Abstract
The purpose of the study was to explore the development of discourses that emerge as a result of inservice teachers being engaged in a richly situated technological task that incorporated geometric spatial sense development and the engineering design processes. Typically, learning has been approached as a discrete set of tasks to be mastered without regard for how expressed language within context develops. Secondary teachers (N = 26) who attended a week-long residential professional development program at a land grant university learned to use Google Sketch-Up® to design 3-dimensional (3-D) objects that were created using 3-D printers. Data were collected during an aural spatial visualization test that required language be used to describe 3-D objects to others who created 2-D drawings. Digital audio recordings of these interactions were analyzed. Results indicated language emerged through a variety of discourses each characterized by distinct languages: analogous, technical, and clarifying. The discourses were mediated by cognitive negotiation that allowed meaning to ascribe with sense carrying capacity that was occasionally hindered by terminological ambiguity. Implications of this study are that designing and creating 3-D objects using 3-D printers in classrooms may support opportunities for engaging in and practicing engineering design processes while developing disciplinary language, and spatial ability.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alexander, K. A. (2012). Sexual safety and sexual security: Broadening the sexual health discourse. Dissertations ProQuest Paper AAI3550742.
Altheide, D. L., & Johnson, J. M. (1994). Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 485–499). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Association for Psychological Science, 1(2), 164–180.
Beauducel, A. (2003). Fluid and crystallized intelligence. In R. Fernandez-Ballesteros (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychological assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Campbell, T. A., Williams, C. B., Ivanova, O. S., & Garrett, B. (2011). Could 3D printing change the world? Strategic Foresight Report. Washington, DC: Atlantic Council.
Capraro, M. M., Bicer, A., Grant, M. R., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2017). Using precision in STEM language: A qualitative look at how working in groups may help. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(1), 29–39. doi:10.18404/ijemst.15709.
Capraro, R. M. (2016). Catalyzing fundamental STEM paradigms and practices. The nexus of ethical responsibility for co-constructors. Keynote address at the International Conference on Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology (ICEMST), Bodrum, Turkey.
Capraro, R. M., Barroso, L. R., Nite, S., Rice, D., Lincoln, Y., Young, J., & Young, J. (2017). Developing a useful and integrative STEM disciplinary language. International. Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology. doi:10.18404/ijemst.31232.
Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., & Morgan, J. (Eds.) (2013). STEM Project-based learning: An integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach (2nd ed.). Rotterdam: Sense.
Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., & Rupley, W. H. (2011). Reading-enhanced word problem solving (REPS): A theoretical model. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 27(1), 91–114. doi:10.1007/s10212-011-0068-3.
Carr, R. L., Bennett, L. D., & Strobel, J. (2012). Engineering in the K-12 STEM standards of the 50 US states: An analysis of presence and extent. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(3), 539–564.
Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
Clark, G., & Phillips, A. (2014). Inside book publishing. New York, NY: Routledge.
Council, T. A. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Craig, D. V. (2000). Technology, mathematics, and the early learner: Models for learning. Early Childhood Education Journal, 27(3), 179–184.
de Mora, J. C., & Wood, K. (2014). Practical knowledge in teacher education: Approaches to teacher internship programmes. London: Routledge.
Dian, S. (2013). 3D printing in the classroom: 5 Tips for bringing new dimensions to your students’ experiences. Retrieved February 1, 2016, from https://thejournal.com/Articles/2013/12/11/3D-Printing-in-the-Classroom-5-Tips-for-Bringing-New-Dimensions-to-Your-Students-Experiences.aspx?Page=1.
Dix, K. (1999). Enhanced mathematics learning: Does technology make a difference? Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, 2, 192–199.
Fisher, T. (2016) The professional practice of educators. Retrieved February 3, 2016, from http://3dprintingsystems.com/wp-content/uploads/EDP416-Assessment-2.pdf.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Routledge.
Guth, H. P., Squire, J. R., & Boynton, R. (1989). A symposium: The textbook gap: A teacher-author-publisher dialogue. English Journal, 78(6), 14–21.
Han, S. Y., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2016). How science, technology, engineering, and mathematics project based learning affects high-need students in the US. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 157–166.
Hart, S. M., & Bennett, S. M. (2013). Disciplinary literacy development of STEM preservice teachers. Teacher Education and Practice, 26(2), 221–241.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
Janesick, V. J. (1994). The dance of qualitative research design. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 209–219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kay, J. (2005). Crystallized intelligence versus fluid intelligence. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 68(1), 9–13.
Kearsley, G. (2010). Andragogy (M. Knowles). The theory into practice database. Retrieved December 17, 2015, from http://tip.psychology.org.
Knowles, M. (1984). Andragogy in action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lewis, T. (2006). Design and inquiry: Bases for an accommodation between science and technology education in the curriculum? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(3), 255–281.
National Governors Association Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Council of Chief State School Officers.
Pannoni, A. (2014). 3-D printing becomes accessible for high school teachers. Retrieved November 23, 2015, from http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes/2014/07/21/3-d-printing-becomes-accessible-for-high-school-teachers.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd edn.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Segerman, H. (2012). 3D printing for mathematical visualization. The Mathematical Intelligencer, 34(4), 56–62. doi:10.1007/s00283-012-9319-7.
Smith, M. K. (1996, 1999). ‘Andragogy’, The encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved February 3, 2016, from http://www.infed.org/lifelonglearning/b-andra.htm.
Smith, M. K. (2002) ‘Malcolm Knowles, informal adult education, self-direction and andragogy’. The encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved February 3, 2016, from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-knowl.htm.
Stotsky, S. (2014). Common core doesn’t add up to STEM success: The high-school mathematics standards are too weak to give us more engineers or scientists. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved January 4, 2016, from http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304020704579278060483138096.
Vardeman, J. E., & Aldoory, L. (2008). A qualitative study of how women make meaning of contradictory media messages about the risks of eating fish. Health Communications, 23(3), 282–291.
Webb, N. E. (2009). Fluid and crystallized intelligence. In B. Kerr (Ed.), Encyclopedia of giftedness, creativity, and talent. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wickman, P.-O., & Östman, L. (2002). Learning as discourse change: A sociocultural mechanism. Science Education, 86, 601–623.
Wolfe, J. (2012). 3D printing, shapeways, and the future of personal products. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshwolfe/2012/06/19/3d-printing-shapeways-and-the-future-of-personal-products/.
Wu, L., & Hoyoung, A. (2010). Making sense of conflicting health information: An exploratory study. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 47(1), 1–9.
Acknowledgements
This manuscript is based upon work supported by the Texas Education Agency (TEA-146944107110003). Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this manuscript are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agency.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
1.1 Standardized proctor script
Directions to teachers. The proctor read the following directions to the participants and only these directions: each team has been divided by a partition; please do not peek around it. Half of your group, the drawers, has been given a sheet of graph paper and a ruler; they should also have a pencil. The drawers are tasked with drawing multiple perspectives—top, front, and side—of a three-dimensional object to scale. The other half of the team sitting on the other side of the partition is tasked with describing the three-dimensional object. The describers will be given an object to describe. They should already have a caliper, and one ruler. Describers may use everyday language and one or two-dimensional math language, such as, straight line, curve, rectangle, circle, etc. to describe the object and to help the drawers on the other side of the partition to draw the top, side, and front views—and any other views necessary to fully depict the three-dimensional object to scale. The team members separated by the partition are asked to not look around the partition to see hand motions, facial expressions, or other hints. You will have 15 min to describe or draw the first object. Then you will switch roles and be given a new object.
During this exercise, your conversations will be recorded to allow researchers to analyze this activity for sharing at conferences or through empirical publications.
Does anyone have questions? (Address questions).
Distribution of objects: we will distribute the objects now, but please, do NOT open the envelope with the object until time instructed to do so. [Distribute object envelopes] Proctor: [After object envelopes are distributed] Participants describing side, find the object identifier written on the outside of the object’s envelope, tell the drawers the object identifier. Drawing participants, please, write the object identifier on the top of the graph paper with your name. Drawing and describing participants, please write the object identifier on the post-it note attached to your recording device and then write the letter A enclosed in a circle. (For second round write the letter B.)
Proctor: participants, please, turn on your recording devices. State your name, your role (describer or drawer), and object identifier. [Proctor, give a little time (~2 min max) for this to occur before going on].
Proctor: open your objects and begin. Start timer (15 min).
When time elapses: describers, please return the object to its envelope without showing it to team members on the other side of the partition. Drawers, please, turn your drawings over so they may be collected. Please, stop the recording devices.
The second round of the activity is the same as the first except: team members switch roles—the drawers will be describers and describers will be drawers; and you will have 15 min to describe or draw a new object.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Barroso, L.R., Bicer, A., Capraro, M.M. et al. Run! Spot. Run!: vocabulary development and the evolution of STEM disciplinary language for secondary teachers. ZDM Mathematics Education 49, 187–201 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0826-4
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0826-4