Search

Using videos as tools for reflection has a strong grounding in the research literature. Traditionally, these videos provide representations of K-12 students interacting with one another and their teacher during small or whole group instruction and come from teachers' own or their peers' classrooms. More recently, online simulated classrooms have been used as practice spaces to support teachers in learning how to engage in core teaching practices, such as facilitating discussions. The purpose of this study was to explore the potential usefulness of video records generated from online simulations as a tool for self-reflection. To do so, we examined the nature of in-service elementary teachers' self-reflections from video records of them facilitating argumentation-focused discussions with five student avatars in an online simulated classroom. Findings suggest that most teachers' reflections on their discussion practice tended to be positive in nature. In addition, findings suggest that most in-service teachers used multiple pieces of evidence to justify their overall quality assessment of their discussion on five key dimensions of argumentation-focused discussions. The types of evidence they used were aligned with how a scoring rubric defined these dimensions but varied in nature across the participants. Finally, findings show that study participants tend to draw upon both what they and students say and do during these discussions as evidence to support their overall assertions about how well they attended to specific discussion dimensions. Implications for using videos from online teaching simulations as tools for reflection are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Engaging children in argumentation‐focused discussions is essential to helping them collaboratively make sense of scientific phenomena. To support this effort, teachers must listen and be responsive to students' ideas to move the discussion forward with the goal of reaching consensus. Given the complexity of this ambitious science teaching practice, in lieu of traditional field experiences, online simulated teaching experiences provide opportunities for preservice teachers to practice implementing these strategies in a low‐risk, high‐support environment. Limited research has explored elementary preservice teachers' responsiveness while navigating an argumentation‐focused discussion, particularly in an online simulated teaching experience. The purpose of this study was to examine preservice teachers' responsiveness to students' ideas while eliciting students' initial constructed arguments and encouraging argument critique in two online simulated teaching experiences. Findings showed that preservice teachers' responsiveness to students' ideas was high in both online simulated teaching experiences when asking students to share evidence as well as engage in critique. However, their responsiveness varied when prompting for reasoning and was often low when eliciting students' claims. These findings provide empirical evidence that such online simulated teaching experiences can be used as productive spaces for PSTs to practice being responsive to students' ideas during argumentation‐focused discussions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Eliciting and interpreting students' ideas are essential skills in teaching, yet pre-service teachers (PSTs) rarely have adequate opportunities to develop these skills. In this study, we examine PSTs' patterns of discourse and perceived learning through engaging in an interactive digital simulation called Eliciting Learner Knowledge (ELK). ELK is a seven-minute, chat-based virtual role play between a PST playing a "teacher" and a PST playing a "student" where the goal is for the teacher to find out what the student knows about a topic. ELK is designed to be a practice space where pre-service and in-service teachers can learn strategies for effectively eliciting their students' knowledge. We review the implementation of ELK in eight teacher education courses in math or science methods at six different universities and assess (a) patterns of interaction during ELK and (b) PSTs' perceptions of ELK and their learning from the simulation. Our findings suggest that PSTs engage in effective practices such as eliciting and probing more often than less effective practices such as evaluating and telling. Results suggest that PSTs gain experience in practicing talk moves and having empathy for students' perspectives through using ELK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Engaging students in scientific argumentation is a hallmark of high‐quality science instruction. Despite the importance of this practice, it is not a ubiquitous one within K‐12 classrooms since scientific argumentation is complex and difficult to learn how to do well. In this study, we examined similarities and differences in how preservice teachers (PSTs) and in‐service teachers (ISTs) facilitate an argumentation‐focused discussion with five upper elementary student avatars in an online, simulated classroom. Developing a better understanding of how science teachers at different stages of their career foster scientific argumentation will support teacher educators and researchers in designing more directed interventions to scaffold teacher learning of this complex practice. Findings showed that most teachers provided opportunities for students to engage in both argument construction and critique during these discussions. In addition, both PSTs and ISTs frequently prompted students to reference data or observations to engage in argument construction and were most likely to prompt students to agree or disagree and explain the reason for their agreement or disagreement to engage in argument critique. Finally, findings showed that ISTs used a wider variety of talk moves and used them more frequently in an integrated fashion throughout the discussions to engage the students in scientific argumentation. Implications for studying and promoting teacher learning of this complex teaching practice and for integrating simulated classrooms as practice‐based tools in science teacher education and professional development settings are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The broad case being made in this paper is that recognizing student assets--rather than focusing on deficits--is essential for making engineering education more equitable. The paper begins with our exploration of an epistemic practice of engineering, "making tradeoffs," as enacted by kindergartners after experiencing design failure and during redesign. We then acknowledge through a reexamination of data that our understanding of children's grappling about a trade-off was incomplete without considering another asset that children brought to the design experience: "enacting empathy and an ethic of care." We argue for the inclusion of this asset as an epistemic practice of engineering. Doing so has implications for improving learning experiences, research, and equity in engineering education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Students may exhibit growth mindsets, where intelligence is seen as malleable and failures prompt more effort and new approaches, or fixed mindsets, where intelligence is seen as immutable and failures indicate lack of intelligence. One's mindset in general may be different from that for a particular domain such as engineering. Having a growth mindset predicts more positive learning outcomes. Purpose We described the general and engineering mindsets of students in fifth‐grade U.S. classrooms (ages 10 and 11) who received engineering instruction. We explored how general mindsets may predict engineering learning outcomes and how engineering mindsets may be predicted by general mindset and other variables. Design/Method: We collected General Mindset (GM) and Engineering Mindset (EM) surveys from 2,086 fifth graders. We analyzed and correlated their GM and EM scores and survey item responses. Using hierarchical linear modeling, we measured the contribution of GM to models predicting EM and engineering learning outcomes and identified factors that predicted EM. Results: Almost three quarters of students who submitted EM surveys agreed with a growth mindset. Students with higher GM scores had higher engineering postassessment scores. Those who had a higher socioeconomic status did not receive special education services, experienced more whole‐class discussion and activity, or had a higher GM score were more likely to have a more growth‐minded EM score. Conclusions: Engineering education should help students see that they can grow in their capacities to engineer. Instructional interventions may positively impact mindset, which could be particularly important for some students. Engineering design may encourage an especially growth‐minded approach to failure experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This mixed methods study examines perspectives on failure in the classroom by elementary teachers new to teaching engineering. The study participants included 254 teachers in third, fourth, and fifth grade who responded to survey questions about failure, as well as a subset of 38 of those teachers who participated in interviews about failure. The study first examines the literature about failure in the contexts of engineering and education. Failure is positioned as largely normative and expected in engineering, whereas in education, learning and failure have a more tenuous relationship. Identity, failure avoidance, failure as part of the learning process, growth and fixed mindset, resilience, perseverance, and grit are addressed in a discussion of failure and education. Quantitative and qualitative research methods were utilized to examine how participants: reacted to the words failure or fail, reported allowing students to fail or revise their work, considered how failure should be avoided in education, considered how failure may be construed as a learning experience, and reported using the words failure or fail in their classrooms. Conclusions from the study include that: failure has a largely negative connotation within education and by teachers, which influences how teachers use the words fail and failure and create failure experiences for their students; many teachers practice resilience and perseverance and encourage similar practices in their students with respect to mistakes in the classroom, which serves as a helpful yet somewhat inaccurate analogue for failure in engineering design; and there is evidence that many teachers have adopted a growth mindset and encourage this mindset in their classrooms - however, there are some challenges to a true adoption of this mindset by teachers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This mixed-methods study examines how teachers who have taught one or two units of the Engineering is Elementary (EiE) curriculum for two years reported on: students' responses to design failure; the ways in which they, the teachers, supported these students and used fail words (e.g. fail, failure); and the teachers' broad perspectives and messages to students about failure. In addition, the study explores how strategies, perspectives, messages, and fail word use may change after two years of engineering instruction. This study builds on previous work about elementary teachers': perspectives on failure prior to teaching engineering, and responses to and perspectives on failure after teaching EiE unit(s) for one year. Data collected included 74 surveys, containing both quantitative and qualitative items, and ten in-depth, semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data were analyzed via non-parametric methods, and qualitative analysis involved an iterative search for codes and themes. The convergent mixed-methods design enabled comparison across quantitative and qualitative findings. Findings included that the elementary engineering classroom is a complex space in which teams may or may not experience design failure; for those teams that do, they--and, in turn, their teachers--may respond to this experience in a wide range of ways. Also, after two years of teaching engineering, teachers felt more comfortable preparing students for design failure experiences, and responding when design failure occurred. Most also felt more comfortable using fail words, and when they used these words, learned to do so with context and care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, the author focuses on teaching the design of wind turbine blade, to third and fifth graders and also highlights the impact of voltage output on turbine blades. He states that designing technologies will help students engage in engineering practices. It mentions a lesson on understanding the relationship between function and structure with the help of Next Generation Science Standards. He also mentions the ability of wind to turn axle and wind turbine blades.

The article describes the way in which video segments from digital video cameras can be used to support evidence-based reasoning as students design model rock-and-mortar walls. Science education reformers and teachers working within a school system have integrated such cameras into elementary science and engineering instruction. An essential aspect of science and engineering education is engaging elementary students in evidence-based reasoning.

The article describes an activity program for primary education which asks students to design windmill blades.

This study attempts to help us better understand scientific competence and how it is acquired. We interviewed 10 associates at a company that produces unique technical products. Although none of the 10 had obtained degrees beyond high school, they all engaged in highly technical work that would be typical of a practicing engineer. These associates described to us their learning of science as they solved practical problems at work. Both what they learned and how they learned was task-driven. Contextual factors such as choice of tasks and social access to expertise within the company were important factors in their learning. The only influence outside work that was repeatedly named as significant on the acquisition of scientific competence was extensive tinkering experience. Understanding the successful acquisition of scientific competence within communities such as this one suggests that certain features of these communities may be useful for school science communities as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]