Assessing Science PCK of Technology Educators

1. Tyler S. Love Assessing Science PCK of Technology Educators

2. Research cites Shulman’s 7 categories of teacher knowledge • What is PCK? (De Miranda, 2008)

3. Defining PCK • Varying Definitions • Definitions across science education and technology education. • Topic Specific • Multiple types of PCK for varying subject areas

4. Rationale • Teachers’ have much impact on student achievement in the classroom • Sometimes more than Socioeconomic Status • Teaching science and technology in unison • Israel – 1995 • Netherlands – 2006 • United States – 1996, 2000, & 2013

5. Rationale • Technology educators need a unique PCK to teach integrative concepts • What are integrative concepts and teaching? • Science is embedded within technology and engineering concepts • Teach S+T+E+M and other concepts in unison • Holistic learning beyond technology education classroom

6. Purpose of the Study • Still much unknown about PCK of technology education (TE) teachers • TE has been “expected to teach” engineering and design concepts for many years • TE teachers might be the best population to study PCKneeded to deliver science and engineering concepts

7. Previous Studies • Most PCK research isfoundin science education • It is a growing trend in research in technology education • Qualitative method approaches • Quantitative method approaches • Mixed-Methods approaches • Obstacles with assessing PCK • Methods, sample size, generalizability, and correlation to student achievement

8. Overarching Research Question • RQ1 – What teacher preparation factors contribute to the ability of in-service secondary level technology and engineering (T&E) educators to teach (a) science content and (b) science practices in T&E education classrooms? • In the context of teaching the Foundations of Technology (FoT) unit of the Engineering by Design (EbD) curriculum:

9. Research Sub-Questions • SQ1.1- What science-relatedpreparation experiences, formal and informal, contribute to the ability of in-service secondary level T&E educators to teach science contentembedded within the FoT unit? • SQ1.2- What T&E-relatedpreparation experiences, formal and informal, contribute to the ability of in-service secondary level T&E educators toteach science contentembedded within the FoT unit?

10. Research Sub-Questions • SQ1.3- What science-relatedpreparation experiences, formal and informal, contribute to the ability of in-service secondary level T&E educators to teach science practicesembedded within the FoT unit? • SQ1.4- What T&E-relatedpreparation experiences, formal and informal, contribute to the ability of in-service secondary level T&E educators to teach science practicesembedded within the FoT unit?

11. Proposed Design and Methodology • Explanatory sequential mixed methods design • Survey on science preparation of technology educators • Large sample of technology educators (≈707) • Purposeful sampling from survey results • ≈10 technology educators • Observe teaching an engineering design lesson, including student interactions, lesson plans, and student artifacts • Post observation interviews with the teachers Analyze/Interpret Findings Purposeful Sample Qualitative Research Survey Analyze

12. Implications • Show value of technology education for teaching science concepts • Inform pre and inserviceteacher preparation programs • Better prepare teachers to teach multiple contents within technological and engineering design • Assessing knowledge of STEM PCK of technology educators in large sample sizes • Foundation for future PCK studies • Applications for assessing engineering PCK of science educators • What might be the best questions to ask?

13. Questions • Thank You • Questions? • Contact Information • Tyler S. Love • Email: tslove@vt.edu