<p>Examining the Demographics and Preparation Experiences of Foundations of Technology Teachers</p>

Abstract

When the Standards for Technological Literacy were released in 2000, Technology and Engineering (T&E) educators were expected to integrate concepts from other content areas within the context of engineering design and problem solving (ITEA/ITEEA, 2000/2002/2007). Fourteen years later, the Next Generation Science Standards called for science educators to teach engineering content and practices within their curricula (NGSS Lead States, 2014). These integrative standards have increased the demands placed on pre-and in-service teacher preparation efforts to ensure science and T&E educators are properly prepared to teach cross-disciplinary concepts. However, requisite for suggesting changes to adequately prepare educators for teaching such concepts, the demographics and preparation experiences of those teaching within these content areas must be thoroughly examined. This is especially important in T&E T&E educators than openings in the United States (Moye, 2009). Given this shortage it begs to question, "What are the demographic and preparation experiences of those tasked with teaching T&E courses?" This study examined the demographic and background characteristics of 55 individuals who were teaching Foundations of Technology (FoT), the International Technology and Engineering Furthermore, this research investigated the types and amount of formal and informal preparation experiences that participating FoT teachers completed within science and T&E education. among the preparation experiences of those recommendations to better prepare FoT teachers for integrating science concepts were suggested.

Examining the Teaching of Science, and Technology and Engineering Content and Practices: An Instrument Modification Study

“…About half of the participants reported taking a higher education course that discussed methods for teaching interdisciplinary STEM concepts (e.g., science and engineering). The demographic and preparation data from this research and the full study (Love & Wells, 2017) were consistent with studies examining T&E educators at a national level (Love, 2015;Ernst & Williams, 2015). …”

“…Although observation of T&E participants was limited to a single 1-hour lesson, their limited formal preparation in science content and practices (Love, 2015;Love & Wells, 2017), coupled with low ratings on teaching science concepts in the lessons (Table 3), suggests the need to investigate whether or not similar results would be found for science teachers attempting to teach T&E content and practices inherent within science lessons. Considering that pre-service science teacher preparation programs prior to NGSS did not address engineering practices, such research might prove useful in efforts to enhance science educators' effectiveness in teaching engineering concepts with the rigor needed for students to make higher level cross-disciplinary connections.…”

“…Additionally, the sample of observed teachers consisted of primarily White males, which presents a limitation considering the diversity in the actual population of T&E educators. However, it is noteworthy that the convenience sample used in this study is actually reflective of national T&E educator characteristics (Love, 2015;Ernst & Williams, 2015). Accounting for recognized limitations, the modified RTOP provided a viable instrument for quantifying teacher levels of science and T&E PCK, which is discussed in the following section.…”

“…29 No. 1, Fall 2017 -53-educator characteristics (Love, 2015;Ernst & Williams, 2015). Accounting for recognized limitations, the modified RTOP provided a viable instrument for quantifying teacher levels of science and T&E PCK, which is discussed in the following section.…”

Examining correlations between preparation experiences of US technology and engineering educators and their teaching of science content and practices

“…Development of discipline specific PCK by T&E educators in the US is typically accomplished through T&E content and methods courses, a student teaching internship, and classroom experience. Additionally, they often complete a limited amount of science content courses, and none if any science methods courses in their teacher preparation program (Litowitz 2014;Love 2015b;McAlister 2004;Strimel 2013). (2004) found that 29% of T&E teacher preparation programs in the US required students to complete two science courses, and 38% required two lab based science courses.…”