Research Methods Investigating STEM Education in an Amusement Park Setting

1. Research Methods Investigating STEM Education in an Amusement Park Setting Dr David Anderson david.anderson@ubc.ca

2. STEM in Education STEM • Science • Technology • Engineering • Mathematics • Many positive benefits – but, still difficult to practice in the reality of high-school systems.

3. Amusement Park Physics Video – Global News BC

4. Metacognition • Metacognition is defined most simply as “thinking about thinking.” • Metacognitive involves awareness and regulation • Awareness • Control • Monitoring • Planning • Evaluation • Self Efficacy

5. Awareness • I am aware of when I have learning difficulties. • Control • I change my thinking strategies to suit different learning situations (e.g. lab, classroom, field-trip). • Monitoring • I self-check my progress at various stages during learning activities • Planning • I try to predict possible problems that might occur with my learning. • Evaluation • I stop from time to time to check my progress on a learning task. • Self Efficacy • I'm confident of understanding the most complex material presented by the teacher in this course.

6. Research Questions • Describe the metacognitive characters of students. • Understand individual students’ and group metacognitive characteristics influence and shape knowledge construction processes. • Mete Question – How can were refine our Research Methods to better describe Metacognition?

7. Methodology • Interpretive case studies to elucidate students’ metacognitive and knowledge construction processes. (Gallagher & Tobin, 1991; Merriam, 1998; Stake, 1995). • Capture highly descriptive accounts of the richness of students’ metacognition in a STEM context.

8. Participants • Year 11 and 12 Students • Multiple case group • Usually 4 per group • Multiple Case context • Amusement park physics • Natural forest ecology environment • Marine Science Centres

9. Staged approach – Refining Methods

10. Interventions and Data Collection Over the course of two weeks • Pre-Measures of Metacognition – BMQ • Engineer Measuring Tools • The Amusement Park Field Trip • Interactions and conversation recorded given to student for reflection.

11. Various Kinematic Tasks

12. Post-Visit Interviews • Stimulated recall. • In-Class Activities connected with the AP • Post-Activity Interviews • Stimulated recall.

13. Our Evolution of Methods • The research team was afforded the benefit of itself learning and developing and refining the study’s methodological practices. • Our repeated critical reflections led to changes in methods.

14. 1. • Individual Units of Analysis to Group units of Analysis

15. 2. • Individual Audio Stimulated Recallto Whole Group Video Stimulated Recall

16. 3. • Researcher Selected to Participant Selected Incidents of Whole Group Interactions

17. 4. • Researcher Driven Interview Discourse to Participant Driven Interview Discourse

18. Conclusions • In qualitative research we seek better understandings (descriptions) of the phenomenon. • We allow our methods to improve so they become more powerful towards understanding the phenomenon.

19. Some articles • Anderson, D., Thomas, G. (2014).  ‘Prospecting for metacognition’ in a science museum – A metaphor reflecting hermeneutic inquiry and questioning into metacognition in a new context.  Issues in Educational Research, 24(1) 1-20. • Thomas, G., & Anderson, D., (2012). Parents’ metacognitive knowledge: Influences on parent- child interactions in a science museum setting. Journal of Research in Science Education, 43(3), 1245-1265. • Anderson, D., Thomas, G.P., & Nashon, S.M. (2009). Social barriers to engaging in meaningful learning in biology field trip group work. Science Education, 93(3), 511-534. • Anderson, D., Nashon, S.M., & Thomas, G.P. (2009). Evolution of research methods for probing and understanding metacognition. Research in Science Education, 39(2),181-195. • Nielsen, W., Nashon, S., & Anderson, D. (2009). Metacognitive engagement during field-trip experiences: A case study of students in an amusement park physics program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(3), 265- 288. • Thomas, G.P., Anderson, D., & Nashon, S.M. (2008). Development and validity of an instrument designed to investigate elements of science students’ metacognition, self-efficacy and learning processes: The SEMLI-S. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1701-24. • Anderson, D., & Nashon, S. (2007). Predators of knowledge construction: Interpreting students’ metacognition in an amusement park physics program. Science Education, 91(2), 298-320. • Hisasaka, T., Anderson, D., Nashon, S., & Yagi, I.  (2005).  Research regarding children’s metacognition in physics learning environments: Using cognitive psychology to improve physics education.  Physics Education in Tohoku, 14, 69-74.

20. www.stem2020.ubc.ca STEM 2020: Changing the Story

21. STEM 2020 – Timeline Call for Papers: September 1, 2019 Deadline for Submission: November 1, 2019 Notification of Acceptance: February 14, 2020 Early Bird Registration deadline: May 2, 2020 Conference Dates: July 09-11, 2020 Photo: Tourism Vancouver

22. UBC STEM 2020: Organizing Committee Conference Co-Chairs Dr. Hartley Banack Physical & Health Education Dr. David Anderson Museum Education & Science Education Dr. Marina Milner-Bolotin Science Education Dr. Samson Nashon Science & Mathematics Department Head Dr. Jillianne Code Media & Technology Studies Dr. Stephen Petrina Media & Technology Studies Dr. Sandra Scott Science Education Dr. Cynthia Nicol Mathematics Education

23. Downtown Vancouver Photo: Tourism Vancouver

24. E-mail: stem.2020@ubc.ca Web：http://st\em2020.ubc.ca Join us in Vancouver in July 2020！ Photo: Tourism Vancouver