10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
Sustainability Teaching in Teacher Education
Anne Bergliot Øyehaug
Inland University of Applied Sciences, Norway
Presenting Author: Øyehaug, Anne Bergliot
Education for sustainable development has been implemented more strongly in the Norwegian teaching curriculum the recent years (Ministry of Education and Research, 2017). When implementing sustainability, teachers are in a key position (Munkebye & Gericke, 2022), and teacher education is crucial (Arneback & Blåsjö (2017). Sustainability issues are often complex and can be seen from various perspectives. Socio scientific issues (SSI) involve the deliberate use of scientific topics that require students to engage in dialogue, discussion, and debate. They are usually controversial in nature but have the added element of requiring the evaluation of ethical concerns in the process of arriving at decisions regarding possible resolution of those issues (Zeidler, 2003). Interdisciplinary teaching in teacher training provides many opportunities to engage future teachers in teaching related to societal challenges and sustainability issues.
Effective elementary generalist teachers who teach multiple subjects are required to be competent at motivating students to learn, sustaining students’ engagement, planning, and implementing lessons with clear objectives, presenting content through multiple methods, and helping students make meaningful connections within and across subject areas. Shulman (1986) characterized teachers’ knowledge by formulating the importance of pedagogical knowledge (PK), content knowledge (CK) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) respectively. By extending Shulman’s (1987) model of PCK, An (2017) introduced an additional component of teachers’ PCK across different disciplines—the interdisciplinary pedagogical content knowledge (IPCK). IPCK includes four additional categories of pedagogical capacity: (a) representing and demonstrating concepts based on themes from other subjects, (b) addressing content from multiple subjects simultaneously, (c) highlighting connections among different disciplines, and (d) assessing students’ learning of content from multiple subjects (An, 2017). Previous research has indicated that the development of teachers’ IPCK requires specific training experiences focused on interdisciplinary pedagogy. Teachers’ development of PCK for interdisciplinary education involves seeking, building, and evaluating pedagogical strategies that link disciplines in an adaptable manner (Park & Oliver, 2008). For instance, teaching about sustainability issues requires the capacity of linking knowledge relevant for these issues from different disciplines. In addition, all teachers are responsible of promoting student skills such as critical thinking, problem solving, creativity, reflection, and argumentation (Sinnes, 2015). However, there has been little cooperation across subjects in teacher education, and there is a need for restructuring and change of work habits in how teaching is carried out (Biseth et al., 2022).
This proposal is part of a larger research project engaging with the UN Sustainable Development Goals and OECD’s call for 21st Century Skills. The goal of the research in this project is to develop, strengthen and systematize interdisciplinary teaching and learning activities in teacher education in the interdisciplinary themes including the theme sustainability. In this paper, I will investigate how teacher students implement and reflect on interdisciplinar teaching about sustainability issues in one teacher education programme in Norway. Sustainability and interdisciplinary is implemented in two courses (Science, 4th Semester and Pedagogy, 8th semester). In both these courses students plan an interdisciplinary teaching program with focus on sustainability, this being the main assignment. This paper will examine what sustainability perspectives and interdisciplinar teaching methods students emphasise in these assignments, and how they reflect about these perspectives. I aim to address the following research questions:
- What interdisciplinary pedagogical content knowledge (IPCK) in sustainability do students emphasise in their interdisciplinar teaching program assignment and to what extent do student perspectives develop from the first assignment to the second?
- How do students reflect about interdisciplinar sustainability content and interdisciplinar teaching methods?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe data is collected in one teacher education programme in Norway and consists of student assignments and interviews. The two assignments both aim to plan interdisciplinar teaching program for primary or secondary schools.
The first assignment is a part of a science course, in which education for sustainable development is the main theme in addition to content knowledge in science. Students were asked to develop a teaching program with a sustainability issue as a starting point, including aims from science and other subjects, teaching methods and reflection about their choices in the plan. I have collected all student’s assignment from this course (n =25). The second assignment is a part of a pedagogy course, in which interdisciplinarity is one of the main themes. Students were again asked to develop an interdisciplinar (any theme) teaching program, including aims from different subjects and teaching methods. Only students who had chosen sustainability as their interdisciplinar theme in the teaching program and who had written the first assignment were selected for data collection (n = 8).
Students’ choice of sustainability issues, different subject perspectives on sustainably and teaching methods in the assignments have been examined for both assignments. The analysis focus on the four categories of interdisciplinar pedagogical capacity: (a) representing and demonstrating concepts based on themes from other subjects, (b) addressing content from multiple subjects simultaneously, (c) highlighting connections among different disciplines, and (d) assessing students’ learning of content from multiple subjects (An, 2017). For students also writing the second assignment, these categories have been compared in the two assignments, looking for development from the first teaching program to the second.
In addition, data will be collected through interviews with the selected students (n=8) to gain in-depth knowledge of their choices and thoughts about their interdisciplinary teaching programs. These interviews will focus on the four categories of interdisciplinar pedagogic capacity linked to sustainability.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsPreliminary results show that students starting point in the teaching programs are sustainability issues of different types. Most of them are complex socio scientific issues (SSI), addressing content from multiple subjects simultaneously. Students choose complex issues within sustainable development within the themes of energy sources, climate, species diversity, food production and consumption. However, they do not highlight connections among different disciplines, and plan for assessment of students’ learning of content from multiple subjects (An, 2017). Furthermore, students include perspectives from science, social science, and language in their plans, but rarely religion, ethics, and art. Thus, we can say that there is a danger of ethical concern missing out in the teaching programs about sustainability. Sustainability issues often involves the element of requiring the evaluation of ethical concerns in the process of arriving at decisions (Zeidler, 2003). Since students often use socio scientific issues (SSI) as their starting point in the teaching program, this naturally involves involve deliberate use of scientific topics that require students to engage in dialogue, discussion, and debate. Preliminary results from the coding, shows that students emphasize teaching methods such as debates and discussions, but not so much inquiry and scientific practices.
In the interviews, I will have the opportunity to get a deeper insight in student teachers interdisciplinary pedagogical content knowledge (IPCK) concerning sustainable development
ReferencesAn, S. A. (2017). Preservice teachers’ knowledge of interdisciplinary pedagogy: the case of elementary mathematics–science integrated lessons. ZDM, 49(2), 237-248.
An, S.A. & Tillman, D.A. (2018). Preservice Teachers’ Pedagogical Use of “Gerrymandering” to Integrate Social Studies and Mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Education (11(3), 33-53. https://doi.org/10.26711/007577152790031
Arneback, E. & Blåsjö, M. (2017) Doing interdisciplinarity in teacher education. Resources for learning through writing in two educational programmes, Education Inquiry, 8:4, 299-317. doi: 10.1080/20004508.2017.1383804
Biseth, H., Svenkerud, S. W., Magerøy, S. M., & Rubilar, K. H. (2022). Relevant Transformative Teacher Education for Future Generations. Front. Educ. 7:806495. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.806495
Ministry of Education and Research (2017). Core curriculum– Interdisciplinary topics. National Curriculum for Knowledge Promotion in Primary and Secondary Education and Training 2020.
Munkebye, E. & Gericke, N. (2022). Primary School Teachers’ Understanding of Critical Thinking in the Context of Education for Sustainable Development. I B. Puig & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (red.), Critical Thinking in Biology and Environmental Education: Facing Challenges in a Post-truth World (s. 249–266). Springer
Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261–284
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23
Sinnes, A. T. (2015). Utdanning for bærekraftig utvikling: Hva, hvorfor og hvordan? Universitetsforlaget.
Zeidler, D. L. (2003). The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press
10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
Predicting Pre-service Teachers’ Attitudes towards STEM Education through Sustainability Awareness
Ceren Baser Kanbak, Elçin Erbasan, Anis Busra Baran Sarac, Gulnur Akin, Esen Uzuntiryaki Kondakci
Middle East Technical University, Turkiye
Presenting Author: Baser Kanbak, Ceren;
Erbasan, Elçin
The purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship between pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and their sustainability awareness. STEM education has a vital role in nations’ economic growth, technological innovation, and sustainable development (Nguyen et al., 2020). Basically, STEM education aims to develop students’ 21st-century skills such as problem-solving, creative thinking, collaboration, and teamwork while students deal with real-life problems in an integrated context (Furner & Kumar, 2007). However, in spite of the benefits of STEM education, there are many challenges regarding teachers’ implementation of STEM (Shernoff et al., 2017). Findings of several research studies indicate that the implementation of STEM is related to teachers’ attitudes toward STEM education (e.g., Thibaut et al., 2018). As a result, researchers need to explore teachers’ attitudes toward STEM to increase students’ achievement and interest in STEM fields (Al Salami et al., 2017).
STEM attitude can be defined as “an individual’s thinking, feelings, and behaviors towards STEM” (Sırakaya et al., 2020, p.563). STEM attitudes of teachers may be affected by their professional experience, background characteristics, gender, and subject matter as well as school-related variables (Al Salami et al., 2017; Thibaut et al., 2018). In addition to these, according to Burgess and Buck (2020), the conceptions of STEM and sustainability of pre-service teachers participating in sustainability-related issues-focused STEM teaching are positively interrelated. Sustainable development is described as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987) and has economic, environmental, and social aspects which should be considered in a holistic manner (Harris, 2000). Economic sustainability addresses the reduction of poverty, corporation of responsibility (UNESCO, 2006), and improvement of the living standards of individuals and society (Atmaca et al., 2018). Environmental sustainability aims to protect natural resources, reduce environmental pollution, and use renewable energy sources (Atmaca et al., 2019). Social sustainability comprises employment, human rights, gender equity, peace, and human security (UNESCO, 2006). According to Bybee (2010) STEM could be used to address issues such as “personal health, energy efficiency, environmental quality, resource use, and national security” (p.996), which can be considered as related to sustainability. In this context, sustainable development and its goals can be associated with STEM education (Kates, 2011). In the current study, therefore, we investigated the relationship between pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward STEM education and their sustainability awareness. The following research question guided the study: “To what extent does pre-service teachers' sustainable development awareness predict their attitudes toward STEM education?”
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedA correlational research design was employed to investigate the research question of the study. Data were collected from 193 third and fourth-year pre-service teachers who have been attending teacher education programs related to STEM disciplines in a state university (e.g., mathematics education or chemistry education programs). The pre-service teachers have taken most of the pedagogical courses such as teaching methods, curriculum, assessment, and developmental and learning psychology. Of 193 pre-service teachers, 30 were males, and 162 were (One person did not indicate the gender). The majority of the pre-service teachers reported that they did not attend any course or project related to STEM and sustainability. Data were collected using two instruments: The first one was the Attitude towards STEM Education Questionnaire developed by Yaman (2020). It has one dimension with 17 items in a 5-point Likert-type. The inter-item correlations were checked for validity. All correlations were satisfactory, ranging from .57 to .62 The Cronbach’s alpha value was found to be .94. The second instrument was the Sustainability Development Awareness Questionnaire developed by Atmaca et al. (2019) to measure teacher candidates’ awareness of the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainability. It consisted of 36 items in a 5-point Likert-type. Confirmatory factor analysis was run to test the factor structure of the instrument via MPlus Version 6.11 (Muthén and Muthén 1998-2015). Satisfactory fit indices were obtained, confirming three factors. The Cronbach’s alpha value was .88 for the economic dimension, .94 for the social dimension, and .87 for the environmental dimension. Stepwise multiple regression analysis was conducted to investigate the extent to which pre-service teachers’ sustainability awareness in terms of economic, social, and environmental aspects predicted their attitudes toward STEM education using the SPSS 28.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsBefore multiple regression analysis, preliminary analyses were conducted to ensure that there was no violation of assumptions. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the STEM attitude questionnaire (M = 4.48, SD = .57) and for the environmental dimension (M = 4.57, SD = .58), economic dimension (M = 4.60, SD = .53), social dimension (M = 4.70, SD = .56) of Sustainability Development Awareness Questionnaire. Results of multiple regression analysis indicated that the combination of two particular dimensions of sustainability awareness, which are economic and environmental dimensions, positively and significantly predicted pre-service teachers’ STEM attitudes of (r2 = .422, F(2,190) = 69.470, p < .001). The multiple correlation coefficient was found to be .65, indicating that approximately 42.2% of the variance of STEM attitude can be explained by the economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability. The economic dimension made the strongest unique contribution to the prediction of STEM attitude (β = .427, sr2 = .095, p < .001), explaining 9.5% of the variance. The environmental dimension was also found to make a statistical contribution to the prediction of STEM attitude (β = .277, sr2 = .04, p < .001) by uniquely accounting for 4% of the variance. In addition, the effect size for overall multiple regression analysis indicated a large effect size (Cohen’s f2 = .73). These findings suggest that teachers’ attitudes toward STEM education can be enhanced by developing their sustainability awareness. Teacher education programs may include more courses on sustainability which provides pre-service teachers the opportunity to develop awareness and positive attitudes toward STEM education. In addition, educators and curriculum developers, in particular, should holistically integrate all sustainability aspects in STEM education programs.
ReferencesAl Salami, M. K., Makela, C. J., & Miranda, M. A. (2017). Assessing changes in teachers’ attitudes toward interdisciplinary STEM teaching. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(1), 63-88.
Atmaca, A. C., Kıray, S. A.,& Pehlivan, M. (2018). Sustainable Development from Past to Present. In Shelley, M. & Kiray, S.A. (Ed.). Education research highlights in mathematics, science and technology (pp. 186-214).
Atmaca, A. C., Kıray, S. A., & Pehlivan, M. (2019). Development of a measurement tool for sustainable development awareness. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 6(1), 80-91. Burgess, A., & Buck, G. A. (2020). Inquiring into environmental STEM: Striving for an engaging inquiry-based E-STEM experience for pre-service teachers. In V. L. Akerson & G. A. Buck (Eds.) Critical questions in STEM education, (pp. 61–84). Springer.
Bybee, R.W. (2010). What is STEM education?. Science, 329(5995), 996.
Furner, J. & Kumar, D. (2007). The mathematics and science integration argument: A stand for teacher education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology, 3(3), 185–189.
Harris, J. M. (2000). Basic principles of sustainable development. (Global Development and Environment Institute Working Paper No. 00-04).
Kates, R. W. (2011). What kind of science is sustainability science? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(49), 19449–19450.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. 1998-2011. Mplus User’s Guide. 6th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Nguyen, T. P. L., Nguyen, T. H., & Tran, T. K. (2020). STEM education in secondary schools: Teachers’ perspective towards sustainable development. Sustainability, 12(21), 8865.
Shernoff, D. J., Sinha, S., Bressler, D. M., & Ginsburg, L. (2017). Assessing teacher education and professional development needs for the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 1-16.
Sırakaya, M., Alsancak Sırakaya, D., & Korkmaz, Ö. (2020). The impact of STEM attitude and thinking style on computational thinking determined via structural equation modeling. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(4), 561-572.
Thibaut, L., Knipprath, H., Dehaene, W., & Depaepe, F. (2018). How school context and personal factors relate to teachers’ attitudes toward teaching integrated STEM. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(3), 631-651.
UNESCO. (2006). United Nations decade of education for sustainable development 2005–2014, UNESCO: International implementation scheme. UNESCO.
WCED. (1987). Our common future: A report from the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press.
Yaman,F.(2020)Öğretmenlerin stem eğitimine yönelik farkındalık, tutum ve sınıf içi uygulama özyeterlik algılarının incelenmesi [Doctoral dissertation, Dicle University].
|
