Confusion Over Models: Exploring Discourse in a STEM Professional Development
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...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
SAGE Publishing
2022-05-01
|
| Series: | SAGE Open |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221097916 |
| _version_ | 1811282415647195136 |
|---|---|
| author | Todd Reynolds Andrea C. Burrows Mike Borowczak |
| author_facet | Todd Reynolds Andrea C. Burrows Mike Borowczak |
| author_sort | Todd Reynolds |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T01:52:10Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-c9be9b48d19c485fbef3225fd27bfcf5 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2158-2440 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T01:52:10Z |
| publishDate | 2022-05-01 |
| publisher | SAGE Publishing |
| record_format | Article |
| series | SAGE Open |
| spelling | doaj.art-c9be9b48d19c485fbef3225fd27bfcf52022-12-22T03:07:52ZengSAGE PublishingSAGE Open2158-24402022-05-011210.1177/21582440221097916Confusion Over Models: Exploring Discourse in a STEM Professional DevelopmentTodd Reynolds0Andrea C. Burrows1Mike Borowczak2University of Wyoming, Laramie, USAUniversity of Wyoming, Laramie, USAUniversity of Wyoming, Laramie, USAFor 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.https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221097916 |
| spellingShingle | Todd Reynolds Andrea C. Burrows Mike Borowczak Confusion Over Models: Exploring Discourse in a STEM Professional Development SAGE Open |
| title | Confusion Over Models: Exploring Discourse in a STEM Professional Development |
| title_full | Confusion Over Models: Exploring Discourse in a STEM Professional Development |
| title_fullStr | Confusion Over Models: Exploring Discourse in a STEM Professional Development |
| title_full_unstemmed | Confusion Over Models: Exploring Discourse in a STEM Professional Development |
| title_short | Confusion Over Models: Exploring Discourse in a STEM Professional Development |
| title_sort | confusion over models exploring discourse in a stem professional development |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221097916 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT toddreynolds confusionovermodelsexploringdiscourseinastemprofessionaldevelopment AT andreacburrows confusionovermodelsexploringdiscourseinastemprofessionaldevelopment AT mikeborowczak confusionovermodelsexploringdiscourseinastemprofessionaldevelopment |