7/25/2019 Barak 2016

1/21

Science Teacher Education in the Twenty-First Century:

a Pedagogical Framework for Technology-IntegratedSocial Constructivism

Miri Barak1

# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Abstract Changes in our global world have shifted the skill demands from acquisition

of structured knowledge to mastery of skills, often referred to as twenty-first century

competencies. Given these changes, a sequential explanatory mixed methods study

was undertaken to (a) examine predominant instructional methods and technologies

used by teacher educators, (b) identify attributes for learning and teaching in the

twenty-first century, and (c) develop a pedagogical framework for promoting mean-

ingful usage of advanced technologies. Quantitative and qualitative data were collect-

ed via an online survey, personal interviews, and written reflections with scienceteacher educators and student teachers. Findings indicated that teacher educators do

not provide sufficient models for the promotion of reform-based practice via web 2.0

environments, such as Wikis, blogs, social networks, or other cloud technologies.

Findings also indicated four attributes for teaching and learning in the twenty-first

century: (a) adapting to frequent changes and uncertain situations, (b) collaborating

and communicating in decentralized environments, (c) generating data and managing

information, and (d) releasing control by encouraging exploration. Guided by social

constructivist paradigms and twenty-first century teaching attributes, this study sug-

gests a pedagogical framework for fostering meaningful usage of advanced technolo-gies in science teacher education courses.

Keywords Twenty-first century competencies . Cloud applications . Social constructivism .

Science teacher education . Technology-integrated learning

Res Sci Educ

DOI 10.1007/s11165-015-9501-y

* Miri Barak

bmiriam@technion.ac.il

1 The Department of Education in Science and Technology, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology,

Haifa 320003, Israel

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11165-015-9501-y&domain=pdf

7/25/2019 Barak 2016

2/21

Introduction

Due to rapid advancement in digital technologies and changes in the way communication and

information flows, the twenty-first century is perceived as an era of transformations and reforms. In

the past decade, experts in science education and policy makers have emphasized the need foradvancing science and technology education (NGSS Lead States 2013; NRC2012a). There is a

growing interest among educators in the development of twenty-first century competencies and their

assimilation in science classrooms, in particular, competencies that are associated with the science

education guidelines and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States 2013). Such

competencies are problem solving, critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and information

literacy. These guidelines encourage science literacy through the use of constructivist and social-

constructivist approaches, emphasizing student-centered instruction, collaboration, and inquiry-

based learning (NGSS Lead States2013; NRC2012b). The new guidelines to teaching science

require substantial changes in teachers education and practice. However, new practices are noteasily implemented and many science teachers still practice teacher-centered and lecture-based

instruction (Barak2014; Bell et al.2013).

There are several barriers to effective implementation of new practices in science education.

In some cases, science teachers lack the motivation and/or resources (time, computers, learning

materials, etc.) to make the necessary changes (Bell et al. 2013). But in many cases, science

teachers refrain from applying new practices because they themselves had little exposure to

advanced instructional methods while learning science or engineering at university

(Jimoyiannis2010; Johnson2006). At university, students are mostly subjected to traditional

teaching that includes lectures, exercise sessions, and laboratory work. It is therefore theresponsibility of teacher educators to set better examples for innovative ways for teaching.

Using the framework of social constructivism, this study was undertaken to examine the

instructional technologies used by science teacher educators in higher education and to

develop a pedagogical framework that harnesses the strength of advanced technologies for

promoting reform-based practices among pre-service science teachers. The studys main goal

was to develop a pedagogical framework for preparing science education students to teach in

the twenty-first century. Our underpinning assumption was that allowing pre-service teachers

to experience the use of advanced cloud-based technologies and pedagogy, they will be better

prepared to teach in schools in the era of transformations and reforms.

Theoretical Background and Literature Review

This section includes three parts. The first presents the researchs theoretical framework, which

is based on social constructivist perspectives. The second part describes teacher education in

the twenty-first century, raising the concern that student teachers are not sufficiently exposed to

social constructivist approaches for promoting meaningful usage of advanced technologies.

The third part discusses web-based cloud applications as a new frontier in teacher education

programs for enhancing reform-based instruction.

Social Constructivism

Social constructivist perspectives on learning maintain that cognitive development is a social

process and reject the idea that it is an individual process (Atwater 1996; Lemke 2001;

Res Sci Educ

7/25/2019 Barak 2016

3/21

7/25/2019 Barak 2016

4/21

learning that included peer collaboration, reflective questioning, shared ownership, and feedback,

resulted in higher learning achievements, compared to a control group. In addition, scientific literacy

and higher order thinking can be developed through discourse among learners and collaborative

assignments (Atwater1996; Barak et al.2007).

Science teachers with a social constructivist perspective can provide instruction thatfacilitates deep learning and conceptual change (Atwater1996). Science teachers are therefore

encouraged to apply a social constructivist curriculum that support interactions among

learners, scaffolding, and inner discourse (Atwater 1996; Barak and Dori 2009). From this

perspective, the role of the science teacher has been expanded from that of an information

transmitter to include the role of facilitator to challenge ideas and negotiate meaning through

multiple interactions among students (Bell et al. 2013; Palmer2005). In light of the aforesaid,

in this study, social constructivism provided the benchmark for examining contemporary

predominant instructional methods and technologies used by science and technology teachers.

It also provided the pedagogical framework for promoting meaningful usage of advancedtechnologies in the twenty-first century classroom.

Twenty-first Century Competencies and Teacher Education

Changes in the labor market in developed countries have shifted the requirements of many jobs

from the acquisition of structured knowledge to the mastery of tools and learning skills, often

referred to as twenty-first century skills or competencies (Griffin et al. 2012; NRC2012a).

Focusing on education, it seems that todays teachers have an almost impossible taskto

prepare students to become contributing citizens and workers in a world that does not yet existand cannot yet be clearly defined. That is why an emphasis on what students can do with

knowledge, rather than how many learning units they acquire, has become an important aspect

of contemporary education (Barak2014; Griffin et al.2012; NGSS Lead States2013).

Over the past decade, the phrase 21st Century Learning has become an integral part of

educational discourse (Griffin et al. 2012; NRC2012a). Educationalists suggest that instruction

should be reformed to emphasize higher order cognitive processes, such as critical thinking, creative

and innovative thinking, inquiry and problem solving, information literacy, reasoning, and argu-

mentation (Griffin et al. 2012; OECD2013). They also suggest emphasizing intrapersonal skills,

such as intellectual openness, work ethic, and self-evaluation; as well as interpersonal skills, such as

communication and collaboration (NRC 2012a). The frameworks for twenty-first century skills

encourage social learning, highlighting teamwork, knowledge sharing, and peer assessment (Griffin

et al.2012; NRC2012b). Social contexts for learning make learnersthinking apparent to teachers

and peers so that it can be examined, questioned, and built on (NRC2012a).

Critics of the twenty-first century learning argue that it is anempty signifier,unclear as to

exactly what it actually means. For example, Mishra and Kereluik (2011) presented a critical

review of the literature on the twenty-first century learning by conducting a comparative

analysis of ten differing frameworks. Their study indicated that despite the fact that many of

these skills are not exclusive to the twenty-first century era, there are two key skills that are

uniquely important. These skills are information literacy and cultural competence which relate

to the use of advanced technologies (Mishra and Kereluik2011). Indeed, the social impact of

the Internet and digital media takes on a new importance in the age of globalization (Griffin

et al.2012; NRC2012a).

Following the call for reforms in teaching and learning (Griffin et al. 2012; NRC2012a),

science teacher education programs should actively engage student teachers in promoting

Res Sci Educ

7/25/2019 Barak 2016

5/21

cognitive and social competencies with emphasis on advanced technologies. It is the role of

science teacher educators to encourage and inspire reform-based practices and set good examples

for educational innovations (Barak2014). The professional experience of teacher educators can

provide a pathway for transforming traditional practices to constructivist and social-constructivist

approaches. However, in many science education programs, students spend more time learning inregular lecture halls, exposed to traditional teaching rather than practicing strategies that may

develop deep scientific understanding (Barak et al.2006; Jimoyiannis2010).

Over the past two decades, studies have indicated that information and communication

technologies (ICTs) can support cognitive development essential for deep learning (Bell

et al. 2013; Jimoyiannis2010). However, there are teacher educators, teachers, and students

that still practice traditional instruction methods (Barak 2014; Bell et al. 2013; Johnson

2006). This situation can largely be explained by disinclination to change familiar instruc-

tional approaches (Romeo et al. 2012). This study was therefore undertaken to examine

science teacher educators predominant instructional technologies, in the context of teachereducation in Israel. Guided by international reports (Griffin et al. 2012; NRC2012a; OECD

2013), this study also sought to identify attributes for teaching and learning in the twenty-

first century. The study focused on significant attributes that should be practiced in teacher

education programs.

Cloud Applications: Expanding Teacher Education Borders

Information and communication technologies are changing as they migrate into the cloudthe

ubiquitous online world of computer networks. Such

cloud computing

was defined by theNational Institute of Standards and Technology as a model for enabling ubiquitous, conve-

nient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g.,

networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) (Mell and Grance2011). Following this

trend, cloud learning environments (CLEs), including web 2.0 applications, are gradually

gaining ground over traditional learning management systems (LMS) by facilitating both

personal and collaborative learning environments (Chao2012). Cloud applications are unique

in their ability to facilitate real-time collaborative writing, where several users can write and

edit the same file simultaneously. Examples for cloud applications are the following: Google

Drive (www.google.com) for generating documents, Prezi (www.prezi.com) for creating

presentations, and Koding (www.koding.com) for developing software.

In discussing the implications of cloud applications for science education, reform-based

pedagogy can be expanded to view students as active learners and creators of knowledge. With

the use of cloud applications and mobile devices, not only can learning be taken out of the

classroom but can also enable learner-driven and socially constructed curricula (Chao 2012).

Research on cloud applications for real-time collaborative learning is still in its initial stages

(Berenfeld and Yazijian 2010). The potential of such applications for fostering social con-

structive learning in science teacher education programs has not yet been fully examined.

Research Goal

This study is the first part of a longitudinal research project that was initiated to develop and

evaluate a pedagogical framework for technology-integrated social constructivism. The current

study describes the rationale that led to the development of the pedagogical framework, its

Res Sci Educ

http://www.google.com/http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2006.10782459http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9029-2http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9029-2http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2006.10782459http://www.google.com/

7/25/2019 Barak 2016

6/21

design, and implementation. Further study is now being conducted among additional courses

in science education for reinforcing external validity and strengthening the generalization of

results across a larger number of participants.

The main goal of the study reported here was to develop a pedagogical framework

for preparing science education students to teach in the twenty-first century. Theoperative aim was threefold: to examine predominant instructional methods that

teacher educators apply; to identify significant attributes for teaching and learning in

the twenty-first century; and to develop a social constructivist pedagogical framework

for promoting meaningful usage of advanced technologies. These aims raised the

following research questions:

1. What are the predominant instructional technologies and methods that lecturers in teacher

education institutions apply?

2. What are the significant attributes for teaching and learning that should be practiced incontemporary teacher education programs according to the teacher educators?

3. What characterizes a pedagogical framework that is based on the integration of social

constructivism and cloud technologies?

Method

The study included two parts: Exploration and Implementation. The first part, Exploration,

examined the predominant instructional technologies and methods used by teacher educatorsfrom humanities and science education. The second part, Implementation, included the design

and development of the social constructivist pedagogical framework, entitledcloud pedagogy,

set to integrate twenty-first century competencies into the curriculum of science teacher

courses. The pedagogical framework was implemented in a 14-week-long course entitled

Methods of Teaching Science and Technology. This course was selected as an exemplary

course since it is a mandatory course and the students come from diverse science and

engineering backgrounds. The course objective was to promote the understanding of science

teaching in middle schools with an emphasis on the integration of advanced educational

technologies. The course topics were: energy, forces and motion, materials, living organisms,

and environmental science, emphasizing multi- and inter-disciplinary approaches to science

education.

Participants

The study included 63 teacher educators who participated in the Exploration part of the

study and 52 science student teachers who participated in the Implementation part. Table1

presents the participantsdemographic data according to gender, academic discipline, and

experience in teaching. It also includes participants self-report data about their level of

expertise in ICT: novicethose who are somewhat familiar with educational ICTs and

rarely use them; experiencedthose who are familiar with educational ICTs, somewhat

interested in learning more about new technologies, and use them when necessary; and

expertthose who are very familiar with educational ICTs, very interested in learning

more about new technologies, and frequently use them for teaching. Participants demo-

graphics and academic background distribution are presented in Table 1.

Res Sci Educ

7/25/2019 Barak 2016

7/21

Methodology and Tools

This study was based on a sequential explanatory mixed methods design in which the research

begins with a quantitative phase and follows up on specific results with a qualitative phase

(Creswell and Plano Clark 2007). The research tools in the Exploration part of the studyincluded an online survey followed by personal interviews. The online survey was adminis-

tered among the teacher educators to examine the predominant instructional technologies and

methods that they apply. It included three close-ended questions:

1. How often do you use the following technologies in your courses?

2. How often do you expect student teachers to use the following technologies?

3. How strongly do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the

use of advanced educational technologies?

Each question included eight items, representing different instructional technologies and

methods, on a five-point Likert-type scale (Appendix A). The questionnaires internal consis-

tency was assessed by Cronbachs alpha coefficient for question 3 (=0.78). Questions 1 and

2 were not assessed since they measured frequency of technology usage and not attitudes. The

categorical variables were statistically analyzed using Wilcoxon Signed Ranks and Kruskal-

Wallis one-way ANOVA, both non-parametric tests.

Among the teacher educators participating in the Exploration part of the study (n=63), 12

experts in advanced educational technologies were interviewed to identify key attributes for

teaching and learning in the twenty-first century. A general interview guide approach wasapplied by presenting very general and broad questions to allow a guided but flexible

conversational interview (Gall et al. 2003). The teacher educators were asked to answer the

following questions: (1) Considering the various reports on competencies needed for learning

and working in the twenty-first century, divided into three key domainscognitive, interper-

sonal, and intrapersonal (Griffin et al. 2012; NRC2012a), from your experience as a teacher

Table 1 Participants academic background and demographic data

Demographics % Teacher educators (n=63) % Student teachers (n=52)

Gender Female 53 70

Male 47 30

Academic discipline Science 24 64

Tech. and Eng. 11 36

Mathematics 27

Humanities 38

Experience in teaching None 87

13 years 24 13410 years 35

Over 11 years 41

ICT expertise Novice 21 9

Experienced 44 35

Expert 35 56

Res Sci Educ

7/25/2019 Barak 2016

8/21

educator, what are the key attributes for teaching and learning in the twenty-first century?

(2) Why are they essential in our era? (3) Explain your answers and provide examples.

The interviews among the teacher educators were conducted by the author, taking

30-to-45 min. The data were collected via researcher-logs and audio-tape recorders. In

order to strengthen the validity, a second interviewer collected data in 60 % of theinterviews, depending on the interviewees consent. The transcripts were analyzed

from a descriptive-interpretive perspective while applying the general inductive ap-

proach (Thomas 2006).

The research tools in the Implementation part of the study included written reflections

and personal interviews. Both tools were administered among science student teachers to

examine their views about the pedagogical framework. The reflections were written by

52 student teachers at the last session of the course. The personal interviews were

administered a month after the course ended, according to student teachers availability

and consent. Among those who were willing to participate, 13 student teachers wereselected as a representative sample of the course population. Directed by the general

interview guide approach (Gall et al. 2003), the student teachers were asked to answer

the following general questions:

a. Describe your learning experience in terms of group activities, accomplishments, and

difficulties. Relate your answer to each component of the social constructivist pedagogical

framework.

b. Have you experienced the need to adapt to frequent changes? Collaborate in a

decentralized environment? Generate data and manage information? Release controland encourage exploration? Explain your answers and provide examples.

c. Will you apply this pedagogical frameworkstudio instruction, embedded assessment,

and cloud applicationsin future teaching? If yes, in what way? If no, why?

The interviews took 30-to-45 min, using researcher-logs and audio-tape recorders for

data collection. Unlike the interviews in the first part of the study, the interviews in this

part were analyzed according to the deductive (not inductive) content analysis approach

(Hsieh and Shannon 2005). They were conducted to validate the key attributes for

teaching and learning in the 21st century that were identified in the first part of the

study. For the analysis process, the author, together with a research assistant, read the

texts a number of times and highlighted sentences that indicated student teachers views

about the social constructivist pedagogical framework. The data supporting the catego-

ries were gathered and re-divided into emerging sub-categories. Differences between

researchers during the joint categorization process were discussed by three researchers

until full agreement was reached.

Findings

This section includes three parts, each addresses one of the research questions. The first two

parts describe the predominant instructional technologies and methods that teacher educators

apply, and the four attributes they identified for learning and teaching in the twenty-first

century. The third part provides a description of the social constructivist pedagogical frame-

work and students views about it.

Res Sci Educ

7/25/2019 Barak 2016

9/21

Predominant Instructional Technologies and Methods

Data indicated that most teacher educators (74 %) teach face-to-face, on-campus courses. The rest

(26 %) teach hybrid courses (combination of face-to-face and distance learning sessions) and/or full

distance learning courses. All teacher educators use a LMS to organize the learning materials.Almost 50 % of them use online simulations, and almost 40 % use asynchronous online forums.

Generating and sharing contents via web 2.0 technologies, such as Wiki, blogs, social networks,

Google drive, and other cloud applications, is much less popular (45 to 25 %).

When comparing teacher educatorsusage of technologies with their expectations of the student

teachers, an interesting gap is noted. Findings indicated that teacher educators from all disciplines

expect their students to use technologies more often than actually practiced in teacher education

courses (Fig. 1). A Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test indicated that the two sets of scores differed

significantly with relation to the following technologies: Wiki or blogs (Z=6.15, p

7/25/2019 Barak 2016

10/21

philosophy; and that it has potential to improve the quality of teaching and learning.

However, less than 50 % believe that technologies can enhance the communication

between teachers and students and among the students themselves. In addition, less than

50 % feel that they have sufficient pedagogical knowledge to efficiently integrate ICTs in

their courses, or that they have the required technical knowledge. Data indicated thatamong the teacher educators, five (8 %) cling systematically to traditional face-to-face

practices with no inclination for change.

No statistically significant differences were found among teacher educators from different

disciplines related to their attitudes about the use of technologies. However, teacher educators

with teaching experience of more than 10 years indicated greater concern about not having the

required technological knowledge. This difference was statistically significant (2(2)=10.70,

p

7/25/2019 Barak 2016

11/21

A. Adapting to frequent changes and uncertain situationsunderstanding that we live in an era of

transformations and reforms, and in a multi-cultural society, and that being able to learn from

each other and maintain lifelong learning in formal and informal educational environments.

According to R.B., a science teacher educator with 15 years of experience: Everything is

changing around us, especially the technology. We started teaching with desktop computers

and we were so excited when a new software for computerized molecular models was

distributed on floppy disks. Now we have very sophisticated animations and simulations free

on the web Science teachers should accept the idea that the world is developing rapidly and

be able to efficiently implement innovations in their teaching and learning.

Similarly, C.O., a math teacher educator with 6 years of experience, asserted: Our students

should be able to adapt to frequent changes. As years go by, the gap between one innovation

to the next is closing my students should be more open to new ideas, and continue studying

all their lives.

S.D., a computer science teacher educator with 13 years of experience, asserted: Today we

need to work in changing environments. Look at the cloud model for example. The service

provider upgrades the version of the application you are working on without notice. It

happened to my students while they were using Google formsthey had no choice but to

adapt and continue working.

B. Did you experience the feeling of: Adapting to changes? Collaborating in online envi-

ronments? Creating web-pages and managing loads of information? Encouraging free

exploration? Explain your answers and provide examples.

I.L., a science teacher educator with 8 years of experience, said: if you ask me, collabo-ration is one of the most important skills my students should acquire. More and more

computer applications have the share button. However, working together, at the same

time, all at once, on the same document, can be confusing and chaotic. For effective

outcomes, people need to know how to manage their work in nonhierarchical systems, where

everyone can contribute in an equal manner.

Similarly, A.D., a science teacher educator with 5 years of experience, asserted that: Nowa-

days, my students have wonderful opportunities to use various technologies for communi-

cating with each other. I encourage them to use Google docs for writing collaborative

documents, and Facebook to share ideas, ask questions, and provide answers. We hardlyuse structured LMS anymore.

R.B. asserted: Today, with the advancement of technology we have tools and means for

working in collaboration without the limitation of time and place. The use of cloud

applications such as A.nnotate allows my students to write their annotations and share

them on the same article at the same time. Such applications allow collaboration and

communication outside the classroom walls. Still, they need to be very organized in order

to work efficiently.

C. Generating data and managing informationemphasizing the creation and design of ones

own learning materials and environments to accommodate individual needs.

O.P., a science teacher educator with 12 years of experience, asserted that: As we all know,

information is growing in an exponential way. In order to succeed in the workplace, it is not

enough to manage data. My students will also need to create their own resources (articles,

presentations, webpages, etc.) and disseminate them, using up-to-date tools.

Res Sci Educ

7/25/2019 Barak 2016

12/21

7/25/2019 Barak 2016

13/21

1. Exploring new venuesencouraging students to acquire knowledge by investigating,

experiencing, and discovering places, people, and new information, inside and outside

the classroom. This allows students to be actively involved in the learning process, in

formal and informal learning situations. In addition, this enables the teacher to act as a

guide on the side allowing students to make mistakes and learn from them. Thisprinciple is related to the attribute of: releasing control and encouraging exploration.

2. Increasing engagementencouraging students to interact with close and distant peers, and

be engaged with their close community as well as communities from other institutions and

countries. Such an experience can be augmented when performed together with peers,

since each student has her own cultural background and viewpoint. This emphasizes the

importance of learning from one another and adopting new ideas in various settings. This

principle is related to the attribute of: adapting to changes and uncertain situations.

3. Co-constructing contentencouraging students to construct science-related content with

peers by writing original essays, producing creative video-clips, and preparing colorfulpresentations. In this process, students verbalize personal ideas and present their own

thoughts. They might encounter conflicting ideas, but they are expected to reach agree-

ment among their peers in order to achieve a mutual goal. This principle is related to the

attribute of: generating data and managing information.

4. Providing and receiving feedbackencouraging students to think critically and to undertake

critique, providing respectful and constructive feedback to their peers. Students should be able

to take part in a peer-assessment process, to receive critique, and learn how to benefit from it.

Peer-assessment can be implemented not only among students from the same classroom or

course but also among peers from different schools and countries. This principle is related tothe attribute of: collaborating and communicating in decentralized environments.

Fig. 3 The cloud pedagogical framework: the social constructivism inner layer and the techno-instructional outer

layer

Res Sci Educ

7/25/2019 Barak 2016

14/21

The second layer, the techno-instructional layer, details how the social constructivist

principles, described above, can be implemented in a hybrid learning environment by using

a distinctive teaching method, assessment approach, and learning environment. Accordingly,

this layer includes three components: studio instruction, embedded assessment, and cloud

applications, as detailed below.

I. Studio instructionan instructional method that consists of short lecture sessions

interchanged with long periods of active learning. In the short lecture session, 20-to-

30 min long, the lecturer explains one or two main concepts. Then after, the lecturer

gives a class assignment that encourages the implementation of the new concepts,

and so the active learning session begins. In the active learning sessions, about

30 min long, the lecturer acts as a guide, encouraging students to express new ideas

and ask questions (Barak et al. 2006). This approach makes no distinction between

the instructional methods and the content that is central to scientific practice. It isaligned with the constructivism approach since it instigates active, hands-on, expe-

riential, and collaborative learning (Steffe and Gale 1995). In studio-based learning,

learners are engaged in assignments that require inquiry and problem-solving skills

(Barak et al. 2006; Rowe 1987). Students propose solutions through the design of

artifacts, which may be physical, textual, and/or conceptual. Through discourse,

students experience failure and improvement, thus constructing knowledge and

conceptual understanding (Rowe 1987).

II. Embedded assessmentan assessment approach that includes both formative and sum-

mative evaluations, embedded in and linked to learning activities. It is a collection ofassessment tools that are administrated at different points throughout a course, facilitating

the process of self-discovery of strengths and weakness (Barak and Dori 2009; Segers

et al.2003). It is based on the idea that assessment is conducted for learningand notof

learning (Black and Wiliam 1998), namely, that knowledge is constructed during the

assessment process and that students discover knowledge for themselves. Following a

continuous process of feedback from the teacher and peers, the students can refine their

work and resubmit a better and improved outcome. This assessment approach acknowl-

edges the diverse academic, cultural, and social needs of learners as well as the context in

which the learning occurs. It has potential to scaffold effective learning and high achieve-

ment (Barak and Dori2009; Segers et al.2003).

III. Cloud applicationsare conceptualized as a unique family of ICT tools that allow

synchronized collaborative learning in digital environments (Chao 2012). Cloud

applications facilitate real-time collaborative writing and editing where several users

can simultaneously work on the same file. Since they are browser-based applications,

there is no need for local installation, and they can be used on mobile and thin

devices. They facilitate studio instruction since they enable active and experiential

learning. Teachers, as shared editors, can track students progress and provide real-

time feedback.

As a case test, this pedagogical framework was implemented in a course entitled:

Methods of Teaching Science and Technology, which included 52 science student teachers.

The students were divided by the instructors into 13 heterogeneous groups of four. Each

group included students from diverse STEM disciplines, teaching experience, and ICT

expertise. The students were not familiar with each other at the beginning of the semester

Res Sci Educ

7/25/2019 Barak 2016

15/21

and they had to learn new content and work with new and advanced technologies. Their

learning environment included a physical environmentthe classroom, and a virtual

environmenta Google document that was used as a digital binder for producing

and displaying all their learning assignments. In this course, the learning assignments

included the following: a literature review on a scientific concept or principle (i.e., heatbalance, energy conservation, water purification, blood flow), the design of an inquiry-

based laboratory experiment, the design of a learning game, the production of a short

video clip (see Fig. 4), and a digital mind-map that summarized related concepts. The

digital binder, in the form of a shared Google doc, allowed the teaching team to provide

constructive comments and timely formative feedback. The digital binder served as a

collection of text, photos, and links to web-based audio and video recordings that each

group of students co-created.

At the end of the 14-week semester, the science student teachers were asked to

express their views about the pedagogical framework that they experienced as stu-dents. A deductive content analysis of the personal interviews and written reflections

identified all four attributes of the framework within the students learning experience.

Selected examples are presented in the paragraphs below. All names are pseudonyms.

Fig. 4 Examples of studentsvideos of laboratory experiments:aseed germination;bwater purification;cwater

uptake in plants; d states of matter

Res Sci Educ

7/25/2019 Barak 2016

16/21

A. Adapting to frequent changes and uncertain situations

Marsha, a bio-chemistry major with no teaching experience, asserted that: In a con-

stantly changing world, there is a need to move away from mental fixation and broaden

our horizons.there is a need to open our eyes and look at different directions of doing

things, to think creatively, think in a flexible way. (Marsha, written reflection)

Shalom, a physics major with no teaching experience, asserted that: The course opened

a wide world of content and tools that I did not know about. It changed my perspective

about teaching and now I understand that I need to act more as a guide and less as a

lecturer (Shalom, written reflection)

The studentsassertions suggested that they understood the need for adapting to changes.

By exposing student teachers to changes, such as from lecture to studio-based instruction, from

individual to collaborative learning, from LMS to cloud-based technologies, and from sum-

mative to embedded assessment, we encourage them to think and act in more flexible ways.

B. Collaborating and communicating in decentralized environments

Rachel, a science major with no teaching experience, stated: This is one of the most

interesting courses I took. It was very informative. It did not focus only on the

technological tools, but it also emphasized science contents, and how to work in groups,

in collaboration with future teachers from different disciplines. The combination of

people from different fields in one group is very interesting, educational, and successful,

in my opinion. (Rachel, written reflection)

Jacob, a computer engineer with no teaching experience, stated: The experience of working

in a heterogeneous group (a feeling that I am familiar with after working 25 years in the

high-tech industry) is challenging. It requires critical, innovative, and creative thinking

the course is very relevant for the 21st century. (Jacob, written reflection)

The students experienced the complexity of working in a group and recognized its

importance. They understood the importance of being able to communicate and collaborate

with fellow learners, in close and more distant contexts.

C. Generating data and managing information

Nina, a science major with no teaching experience, asserted that:The course demon-

strated the use of many educational tools; even if we will not use all of them, it is

important to know that they existsometimes it is enough to know that something exists

and from there I can continue on my own, helping students to construct their own

content and learning environments. (Nina, written reflection)

Tami, a science major with two years of teaching experience, stated: The idea of

generating ones own content, designing a learning game, producing a YouTube video,

and sharing them on a digital binder can create an excellent knowledge base for science

teachers. I will definitely show my students the videos we [the group] created on lab

experiments. (Tami, end-of-course interview)

According to their responses, the student teachers identified the importance of harnessing

advanced (cloud-based) technologies for promoting reform-based teaching methods, especially

regarding the creation of content and managing information.

Res Sci Educ

7/25/2019 Barak 2016

17/21

7/25/2019 Barak 2016

18/21

necessary for working and learning in the twenty-first century (NRC 2012a; OECD2013). The

integrative and collaborative approach of the pedagogical framework follows studies that

claim that social constructivism and advanced technologies, woven together, should be a

vital part of any teacher education program (Barak2014; Niess2005; Polly et al.2010).

The science student teachers who experienced learning via the cloud-pedagogy frame-work asserted positive views about it and its implementation in their present (teacher

education) or future (school-based) classrooms. Since they were actively engaged in

learning, the transfer of knowledge and skills from academia to schools is more likely to

happen. This follows the study of Kolb et al. (2001) that emphasized direct experience as

a process for constructing knowledge and transferable skills.

Suggestions for Future Research

This study introduces a pedagogical framework that integrates social constructivism and

advanced technologies. It can be adapted to any learning discipline, age group, and/or cloud

application. The assimilation of studio instruction, embedded assessment, and cloud applica-

tions for facilitating students exploration of new venues and co-construction of content has

been shown to have potential for enhancing twenty-first century skills. The special capabilities

of cloud applications can be harnessed to generate learning environments that are not only

ubiquitous (anytime and anywhere) but also omnipresent (everywhere at once), while promot-

ing studentsinteractivity through a variety of modalities. The results of our exploratory study

raise several questions, such as: Whether and how can cloud pedagogies facilitate higher orderthinking such as innovative or critical thinking? Can cloud pedagogies enhance effective

online group work? Can cloud pedagogies promote collaborative learning among students

from diverse cultures? Our mission now is to adjust and apply the cloud pedagogies frame-

work among a wide variety of science education courses. We hope that this pedagogical

framework will bridge the theory-practice gap and contribute to national and international

efforts to promote science teaching, learning, and assessment in the twenty-first century.

Appendix A. A Survey on teacher education in the twenty-first century

Question 1: How often do you use the following technologies in your courses?

Scale: Always (5), Very Often (4), Sometimes (3), Rarely (2), Never (1)

1. Learning management systemfor uploading the learning materials

2. Online asynchronous forumsfor online group discussions

3. Online synchronous meetingsfor real-time exchange of ideas

4. Online simulationsfor introducing real-world situations

5. Wiki, blogfor generating and co-editing contents

6. Social networksfor sharing information and receiving feedback

7. Google drivefor online simultaneous collaborative learning

8. YouTube and video appsfor viewing and sharing educational videos

Question 2: How often do you expect student teachers to use the following technologies?

Scale: Always (5), Very Often (4), Sometimes (3), Rarely (2), Never (1)

Res Sci Educ

7/25/2019 Barak 2016

19/21

1. Learning management systemfor uploading the learning materials

2. Online asynchronous forumsfor online group discussions

3. Online synchronous meetingsfor real-time exchange of ideas

4. Online simulationsfor introducing real-world situations

5. Wiki, blogfor generating and co-editing contents6. Social networksfor sharing information and receiving feedback

7. Google drivefor online simultaneous collaborative learning

8. YouTube and video appsfor viewing and sharing educational videos

Question 3: How strongly do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements

about the use of advanced educational technologies?

Scale: Strongly agree (5), Agree (4), Undecided (3), Disagree (2), Strongly disagree (1)

1. It improves the quality of my teaching2. It improves the quality of my students learning

3. It corresponds with my teaching philosophy

4. It enhances my communication with students

5. It enhances communication among students

6. It doesnt fit the discipline that I am teaching

7. I have sufficient pedagogical knowledge to efficiently integrate ICT in my course

8. I have the required technical knowledge to efficiently integrate ICT in my course

References

Atwater, M. M. (1996). Social constructivism: infusion into the multicultural science education research agenda.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 821837.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs:

Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: an agentive perspective.Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 126.

Barak, M. (2014). Closing the gap between attitudes and perceptions about ICT-enhanced learning among

preservice STEM teachers.The Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(1), 114. doi:10.1007/

s10956-013-9446-8.Barak, M., & Rafaeli, S. (2004). Online question-posing and peer-assessment as means for Web-based knowl-

edge sharing.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 61(1), 84103.

Barak, M., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). Enhancing higher order thinking skills among in-service science education

teachers via embedded assessment. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(5), 459474. doi:10.1007/

s10972-009-9141-z.

Barak, M., Lipson, A., & Lerman, S. (2006). Wireless laptops as means for promoting active learning in large

lecture halls. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 245264. doi:10.1080/15391523.

2006.10782459.

Barak, M., Ben-Chaim, D., & Zoller, U. (2007). Purposely teaching for the promotion of higher-order thinking

skills: a case of critical thinking.Research in Science Education, 37(4), 353369. doi:10.1007/s11165-006-

9029-2.

Barak, M., & Hussein- Farraj, R. (2013). Integrating modelbased learning and animations for enhancing studentsunderstanding of proteins structure and function. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 619636. doi:10.

1007/s11165-012-9280-7.

Bell, R. L., Maeng, J. L., & Binns, I. C. (2013). Learning in context: technology integration in a teacher

preparation program informed by situated learning theory.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3),

348379.

Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O. (2011). Learning from failure: a case study of where an extracurricular science program went

wrong.Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 592607. doi:10.1007/s10956-011-9327-y.

Res Sci Educ

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9446-8http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9446-8http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9141-zhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9141-zhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2006.10782459http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2006.10782459http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9029-2http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9029-2http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9280-7http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9280-7http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9327-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9327-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9280-7http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9280-7http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9029-2http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9029-2http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2006.10782459http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2006.10782459http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9141-zhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9141-zhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9446-8http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9446-8

7/25/2019 Barak 2016

20/21

Berenfeld, B., & Yazijian, H. (2010). Global Lab: harnessing the cloud and social networking for K-

12 science learning since 1991. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), In: Proceedings of Society for

Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 35443547).

Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 771.

Chao, L. (Ed.). (2012). Cloud computing for teaching and learning: strategies for design and implementation.Hershey: IGI Global.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand

Oaks: Sage.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: an introduction (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn-

Bacon.

Griffin, P., McGaw, B., & Care, E. (Eds.). (2012). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. Dordrecht:

Springer.

Hsieh H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health

Research, 15(9), 12771288.

Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge

framework for science teachers professional development. Computers & Education, 55(3), 12591269.

Johnson, C. C. (2006). Effective professional development and change in practice: barriers science teachersencounter and implications for reform.School Science and Mathematics, 106, 150161. doi:10.1111/j1949-

85942006tb18172x.

Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential learning theory: previous research and new

directions.Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles, 1, 227247.

Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 38, 296316.

Mell, P., Grance, T. (2011). The NIST definition of cloud computing, National Institutes of Technology. US

Department of Commerce, Special Publication 800-145, March 2013, available at http://csrc.nist.gov/

publications/nistpubs/800-145/SP800-145.pdf

Mishra, P., & Kereluik, K. (2011). What 21st century learning? A review and a synthesis. In M. Koehler & P.

Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International

Conference 2011 (pp. 33013312). Chesapeake: Association for the Advancement of Computing inEducation (AACE).

National Research Council [NRC]. (2012a).Education for life and work: developing transferable knowledge and

skills in the 21st century. Washington: National Academies.

National Research Council [NRC]. (2012b). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting

concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a conceptual framework for new k-12 science education standards.

Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington:

National Academies.

NGSS Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington: National

Academies.

Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: developing a

technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509523. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.006.

OECD. (2013).Trends shaping education 2013. Paris: OECD . doi:10.1787/trends_edu-2013-en.

Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of

Psychology, 49, 345375.

Palmer, D. (2005). A motivational view of constructivist-informed teaching. International Journal of Science

Education, 27(15), 18531881.

Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures: the central problem of intellectual development(T.

Brown & K. L. Thampy, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago.

Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C. E., & Inan, F. (2010). Evidence of impact: transforming teacher education with

preparing tomorrows teachers to teach with technology. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 863870.

Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Eds.),Handbook of child

psychology(5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 679744). New York: Wiley.Romeo, G., Lloyd, M., & Downes, T. (2012). Teaching Teachers for the Future (TTF): building the ICT in

education capacity of the next generation of teachers in Australia. Australian Journal of Educational

Technology, 28(6), 949964.

Rowe, P. G. (1987).Design thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Segers, M., Dochy, F., & Cascallar, E. (Eds.) (2003). Optimising new modes of assessment: in search of qualities

and standards. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Steffe, L., & Gale, J. (Eds.). (1995). Constructivism in education. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Res Sci Educ

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j1949-85942006tb18172xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j1949-85942006tb18172xhttp://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-145/SP800-145.pdfhttp://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-145/SP800-145.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/trends_edu-2013-enhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1787/trends_edu-2013-enhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-145/SP800-145.pdfhttp://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-145/SP800-145.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j1949-85942006tb18172xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j1949-85942006tb18172x

7/25/2019 Barak 2016

21/21