EDUCATION IN A COMPETITIVE AND GLOBALIZING WORLD
STEM EDUCATION
HOW TO TRAIN 21ST CENTURY TEACHERS
No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or
by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no
expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No
liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information
contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in
rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.
EDUCATION IN A COMPETITIVE
AND GLOBALIZING WORLD
Additional books in this series can be found on Nova‘s website
under the Series tab.
Additional e-books in this series can be found on Nova‘s website
under the e-book tab.
EDUCATION IN A COMPETITIVE AND GLOBALIZING WORLD
STEM EDUCATION
HOW TO TRAIN 21ST CENTURY TEACHERS
SATASHA L. GREEN
EDITOR
New York
Copyright © 2014 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical
photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher.
For permission to use material from this book please contact us:
Telephone 631-231-7269; Fax 631-231-8175
Web Site: http://www.novapublishers.com
NOTICE TO THE READER
The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or
implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No
liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of
information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special,
consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers‘ use of, or
reliance upon, this material. Any parts of this book based on government reports are so indicated
and copyright is claimed for those parts to the extent applicable to compilations of such works.
Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in
this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage
to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise
contained in this publication.
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the
subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not
engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert
assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A
DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS.
Additional color graphics may be available in the e-book version of this book.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
ISBN: (eBook)
Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. † New York
CONTENTS
Preface The STEM Initiative: Constraints and Challenges vii
Chapter 1 Dennis R. Herschbach, Ph.D. 1
Chapter 2 17
The Need for STEM Teacher Education Development
Chapter 3 Micah S. Stohlmann, Ph.D., Gillian H. Roehrig, Ph.D. 33
and Tamara J. Moore, Ph.D.
Chapter 4 53
Preparing Teachers in Science through Technology 71
Chapter 5 for STEM Education 89
Chapter 6 Shiang-Kwei Wang, Ph.D. and Hui-Yin Hsu, Ph.D. 101
Chapter 7
Chapter 8 Strategies and Resources for Integrating Technology 117
into STEM Teaching and Learning
Chapter 9 Sarah McPherson, Ed.D 135
Preparing Teachers in Engineering for STEM Education
Moussa Ayyash, Ph.D. and Kimberly Black, Ph.D.
Preparing Teachers in Mathematics for STEM Education
Michael Uttendorfer, Ed.D
Effective STEM Instruction in K-12 Settings
Elfreda V. Blue, Ph.D.
Infusing Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Instruction
into STEM Programs
Cheryl A. Utley, Ph.D., Satasha L. Green, Ph.D.
and Kimberly M. Edwards, Ph.D.
Using STEM Concepts and Applications to Assess
K-12 Student Learning
Carolyn Coil, Ed.D
vi Contents
Chapter 10 School Counseling and STEM: Raising Student Awareness
and Expectations 153
Carol Dahir,, Ed.D, Michelle Perepiczka, Ph.D.
173
and Megyn Shea, Ph.D. 191
193
Chapter 11 Teacher Leadership: Transforming STEM Education
in K-12 Schools
Deborah Lynch, Ph.D. and Jennifer Fleck, M.S.
Editor Contact Information
Index
PREFACE
Advancing education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in
U.S. public schools has been at the forefront of educational issues and a national priority
(President‘s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2010). School reform
movements and initiatives such as Changing the Equation, a part of the Educate to Innovate
Campaign focuses on (1) allowing more students to engage in robotics competitions; (2)
improving professional development for math and science teachers; (3) increasing the number
of students who take and/or pass rigorous Advanced Placement math and science courses; (4)
increasing the number of elementary and secondary teachers who enter the teaching
profession with a STEM undergraduate degree; and (5) providing new opportunities to
traditionally underrepresented students and underserved communities (Change the Equation,
2013).
The nation‘s changing demographics and continued need to remain globally competitive
makes it clear that colleges and universities must increase the number of teachers trained in
STEM education (Katehi, Pearson, & Feder, 2009). Students in U.S. schools are academically
behind their international peers in STEM areas. Currently, the United States ranks 17th in
science and 25th in mathematics among other nations (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2011). In the field of engineering, college programs in China and India graduated
many more engineers than in the U.S. (Gerefii, Wadhwa, Rissing, & Ong, 2008). For
example, in 2011, China‘s engineering graduates totaled one million (Shammas, 2011), as
compared to colleges in the U.S. which graduated 84,599 engineers (Deffree, 2012).
President Obama stated that it is a ―national imperative,‖ to train 100,000 STEM college
graduates over the next decade (America Chemical Society, 2012). In addition, colleges and
universities will need to prepare 25, 000 new K-12 teachers in STEM (Boynton, 2012) in
order to meet this ambitious goal. These efforts are also aimed at attracting underrepresented
groups such as girls and persons of color into the STEM pipeline (Custer & Daugherty,
2009). Additionally, training alone is not enough. It is imperative that student engagement,
mentoring, and support systems are integrated as key ingredients to foster student retention in
colleges and universities. For example, data show that on the average, the undergraduate
national retention rate in engineering colleges is only 40% (President Obama‘s Council on
Jobs and Competitiveness, 2009). To accomplish President Obama‘s goals U.S. teachers and
education professionals must educate and engage students to pursue STEM disciplines
(Community for Advancing Discovery Research in Education, 2011).
There is universal agreement that teachers do matter and, moreover, there exists empirical
support for the notion that student learning is affected by the qualifications of teachers. This is
viii Satasha L. Green
especially true in mathematics, which is the foundation for all future STEM learning
(Community for Advancing Discovery in Education, 2011). Although almost all U.S. teachers
hold at least basic qualifications (e.g., a bachelor's degree and teaching certification), many
are teaching subjects for which they lack adequate academic training, certification, or both.
Ingersoll (1999, 2002, 2003) found that about a third of all secondary school teachers who
teach mathematics do not have either a major or minor in math, math education, or related
disciplines like engineering or physics. In science, about one fifth of all secondary school
teachers do not have at least a minor in one of the sciences or in science education. The data
clearly indicates that many U.S. students are taught by under-qualified math and science
teachers in U.S. schools.
Another area of major concern is the teaching of subject matter in STEM education,
specifically the integration of technology and engineering into math and science concepts.
Technology may not be infused into the curriculum and engineering in many cases is omitted
or causes confusion in how it is related to science and mathematics curricula (Vest, 2009). As
a result, very few K-12 teachers have adequate preparation to teach engineering concepts and
content (Custer & Daugherty, 2009). According to the National Academy of Engineering and
the National Research Council (2009), science and mathematics are typically taught in
―silos,‖ as separate, independent subjects. This teaching method can affect the quality of
instruction in STEM which requires deep content knowledge (in all four areas) in addition to
an expertise in teaching (Community for Advancing Discovery Research in Education, 2011).
Therefore, it is imperative to train K-12 teachers in STEM subject-matter.
To address this pressing need to train highly qualified teachers in science, technology,
engineering and mathematics, STEM Education: How to Train 21st Century Teachers
provides teachers and education professionals the knowledge, skills, practices, and strategies
to improve standards-based outcomes for students enrolled in STEM coursework. This book
is intended for undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in methods courses in Colleges
of Education, Colleges of Arts and Sciences, and Institutes of Technology. More specifically,
this book provides extensive background information to prepare K-12 teachers and
educational professionals in pedagogy for integrated inquiry-based teaching and learning of
STEM concepts. This book will also help to provide teachers and education professionals
with the knowledge, skills and resources for effective STEM teaching and learning for
students.
As noted earlier, the primary goal of this book is to provide K-12 teachers and education
professionals evidence-based practices and strategies in STEM content areas to support the
learning and instructional needs of their students. Therefore, K-12 teachers and education
professionals will (1) increase STEM content knowledge and understanding of authentic
STEM applications for K-12 students; (2) develop expertise in pedagogical approaches such
as authentic and active project-based learning; (3) utilize strategies and resources to integrate
technology into STEM teaching and learning for K-12 students; (4) increase their knowledge
base, expertise, and experiences in differentiating STEM instruction from traditional
instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse learners; (5) increase an understanding of
the roles and responsibilities of school counselors, and (6) be knowledgeable about the
importance of teacher leadership in STEM education.
The authors in this book address several important topics critical to the successful
implementation of STEM education. In Chapter 1, Herschbach discusses the constraints and
challenges in implementing STEM initiatives as a curriculum reform movement. He examines
Preface ix
terms such as curriculum concept, STEM programming, correlated and broad fields
curriculum models, and subject structure. According to Herschbach, given the ―conventional‖
way that knowledge continues to be perceived and organized for instruction, one potentially
contentious, emerging issue is where the ―T‖ in STEM will be taught. Some science educators
think that they teach about technology since much of what goes for "science" teaching today
is actually applied technology.
Stohlman, Roehrig, and Moore, in Chapter 2, point out that there is an increased
emphasis of engineering integration in K-12 schools. Engineering-based activities enable
teachers to employ student-centered pedagogies and provide students with real-world contexts
to apply mathematics and science. These authors note that in-service teachers have not been
prepared to integrate STEM subjects or to teach engineering. In addition, the importance of
well-structured professional development to develop the necessary knowledge for STEM is
discussed.
Wang and Hsu note that, in Chapter 3, inquiry-based instruction holds significant promise
for developing students‘ scientific literacy skills. The National Research Council (NRC,
2012) has developed the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) to provide a framework
to promote students‘ core disciplinary, science, engineering practices, and information and
communication technologies (ICTs) as cognitive tools to develop students‘ understanding of
scientific inquiry and to cultivate their new literacy skills. These authors discuss a ―new
literacy framework‖ as a technology integration model and suggest strategies to prepare
science teachers to adopt the new literacy framework in their classrooms.
In Chapter 4, McPherson presents frameworks, principles and standards that can be
applied to STEM education for hands-on, inquiry, and project-based learning to meet the
goals of preparing students who pursue STEM related fields in college and careers. This
author provides an overview of Project 2061, the technology, pedagogy, and content
knowledge (TPACK) framework, and the guidelines for Universal Design for Learning as
features of technology and instructional materials so that all students have opportunities to
participate in the general education curriculum.
Ayyash and Black, in Chapter 5, highlight the fact that engineering education is the most
overlooked area of STEM learning at the K-12 level. Despite its persistent presence,
engineering education is still not well understood in the context of K-12 learning. The many
challenges of engineering education and recommendations on how to prepare K-12 teachers
are discussed.
Uttendorfer, in Chapter 6, describes mathematics as the thread that binds STEM together.
Strong teacher preparation in both mathematical content and effective practices for
teaching mathematics is critical if we are to reach the national goal of increasing the number
of students entering STEM careers. NCTM‘s Principles and Standards for School
Mathematics provides excellent professional guidance for the content of mathematics teacher
preparation and ongoing professional development.
Blue, in Chapter 7, provides K-12 teachers pedagogical approaches to science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) through authentic and active project-
based learning using all four STEM content areas in one lesson. The essential literacies for
STEM and authentic instruction, and the levels of scientific inquiry in problem-based learning
are presented.
The infusion of culturally and linguistically responsive teaching (CLRT) into STEM
programs by Utley, Green, and Edwards, in Chapter 8, addresses major concerns about
x Satasha L. Green
inequitable educational outcomes in mathematics and science and the achievement gap
among African American, White, and Latino students across all grade levels, including
postsecondary institutions of higher education. Within the scope of this chapter, teachers in
K-12 classrooms are charged with the task of preparing students in these subject areas, not
only through traditional pedagogy, but through the use of CLRT.
Coil, in Chapter 9, discusses ways to assess student learning of STEM concepts and
disciplines. Topics include pre-assessment, formative assessment, and summative assessment
criteria for student projects, products, and performances. Coil shows how to design and use
quality authentic assessments such as criteria cards, complex rubrics, and mini-rubrics.
Dahir, Shea, and Perepiczka, in Chapter 10, ask the question, ―Why should school
counselors become more involved in helping elementary, middle, and high school students
explore the potential of STEM careers?‖ These authors suggest that school counselors have
an ethical and social justice obligation to support and assist all students to access all options
after high school, including college.
The final chapter by Lynch and Fleck, Chapter 11, discusses how teacher leadership can
be a crucial component of STEM implementation in K-12 education. These authors provide
recommendations for supporting teacher leaders to maximize their ability to succeed and
persist in their roles. Recommendations regarding professional development, (b) the
establishment of professional learning communities, (c) recommendations regarding
collaboration between classroom teachers and scientists, (d) the promotion of action research,
and (e) ideas for promoting STEM education reform are discussed.
Collectively these chapters address a range of issues in K-12 and higher education that
are important to the transformation of teacher preparation programs across the nation in
STEM education. In order to change the STEM landscape and to address President Obama‘s
initiatives, colleges and universities must take on this daunting task to train ―highly qualified‖
teachers in STEM areas. This book may help to provide a road map across STEM disciplines
to train teachers and education professionals in science, technology, engineering and
mathematics.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I gratefully acknowledge Dr. Cheryl A. Utley, Research Associate Professor at Chicago
State University, a published author who served as the Guest Editor for this book. Dr. Utley
has written several books, book chapters, peer-reviewed journal articles, and theory-based
articles that focus on multicultural special education, intervention research and culturally
responsive practices for students with and without disabilities. These published texts serve to
facilitate the creation of inclusive classrooms that are accepting of all children regardless of
their diverse needs. This philosophy is also illustrated in Dr. Utley‘s scholarly presentations at
the state, national and international levels.
Dr. Utley serves on several editorial boards for peer-reviewed journals. Among her many
awards are the Post-Doctoral Fellowship at Juniper Gardens Children's Project-University of
Kansas, Who's Who Among Young American Professionals, Who's Who in American
Education, Wisconsin Center for Research‘s Pre-doctoral Scholar, Marie Christine Kohler
Preface xi
Fellow, and Advanced Opportunity Fellow. Dr. Utley provided important contributions to this
book and essential research and editing support that helped to strengthen the book.
Additionally, my most important partners in this effort have been those who wrote
chapters. Their expertise in STEM education, teacher preparation, teacher professional
development, school counselors‘ roles in STEM and teacher leadership each bring a piece of
the puzzle to help create a complete picture for training 21st century teachers and education
professionals in STEM education.
REFERENCES
American Chemical Society. (2012). Chemistry Teacher Education Coalition. Retrieved from
http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_
SUPERARTICLE&node_id=888&use_sec=false&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=badc51
69-5a46-4777-b79f-f2c025dc1157.
Boynton, C. (2012). Much-Needed STEM teachers are focus of accelerated certification
program expansion. Retrieved from http://spotlight.education.uconn.edu/2012/much-
needed-stem-teachers-are-focus-of-accelerated-certification-program-expansion.
Change the Equation. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.changetheequation.org
Community for Advancing Discovery Research in Education. (2011). Retrieved from
http://cadrek12.org/projects/community-advancing-discovery-research-education-cadre-
0.
Custer, R. L., & Daugherty, J. L. (2009). Professional development for teachers of
engineering: Research and related activities. The Bridge: K-12 Engineering Education
(39)3.
Deffree, S. (2012). Engineering the Next Generation of STEM. Retrieved from
http://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/other/4369012/Engineering-the-next-generation-
of-STEM.
Gerefii, G., Wadhwa, V., Rissing, B., & Ong, R. (2008). Getting the numbers right:
International engineering education in the United States, China, and India. Journal of
Engineering Education, 97(1), 13-25.
Ingersoll, R. M. (1999). The problem of underqualified teachers in American secondary
schools. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 26-37.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2002). Out-of-field teaching, educational inequality, and the organization of
schools: An exploratory analysis. Seattle: University of Washington, Center for the Study
of Teaching and Policy.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Out-of-field teaching and the limits of teacher policy. Seattle:
University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (2009). The status and nature of K–12 engineering
education in the United States. The Bridge on K-12 Engineering Education (39)3, 5-10.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Digest of education statistics, Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012001.pdf.
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.
xii Satasha L. Green
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for k-12 science education: Practices,
crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press. Washington, D.C.
President‘s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010). Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-stemed-report.pdf
President Obama‘s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. (2012). Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/advisory-boards/jobs-council.
Shammas, M. (2001). Number of US engineers in decline relative to China and India.
Retrieved from http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/number-us-engineers-decline-
relative-china-india.
Vest, C. M. (2009). Putting the "E" in STEM education. The Bridge: Linking engineering and
society (3)39, 3-4.
In: STEM Education ISBN: 978-1-62808-514-3
Editor: Satasha L. Green © 2014 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 1
THE STEM INITIATIVE: CONSTRAINTS
AND CHALLENGES
Dennis R. Herschbach, Ph.D.*
University of Maryland, US
ABSTRACT
There is considerable national interest in STEM initiatives, yet there is little
discussion concerning what STEM means in terms of a curriculum concept to be applied
to school programming. This chapter focuses on STEM as a curriculum concept. First,
STEM programming is discussed in terms of separate subjects, correlated and broad
fields curriculum models. The issue of subject structure is examined. A distinction is also
made between the four STEM subjects in terms of formal and applicative uses of
knowledge. Second, some practical programming issues are discussed. These include the
almost exclusive focus on science and math to the exclusion of technology and
engineering; the challenge of serving multiple student populations; and the issue of what
to do with the ―T‖ in STEM. A concluding section suggests ways that the STEM
initiative can be conceptualized in order to realize its considerable potential to achieve
curriculum reformulation.
INTRODUCTION
Interest in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) instructional models is
literally exploding across the educational landscape. Universities are exploring STEM models
as a way to restructure science and engineering instruction; secondary schools are engaged in
experimenting with modified curricula; the educational literature is full of references to
STEM initiatives; and consultants and entrepreneurs are rushing into the educational market
place with assurances that they too can aid in the implementation of effective STEM
programming. Largely initiated and funded by the National Science Foundation, STEM
initiatives are now supported by other foundations, professional organizations, universities,
* Corresponding author: Email: [email protected].
2 Dennis R. Herschbach
publishers, schools systems, and producers of educational materials among groups and
individuals that see promise or profit in the possibilities of curriculum reorganization through
STEM initiatives (Kuenzi, 2008).
Part of the explanation for the national frenzy over STEM programming is money. Grants
from the National Science Foundation in addition to other organizations are funding program
experimentation. Scores are jumping onto the money cart to get their share. STEM initiatives
feed into a national concern over the relative capacity of the United States to compete in the
international economic arena. On international tests comparing academic performance, U.S.
students do not fare very well. Greater national educational attention on science, technology,
engineering and math addresses the political contention that schools must shoulder a good
part of the blame for the nation's weakening ability to compete internationally (Kuenzi, 2008;
National Academies, 2006; The New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce,
2007). But also, powerful national organizations, such as the National Academy of
Engineering and the National Academy of Science, are supporting STEM initiatives. There is
mounting concern over the lack of young Americans preparing for scientific and engineering
professions (National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council, 2009;
Pearson & Young, 2002).
STEM does not represent a specific curriculum model; rather, there are many ways to
formulate STEM programming. In fact, it is hard to discern what exactly is meant by
"STEM." Practically any kind of educational intervention that is even remotely associated
with science, technology, engineering or math is referred to as a STEM innovation. This lack
of a solidifying perception of STEM threatens over the long-term to destroy support for the
movement. Failure to deliver results will probably exceed successes.
Above all, STEM represents a way to think about curriculum change. It is a concept of
how to restructure what we teach and what students learn. The purpose of this chapter is to
first briefly unpack what is meant by STEM in terms of a curriculum concept. What STEM
represents is discussed in terms of curriculum theory. Second, some issues related to
instructional programming will be explored. By framing the discussion in terms of curriculum
theory we can more clearly see some of the constraints and challenges faced as STEM
initiatives are pursued. Curriculum theory also helps us to formulate a common framework
within which to discuss STEM and its application in schools.
UNPACKING STEM AS A CURRICULUM CONCEPT
Traditionally, the most common and widespread curriculum pattern is separate subjects
(McNeil, 1990). Each is taught separately with little attention given to the interrelationships
between subjects. Secondary level students, for example, are exposed to discrete subjects to
study, such as algebra, chemistry or history. An ends-means curriculum organization tends to
be used, starting with pre-specified objectives, or standards, and ending with tests to assess
attainment of the discrete course elements. The purpose of instruction is to efficiently transmit
a predefined body of formal content thought to be essential to students. The degree to which
instruction is "successful" is assessed through tests. Instruction is conceived primarily as a
process of knowledge transmission.
The STEM Initiative: Constraints and Challenges 3
In contrast, an implied characteristic underlying STEM is what is termed an integrated
curriculum design. This is a marked departure from the way that instruction tends to be
organized and delivered in schools. Subjects such as science, technology, engineering and
math are integrated in ways that show more clearly the functional relationship between each
(Kuenzi, 2008; McNeil, 1990). In real-life situations, knowledge tends to be used across
fields of study. The integrated curriculum design attempts to capture the interrelationships
within and between subjects and thereby ground learning in the actual way that knowledge is
used. Not only is learning thought to be enhanced, but it is considered to be more relevant.
The student learns how knowledge is applied (McNeil, 1999; Herschbach, 2009).
The Correlated Curriculum
The Correlated Curriculum STEM implies an integrated curriculum design. There are two
basic ways that integrated curricula are organized: correlated or broad fields. The correlated
curriculum pattern tends to be the most popular option because it retains the identity of each
subject, and each may be offered as a separate course (McNeil, 1990). Concepts learned in
math, for example, may be applied to physics or technology education through coordinated
planning, but each subject area retains its separate identity. It is a more comfortable fit with
the ongoing school instructional program because very little adaptation is required to what is
already an on-going separate subject orientation. It is a curriculum pattern that is familiar to
administrators, teachers and the educational public. What is required, however, is
coordination and planning among the different stand-alone subjects. One challenge that the
correlated curriculum pattern presents is, in fact, the high level of on-going coordination that
is required. To be most effective, there has to be a clear relationship between what students
learn in one subject with what students learn in the other associated subjects. This requires an
ongoing, close working relationship on the part of the involved teachers, with regular and
continuing planning and coordination. But in addition, the way that subject fields are formally
and "conventionally" organized often has to be abandoned or substantially modified in order
to adapt to the requirements of coordinating with the other associated subjects (McNeil,
1990). Algebra instruction, for example, may have to be reorganized and sequenced other
than the way that it traditionally has been: little integrated understanding may be achieved if a
concept in algebra is presented three months after it is needed in physics and is ignored in
engineering.
The Broad Fields Curriculum
The Broad Fields pattern is a second way to integrate instruction. With the Broad Fields
Curriculum, a cluster of related but different subjects is organized into a single area of study
(McNeil, 1990). Language arts, graphic communications, and general science are examples.
The individual subjects lose their own separate identity since the subject matter from the
different fields is combined into a new instructional configuration. A general science course,
for example, may include units from biology, physics, earth science, and chemistry.
Integration can be done with a single course or with a sequence of related courses.
4 Dennis R. Herschbach
A fundamental challenge associated with the Broad Fields Curriculum design is to
formulate an effective organizing framework for instruction. When the subject matter from
different fields is integrated into a new course structure, the structure inherent in the different
parent fields tends to be lost. This means that a new way has to be found to organize
instruction so that some of the identity of the original parent fields is retained while at the
same time an integrated program design is achieved that has a clear organizing framework.
The most common way to achieve a coherent organizing framework is through activities.
The curricular emphasis shifts from organizing instruction around the formal structure of
fields of study to focusing on a sequence of activities that guide students through the
integrated use of knowledge (Herschbach, 2009; National Academy of Engineering and
National Research Council, 2009). A course, for example, may be organized around the
construction and testing of a solar-power vehicle. All of the STEM subjects are brought
together to focus on the activity, with knowledge selectively used to address the scientific,
engineering and fabrication challenges inherent in designing a solar-power vehicle. Selected
formal and applicative knowledge is used.
Of course, the conditioning learning factor is the demand the activity makes of the full
range of potential knowledge. It is the characteristic of the activity that conditions the extent
to which knowledge is used from the different related fields of study (Mitcham & Mackey,
1972).
Figure 1. Broad Fields of Curriculum Pattern. To achieve a coherent organizing framework through
activities the curricular emphasis shifts from organizing instruction around the formal structure of fields
of study to focusing on a sequence of activities that guide students through the integrated use of
knowledge. Herschbach, D. R. (2009). Technology education foundations and perspectives.
Homewood, IL: American Technical Publishers.
The STEM Initiative: Constraints and Challenges 5
Figure 2. Organization of Knowledge. The formal structure of a field of study that can be defined in
three ways (1) organizational structure, (2) substantive structure, and (3) syntactical structure. Another
way to think about the formal structure of fields of study is the difference between kinds of knowledge.
There are three kinds of knowledge (1) formal knowledge, (2) formal knowledge applied to specific
activities, and (3) knowledge specific to the tasks. Herschbach, D. R. (2009). Technology education
foundations and perspectives. Homewood, IL: American Technical Publishers.
The Broad Fields of curriculum pattern tends to shift instructional focus away from the
way that teaching and learning is organized in schools along different discrete subject fields
to an activity-based curriculum with less formal identification with traditional fields of study.
Formal knowledge is selectively used, but educators are required to think differently about
how instruction is organized and taught. The traditional ends-means model of instruction,
starting with defined objectives and cumulating in paper and pencil student testing is less
appropriate. Progress through content elements tends to be integrative and uneven, not linear,
because it is linked with activity. Like the correlated curriculum design, continuous planning
and coordination, nevertheless, are required among teachers; but teachers also have to learn to
instruct and evaluate students in different ways.
Use of the design process is one of the more common ways that Broad Fields
programming is addressed (Herschbach, 2009; National Academy of Engineering and
National Research Council, 2009). The design problem functions as a correlating channel for
learning, with particular emphasis placed on the integration of science and math with
technology and engineering (Banks, 1994; Kolodner, 2002; Raizen, Sellwood, Todd, &
Vickers, 1995; Sanders, 2008; Wicklein, 2006). Students bring what knowledge they have to
6 Dennis R. Herschbach
bear on the design problem, and what they do not know they research. Knowledge is used as a
tool to solve problems. At the same time, however, there is room for well-defined, selected
stand-alone units of instruction that address the acquisition of formal knowledge.
Subject Structure
As previously suggested, in the case of both the correlated and Broad Fields patterns, the
need to coordinate the sequencing of subjects presents a formidable challenge. It is,
ultimately, the formal structure of a given subject that defines its characteristics and sets it
apart from other subjects. As Bruner (1961) reminds us, helping students to identify and
understand the underlying formal "structure" of various fields of study is essential to learning.
The focus is on higher-level conceptual learning which gives coherence to what sometimes
can be fragmented and loosely organized "bits and pieces" of knowledge. The structure
contains crucial concepts that provide order, cohesion and significance to the subject. Bruner
(1961) contended ―the curriculum of a subject should be determined by the most fundamental
understanding that can be achieved of the underlying principles that give structure to that
subject‖ (p. 18).
The formal structure of a field of study can be defined in three ways (McNeil, 1990;
1999). One is the organizational structure (see Figure 2). This is the way that one subject
differs from others and defines the borders and divisions within the subject. The formal
structure is what most people are familiar with. At a more subtle level are a substantive and a
syntactical structure. Substantive structure relates to the kinds of questions framed, the
theories applied, and the data used in the course of intellectual inquiry. Syntactical structure
relates to the intellectual devices used with subject fields to collect data, test assertions, and
generalize findings.
Because structural characteristics are most clearly embedded in specific formal, stand-
alone subject areas, instructional stress tends to be placed on a separate subjects organizing
pattern in schools (McNeil, 1990; Newman, 1994). This is one reason why the separate
subject pattern is so widely used for organizing instruction. The formal structure is clear in
geometry, physics and chemistry, for example, but considerably less so in technology
education, general science or cultural studies. It is more difficult to retain and convey the
structural characteristics of a field of study through an integrated curriculum design.
Sequencing is a challenge, but also integrated curriculum patterns tend to make selective use
of instructional elements within fields of study; instructional identity tends to get lost.
Formal and Applied Knowledge
Another way to think about the formal structure of fields of study is the difference
between formal and applied knowledge (Figure 2) that influences how subject matter is
selected and sequenced. In fields such as math, physics, and chemistry, as suggested, students
tend to engage in learning the formal structure. These are the concepts, laws, theorems and
intellectual devices that make up the substantive and syntactical structure of the specific field.
They underlie the field and make it distinct. There is little concern about how formal
knowledge is applied. In contrast, in fields such as engineering and technology, formal
The STEM Initiative: Constraints and Challenges 7
knowledge is used selectively to address specific problems, so only a partial understanding of
the formal subject is achieved (Herschbach, 1996). It is applied knowledge, specific and
limited knowledge that is needed to only address the current problem at hand. Some concepts
in chemistry, for example, simply may not be covered in engineering and math and biology
may be overlooked entirely.
Unfortunately, applied knowledge may be considered of lower importance because it
relies on only a partial understanding of formal learning. Engaging students in the learning of
formal and applied knowledge across four integrated instructional areas, such as in STEM, is
a challenge.
Uses of Knowledge
The challenge of addressing the differences between formal and applied knowledge
becomes apparent when considering how knowledge is applied to work. The Broad Fields
curriculum pattern is most widely used with technical instruction because it closely mirrors
the way that knowledge is selected and applied by practitioners. Engineers, technicians of all
sorts, skilled craft workers and a host of other individuals basically use three kinds of
knowledge: selected elements of formal knowledge, formal knowledge as it is applied to the
specific task, and knowledge specific to the task (see Figure 2).
Many work tasks draw from formal knowledge. For example, specific scientific
procedures or mathematical concepts may be an integral component of the job task. Selected
knowledge basically is applied unaltered in its formal form. Work tasks also make selective
use of formal knowledge applied in conjunction with specific technical knowledge.
Knowledge of geometry is needed, for example, to calculate rafter and stud angles on a roof
dormer. A combined knowledge of both roof design and geometry is required. The builder
needs to learn the selective use of geometry, but does not have to have a complete
understanding of the subject field of geometry as it is formally organized.
But there are also some tasks that are purely technical and relate solely to the technical
procedure. They are specific to the technical field and do not make use of the formal
knowledge of other subjects. As previously observed, because of the way that the Broad
Fields curriculum pattern selects and makes use of the three forms of knowledge, it is less
useful for conveying an understanding of the formal structure of fields such as calculus,
physics, chemistry, or biology, among others. On the other hand, the Broad Fields pattern is a
very effective way to organize engineering and technology instruction because they are
interdisciplinary and applicative subjects (the T and E in STEM). Instruction tends to be built
around the integrated use of knowledge selectively drawn from formal fields. Instruction is
organized according to how knowledge is used (McNeil, 1990).
But again, this pattern is less useful for the purpose of organizing formal subjects such as
science and math because of the difficulty in adequately conveying an understanding of the
formal structure of the fields. This disjunction between the two ways that knowledge is
organized and used creates complex organizing and programming challenges.
8 Dennis R. Herschbach
THE CHARACTER AND VALIDITY OF KNOWLEDGE
As suggested in the above discussion, differences between interdisciplinary, integrative
subjects, such as engineering and technology, and formal academic subject fields such as
physics and algebra, are a major curriculum stumbling block with STEM initiatives that yet is
to be resolved. These issues can be further examined by focusing on fundamental
epistemological characteristics that tend to be glossed over, that is, issues relating to the
character and validity of knowledge.
"Science" is a broad descriptive term that acquires specificity only when it defines a
particular field of study, such as physics, or better still, molecular physics. The function of
science is to discover and advance knowledge. To this end, science makes use of the scientific
tools of investigation, and relies heavily on mathematics as an analytical tool. Specific fields
of study tend to be taught formally as stand-alone subjects. As formal fields of study, science
and mathematics have a close symbiotic relationship. Instruction in both fields also tends to
convey a broad and deep understanding of the organizational, substantive and syntactical
structures of the fields. Indeed, as previously stressed, a structural understanding is essential
to learning (Bruner, 1961; Herschbach, 1995; McNeil, 1999).
The term "technology" is even broader than "science," and refers to just about everything
in the designed, man-made world. There is no practical way to convey meaningful technology
instruction without tying it to specific activity. Technology is manifested through abstract and
concrete artifacts (Feenberg, 2002; Dasgupta, 1996; Pacey, 1999; Skolimowski, 1966). When
technology is defined in terms of a specific application, such as micro precision
instrumentation, instruction is integrative and interdisciplinary in scope. And it is the bond
with application that distinguishes technological knowledge from set bodies of formal
knowledge (see Figure 2.). Technological applications make use of formal knowledge, but in
very specific ways. The inherent interdisciplinary activity makes technology a good candidate
for an integrative framework around which STEM subjects can be organized except that only
selective use is made of formal knowledge.
"Engineering" differs from the other three subject areas in that it primarily refers to
preparation for specific occupations (Oaks, Leone, & Gunn, 2001). It is in one sense a
vocational subject at the collegiate level. The requirements of the specific occupational field
define the instructional content. Engineering, then, like technology, selectively makes use of
formal knowledge from science, mathematics and technology. The specific selection and use
of knowledge, however, depends on the occupational field of engineering understudy.
Of the four STEM areas, "math" is the most clearly defined as a formal subject. It already
has wide recognition in schools, and instruction tends to be organized around students
learning its formal organizational, substantive, and syntactical structures. Other STEM
subjects tend to supply a supporting role in that they demonstrate how math concepts can be
applied with the expectation that better math learning will result. The Broad Fields curriculum
pattern, as previously observed, has limited use since only selected mathematical concepts are
applied in a very restricted way to address the particular activities. As suggested, the
correlated curriculum design often lacks full integration.
The four STEM fields, in sum, have epistemological characteristics that differ markedly.
These characteristics must be fully recognized and accommodated in programming in order to
The STEM Initiative: Constraints and Challenges 9
preserve the intellectual integrity of each field. Otherwise a very limited understanding results
that undervalues specific intellectual contributions or ignores the collective value of each.
Some Issues Related to Programming
In addition to issues relating to the substance and structure of knowledge, STEM as a
curriculum concept presents a number of practical programming issues. To be sure, integrated
curriculum designs are not new. They emerged during the 1920s as part of the progressive
school era (Kilebard, 1987). At that time it was recognized that the intellectual integrity of the
various integrated subject fields was in part lost through integration. But educators were
primarily concerned with making school instruction more relevant to the life experiences of
students. Today, there is an educational environment that is strongly focused on a separate
subjects orientation, ―academic‖ achievement, testing, and an emphasis on the ―basics.‖ There
is considerably less concern about making instruction more relevant to life. It is difficult to
see how integrated STEM programming with such applicative subjects such as technology
and engineering fit into current school programming. The tensions between current subject-
matter divisions and the integrative programming implied by STEM create a number of
programming issues that yet are to be resolved.
The Illusion of STEM Programming
One major issue is the limited perception of what STEM represents. STEM is widely
perceived as related mainly to strengthening math and science education (National
Commission on Mathematics and Science, 2000). One recent national report observed,
―despite all of the concerns by policy makers, educators, and people in industry about the
quality of U.S. K-12 STEM education, the role of technology education and engineering
education have hardly been mentioned.‖ In fact, the STEM acronym has become shorthand
for science and mathematics education only, and even these subjects typically are treated as
separate entities‖ (National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council, 2009, p.
150). ―Technology,‖ along with applications to engineering is assumed to automatically fall
under math and science. Much of the national attention STEM has attained is because of its
potential impact on math and science education, with little interest in ―retooling‖ the subject
fields in order to share instructional space with technology and engineering (Kuenzi, 2008;
Moyer-Packenham, et al., 2008; National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching
for the 21st Century, 2007).
But even with the focus on math and science, there is little evidence that the
programming implications of STEM are realized. One of the most widespread, but highly
limited approaches to STEM programming is to retain the traditional subject matter
distinctions in school and to imagine that integrated learning is actually happening. When
there is an increase in math students, for example, it is assumed that there is an increase in
―STEM‖ students; but yet, it may be hard to find ways that math instruction has been
changed. This is largely an exercise in labeling. A benefit may be that greater attention is
directed toward math and science, but it is a highly restricted vision of STEM programming.
10 Dennis R. Herschbach
A great deal of STEM programming in schools today appears to be in the form of units of
study interjected into slightly modified, conventional stand-alone courses. Commercial
modules and STEM worksheets abound in the market place, yet they often represent little in
the form of substantial change. While there are notable exceptions, what is often referred to as
STEM courses requires little in the way to creative, integrated programming. STEM
implementation tends to be an illusion.
What Is the Target Population for STEM Programming?
Connected to a limited perception of what STEM programming implies are issues related
to the student populations to be served. Secondary schools tend to program subjects according
to potential achievement levels. Students tend to be scheduled based on an assessment of how
well they can perform at a given level (Newman, 1994).
In many schools, the STEM initiative tends to be perceived mainly as a way to strengthen
stand-alone math and science courses for college-bound students, with less attention given to
―lower‖ programming levels. STEM is viewed as applying primarily to ―college caliber‖
students. It is anticipated that emphasis on STEM (primarily on the S and M) will result in
more students enrolling in college preparatory course work at higher performance levels
(National Academies, 2006). There appears to be considerable less national interest, however,
in programming designed to serve the large student population that does not elect to go to a
four-year postsecondary institution (Cech, 2009; Kuenzi, 2008).
Approximately 50% of a given student cohort, does not elect to pursue additional
education beyond high school, not to count the students who drop out before completion.
National discussion concerning the diverse range of student populations that can benefit from
variations of STEM programming is limited, but yet thinking about STEM has to be
broadened to include more than college-bound students if schools are to serve the great
number of electricians, warehouse workers, agricultural specialists, craftsmen, and
technicians of all kinds that also have to be equipped to participate in our scientific and
technologically oriented society. There are multiple target populations that can and need to be
served (Cech, 2009; The Workforce Alliance, n.d.).
Even in the case of more college-oriented programming, there is some question about the
extent to which integrated STEM courses of any kind eventually will be accepted for college
admission purposes. College‘s admission officers continue to think in terms of a separate
subjects orientation that is emulated by secondary schools in the preparation of students for
entrance examinations. Colleges accept credits for APT courses, but have a lesser
understanding of and a greater reluctance to give credit to integrated offerings that engage
students in the applied uses of science and math. There is APT examinations in physics and
algebra, for example, but none for design, technology and engineering classes. Admission
officials understand what chemistry is, but they are not sure what technology education means
and they are prone not to accept what appear to be ―vocational‖ subjects. It will be difficult to
realize the true potential of STEM programming until what constitutes preparation for college
entrance is conceived differently.
The STEM Initiative: Constraints and Challenges 11
WHAT TO DO WITH THE “T” IN STEM?
Given the ―conventional‖ way that knowledge continues to be perceived and organized
for instruction, one potentially contentious, emerging issue is where the ―T‖ in STEM will be
taught. Some science educators think that they teach about technology since much of what
goes for "science" teaching today is actually applied technology. Practical applications of
scientific concepts are used to enhance science learning.
A case also can be made for technology to be taught through engineering (National
Academy of Engineering and National Research Council, 2009; Sanders, 2008). Much of
engineering consists of science and math applied in the service of technological improvement
and advancement. Engineering is largely an applied field with its practitioners seeking
solutions to "real" technological problems. But if engineering is to be used as an integrative,
correlating center of instruction, which particular field of engineering will be used and why?
Civil engineering, mechanical, industrial, sanitation, hog production, aeronautics, among a
host of others? There is no easy way to make this decision in school programs serving general
instructional purposes for students not yet ready to make a specific, perhaps narrow career
choice. At the same time, claims that "general engineering processes are taught" are difficult
to sustain unless programming is designed to achieve such an objective. With few exceptions,
this objective has not been met (Kelley, Brenner, & Piper, 2010).
On the other hand, engineering is an ideal place to demonstrate the interdependent
relationship between science, technology, and math. Engineering uses science, technology
and math to make things. However, public schools tend not to offer engineering as a subject.
The occupational field is relatively small, particularly when broken down into specialties.
When STEM is too closely defined as pre-engineering education, it faces the possibility of
unduly limiting the number of students that are attracted to the subject. Its appeal may be to a
relatively small, select group of students. Roughly, only 5 to 6% of high school graduates
enroll nationally as college engineering majors (Deloatch, 2010).
The vocational, technical and technology fields of study also make claim to the "T" in
STEM. They have traditionally been applicative subjects deeply immersed in uses of
technology. The distinction with engineering applications of technology is primarily one of
level and objectives of instruction. Engineering tends to incorporate greater use of science and
mathematics at a theoretical level, and the field tends to be more focused on the design rather
than on the construction and use of artifacts (Hill, 2004; McAlister, 2004). In fields such as
vocational and technical education, nevertheless, heavy use is made of technology, and
considerable integrative instruction is used because technology itself is integrative.
Technology teacher educators in particular see STEM as a means of achieving greater
instructional focus in schools. McAlister (2004), however, in a study of 44 teacher education
programs across the country found that few aspiring teachers had the skills needed to
effectively address the science, math and engineering elements of STEM. Without a
substantial refocusing of technology in teacher preparation programs, it is difficult to see how
technology education can effectively interface at the school level with engineering content
and with science and math.
12 Dennis R. Herschbach
Finally, as previously suggested, STEM is widely perceived as related mainly to
strengthening math and science education. However, this limits its promise as a reforming
concept. "Technology" is assumed to automatically fall under math and science along with
applications to engineering. This reduces the potential impact of STEM. The value of using
science and math to address ―real world problems‖ is lost in the context in which knowledge
is used. It is difficult to adequately address the theoretical, practical (applicative) and
integrated uses of knowledge in stand-alone courses organized around the formal structure of
math and science courses.
CONCLUSION
An unfulfilled promise of STEM is to re-conceptualize how knowledge is conceived,
organized and taught in schools. Within the scientific and engineering communities today
there appears to be a rethinking of how knowledge is generated and used. Some of the most
striking advancements are made through the combined use of knowledge spanning across
traditionally different intellectual fields. More traditional subject fields are being enriched and
expanded through the integration of knowledge from other formerly stand-alone subjects to
form new combinations of intellectually integrated knowledge that feeds investigation,
discovery and understanding. Biology, for example is crossed with physics and engineering;
solar heating research is melded with building material research and new construction
technology.
More so than in the 1920s, there is a greater understanding today that new forms of
abstract and applied knowledge are highly productive and, perhaps, the key to addressing
what are some of the most crucial problems facing humankind. There is a considerable
rethinking of the way that abstract knowledge is combined, learned and used. The
opportunity, however, is not fully recognized to integrate programming through STEM and to
tap into the potential to organize, learn and use knowledge in highly productive ways that
were formally limited by encasing teaching and learning in ―traditional‖ stand-alone, clearly
defined subjects. To more fully realize the promise of STEM programming means to move
away from the conventional separate subjects curriculum design pattern. This requires
substantial curriculum reformulation.
How can a STEM initiative that is representative of the integrated curriculum design
pattern be functionally integrated? At least three conditions must be addressed: (a) an
integrated curriculum design brings together the subject matter from different fields of study
in order to make clear the underlying interrelationships; (b) students are exposed to the formal
structure of the fields of study through learning experiences that incorporate the
organizational, substantive and syntactical structures underlying the use of knowledge; and
(c) students engage with learning experiences that use formal, specialized and applicative
knowledge.
Today, part of the interest in STEM initiatives is the perception that instruction will
become more relevant to students. It is alleged that there is a crisis in education because U.S.
students lag far behind in international measures of educational progress. STEM initiatives
allegedly will help markedly improve student achievement, particularly in math and science.
An additional hope is greater student interest in math, science and engineering will result
The STEM Initiative: Constraints and Challenges 13
from grounding instruction in ways that use knowledge. Students more readily see in their
studies the practical application of knowledge (Kuenzi, 2008).
Expectations for meaningful curriculum reform, however, likely will be largely
unrealized unless STEM initiatives are accompanied by significantly different ways to
organize and deliver instruction. We are trying to fit STEM into what is basically still a
separate subjects orientation to the organization of formal schooling. As we have briefly
discussed, neither the coordinated nor the Broad Fields curriculum patterns are an easy fit
with the existing separate subjects orientation and its link with the testing movement.
Integrated learning itself implies a selective, irregular and iterative use of knowledge in
contrast to the primarily linear, lock step, ends-means, separate-subjects instructional model
that cumulates in testing. While the separate-subjects curriculum model falls significantly
short of tapping the full potential of STEM, we nevertheless have to find better ways to fit
STEM into integrated programming.
How do technical oriented subjects in particular, such as vocational offerings in the high
school or technology education courses in the middle school fit best within the STEM scheme
of instruction? One way is to conceive of the purpose of instruction less as exposure to
separate fields of content to be mastered and more as a correlating center of student
experiences with the meaningful application of knowledge to activity. The instructional
emphasis is on the academic integration of formal knowledge with technical content.
Technical activity is used as a way to expose students to the thought processes involved in
technical work, to correlate the teaching of other subject matter, and to enlighten students
about how knowledge is generated and used. Students are fully exposed to the organizational
as well as the substantive and syntactical structure underling knowledge and its use. The
intellectual content embedded in activity is considered more important than potential skill-
training use, although skill training continues to be a viable objective. An over-riding purpose
of instruction is to provide experiences through which students come to terms with how
knowledge is formulated and used to address technical applications. To make the shift from a
separate subject emphasis, however, is a daunting challenge. It will demand new ways to
think about schooling, its purpose, and the organization and presentation of instruction. The
unrealized potential of the STEM initiative is that a new curricular reformulation will emerge
that will more effectively expose students not only to the way that formal knowledge is
learned but also in ways that it is applied.
REFERENCES
Banks, F. (1994). Teaching technology. London: Routledge.
Bruner, J. S. (1961). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cech, S. J. (2009). Career skills said to get short shrift: U.S. seen lagging in melding
preparation for college work. Education Week, 28 (21), 12-13.
Dasgupta, S. (1996). Technology and creativity. New York: Oxford University Press.
DeLoatch, E. (2010). Personal communication. Morgan State University.
Feenberg, A. (2002). Transforming technology: A critical theory revisited. New York: Oxford
University Press.
14 Dennis R. Herschbach
Herschbach, D. R. (1995). Technology as knowledge: Implications for instruction. Journal of
Technology Education, 7(1), 31-42.
Herschbach, D. R. (1996). The content of instruction. In C. P. Campbell (Ed.), Education and
Training for Work-Planning Programs (109-131). Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing.
Herschbach, D. R. (2009). Technology education foundations and perspectives. Homewood,
IL: American Technical Publishers.
Hill, R. B. (2004). Technology teacher education and engineering design. 91st Mississippi
Valley Technology Teacher Education Conference, Rosemont, IL.
Kelley, T. R., Brenner, D. & Pipoer, J. (2010). Two approaches to engineering design:
Observations in STEM education. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 47(2), 5-40.
Kliebard, H. M. (1986). The struggle for the American curriculum 1893-1958. New York:
Routledge.
Kolodner, J. L. (2002). Facilitating the learning of design practices: Lessons learned from an
inquiry into science education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 9-40.
Kuenzi, J. J. (2008). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education:
Background, federal policy, and legislative action. Washington, DC: Congressional
Research Service.
McAlister, B. (2004). Are technology education teachers prepared to teach engineering
design and analytical methods? 91st Mississippi Valley Technology Teacher Education
Conference, Rosemont, IL.
McNeil, J. D. (1990). Curriculum: A comprehensive introduction. Boston: Little, Brown and
Co.
McNeil, J. D. (1999). Curriculum: The teacher's initiative. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Mitcham, C. & Mackey, R. (1972). Introduction: Technology as a philosophical problem. In
C. Mitcham & R. Mackaey (Eds.), Philosophy and technology (1-30). New York: The
Free Press.
Moyer-Packenham, P. S., Anastasis, K., Johanna, J. B., Faye, H. & Irby, N. (2008).
Participation by STEM faculty in mathematics and science partnership activities for
teachers. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 10(2), 1-20.
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.
National Academies. (2006). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing
America for a brighter economic future. Washington, D.C.: National Academic Press.
National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. (2000).
Before it is too late. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Newman, J. W. (1994). American teachers. New York: Longman.
Oaks, W. C., Leone, L. & Gumm, C. J. (2001). Engineering your future. St. Louis, MO: Great
Lakes Press.
Pacey, A. (1999). Meaning in technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pearson, G. & Young, T. (2002). Technically speaking. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Raizen, S. A., Sellwood, P., Todd, R. D. & Vickers, M. (1995). Technology education in the
classroom: Understanding the designed world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sanders, M. (2008). Integrative STEM education: Primer. The Technology Teacher, 68(4),
20-26.
The STEM Initiative: Constraints and Challenges 15
Skolimowski, H. (1966). The structure of thinking in technology. Technology and Culture,
7(3), 371-383.
The New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. (2007). Tough choices or
tough times. Washington, D.C.: National Center on Education and the Economy.
The Workforce Alliance (n.d.). Finding the forgotten middle: Middle-skill jobs in America
today and tomorrow. Washington, D.C.: Retrieved from http://www.skills2compete.org.
Wicklein, R. C. (2006). Five good reasons for engineering design as the focus for technology
education. The Technology Teacher, 65(7), 25-29.
In: STEM Education ISBN: 978-1-62808-514-3
Editor: Satasha L. Green © 2014 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 2
THE NEED FOR STEM TEACHER
EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT
Micah S. Stohlmann1, Ph.D., Gillian H. Roehrig2, Ph.D.
and Tamara J. Moore3, Ph.D.
1 University of Nevada, Las Vegas, US
2 University of Minnesota, US
3 Purdue University, US
ABSTRACT
The increased emphasis of engineering integration in K-12 schools has been one
response to the need to improve science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) teacher education development.
Engineering-based activities can enable teachers to employ student-centered
pedagogies and provide students with real-world context to apply mathematics and
science.
Consequently, the integration of STEM subjects has the potential to improve
students‘ interest and achievement in mathematics and science. However, most in-service
teachers have not been prepared to integrate STEM subjects or to teach engineering.
This chapter will discuss aspects of content knowledge and pedagogy that are needed
for teachers to integrate STEM subjects.
The importance of well-structured professional development to develop the
necessary knowledge for STEM integration will be discussed along with lessons learned
about how teachers involved in professional development have implemented engineering.
[email protected].
18 Micah S. Stohlmann, Gillian H. Roehrig and Tamara J. Moore
INTRODUCTION
―Education is not preparation for life; education is life itself.‖
John Dewey
Real-world problems are rarely solved using knowledge from a single subject area. The
school experiences of students should embody this reality, which in part has led to the
increased focus on integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
education. Integrated STEM education is an approach that builds on natural connections
between STEM subjects for the purpose of (1) furthering student understanding of each
discipline by building on students‘ prior knowledge; (2) broadening student understanding of
STEM disciplines through exposure to socially relevant STEM contexts; and (3) making
STEM disciplines and careers more accessible and intriguing for students (Wang, Moore,
Roehrig, & Park, 2011). STEM integration through the implementation of engineering design
activities can also enable students to develop valuable 21st century skills including being
good communicators, technologically savvy, innovators, and synthesizers of information. The
need for integrated STEM education is rapidly increasing given the prominence of
engineering in the conceptual framework for the new Next Generation Science Standards
(National Research Council, 2012) and the number of states already integrating engineering
into their K-12 science standards. However, many teachers are unfamiliar with engineering
and STEM approaches advocated in new national and state policy documents, as most
licensure programs remain focused on single subject certification. In all, this has led to a great
need for professional development for in-service teachers, as well as a focus on STEM
integration in pre-service teachers‘ methods and content courses.
Pre-service and professional development programs need to help STEM teachers to
develop the knowledge necessary to transform the intentions of policy documents advancing
the integration of engineering into classroom practice. Thus, this chapter will focus on content
knowledge that is needed for STEM teacher educators, as well as the need for quality STEM
education professional development to ensure the best educational experiences for all
students. Finally, we will describe lessons learned about teachers engineering integration
practices following participation in professional development activities.
STEM TEACHERS’ CONTENT KNOWLEDGE FOR TEACHING
For STEM integration to be successful in K-12 schools, teachers will need a new and
interdisciplinary content knowledge base (Stohlmann, Moore, & Roehrig, 2012). There are
few empirical studies examining the prerequisite skills, knowledge bases, and experiences
necessary for teachers to implement integrated instruction. However, a common theme is that
teachers‘ subject matter knowledge needs to be more robust. At the elementary level,
teachers‘ content knowledge for STEM subjects has been shown to need improvement
(Cunningham & Hester, 2007; Ma, 1999). At the middle and high school level, both pre-
service and in-service teachers that have worked on implementing integrated STEM
education noted that they knew their content knowledge needed to be further developed as
well (Frykholm & Glasson, 2005; Wang, Moore, Roehrig, & Park, 2011)
The Need for STEM Teacher Education Development 19
However, there is no common understanding of the nature of content knowledge needed
by STEM teachers. Indeed, the debate is intense about the nature of content knowledge for
teaching within a single discipline (Abell, 2008; Ball, 2001), so asking mathematics and
science teachers to apply interdisciplinary knowledge across the STEM disciplines creates
new knowledge gaps and challenges (Stinson, Harkness, Meyer, & Stallworth, 2009).
In addition, when teachers are not comfortable with teaching a topic, they tend to avoid
teaching the topic or teach the subject superficially (Bursal & Paznokas, 2006). In order to
ensure that teachers are successful, it is important that they receive support for developing
their content knowledge to be able to effectively teach STEM integration.
Shulman (1986) suggested that there are three categories of content knowledge and for
this chapter these three domains of content knowledge will be discussed as the most critical
for STEM integration: (1) subject matter knowledge, (2) pedagogical content knowledge, and
(3) curricular knowledge. Subject matter knowledge involves knowing the facts, concepts,
and processes of knowledge generation within a discipline. Pedagogical content knowledge
(PCK) is characterized as an experiential knowledge because it is developed through
classroom experience and involves the transformation of content knowledge into meaningful
representations for students. It involves drawing on subject matter and curricular knowledge
to be able to explain ideas in different ways, knowing the most useful forms of
representations to have students work with, and knowing students‘ capabilities and
misconceptions. Curricular knowledge involves knowledge of the full range of resources,
materials, and technology that can be incorporated in a lesson. These three content knowledge
domains will be described in the following section as they relate to integrated STEM
education.
Subject Matter Knowledge
Integrated STEM education should build on natural connections between subjects and use
authentic, realistic contexts. Thus, teachers‘ subject matter knowledge for STEM integration
should focus on topics that lend themselves to integration. Topics that lend themselves to
STEM integration that have been mentioned in the literature can help to guide the subject
matter knowledge development of teachers for integrated STEM education.
Fykholm & Glasson (2005) reported the results of pre-service secondary mathematics
and science teachers working together to create integrated units or lessons (Table 1). The
math and science pre-service teachers were placed in groups based on where they would be
student teaching the following semester in order that they might continue their collaborative
focus. Through collaboration these teachers grew in their content knowledge of both
mathematics and science.
STEM integration was built on the work of science and math integration. Roehrig,
Moore, Wang, and Park (2012) described the STEM activities that secondary math and
science teachers used in their classrooms towards the completion of a professional
development on STEM integration. The content focus of the science, engineering, and math
of each lesson is shown in Table 2. The technology category is not included because the
professional development focused on two ways of thinking about technology: (1) the
integration of technology as the product or process of an engineering design process, or (2)
the integration of technology as a learning tool (i.e., integrating digital technologies in the
20 Micah S. Stohlmann, Gillian H. Roehrig and Tamara J. Moore
classroom as a means to enhance the other content). Engineering was focused on the structure
of the lessons in the form of an engineering design process. As can be seen in Table 2, STEM
integration does not have to involve all four STEM disciplines and should be determined by
the natural connections between the subjects and the subject matter knowledge that teachers
have or can develop to implement the lessons appropriately.
Table 1. Example Science and Math Subject Matter Connections
Science Mathematics
Punnett squares Ratio and proportions
Tree Growth Data collection and analysis. Functions, scatter plots,
correlation coefficients, perimeter, area, and ratios
Endangered manatee populations Scatter plots and functions
Work, energy, and power Unit conversions and equation manipulation
Weather prediction Scale on a map and formulas to explore relationships
between temperature and altitude
Disease transmission Exponential growth
Table 2. Example SEM Subject Matter Connections
Context Science Engineering Mathematics
Designing a Human body structure Engineering Measurement, ratios,
comfortable design cycle and averages
cardboard chair to Mass, Volume, and
hold a person Density ----- Slope and analysis of
Determining if a gold Chemical reactions graphs
crown is real or Engineering
counterfeit Velocity, Acceleration design cycle -----
Designing a and Parabolic motion
submarine to sink, Pelican colonies ----- Velocity, acceleration,
float, and then sink scatter plot, and
again ----- Engineering function modeling
Video capture and design cycle Measures of center,
modeling of parabolic Engineering statistical thinking,
motion design cycle and random sampling
Estimating Pelican Scale drawings and
populations from geometric coordinate
aerial photographs proofs of
Kite design quadrilaterals
The Need for STEM Teacher Education Development 21
Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Subject matter knowledge is important, but teachers must also possess pedagogical
content knowledge of students‘ capabilities, students‘ misconceptions, and knowledge of how
to respond to students‘ ideas and explain concepts. Integrated STEM education lends itself to
best practices for teaching including the use of multiple representations, teacher as a
facilitator, embedded formative assessment, cooperative learning, and problem solving based
learning (Stohlmann et al., 2012). This type of teaching is much more demanding and
difficult for teachers.
Multiple representations through the Lesh Translation Model (LTM) (see Figure 1) can
be used as a framework for one aspect of pedagogical content knowledge that teachers can
develop and apply to curriculum design and implementation. The LTM is a measure of robust
content knowledge through five main representations and translations between and within
these representations: (a) representation through realistic, real-world, or experienced contexts,
(b) symbolic representation, (c) language representation, (d) pictorial representation, and (e)
representation with manipulatives (concrete, hands-on models). The translation model
emphasizes that the understanding of concepts lies in the ability of students to represent
concepts through the five different categories of representation, as well as the ability to
translate between and within representations (Lesh & Doerr, 2003).
Figure 1. The Lesh Translation Model measures content knowledge through five main representations
and translations. The translation model emphasizes that the understanding of concepts lies in the ability
of students to represent concepts through the five different categories of representation, as well as the
ability to translate between and within representations. Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003). Foundations of
a models and modeling perspective on mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving. In R. Lesh
& H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism. (pp. 3-33). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
The LTM is useful for thinking about STEM integration curricula. As an example, the
cardboard chair activity from Table 2 required students to think about STEM content in
multiple ways and through multiple representations. Middle school students were asked to
22 Micah S. Stohlmann, Gillian H. Roehrig and Tamara J. Moore
design a cardboard chair that could hold up to 200 pounds and be aesthetically pleasing. This
project was called the ―Chair-ity‖ Project because the students designed and built their chairs
for a client who was then going to auction off the chairs for charity. Students progressed
through the project by understanding the basics of human anatomy including the general
proportions of the human body, planning their chair through sketching different ideas for
designs, making a blueprint of their final design, building a scale-model prototype, making
the full-size chair, and testing both their prototype (with opportunity to redesign)
and final chair.
Inherent in these activities are the representations of the LTM and the translations
between them. The realistic representation is present throughout the activity. Students have a
realistic client who has specifications for the chair. At each step, the students needed to think
about the real uses for the chair and whether or not a potential buyer would like it. The
students were asked to represent their chair in two distinct places in the curriculum through
concrete manners; first, through their scale-model prototype and second, through their final
chair. They were also asked to study existing chairs to develop conceptions about the
important aspects of chairs to increase their prior knowledge. Each of these activities involved
concrete representations. Pictorial representations were seen multiple times through the
―chair-ity‖ project. Students were asked to draw human body proportions and design sketches
from their ideas for a chair design. These different pictorial representations provided the
students with the opportunities to translate the ideas in their minds to pictorial representations
on paper. The symbolic representations were evident where students were asked to measure
with standardized units, demonstrate proportional relationships, and represent the details of
the design using mathematical expressions or equations. This was particularly evident when
the students were building their scale-models and had to show the mathematical detail of the
scaling. The students were asked to work on language representations through their
communication to the client and the potential buyers. They were asked to take the technical
language of the design process and make it accessible to a general audience. Translation
between representations is also needed to demonstrate understanding. Throughout the project,
students were given multiple opportunities to translate between and within the
representations. For example, students had to explain (language) how their sketch of chair
ideas (pictorial) translated to their blueprint (pictorial and symbolic) and then how that
translated to their prototype (concrete); all the while showing how each step met the needs of
the client (realistic).
There are two main pedagogical approaches for implementing STEM integration: context
and content integration. Content integration focuses on the merging of content fields in order
to highlight ―big ideas‖ from multiple content areas; whereas, context integration primarily
focuses on the content of one discipline and uses contexts from others to make the content
more relevant. The ―Chair-ity‖ Project above is an example of content integration. The
learning objectives of the project included engineering design and engineering thinking,
science content of the human body, and mathematics content of scaling, proportion, and data
analysis. The instructor taught all of these with the purpose of increasing the students‘
understanding in all of these areas. An example of context integration can be seen through the
Kite Design activity in Table 2. Here the teacher had the objectives of having the students
learn the mathematical content of scale and proportional reasoning, as well as geometric
coordinate proofs of quadrilaterals. The engineering design aspect of the project was a way to
The Need for STEM Teacher Education Development 23
motivate this learning but not a learning objective. The teacher assessed the mathematical
learning but did not assess the engineering design.
Model-Eliciting Activities (MEAs) are one type of STEM curricula that can be integrated
in both of these approaches. MEAs are client-driven, open-ended, realistic problems that
involve the development or design of mathematical/scientific/engineering models. MEAs are
not meant to be a full curriculum but to complement the content of a course. The goal of
MEAs is to have students develop models or solutions that are powerful, sharable, and
reusable (Lesh, 2010). Through MEAs teachers are able to see students‘ capabilities and
misconceptions, which can help guide future instruction. In general, MEAs enable teachers to
use the engineering design process as the structure for students to learn mathematical content
along with science concepts through technology infused activities. The engineering design
process is built into these activities as students express, test, and revise their solutions. Some
MEAs require students to use both mathematics and science content in their solutions. Other
MEAs have science contexts, but students generally use mathematics content without science
content in order to develop their solutions. Two example MEAs will be discussed to highlight
these distinctions. The Energy Sources MEA is an example of an MEA that uses content
integration. In this MEA, students are asked to recommend the top five most promising and
sustainable energy sources for the U.S. to focus their energy investments for the future. In this
modeling problem students would use science content knowledge of non-renewable and
renewable resources. A description of ten different energy sources is given to students along
with the pros and cons of each energy source. Categorical data is also given to students that
rates energy sources on a 5 point scale for categories such as easily transported, low
greenhouse gases, and easily used for transportation. For the mathematics content, students
could employ statistics concepts of measures of center or correlation to help make their
decision. The Sasquatch MEA (Stohlmann, 2012) is an example of context integration. In this
activity, students are given a footprint that might have belonged to the legendary creature
Sasquatch. They are then asked to come up with an estimate for the height of the person or
creature based on the footprint. Students could use mathematical content of proportionality,
measurement, function modeling, and ideas related to sample size. While science concepts of
observation and inference are included in this activity, what is being asked of students does
not require the explicit use of science content to develop a solution.
MEAs are well-structured curricula for implementing integrated STEM education
through multiple representations. Realistic representations are built into these activities as
students use mathematics and science knowledge in realistic contexts and consider issues
such as constraints, the needs of the client, and ethical issues. Language representations occur
during MEAs as students describe verbally or in writing their mathematical/
scientific/engineering models. Pictorial representations can occur through graphs, diagrams,
and design sketches. Symbolic representations occur through analysis or creation of tables,
data, or equations. Concrete representations are integrated through the use of manipulatives or
hands-on demonstrations that can be included in MEAs.
While students work on MEAs, they are given access to various tools and technology to
use in developing their solutions including measurement devices, graphing calculators,
internet resources, and dynamic software. YouTube videos can also be integrated with MEAs
to provide background information for the realistic context of the problems; as well as to
activate students‘ prior knowledge and motivate them in their learning (Stohlmann, 2012). In
24 Micah S. Stohlmann, Gillian H. Roehrig and Tamara J. Moore
addition to knowledge of multiple representations teachers need to have curricular knowledge
of the resources, materials, and technology that can be incorporated into a lesson.
Curricular Knowledge
Curricular knowledge for integrated STEM education is difficult as there is a large need
for robust integrated STEM curriculum. There are a few promising examples of curricula but
there is a need for more research to develop integrated STEM curriculum; as well as to
investigate how teachers come to learn how to use and implement this curricula. Since
teachers‘ image of teaching and curriculum are deeply rooted in their own experiences, it is
vital to provide experiences for teachers to participate in and implement integrated STEM
curricula activities (Hamos, et al., 2009).
At the elementary level, Engineering is Elementary (EiE) is a well-developed curriculum
that can be paired with 20 major science topics that are taught in the elementary grades. This
curriculum was developed through a National Science Foundation grant at the Museum of
Science-Boston. Each of the 20 units is comprised of four lessons. The first lesson of each
unit is a story book that provides the realistic context for the unit and the design challenge
that students will participate in. The storybooks were carefully structured to include children
of different backgrounds and countries as the main characters of the stories to focus on the
diversity of engineers and engineering challenges in the world; as well as to engage a diverse
range of students. The second and third lessons involve hands-on experiments and sometimes
scientific content, while the fourth lesson is the culminating design challenge that includes
design and redesign (Cunningham, 2009). The integration of mathematics connections in EiE
is limited. However, with integrated STEM curricula it is extremely difficult to focus on all
four STEM disciplines and often one of the disciplines needs to have more of a focus.
At the middle school level, a good example of a curricular innovation that involves math
and science content integration is the Engineering Teaching Kit called Save the Penguins
(Schnittka, Bell, & Richards, 2010). Save the Penguins integrates engineering design, science
content of heat transfer, mathematics measures of center and percents, and also how engineers
design technologies to help solve the world‘s problems. Students are introduced to heat
transfer through the concepts of insulation, conduction, convection, and radiation through
inquiry-based demonstrations and activities. The activities are designed to confront known
misconceptions about heat, temperature, and heat transfer. After the hands-on activities and
materials testing, students are then asked to work in teams to design a dwelling for a 10g
penguin-shaped ice cube that will be placed in a ―cooker‖ (a black plastic bin with the sides
lined with aluminum foil and three 150 Watt clamp lights shining down) to prevent
conduction, convection, and radiation. Students are provided with the constraints including a
budget and a list of available materials. After they have completed their first design, students
record the mass of the penguin prior to being placed in the ―cooker‖ and 20 minutes later
when it is removed. Students then compile a table of their penguin masses and cost of their
dwelling to analyze the data and discuss which designs were the most successful. Students
also share how they developed their designs to prevent heat transfer. Students are then asked
to redesign. Teachers need subject matter, pedagogical, and curricular knowledge to
implement integrated STEM education. Well-structured professional development can enable
this knowledge growth to take place.
The Need for STEM Teacher Education Development 25
BEST PRACTICES FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Professional development is considered to be a key mechanism for improving classroom
instruction and student achievement (Cohen & Hill, 2000; Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin,
1995; National Commission on Teaching and America‘s Future, 1996). While professional
development experiences vary widely, there is consensus among researchers that
characteristics of quality professional development include coherence, a focus on content
knowledge, active learning, a reform rather than traditional approach, sufficient duration, and
collective participation (Desimone, 2009; Guskey & Yoon, 2009; Yoon et al., 2007).
Researchers have linked these characteristics to improvements on teachers‘ knowledge and
skills (Garet et al., 2001).
Another critical component to teacher professional development is collaboration with
peers through professional learning communities (PLCs). Isolation is a common thread and
complaint among new teachers in U.S. schools (Wong, Britton, & Ganser, 2005). If teachers
work in strong learning communities, they are more satisfied with their careers and are more
likely to remain in teaching (Carroll & Foster, 2009). A two-year NSF study that investigated
the effect of STEM teachers that participated in PLCs found that ―STEM teaching is more
effective and student achievement increases when teachers join forces to develop strong
professional learning communities in their schools‖ (National Commission on Teaching &
America‘s Future, 2011, p.4). STEM teachers who participated in PLCs understood
mathematics and science better, felt more prepared to teach mathematics and science, used
more research-based methods for teaching mathematics and science, and paid more attention
to students‘ reasoning and understanding. Professional development integrated with PLCs can
be an effective way to support STEM teachers as they implement integrated STEM education.
Each of these characteristics is described in detail including examples from the Region 11
Mathematics and Science Teacher Partnership described in the following section.
The Region 11 Math and Science Teacher Partnership
In response to new Minnesota standards in both mathematics (introduced in Fall 2008)
and science (introduced in Fall 2009), the Minnesota Department of Education funded several
regional teacher centers to provide professional development across the state. Each regional
center included university and school district partners and was expected to design and
implement professional development modules to improve teacher content knowledge and
pedagogical content knowledge to more effectively implement the Minnesota Mathematics
and Science Academic Standards. In this chapter, we describe the approach of the Region 11
Math and Science Teacher Partnership (MSTP), which serves the metropolitan area and
surrounding suburbs of Minneapolis and St. Paul. The Region 11 MSTP included the
following partners: Metropolitan Educational Cooperative Services, Intermediate District 287,
Northeast Metro Intermediate District 916, Columbia Heights Public Schools, Brooklyn
Center Public Schools, University of Minnesota, Hamline University, Normandale
Community College, and SciMath MN. During each of the five years of funding, MSTPs
provided professional development for a specific grade-level and subject matter focus. Table
3 shares the focus for science professional development along with the number of schools and
26 Micah S. Stohlmann, Gillian H. Roehrig and Tamara J. Moore
teachers involved. We are reporting on the science professional development due to the focus
on the integration of engineering into science in Minnesota.
Coherence and content focus are linked within the design on the MSTP project.
Coherence calls for teacher learning to be consistent with teachers‘ knowledge and beliefs
and aligned with school, district and state policies (Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, &
Gallagher, 2007). With the release of new science standards and the need for districts to
determine how to meet these new standards, particularly standards focused on engineering,
there was a clear alignment between state policy, school and teacher need, and the content
focus of the professional development. The characteristic of content focus calls for
professional development activities that focus not only on developing teachers‘ content
knowledge but also consider how students interact with and learn that content (Cohen & Hill,
2001; Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Birman, 2002). As an example, when teachers
explored heat transfer using the Save the Penguins curriculum, teachers were provided with a
student pre-assessment designed to elicit students‘ prior knowledge and misconceptions about
heat transfer.
Table 3. Professional Development Focus for each Year of the MSTP
Year Professional Development Focus Number of Number of
2009/2010 Schools Teachers
2010/2011 STEM integration (6–12) 10 79
2011/2012 Nature of science and engineering (3–6) 36 220
Nature of science and engineering (3–6) 17 137
2012/2013 Nature of science and engineering in the life 48 119
2013/2014 sciences (7–12)
Nature of science and engineering in the 13 48
physical sciences (7–12)
Nature of science and engineering in the earth TBD TBD
sciences (7–12)
Professional development activities should engage teachers in active rather than passive
learning (Garet, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Loucks-Horsley, Stiles, Mundry, Love, &
Hewson, 2009). Active engagement is directly connected to taking a reform approach, as it is
critical that teachers have direct experiences with the kinds of reform-based engineering
design activities promoted in the new science Frameworks and state standards. Each Math
and Science Teacher Partnership professional development series focused on modeling and
exploring instructional strategies to assist teachers to integrate engineering practices and
contexts into their science classrooms and increase their understanding of the connections
between the STEM disciplines.
Research demonstrates that teacher change is facilitated when professional development
is of sufficient duration, both in terms of total hours and the span of time over which the
professional development occurs (Cohen & Hill, 2001; Supovitz & Turner, 2000). Debate
remains in the exact number of hours, however Desimone (2009) suggested that research
supports activities that are spread over a semester that include at least 20 contact hours. Other
researchers suggest that significant changes in teaching practices require at least 80 hours of
professional development (Supovitz & Turner, 2000). Each professional development series
The Need for STEM Teacher Education Development 27
included five full-day face to face workshops spread across the academic year with four PLC
meetings between each workshop day.
The final feature of quality professional development is collective participation.
Collective participation promotes more powerful and on-going learning by requiring
participation of all teachers in a grade level or subject matter team (Desimone, 2006).
Secondary MSTP professional development series required the participation of all teachers in
that content area and elementary MSTP professional development series required the
participation of all teachers at targeted grade levels. This requirement facilitated team
planning and conversation during PLC activities. Teachers were also asked to develop and
implement reform-based engineering design activities in their classrooms within their
Professional Learning Communities (PLC). Additionally, teachers collected and analyzed
student learning data related to their engineering design lessons. The purpose of the PLC
meetings was for teachers to meet together in school level teams and reflect on what they
learned during the training sessions and to plan for the implementation of engineering
integration activities into their classrooms. These PLC meetings were highly structured and
closely tied to the workshop content.
Lessons Learned about Teachers Engineering Integration Practices
Ongoing evaluation and research on the 603 teachers (357 elementary and 246
secondary) completing different MSTP workshops has been previously reported (Guzey,
Moore, & Roehrig, 2013; Guzey, Tank, Wang, Roehrig, & Moore, 2012; Roehrig, Moore,
Wang, & Park, 2012; Wang, Moore, Roehrig, & Park, 2011). These studies have explored the
impact of the professional development on teachers‘ perceptions and practices related to
engineering integration. In this chapter, we share lessons learned about teachers‘ engineering
integration practices looking across all of these research studies and different MSTP
professional development experiences.
Implicit vs. Explicit Connections to Science Content. MSTP teachers favored the
approach of using an engineering design challenge at the end of a science unit instead of
during the unit. Teachers found this approach to be beneficial to students as a way to apply
their content knowledge to real-world applications. However, many teachers struggled to
make the science connections explicit to students. The example of the ―Egg Drop‖ challenge
used by many physical science teachers is used to illustrate the difference between implicit
and explicit integration of science content into this culminating engineering project. Many
teachers used the context of a car crash as the context for the egg drop design challenge, with
the egg representing the driver and the protective container representing the vehicle. While
many teachers introduced budgets and constraints and encouraged students to test and
redesign, they did not explicitly address relevant physics content with students in discussing
their designs. One teacher was observed at the end of the three-day unit announcing to
students, ―I hope you have a better idea about collision and momentum. This is what this
project is all about.‖ Yet, during the three day observation, he was never seen engaging
students in this content related to their designs; he had just finished a unit on momentum and
expected students to naturally draw on that content. This is in contrast to another teacher who
was observed to explicitly discuss physics content after the first round of testing and shared
some videos of crash-testing and the role of crumple zones in vehicle design. He explicitly
28 Micah S. Stohlmann, Gillian H. Roehrig and Tamara J. Moore
addressed impulse and how these designs needed to consider both the force and the duration
of the impact, which students were able to connect to the rigidity of their initial designs
during the redesign process. The role of the teacher is critical in helping students to explicitly
connect to content and applying that content to their designs.
Engineering Lessons Without Connections to Math or Science. Several teachers
implemented engineering lessons without even implicit connections to content. Elementary
teachers were particularly drawn to engineering as a way to engage their students without
having to be concerned about their science content knowledge. While such lessons address
state standards related to the practices of engineering, they did not provide connections to
science content standards as described in state and national documents. In essence these
lessons become an ―exercise in tinkering‖ rather than a thoughtful application of science
concepts to a design challenge.
The purpose of the integration of engineering in the science standards is to provide a
context and pedagogy for learning and applying science content in authentic settings, rather
than being simply an addition to existing science standards.
Standalone engineering lessons were often the result of units where engineering design
was used towards the beginning of the unit as a way to engage students in content. It appears
to be difficult for teachers to recognize moments to ask directed and explicit questions that
challenge students to think about why a design is working or not working. For example,
teachers would lead a discussion on optimizing a variable, such as the angle of the blades on a
wind turbine, but not develop the discussion into a conversation of why a particular angle
might be optimal in terms of lift and drag. This is why questions are necessary to integrate
science or mathematics content in understanding a design and to create teachable moments
for mini-lessons on content.
Representing the Whole Discipline of Engineering within Different Content Areas.
The MSTP professional development programs have focused on different science content
areas and grade levels each year.
While physical science topics provide a more natural fit for the integration of
engineering, teachers in other content areas have also been successful. While our focus for the
professional development was on engineering design, it is important to also consider a
broader look at engineering content for life science and earth science teachers. For example,
ethics is an important consideration for engineers and is a topic present in many state
standards (Moore, Tank, Glancy, & Kersten, 2013).
Life science teachers struggle to implement extensive engineering design activities into
their classroom. Constraints include an already overloaded curriculum in terms of content
standards to be addressed and equipment limitations for topics such as genetic engineering.
However, conversations about engineering practices and applications of life science content,
including ethics, are meaningful mechanisms for engineering integration into the life
sciences.
Role of Redesign. Redesign is an important phase of the engineering design cycle as
engineers learn from failure. Similarly, in the K-12 classroom it is important that students
participate in engineering activities that provide opportunities to design, test, and redesign.
The redesign process is also critical if students are to engage in all of the practices of science
and engineering laid out in the Frameworks (NRC, 2012). For example, practice 7, states that
―engineers use systematic methods to compare alternatives, formulate evidence based on test
data, make arguments from evidence to defend their conclusions, evaluate critically the ideas
The Need for STEM Teacher Education Development 29
of others, and revise their designs in order to achieve the best solution to the problem at hand‖
(p. 52).
Thus, it is critical that teachers provide time for students to share their design solutions,
to learn from each other, and inform new and improved designs if all of the practices are to be
experienced by students. Unfortunately, the most common step skipped by teachers is the
redesign step. While time constraints are a real concern, it is critical that teachers develop an
understanding of the importance of the redesign step and at a minimum provide time for
students to discuss possible redesigns even if there is not time for a physical redesign.
CONCLUSION
Given the technology-based, global world that we live in, it is vital to provide students
with STEM education that develops students‘ skills for daily life and the changing 21st
century workforce. Integrated STEM education can make learning more relevant and
meaningful for students. It can improve students‘ attitudes toward STEM subjects, improve
higher level thinking skills, and increase mathematics and science achievement. We need
more STEM teachers who are well prepared to teach more challenging standards and who can
help all students learn. In general, education should be a collaborative effort and STEM
teacher education development is no different. Since many current teachers were not trained
to teach integrated STEM education or to implement engineering, teachers need support for
effective implementation. STEM educators may have more developed content knowledge in
one of the three areas of subject matter, pedagogical, or curricular knowledge of integrated
STEM education. It is important that teachers have time for collaboration to grow in their
knowledge and share their strengths. The need for STEM teacher education development can
be met through a collaborative effort of teachers, administrators, higher education, businesses,
community, and families to support more effective teaching and meaningful student learning.
REFERENCES
Abell, S. K. (2008). Twenty years later: Does pedagogical content knowledge remain a useful
idea? International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1405-1416.
Ball, D. L., Lubienski, S. T., & Mewborn, D. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics: The
unsolved problem of teachers‘ mathematical knowledge. In V. Richardson (Ed.),
Handbook on research in teaching (4th edition), (pp. 180-194). New York, NY:
Macmillan.
Bursal, M., & Paznokas, L. (2006). Mathematics anxiety and pre-service elementary teachers‘
confidence to teach mathematics and science. School Science and Mathematics, 106(4),
173-179.
Carroll, T., & Foster, E. (2009). Who will teach? Experience matters. Washington, DC:
NCTAF.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H.C. (1998). State policy and classroom performance: Mathematics
reform in California. CPRE Policy Brief. Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
30 Micah S. Stohlmann, Gillian H. Roehrig and Tamara J. Moore
Cunningham, C. M. (2009). Engineering curriculum as a catalyst for change. Paper presented
at the NSF/Hofstra CTL Middle School Grades Math Infusion in STEM symposium.
Palm Beach, FL.
Cunningham, C., & Hester, K. (2007). Engineering is elementary: An engineering and
technology curriculum for children. Proceedings of the 2007 American Society for
Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Honolulu, HI.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional
development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597-604.
Desimone, L. M. (2006). Toward a more refined theory of school effects: A study of the
relationship between professional community and mathematics teaching in early
elementary school. In C. Miskel & W. Hoy (Eds.), Contemporary issues in educational
policy and school outcomes (pp. 87-134). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers‘ professional development:
Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199.
Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of
professional development on teachers' instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal
study. Educational Evaluation and Policy, 24(2), 81-112.
Frykholm, J., & Glasson, G. (2005). Connecting science and mathematics instruction:
Pedagogical context knowledge for teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 105(3),
127-141.
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, 915-945.
Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional development? Phi Delta
Kappan, 90(7), 495-500.
Guzey, S. S., Moore, J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2013). Integration of engineering into science.
Paper presented at the Association of Science Teacher Education, Charleston, SC.
Guzey, S., Tank, K. M., Wang, H., Roehrig, G. H., & Moore, T. (January, 2012). A high-
quality professional development for implementing engineering into your classroom for
teachers of grades 3-6. Paper presented at the Association of Science Teacher Education,
Clearwater, FL.
Hamos, J., Bergin, K., Maki, D., Perez, L., Prival, J., Rainey, D., Rowell, G., &
VanderPutten, E. (2009). Opening the classroom door: Professional learning communities
in the math and science partnership program. Science Educator, 18(2), 14-24.
Lesh, R. (2010). Tools, researchable issues and conjectures for investigating what it means to
understand statistics (or other topics) meaningfully. Journal of Mathematical Modeling
and Application, 1(2), 16-48.
Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003). Foundations of a models and modeling perspective on
mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving. In R. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.),
Beyond constructivism. (pp. 3-33). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S. E., Love, N. B., & Hewson, P. W. (2009).
Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
The Need for STEM Teacher Education Development 31
Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M. S., Wang, H. H., Tank, K. M., & Roehrig, G. H. (in press).
Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. In S. Purzer, J.
Strobel, & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in Pre-College Settings: Research into
Practice. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Press.
Moore, T. J., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Kersten, J. A. (2013, January). A framework for
implementing engineering standards in K-12. Paper to be presented at the International
Conference of Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE), Charleston, SC.
National Commission on Teaching and America‘s Future. (1996). What matters most:
Teaching for America’s future. Retrieved from http://nctaf.org/wpcontent/
uploads/2012/01/WhatMattersMost.pdf
National Commission on Teaching and America‘s Future. (2011). STEM teachers in
professional learning communities: From good teachers to great teaching. Washington,
DC: Author.
National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 science education: Practices,
crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes
professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation.
American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921 –958.
Roehrig, G., Moore, T., Wang, H., & Park, M. S. (2012). Is adding the E enough?
Investigating the impact of K-12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM
integration. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 31-44.
Schnittka, C. G., Bell, R. L., & Richards, L. G. (2010). Save the penguins: Teaching the
science of heat transfer through engineering design. Science Scope, 34(3), 82-91.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15, 4-14.
Stinson, K., Harkness, S., Meyer, H., & Stallworth, J. (2009). Mathematics and science
integration: Models and characterizations. School Science and Mathematics, 109(3),
153-161.
Stohlmann, M. (2012). YouTube incorporated with mathematical modeling activities:
Benefits, concerns, and future research opportunities. International Journal of
Technology in Mathematics Education, 19(3), 117-124.
Stohlmann, M., Moore, T., & Roehrig, G. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated
STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering, 2(1), 28-34.
Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science
teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37,
963-980.
Wang, H., Moore, T., Roehrig, G., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher
perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 1(2),
1-13.
Wong, H. K., Britton, T., & Ganser, T. (2005). What the world can teach us about new
teacher induction. Phi Delta Kappan, 379-384.
Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S.W.Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the
evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues &
Answers Report, REL 2007–No. 033). Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
In: STEM Education ISBN: 978-1-62808-514-3
Editor: Satasha L. Green © 2014 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 3
PREPARING TEACHERS IN SCIENCE THROUGH
TECHNOLOGY FOR STEM EDUCATION
Shiang-Kwei Wang, Ph.D. and Hui-Yin Hsu, Ph.D.
New York Institute of Technology, NY, US
ABSTRACT
Inquiry-based instruction holds significant promise for developing students‘
scientific literacy skills. Science educators and researchers have long advocated that
learning with inquiry be placed at the core of science curricula. However, to this date,
inquiry-based instruction is still not commonly observed in classroom practices. To
continue the efforts of science education reform initiatives, the National Research
Council (2012) has developed the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), to provide
a framework that is rich in content and practice to promote students‘ core disciplinary,
science, engineering practices, and crosscutting concepts. This chapter presents a model
that focuses on using information and communication technologies (ICTs) as cognitive
tools to develop students‘ understanding of scientific inquiry and to cultivate their new
literacy skills. It discusses a ―new literacy framework‖ as a technology integration model,
examines how the components of new literacy align with scientific literacy, and suggests
strategies to prepare science teachers to adopt the new literacy framework in their
classrooms.
INTRODUCTION
―Scientific inquiry refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world
and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work‖ (National Research
Council [NRC], 2012, p.23). The purpose of inquiry-based instruction is to provide students
with ―a range of activities to develop knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas, and
how scientists study the natural world‖ (p.23). With the release of A Framework for K-12
Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas, the NRC (1996) has
E-mail: [email protected].
34 Shiang-Kwei Wang and Hui-Yin Hsu
articulated a new vision for science and engineering education that lays the foundation for
what all students should know and be able to do in sciences to be college and career ready.
This framework has led to the development of the Next Generation Science Standards (NRC,
2012). The NGSS requires teachers to think scientifically, to engage students in project-based
learning to solve relevant real-world problems, and to inspire and facilitate students to engage
in scientific and engineering practices. Teachers should help students to connect knowledge
across the disciplines to form a coherent and scientifically-based understanding of the world
and build upon limited sets of ideas to increase students‘ depth of core knowledge over time.
The intent of NGSS is to prepare all students with a strong foundation in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics so they will be able to succeed in the workplace and lead
fulfilling lives.
A critical question that must be asked by STEM teachers is: How is technology woven
into scientific practices? New technologies expand the new reach of science and allow the
study of areas that were previously inaccessible to investigation. It has long been recognized
that helping students to develop skills in information and communication technologies (ICTs)
and scientific literacy is extremely important in preparing them to be successful as future
workers (Luu and Freeman, 2011). Additional questions that must be asked include: How best
to include technology as an integral part of science? What are meaningful technology
integration practices in the science classroom? How can science teachers integrate ICTs into
their everyday teaching to enable reformed science teaching and to aid students in their
practice of technology skills? Doing that demands the implementation of a technology
integration framework to provide guidance for science teachers to use ICTs to develop
students‘ inquiry and technology skills. This chapter begins with a discussion of the use of
technology as a cognitive tools approach, proposes a technology integration framework to
align with scientific literacy, and suggests strategies to provide effective professional
development (PD) for in-service and pre-service teachers.
LEARNING WITH TECHNOLOGY I: COGNITIVE TOOLS
Traditionally, the application of technology, such as computer-based tutorials, content,
and instruction, was used to transmit knowledge to students. Teachers used computers as
media to deliver content to students in the same way they might learn via textbooks, Web
pages, multimedia CDs, and TV programs. With this approach, students learn ―from‖
technologies and passively receive the information from the technologies instead of actively
constructing and communicating the knowledge that they learn. Today, most teachers still use
computers as presentation tools to deliver multimedia content information. Due to limited
technology access in classrooms and the pressure to prepare students for standardized exams,
teachers face the challenge of attempting to provide opportunities for students to use
technology as knowledge construction tools. Therefore, the traditional approach of utilizing
technology as a teacher-centered presentation tool has little or no impact on students‘ learning
performance and motivation. Research suggests that this passive use of technology as a
medium yields no or low-significant results on student achievement in comparison to using
technology as a tool to support students‘ cognitive tasks (Kim and Reeves, 2007; Schmid et
al., 2009).
Preparing Teachers in Science through Technology for STEM Education 35
Many researchers have long urged educators to reexamine the applications of computers
in science classrooms because the traditional technology integration approaches that have
been used are not impacting students‘ learning outcomes (Kim and Reeves, 2007; U.S.
Department of Education, 2012). The traditional approach characterizes students as passive
recipients of knowledge ―from‖ technology, relying on technology as a medium to deliver
information. This calls for instructional design changes in science teaching and also has
implications for how technology can be integrated into that teaching. With reformed
technology integration framed by the cognitive tools approach, learning ―with‖ technology
becomes the center of emphasis. Teachers need to create student-centered learning
environments and encourage them to solve problems and develop cognitive skills by using
computers as part of a cognitive tools approach (Jonassen and Reeves, 1996; Lajoie, 2000).
Cognitive tools refer to ―technologies that enhance the cognitive powers of human beings
during thinking, problem solving, and learning‖ (Jonassen and Reeves, 1996, p.
693). Adopting the cognitive tools approach is distinctly different from the traditional
approach of using technology. The distinction between the two is that the traditional approach
is based on the concept that knowledge constructed by either instructional designers or
subject experts is delivered to students as knowledge recipients, while the cognitive approach
proposes that learners use technology in strategic ways to organize, restructure, and represent
the new knowledge they construct. With the changes in terms of the role of learners in the
process of using technology to empower their cognitive tasks, students become active learners
and use technology to support higher-order learning and facilitate cognitive performance,
such as (1) data management, (2) information retrieval and analysis, (3) interpretation, and (4)
organization of information. Students then communicate the new knowledge constructed in
multi-modal formats (Morrison and Lowther, 2010; Wang, Hsu, and Campbell, 2009). Even
though the cognitive tools approach has attracted much attention in recent years, it is not yet a
common practice in U.S. classrooms (Lawless and Pellegrino, 2007).
In the 21st century, educators face greater challenges than ever before to prepare students
to become citizens in a global interconnected society. Education is the most promising
mechanism to equip students with knowledge and skills needed to succeed in the future
workforce (Wang, McPherson, Hsu, and Tseui, 2008). Teaching students how to use
technology is simply insufficient; educators need to apply the cognitive approach to integrate
technology into the curriculum and engage students in utilizing technology to reduce
cognitive burdens and enhance their critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and
creativity. This approach enhances students‘ effectiveness in terms of the cognitive
performance required by colleges and future workforces. In this chapter, we describe the new
literacy framework, a situated technology integration concept that entails the alignment of a
set of digital literacy skills with scientific literacy.
New Literacy Framework Guiding Technology Integration
The advancement of technology and Internet is changing the definition of literacy. The
meaning of literacy has evolved to include a broader set of skills in addition to the ability to
read, write, comprehend, and communicate through language. This broader set of skills
reflects the changes that diverse technologies engendered to shape students‘ literacy practices
inside and outside of classrooms. New literacy is defined as the ability to use information and
36 Shiang-Kwei Wang and Hui-Yin Hsu
communication technologies (ICTs) to ―identify questions, locate information, evaluate the
information, synthesize information to answer questions, and communicate the answers to
others‖ (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, and Cammack, 2004, p. 1572). ICTs are technological
applications that can facilitate problem solving, productivity, and communication. For
example, e-mail, Internet, search engines, word processing, spreadsheets, image, video,
editing, and presentation tools are considered ICTs. Many of these ICTs are pervasive and
have become important parts of the everyday lives of young people and other members of
society at large. People‘s daily activities are structured around ICT uses, causing rapid
transformations in all areas of life, even in reference to the formation of young people‘s
cultures and identities.
The use of ICTs is skyrocketing because they are free and reliable and they can enhance
our problem-solving skills, productivity, collaboration, information organization, and
communication. These skills are new literacy skills required for students to be productive
global citizens in the 21st century.
New literacy studies originated in literacy research (Castek et al., 2007; Coiro, 2003;
Hagood, 2003; Hsu and Wang, 2010; Hsu and Wang, 2011; Teale, Leu, Labbo, and Kinzer,
2002) whose goal was to expand the concept of literacy and how ICTs are redefining the
nature of reading, writing, and communication. From a socio-cultural perspective, literacy
learning focuses on ways in which people become literate and use literacy in context. Simply
stated, literacy practices are what people do with literacy. However, literacy practices are also
shaped by the groups of people and communities that share values, feelings, power, and social
relations. In this sense, the notion of new literacy is ―situated‖ in the society‘s demands
because new literacy practices are shaped by the rapid changes in technology and their effect
on daily activities. New literacy skills become critical to daily functioning and school
learning. To become fully literate in today‘s world, students must become proficient in
applying new literacy in different learning contexts and various subjects across the
curriculum.
In science education, new forms of literacy have also emerged; for instance, teachers and
students now use ICTs to collaborate to explore important scientific questions and to collect
public data provided by the scientific community. Scientific practices are the behaviors that
scientists engage in as they investigate and build models and theories about the natural world.
New Common Core Standards of Literacy in Science, developed by the National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices, includes a section that explicitly targets the teaching of
literacy in science, particularly in terms of citing specific evidence to support the analysis of
science and integrates, evaluates, and presents content in diverse formats and media,
including visually and quantitatively, as well as in words. Science and its applications play a
significant role in people‘s everyday lives, from the challenge of developing a cure for
cancers to the exploration of future solutions to worldwide problems, such as climate change
and water shortage.
The ultimate goal is for all students to develop scientific literacy and understanding of
their surroundings and the relationships within those surroundings. Scientific literacy is
defined as the ability to ―ask questions that can be answered through (a) scientific
investigations, (b) collecting evidence needed to answer a variety of questions, (c)
interpreting and analyzing data through appropriate tools, (d) drawing conclusions to create
explanations based on evidence, and (e) communicating and defending results to their peers
and others‖(NRC, 1996).
The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
STEM education how to train 21st century teachers
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search