Using a Participatory Design Approach to Create and Sustain an Innovative Technology-rich STEM Classroom - One School's Story

Mary L. Stephen, Sharon M. Locke, Georgia L. Bracey

2014

Abstract

This paper describes the design and implementation of a technology-rich STEM classroom in a secondary school associated with a comprehensive U.S. Midwestern university. Built to address a waning interest in STEM and STEM careers, this classroom offers multiple technologies and an engaging, flexible physical space that together create an innovative learning environment. A participatory design approach was utilized in order to maximize the use and sustainability of the classroom. Students, teachers, and administrators from the secondary school worked in collaboration with university faculty and staff and with Herman Miller®, an international design company that conducts learning-space research. In addition to the design process, this paper outlines successes and challenges encountered in implementation, as well as strategies used in addressing the challenges, providing guidance for other educational organizations seeking to infuse advanced technologies into classroom design and instruction.

References

  1. Albronda, B., De Langen, F., and Huizing, B., 2011. The influence of communication on the process of innovation adoption. Innovative Management Journal, 4(1), May 2011, pp.20-29.
  2. Baek, J. S., and Lee, K. P., 2008. A participatory design approach to information architecture design for children. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 4(3), pp.173-191.
  3. Bergaud, C., Kurop, N., Joyce, A., and Wood, C. eds., 2012. The e-Skills Manifesto. Brussels: European SchoolNet.
  4. Bingimlas, K. A. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: A review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. 5(3), pp.235-245.
  5. Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and 'making' in education: The democratization of invention. In: J. Walter-Herrmann and C. Büching. eds. 2013. FabLabs: Of machines, makers and inventors. Bielefeld, Germany: transcript Verlag Publishers. pp. 203-222.
  6. Bowen, S., 2010. Critical theory and participatory design, Computer Human Interaction (CHI 2010). Atlanta, Georgia, 10-15 April, 2010. New York: Association of Computing Machinery (ACM).
  7. Buabeng-Andoh, C., 2012. Factors influencing teachers' adoption and integration of information and communication technology into teaching: A review of the literature. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology. 8(1), pp.136-155.
  8. Byrom, E., and Bingham, M., eds. 2001. Factors influencing the effective use of technology for teaching and learning: Lessons learned from the SEIR_TEC Intensive Site Schools, 2nd ed. [pdf]. Greensboro, North Carolina: SouthEast Initiatives Regional Technology in Education Consortium (SEIR_TEC). Available from: <www.seirtec.org/ publications/lessons.pdf> [Accessed 25 September 2013].
  9. Clark, H., 2002. Building education: The role of the physical environment in enhancing teaching and research. London: Institute of Education.
  10. Cohen, C., and Patterson, D., 2012. Teaching strategies that promote science career awareness. [pdf]. Seattle, WA: Northwest Association for Biomedical Research. Available from: <https://www.nwabr.org/sites/default/ files/pagefiles/science-careers-teaching-strategiesPRINT.pdf>. [Accessed 27 September 2013].
  11. Crabtree, A., 1998. Ethnography in participatory design. Proceedings of the 1998 Participatory Design Conference. Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. Seattle, Washington, 12-14 November 1998, pp.93-105.
  12. Darling-Hammond, L., 2010. The flat world and education: How America's commitment to equity will determine our future. New York: New York. Teachers College Press.
  13. Dudek, M., 2000. Architecture of schools. Oxford: Architectural Press.
  14. Gaffney, M., 2010. Enhancing teachers' take-up of digital content: Factors and design principles in technology adoption.[pdf] Australia: Educational Services Australia, Ltd. Available from: <http:// www.ndlrn.edu.au/verve/_resources/Enhancing_Teach er_Takeup_of_Digital_Content_Report.PDF>. [Accessed 25 September 2013].
  15. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birmin, B. F., and Yoon, K. S., 2001. What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, Winter 2001, 38(4), pp.915-945.
  16. George, A. A., Hall, G. E., and Stiegelbauer, S. M., 2006. Measuring implementation in schools: The stages of concern questionnaire. Austin, TX: SEDL.
  17. Hall, G. E., 2010. Technology's Achilles heel: Achieving high-quality implementation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), pp.231-253.
  18. Gulamhussein, A., 2013. Teaching the teachers: Effective professional development in an era of high stakes accountability.[pdf] Alexandria, VA: Center for Public Education. Available from: <http:// www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/ Staffingstudents/Teaching-the-Teachers-EffectiveProfessional-Development-in-an-Era-of-High-StakesAccountability/Teaching-the-Teachers-FullReport.pdf>. [Accessed 25 September 2013].
  19. Joyce, A. and Dzoga, M., eds., 2011. Science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Overcoming challenges in Europe. Brussels: Belgium: European Schoolnet. Available from: <http://www.ingenious-science.eu/ c/document_library/get_file?uuid=3252e85a-125c-49c 2-a090-eaeb3130737a&groupId=10136>. [Accessed 25 September 2013].
  20. K?nings, K. D., van Zundert, M. J., Brand-Gruwel, S., and van Merri?nboer, J. J. G. (2007). Participatory design in secondary education: Its desirability and feasibility according to teachers and students. Educational Studies, 33, pp.445-465.
  21. Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., and Roberts, K., eds. 2013. STEM country comparisons, International comparisons of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. [pdf] Victoria, Australia: Australia's Council of Learned Academies. Available from: <http://www.acola.org.au/PDF/SAF02Consultants/SA F02_STEM_%20FINAL.pdf>. [Accessed 1 October 2013].
  22. Mumtaz, S., 2000. Factors affecting teachers' use of information and communications technology: A review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3), pp.319-342.
  23. National Research Council, 2011. Successful K-12 STEM education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  24. Patton, M. Q., 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  25. The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) Report to the President, 2010. Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathmatics (sTEM) for America's future. Available from: <http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/micros ites/ostp/pcast-stemed-report.pdf>. [Accessed: 22 March 2012].
  26. National Science Board, 2010. Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: Identifying and developing our nation's human capital. Washington, CC: National Science Board.
  27. Rogers, E., 1962. Diffusions of Innovations. New York: Free Press.
  28. Sanoff, H., 2006. Multiple views of participatory design, Archnet-IJAR, International Journal of Architectural Research, 2(1), March 2008. Published earlier in METU JFA 2006, 23(2), 131-143.
  29. Stake, R., 1998. Case Studies. In: N.K. Denzin, and Y. S. Lincoln, eds. 1998. Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pp.86-109.
  30. Wilson, S. M., 2011. Effective STEM teacher preparation, induction, and professional development. [online] Workshop on Successful STEM Education May 2011. Available from: <http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ bose/1STEM_Schools_Wilson_Paper_May2011.pdf>. [Accessed 29 September 2013].
  31. Woolner, P., 2009. Building schools for the future through a participatory design process: Exploring the issues and investigating ways forward. British Educational Research Association (BERA), Manchester, England. 2-5 September, 2009. Available from: <http:// www.ncl.ac.uk/cflat/news/documents/WoolnerBSFber apaper.pdf>. [Accessed 30 September 2013].
  32. Yin, R. K., 2009. Case study research: Design and methods. 4th ed.. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  33. Zhao, Y., and Frank, K. A., 2003. Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, Winter 2003, 40(4), pp.807-840.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

L. Stephen M., M. Locke S. and L. Bracey G. (2014). Using a Participatory Design Approach to Create and Sustain an Innovative Technology-rich STEM Classroom - One School's Story . In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 3: CSEDU, ISBN 978-989-758-022-2, pages 30-38. DOI: 10.5220/0004849900300038


in Bibtex Style

@conference{csedu14,
author={Mary L. Stephen and Sharon M. Locke and Georgia L. Bracey},
title={Using a Participatory Design Approach to Create and Sustain an Innovative Technology-rich STEM Classroom - One School's Story},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 3: CSEDU,},
year={2014},
pages={30-38},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0004849900300038},
isbn={978-989-758-022-2},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 3: CSEDU,
TI - Using a Participatory Design Approach to Create and Sustain an Innovative Technology-rich STEM Classroom - One School's Story
SN - 978-989-758-022-2
AU - L. Stephen M.
AU - M. Locke S.
AU - L. Bracey G.
PY - 2014
SP - 30
EP - 38
DO - 10.5220/0004849900300038