Our Influences

The Center for Integrative STEM Education (CISE) is a dynamic collaborative of educators, program coordinators and media specialists. Together our team has created a host of resources we believe will benefit you in your endeavors, whether it be research, professional development, or K-12 education.

Resources

Listed here are a few resources that keep the CISE staff informed about the everchanging world of STEM education. These websites and blogs offer topical information and discussions.

Please explore our library of influential research and collection of resources.

The National Institute of Aerospace maintains a robust portfolio of education and outreach programs. To learn more we invite you to explore NIA's full offerings.

Research

At CISE our work is research-based and driven. The following resources are fundamental to the work we perform.

National Standards:

Science

Achieve, Inc. (2015). Next generation science standards. Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards

Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education (CSME) (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C. : National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4962

Committee on Conceptual Framework for the New K-12 Science Education Standards and National Research Council, Quinn, Helen & Schweingruber, Heidi & Keller, Thomas. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, cross-cutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D.C. : The National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13165

Technology

International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA). (2007). Standards for Technological Literary: Content for the Study of Technology.© Third Edition. Reston, Virginia : International Technology Education Association (ITEA). Retrieved fromhttp://www.iteea.org/TAA/PDFs/xstnd.pdf

International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (2003). Advancing Excellence in Technological Literacy: Student Assessment, Professional Development, and Program Standards. Reston, Virginia : International Technology Education Association (ITEA). Retrieved fromhttp://www.iteea.org/TAA/PDFs/AETL.pdf

Importance of Engineering for K-12 Education

Katehi, Linda. Pearson, Greg. & Feder, Michael. Editors: Committee on K-12 Engineering Education; National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. (2009). Engineering in K-12 Education: Understanding the Status and Improving the Prospects. Washington, D.C. : The National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12635

Mathematics

National Council for Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nctm.org/standards/content.aspx?id=16909

Common Core State Standards Initiative. The Standards>> Mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards/mathematics

How Students Learn

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Committee on How People Learn: A Targeted Report for Teachers and National Research Council and Donovan, M. Suzanne and Bransford, John D. (2005). How students learn science in the classroom. Washington, D.C. : The National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309089506

Fenichel, M., & Schweingruber, H. and National Research Council of the National Academies. (2010). Surrounded by Science: Learning Science in Informal Environments. Washington, D.C. : The National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12614

Michaels, Sarah and Shouse, Andrew W. and Schweingruber, Heidi A. and National Research Council. (2007). Ready, Set, SCIENCE!: Putting Research to Work in K-8 Science Classrooms. Washington, D.C. : The National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11882

National Research Council of the National Academies, Committee on Development of an Addendum to the National Science Education Standards on Scientific Inquiry. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, D.C. : The National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9596

Education Framework

Atherton, J.S. (2011) Learning and Teaching; Bloom’s Taxonomy. Retrieved fromhttp://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/bloomtax.htm

Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. , (1), 30-35.Technology and Engineering Teacher. Retrieved from http://opas.ous.edu/Work2009-2011/InClass/Bybee-Integrated%20STEM%20Plan.pdf

Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Carlson Powell, J., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins, effectiveness, and applications. , Retrieved from BSCS Summaryhttp://www.bscs.org/pdf/bscs5eexecsummary.pdf

Gallagher, S.A., Stepien, W.J., Sher, B.T., & Workman, D. (1995). Implementing problem-based learning in science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 95(3), 136- 146.

The Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Complete Portfolio. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org

Problem-Based Learning

Capon, N, & Kuhn, D. (2004). What’s so good about problem-based learning? Cognition and Instruction. 22, 61-79.

Mergendoller, J.R., Maxwell, N., & Bellisimo, Y. (2007). The effectiveness of problem based instruction: A Comparative Study of Instructional Methods and Student Characteristics. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(2), 49-69. Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ijpbl/vol1/iss2/5/

Strobel, J. & van Barneveld, A. (2008) "When is PBL More Effective? A Meta-synthesis of Meta-analyses Comparing PBL to Conventional Classrooms." Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning. 3(1), 44-58. Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ijpbl/vol3/iss1/4

Torp, L., & Sage, S. (2002). Problems as possibilities: problem-based learning for k-16 education. (2 ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Walker, A. & Leary, H. (2008) A Problem Based Learning Meta Analysis: Differences Across Problem Types, Implementation Types, Disciplines, and Assessment Levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 12-43. Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ijpbl/vol3/iss1/3

Project-Based Learning

Boaler, J. (2002). Learning from teaching: Exploring the relationship between reform curriculum and equity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(4), 239-258.

Boss, S., & Krauss, J. (2007). Reinventing project-based learning. Washington, D.C.: International Society for Technology in Education.

Capon, N, & Kuhn, D. (2004). What’s so good about problem-based learning? Cognition and Instruction, 22, 61-79.

Chu, S; Tse, S., Low, E; & Chow, K. (2011). Collaborative inquiry project-based learning: Effects on reading ability and interests. Library & Information Science Research, 33(3), 236-243

Drake, S. & Burns, R. (2004). Meeting standards through integrated curriculum. Alexandria, VA.: ASCD.

Karacalli, S. & Korur, F. (2014). The effects of project-based learning on students’ academic achievement, attitude, and retention of knowledge: The subject of “electricity in our lives.” School Science and Mathematics, 114(5), 224-235.

Markham, T. (2003). Project Based Learning Handbook. Buck Inst for Education.

Walker, A. & Leary, H. (2008) A Problem Based Learning Meta Analysis: Differences Across Problem Types, Implementation Types, Disciplines, and Assessment Levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 12-43. Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ijpbl/vol3/iss1/3

Strobel, J. & van Barneveld, A. (2008) When is PBL More Effective? A Meta-synthesis of Meta-analyses Comparing PBL to Conventional Classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 44-58. Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ijpbl/vol3/iss1/4

Effective Use of Technology

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. (5), Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky - Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants - Part1.pdfOn the Horizon9

Prensky, M. (2007). Shaping tech for the classroom. Edutopia, Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/adopt-and-adapt

Lightle, K. (2011). More than just the technology. Science Scope, 34(9), 6-9. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/publications/article.aspx?id=Z349URi8cV6lufHqA6yRknDQNwV2xvtW

Modeling and Simulation

C. Wieman, W. Adams, P. Loeblein, and K. Perkins. Teaching Physics using PhET Simulations.The Press.http://phet.colorado.edu/publications/Teaching_physics_using_PhET_TPT.pdf

Engineering in K-12 Education

Asunda, P. A., & Hill, R. B. (2007). Critical features of engineering design in technology education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 44(1), 25-48.

Capobianco, B. M., Diefes-Dux, H. A., Mena, I., & Weller, J. (2011). What is an engineer? Implications of elementary school student conceptions for engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(2), 304-328.

Cunningham, C. M., & Carlsen, W. S. (2014). Teaching engineering practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(22), 197-210.

Cunningham, C.M., Lachapelle, C., & Lindgren-Streicher, A. (2005). Assessing elementary school students' conceptions of engineering and technology. American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Boston: American Society for Engineering Education

Science and Literacy

Ashton, S. (2010). Authenticity in adult learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 29(1), 3-19.

Atherton, J. (2011). Learning and teaching; knowles' andragogy: an angle on adult learning. Retrieved from http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/knowlesa.htm

Drago-Severson, E. (2011). How adults learn. Journal of Staff Development, 32(5), 10-12.

Fang, Z., Lamme, L., & Pringle, R. (2010). Language and literacy in inquiry-based science classrooms, grades 3-8. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Knowles, M. (1977). The modern practice of adult education: Andragogy versus pedagogy. New York: Association.

Knowles, M. (1980). From andragogy to pedagogy. New York: Association.

Knowles, M. S. (1989). Everything you wanted to know from malcolm knowles. Training, 26(8), 45. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.vt.edu:8080/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/203399983?accountid=14826

Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., Ill, & Swanson, R. A. (1998). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (5th ed.). Woburn: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Marcarelli, K. (2010). Teaching science with interactive notebooks. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Norton-Meier, L., Hand, B., Hockenberry, L., & Wise, K. (2008). Questions, claims, and evidence: the important place of argument inchildren's science writing. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.

Science Notebooks in K12 Classrooms website: http://www.sciencenotebooks.org/resources/literature.php

Vasquex, J. (200). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Tools and traits for highly effective science teaching, k-8.

Science Education

Bybee, R. W. (1993). Reforming science education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. National Research Council. (1994). National science education standards: Final draft. Washington, DC: Author

Bybee, R.W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Scotter, P. V., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins, effectiveness, and applications. Retrieved from http://bscs.org/bscs-5e-instructional-model

Duschl, R. A., Shouse, A. W., & Schweingruber. (2008). What research says about K-8 science learning and teaching. Education Digest, 73(8), 46-50.

Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). The next generation science standards: implications for preservice and inservice science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 141-143..

Michaels, S., Shouse, A. W., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2008). Ready, set, science! Putting research to work in K-8 science classrooms. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Olson, S. & Loucks-Horsley, S. (Eds.). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council.

Trygstad, P. J. (2013). 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education: status of elementary school science. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.

Planning, Implementing, and Evaluating Professional Development

Banilower, E. R., Gess-Newsome, J., & Tippins, D. (2014). Supporting the implementation of ngss through research: Professional development. National Association for Research in Science Teaching.

Birman, B.F., Desimone, L., Porter, A.C., Garet, M.S. (2000). Developing professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 3(8), 28-33.

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33 (8), 3 – 15.

Borko, H. and Klingner, J. (2013). Supporting teachers in schools to improve their instructional practice. National Society for the Study of Education, 112(2), 274 – 297.

Borko, H. and Niles, J. A. (1987). Descriptions of teacher planning: Ideas for teachers and researchers. In V. Richardson-Koehler (Ed.), Educators ’ handbook: A research perspective, pp. 167 – 187. White Plains, NY: Longman, Inc.

Borko, H. and Shavelson, R.J. (1983). Speculations on teacher education: Recommendations from research on teachers’ cognitions. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 9(3), 210-224, DOI: 10.1080/0260747830090302

Corcoran, T. B. (1995). Transforming professional development for teachers: A guide for state policymakers. Washington, DC: National Governors' Association

Darling-Hammond, L., and McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597-604.

Darling-Hammond, L. and Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher learning: what matters? Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46-53.

Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R.C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council. Retrieved January 26, 2011, from http://www.nsdc.org/news/NSDCstudy2009.pdf

Dede, C., Ketelhut, D.J., Whitehouse, P., Breit, L., & McCloskey, E.M. (2009). A research agenda for online teacher professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 8-19.

Ernst, J.V., Segedin, L., Clark, A.C., & DeLuca, V.W. (2014). Technology, engineering, and design educator professional development system implementation: Initial pilot results. Published Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Indianapolis, IN, Session #T247.

Ernst, J.V., Clark, A.C., DeLuca, V.W., & Bottomley, L.J. (2013). Professional development Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Atlanta, GA, Session #6184

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective: Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.

Guskey, T.R. (1985). Staff development and teacher change, Educational Leadership, 42(7), 57- 60.

Guskey, T.R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change, Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5 -12.

Guskey, T.R. (1989) Attitude and perceptual change in teachers, International Journal of Educational Research, 13(4), 439-453.

Guskey, T.R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Guskey, T.R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 8(3/4), 381-391.

Guskey, T.R. (2003). Analyzing lists of the characteristics of effective professional development to promote visionary leaders. NASSP

Haney, J. J., & Lumpe, A. T. (1995). A teacher professional development framework guided by reform policies, teachers' needs, and research. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6(4), 187-196.

Zepeda, S. J. (1999). Staff development: Practices that promote leadership in learning communities. Larchmont, NY: The School Leadership Library.

Zepeda, S.J. (2012). Professional development: What works. Larchmont, NY: Eyes on Education, Inc.

Zepeda, S.J. (2015). Job-embedded professional development. New York, NY: Routledge.

Working with Adult Learners

Guskey, T. (2002). Does it make a difference? evaluating professional development: Redesigning Professional Development. (6), 45-51. 59

Knowles, M. (1973). The adult learner: a neglected species. (1st ed., p. 207). Houston: Gulf Publishing Company.Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED084368.pdf

Laderas-Kilkenny, N. (2006, August 30). Generational learning styles and methods. Retrieved from http://nkilkenny.wordpress.com/2006/08/30/generational-learning-styles-and-methods/

Preparing for a STEM-Literate Future.

Our Influences

Resources

The National Institute of Aerospace maintains a robust portfolio of education and outreach programs. To learn more we invite you to explore NIA's full offerings.

Research