in this course were emerging pre-service science teacher learners in regards to condensing the science content, connecting it to real world applications, and then showcasing it to learners. The instructor s observation (e.g. comparing previous faceto-face class projects with the online video projects) was that the participants learned more about the science content and pedagogy by directing science content videos and posting them for review than through lecture or class activities alone. During the entire process, participants had access to the aggregated critiques of their own videos. Figure 4 shows a screen shot of a single video s data summary page containing five key pieces of information. First, the number of critiques or ratings completed - in this case seven (7) followed by a graph of the two metrics they wanted to have critiqued. In Figure 4 below, Visual Quality in green and Creativeness range from a 4.2 to 5.4 and 4.8 to

6 6.4 respectively. Finally, when provided, written feedback is shown to the right and is separated based on positive aspects and areas that needed improvement. This integrated STEM project allowed participants to create their own videos and critique peer videos and see peer feedback in a holistic, interactive, contextual based environment. Figure 4. The YouDemo.info review interface for a single video STEM Commercial with two metrics aggregated after seven ratings. Reviewer comments, if provided, are seen on the right. Assessment of the Course The instructor assessed the course with a rubric (Figure 1), and the time spent grading was typical of an online college course. The rubric asked participants to consider the differences between a laboratory and demonstration for learners (see Figures 1 & 2), highlight science content with real world applications, focus on video qualities, and then translate this into the final video product. Most participants chose to share their videos publicly on YouTube, but a few created a private link. The instructor in turn, with their permission, shared the private link with the other participants for peer review on YouDemo.info. Since it is possible to create a personal account and post a video privately to view, this did not interfere with the instructor assessment or the peer assessment (e.g. Like Annetta, Klesath, and Meyer (2009) found in their study, the participants experienced high levels of presence and immersion in the virtual environment (p. 27). Making the science videos assisted the participants in answering questions (their own and others) about the science concepts explored. Conclusions Overall, this online laboratory and demonstration skills course was a success and progressed as planned for the instructor. Although not the main point of this paper, the instructor conducted a personal action research study during the online course where social justice, democratic participation, and community empowerment were part of the instructor s reflection. The video creation and peer critique model worked well with the participants in the course. The participants in the online laboratory and demonstration course reported that the lessons were effective, especially the video creation portion, and helped to develop their science content knowledge and ability to conduct

7 science laboratories and demonstrations for a K-12 audience while connecting them with real world applications. However, the participants were in the director's seat and thus could drive the STEM integration pieces of their instruction. Participants encountered a new experience while creating videos for class that were then peer and instructor critiqued. From the participant perspective the course required a typical amount of preparation, except for the video creation. One participant said, The online format [for the course] wasn't bad. It was terribly time consuming editing the videos and posting them. I worked into the wee hours of the night quite often. However, I think that had an unexpected benefit of allowing me to really focus on what I wanted to say. Had it been in person I doubt that I would have been so careful. Thus, although the creation of the videos was time consuming for the participants, it was also beneficial for the participants to engage with the science content in ways that other course products did not promote. The authors would encourage other instructors using the video creation and critique technique (using YouDemo.info) in a pre-service teaching class to provide plenty of time between video creations and to offer credit that is commensurate with the task. Generally there were no major problems with the course, but there were four main lessons that the instructor learned during her action research study. The four lessons learned came directly from participant feedback on a final course evaluation and instructor reflection on the course. First, the instructor should have shared all video feedback with the participants. Yet, she thought, albeit naively, that the participants would be overwhelmed with feedback after each video if all comments were shared in both realms of the instructor s critique and the review of the peers. One participant addressed this issue at the end of the class when she said, I would have liked to see the feedback from the other students as well. I know we all had to evaluate each other but we never got to see what others thought of the labs and demos. Second, the instructor should request videos be created in front of a live audience (of at least one person). The participants found it difficult to create the videos without an authentic audience. Another participant noted,...i thought it was difficult to pretend to speak to a full classroom. Had I been in session, I could have just taped one of the classes and submitted it and it would have been more realistic. Interestingly, although preparing videos with live audiences would have been easier on the participants while they were working full time during the academic year, they actually had more time to perfect their videos during the summer (without authentic audiences) when they completed the recordings. Third, the instructor should showcase more examples and non-examples of science videos before the participants ever create the first video. Additionally, a clear definition of inquiry should be followed throughout the video creation and critique components. This was highlighted when a participant stated, First, based upon the videos we had to watch for the first assignment, I thought our own videos had to be a bit classier than what I ended up filming at the end. I think this kind of skewed my focus for the first few weeks....i really didn't find a good definition of inquiry until the last reading. I had an intuitive guess at what it was, but that definition helped me to take [the science content] to the next level. Another participant clearly explained, I'm asking for more examples of what to do and what not to do. Finally, the instructor should give the participants the opportunity for the last assignment, to either choose to create a new laboratory/demonstration video or simply improve an existing video. This would allow for increased participant reflection on their existing videos. Implications For the instructor, the course experience outcome was an improved view of how to teach laboratories and demonstration skills online using video creation and peer critique. Moreover, moving towards pre-service science teacher video creation and critique could enable a stronger assessment of pre-service teacher learning in online classes. The outcome for the participants, was an expanded outlook on how to connect to the science content to the K-12 audience, engage future K-12 students in that science content, and use laboratory and demonstration techniques to facilitate K-12 student learning. An adaptation of this idea could serve undergraduate and graduate students in the natural sciences as well as they struggle to grasp difficult concepts. Furthermore, participant created and critiqued videos can lead to participant reflection and thus improved

8 pedagogy. For example, one participant explained, I really enjoyed your class, and I felt like I not only learned a lot but that it changed my perspective about what is and is not a lab. I liked that the course placed such a strong focus on the goals of science education. I also liked how well a lab was defined. Time and again I went back to these [guidelines] to try to figure out what I should be doing. I just planned a class session on plants and I was mindful of what I learned in your class as I planned it. I think it will be one of my best offerings yet. The future possibilities for this type of course are limited only by technology and the ways to implement it for participant learning. The extensions of this type of course are also only bound by the technology that is available. In addition to YouDemo.info, Skype is another way that participants could peer review in real-time. The implications of this short self-study on an online laboratory and demonstration class are noteworthy. Instructors could vastly improve an online course that requires science content or laboratory and demonstration components by implementing the suggestions in this article. As content delivered to any student, often directed by decision makers like teachers, is shifted to the needs of K-12 student improvement (Jenkins, 2007; Richardson, 2010; Siemens, 2005; Tapscott & Williams, 2006), creating an educational opportunity such as video creation with peer critique will become more significant. As King and Hildreth (2001) state, A course over the Internet can indeed be a worthwhile teaching and learning experience for teachers and students (p. 115). Putting the pre-service teacher learner in the director seat to create science content videos for K-12 audiences brings the aspects of learning STEM and STEM integration, by teaching it, to fruition. Thus, video creation and peer critique creates a rewarding science learning environment for instructors, participants, and K-12 science learners. References American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Annetta, L., Klesath, M., & Meyer, J. (2009). Taking science online: Evaluating presence and immersion through a laboratory experience in a virtual learning environment for entomology students. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(1), Arends, R. (2009). Learning to Teach. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Burrows, A., Borowczak, M., Slater, T., & Haynes, C. (2012). Teaching computer science & engineering through robotics: Science & art form. Problems of Education in the 21 st Century: Education in a Changing Society, 47, Burrows, A., Breiner, J., Keiner, J., & Behm, C. (2014). Biodiesel and integrated STEM: Vertical alignment of high school biology/biochemistry and chemistry. The Journal of Chemical Education. Published to the web on Aug. 6, 2014, DOI: Burrows, A., Herfat, S., Truesdell, P., & Miller, M. (2013). More than tolerance for engineering lessons. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 72(7), Burrows, A. & Slater, T. (in press). A proposed integrated STEM framework for contemporary teacher preparation. Currently accepted in Teacher Education and Practice. (Article ID: ) Volume 27, Issue 2 Burrows, A., Wickizer, G., Borowczak, M., & Meyer, H. (2013). Enhancing pedagogy with context and partnerships: Science in hand. Problems in Education in the 21 st Century: Science, Technology, Society and Environment Education, 54, Clary, R. & Wandersee, J. (2010). Virtual field exercises in the online classroom: Practicing science teachers perceptions of effectiveness, best practices, and implementation. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(4), Friel, S. & Carboni, L. (2000). Using video-based pedagogy in an elementary mathematics methods course. School Science and Mathematics, 100(3), Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science: Language, theories, methods, history, traditions, and values. Boston, MA: Sense Publishers. Jenkins, H. (2007). From YouTube to YouNiversity. Chronicle of Higher Education: Chronicle Review, 53(24), B9-B-10.King, P. & Hildreth, D. (2001). Internet courses: Are they worth the effort? Journal of College Science Teaching, 31(2), Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining inquiry: Exploring the many types of inquiry in the science classroom. The Science Teacher, 69(2), National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2003). Adolescent and young adult science standards: Second edition. Retrieved from NRC: National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press. NRC: National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press. NGSS Next Generation Science Standards. (2014). Retrieved from Richardson, W. (2010). Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

9 Santagata, R. & Guarino, J. (2011). Using video to teach future teachers to learn from teaching. Mathematics Education, 43, Sherin, M. & van ES, E. (2005). Using video to support teachers' ability to notice classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 113(3), Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age [Online]. Retrieved from Singer, S., Hilton, M., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds.). (2005). America s lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Singer, J., Lotter, C., Feller, R., & Gates, H. (2011). Exploring a model of situated professional development: Impact on classroom practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22, Tapscott, D. & Williams, A. (2006). Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. New York USA: Penguin Group Publishers.