Preparing Teachers in Engineering for STEM Education 87
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2008). Engineering design process.
Retrieved from http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/plantgrowth/reference/Eng_
Design_5-12.html#.Upwud-K0aG0.
National Assessment Governing Board. (2013). Technology and engineering literacy
framework for the 2014 national assessment of educational progress. National
Assessment Governing Board. Retrieved from http://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/
documents/publications/frameworks/naep_tel_framework_2014.pdf.
National Research Council. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status
and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved
from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12635andpage=1.
National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective
approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://download.nap.edu/cart/download.cgi?
andrecord_id=13158.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices,
crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://
www.nap.edu/download.php?record_id=13165.
National Research Council. (2013). Monitoring progress toward successful K-12 STEM
education: A nation advancing? National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://
download.nap.edu/cart/download.cgi?andrecord_id=13509.
Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. (n.d.). National Academies Press.
Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18290andpage=R1.
Nugent, G., Kunz, G., Rilett, L., and Jones, E. (2010). Extending engineering education to K-
12. Technology Teacher, 69(7), 14–19.
Pater, J., Evans, J. and Matthews, W. (2009). Direct to discovery: Expanding research
laboratories into K-12 classrooms to enhance science, technology, engineering and
mathematics education. In: IADIS: International Conference on Cognition and
Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (pp. 531–533).
Poole, S. J., Degrazia, J. L. and Sullivan, J. F. (2001). Assessing K-12 pre-engineering
outreach programs. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(1), 43–48.
Prepare And Inspire K-12 Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Education
for America‘s Future. (2010). Education Digest, 76(4), 42–46.
Project Lead the Way. (2013). Project Lead the Way Overview. Retrieved from http://www.
pltw.org/sites/default/files/PLTW%20Overview%202013_3.pdf.
Roehrig, G. H., Moore, T. J., Wang, H. H., and 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.
Rogers, C. and Portsmore, M. (2004). Bringing engineering to elementary school. Journal of
STEM Education, 5(3 and 4), 17–28.
Schuster, D., Buckwalter, J., Marrs, K., Pritchett, S., Sebens, J., and Hiatt, B. (2012).
Aligning university-based teacher preparation and new STEM teacher support. Science
Educator, 21(2), 39–44.
Sneider, C. (2012). Core ideas of engineering and technology: Understanding a framework
for K-12 science education. Science and Children, 8–12.
88 Moussa Ayyash and Kimberly Black
The Opportunity Equation. (2013). The ―E‖ in STEM: Clarifying what engineering education
means for K-12. Retrieved December 2, 2013, from http://opportunityequation.org/
school-and-system-design/e-stem-clarifying-what-engineering.
Yasar, S., Baker, D., Robinson-Kurpius, S., Krause, S., and Roberts, C. (2006). Development
of a survey to assess K-12 teachers‘ perceptions of engineers and familiarity with
teaching design, engineering, and technology. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(3),
205–216.
Zarske, M. S., Sullivan, J. F. S. and Carlson, L. E. (2004). Teachers teaching teachers:
Linking K-12 engineering curricula with teacher professional development. In:
Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference
and Exposition. American Society for Engineering Education.
Zhang, X., McInerney, J. and Frechtling, J. (2010). Engaging STEM faculty in K-20 reforms-
-implications for policies and practices. Science Educator, 19(1), 1–13.
In: STEM Education ISBN: 978-1-62808-514-3
Editor: Satasha L. Green © 2014 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 6
PREPARING TEACHERS IN MATHEMATICS
FOR STEM EDUCATION
Michael Uttendorfer, Ed.D
New York Institute of Technology, US
ABSTRACT
Mathematics is the language by which we describe, quantify and apply knowledge in
science, engineering and technology. Mathematics is the thread that binds STEM
together. Multiple measures indicate many U.S. students do not possess the basic
mathematics knowledge and skills to be successful in STEM careers. 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. Many online resources are
available to help teachers who wish to improve their knowledge and skills in mathematics
instruction and integrate science, engineering and technology into their math classrooms.
This chapter will discuss NCTM‘s Principles and Standards for School Mathematics and
provide resources mathematics instructors may find useful for integrating STEM topics in
their classrooms.
INTRODUCTION
There are many reasons to be concerned about the mathematical ability of today‘s U.S.
students. For example, based on the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) which sampled 209,000 fourth-graders and 175,200 eighth-graders, only 40% of
fourth-graders and 35% of 8th-graders were rated proficient or higher in mathematics (U.S.
Department of Education, 2011).
Email: [email protected].
90 Michael Uttendorfer
Even more disturbing is the fact the 18% of fourth-graders and 27% of eighth-graders
score below the basic skill level in mathematics. Internationally, U.S. students lag
significantly behind the highest performing nations based on the Trends in International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Based on the most recent results only 7% of U.S.
eighth-graders scored at the advanced level compared to 48% of students in Singapore and
49% in Chinese Taipei.
In his address to the National Academy of Sciences in April 2009, President Obama
identified one of his key goals for STEM education: ―American students will move from the
middle of the pack in science and math over the next decade. For we know that the nation that
out-educates us today – will out-compete us tomorrow.‖ Because teachers do have an impact
on student learner outcomes, in order to accomplish President Obama‘s goal, U.S. school
teachers have to help educate and engage students in STEM fields (Community for
Advancing Discovery Research in Education, 2011), and colleges and universities will have
to train 25,000 new K-12 teachers in STEM each year (Boynton, 2012). The 2005 Business-
Higher Education Forum report ―A Commitment to America‘s Future‖ found that the U.S.
will need more than 280,000 new mathematics and science teachers by 2015. ―The quality of
P–12 mathematics and science teaching is the single most important factor in improving
student mathematics and science achievement‖ (Business-Higher Education Forum, 2007,
pg. 9).
This is especially true in mathematics, which is the foundation for all future STEM
learning (Community for Advancing Discovery Research in Education, 2011). In many cases
students‘ first encounters with disciplines is in their K-12 classrooms and educational
opportunities, which can have an impact on students‘ knowledge and skills, interests in future
study and career choices (National Research Council, 2011).
GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR MATHEMATICS TEACHER PREPARATION
There is no more important single factor influencing the quality of a student‘s educational
experience in the classroom than the quality of the teacher in the classroom. ―Teachers make
a difference. The success of any plan for improving educational outcomes depends on
teachers who carry it out and thus on the abilities of those attracted to the field and their
preparation‖ (National Research Council, 2010, p.1). Unfortunately, there is a significant
amount of research that indicates that many teachers are not adequately prepared in their
subject matter to be highly effective teachers of mathematics.
This seems most prevalent in the preparation of elementary and middle school teachers
(Ball, 2000; Ball & Bass, 2000; Ball & Cohen, 1999). Insufficient or ineffective preparation
of teachers in mathematical concepts, skills, and specific teaching strategies for mathematics
may be a contributing factor in the decline of the number of students rated proficient or higher
between grade four and grade eight. Students are not keeping up with the expected growth
rates based on their past performance.
In the final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel in 2008, the importance of
highly effective mathematics teachers was highlighted. The most effective teachers can even
help students overcome external factors that can negatively impact student achievement.
When students are fortunate enough to have a series of highly qualified mathematics teachers,
Preparing Teachers in Mathematics for STEM Education 91
the positive effects on student achievement in mathematics are even more dramatic. Teachers‘
knowledge of the mathematical subject matter is directly correlated to students‘ achievement
in mathematics (National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008). In its 2011 report Preparation
of Effective Teachers in Mathematics, the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher
Quality reinforced the importance of teacher preparation in mathematics. Students taught by
highly effective teachers showed consistently much greater and more persistent growth in
mathematical ability than did their peers taught by less effective mathematics teachers
(National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, 2011).
Although research on effective mathematics teaching places a high degree of importance
on content knowledge, teachers of mathematics need more than just content preparation.
Teachers must be able to facilitate students‘ development of their proficiency with
mathematical processes but they also need to understand how to help their students acquire
mathematical thinking abilities.
To be successful in their future, students must learn how to apply mathematical principles
and processes to solving real-world problems (National Research Council, 2010). To be able
to provide high-quality mathematics instruction, teachers must know more than the
mathematical content they are required to teach.
They need to understand how students learn mathematical concepts and principles and
how to help students learn to apply mathematics skills in everyday life. Effective mathematics
teachers are able to provide clear representations of mathematical concepts in visual formats
that students can easily relate to. Instructors must also be able to diagnose student weaknesses
and remediate them effectively using a variety of instructional strategies that consider the
ways in which each student learns best (McGraner, VanDerHeyden, & Holdheide, 2011).
Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics [NCTM], 2012) provided a guiding framework for what teachers should know
and be able to do to provide effective mathematics instruction that today‘s students must have
to be successful. Teacher preparation programs for new mathematics instructors as well as
professional development programs for existing mathematics teachers should strive to
incorporate the principles and standards suggested by NCTM. The Principles and Standards
for School Mathematics identifies characteristics of high-quality mathematics instructional
programs.
These six principles for school mathematics provide professional guidance for those who
are responsible for decision-making about the content and structure of mathematics
instruction in schools.
Equity Principle. Challenges common beliefs that the ability to learn mathematics varies
widely in the student population. NCTM believes schools must have high expectations and
resources to support success in mathematics for all students. Programs that prepare teachers
must help them recognize that every student needs to develop a full understanding of
mathematical concepts and processes and give teachers the knowledge and skills to produce
that understanding in every student.
Curriculum Principle. Recognizes that an effective mathematics curriculum is more than
a sequence of discrete topics and must be a comprehensive set of topics that are connected in
a logical manner that helps students see the relationships between mathematical concepts and
their applications in real-world settings.
The new Common Core State Standards in Mathematics were designed with this
principle in mind and provide a clear and consistent framework for teachers and school
92 Michael Uttendorfer
administrators to prepare P-12 students to be college and career-ready when they graduate
from high school. Teacher preparation programs must make sure their graduates are prepared
to help all of their students master these critical mathematical standards.
Teaching Principle. Identifies effective mathematics teachers as those who understand
what students need to know and be able to do, how students best learn mathematics, and how
to create learning environments for students that challenge them to master the content in ways
that enable them to apply their mathematical skills beyond the classroom. Teachers need to be
prepared to connect real-world experiences and mathematical skills and concepts in ways that
engage students in the learning process and help them develop new knowledge and skills.
Learning Principle. Establishes the need for students to learn mathematics with
understanding and stresses the need for conceptual understanding in mathematics along with
factual knowledge and procedural competence. Mathematics educators must teach more than
just the ―basics‖ and help students not only master procedures but be able to recognize how
and when to apply them. Teachers need to be prepared to help their students ―learn
mathematics with understanding‖ so their students are capable of applying their prior learning
to new problems and settings they have not previously encountered.
Assessment Principle. Emphasizes the need for regular and systematic collection of
performance data that are used not only to evaluate student understanding but also to guide
instructional decisions targeted at individual and group needs. Teachers need to be prepared
to continually gather information and understand how to use those data to inform their
instructional practices.
Technology Principle. Recognizes the importance of technology in teaching and learning
mathematics. Calculators, computers and mobile devices have become an integral part of
students‘ daily lives. Teachers need to be prepared to use technology in ways that enrich and
enhance the learning of mathematics. Preparation programs need to help mathematics
educators decide how and when to use technology in ways that can help their students learn
better. A suggested list of useful technology resources is included later in the chapter.
NCTM‘s Standards for School Mathematics described the mathematical knowledge,
skills and understandings that all students must possess in the 21st century. The Standards for
School Mathematics described in detail the mathematical understandings, concepts,
knowledge and skills P-12 students must acquire to be successful in their future. Teacher
preparation programs and professional development opportunities must form an excellent
framework to guide mathematics instructors in preparing for the instructional needs for their
students.
The new Common Core State Standards in Mathematics (National Governors Association
Center for Best Practices, 2010) have been accepted by almost every state in the nation as a
framework for mathematics curriculum development in P-12 schools. The Common Core
State Standards integrate NCTM‘s process standards for problem solving, reasoning and
proof, communication, representation, and connections. It also integrates the strands of
mathematical proficiency specified in the National Research Council‘s report Adding It Up
which include adaptive reasoning, strategic competence, conceptual understanding, and
procedural and productive disposition (National Research Council, 2011). Teacher
preparation programs and professional development opportunities for mathematics teachers
must provide opportunities for educators to engage in meaningful dialogues about these new
standards and how to develop learning environments that help their students master these
standards with understanding.
Preparing Teachers in Mathematics for STEM Education 93
MATHEMATICS TEACHER PREPARATION IN STEM EDUCATION
If we are going to improve the performance and persistence of students in STEM subjects
and STEM careers, it is critical that mathematics teachers are better prepared to integrate
STEM into their classroom activities (President‘s Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology [PCAST], 2010). We can no longer afford to teach mathematics as an isolated
discipline. Teachers need to be trained to help students see the natural connections between
mathematics and the world around them. In their 2010 report, the National Research Council
pointed out the importance of both content knowledge as well as an understanding of
research-based best practices in teaching and learning strategies as critical elements of
effective STEM instruction (National Research Council, 2010).
Effective STEM teachers need more than just expertise in their subject matter but also
need to be able to use teaching methods and instructional strategies for integrating science,
technology, engineering and mathematics into their lessons in a way that is both efficient and
effective.
To be effective, teachers of mathematics require a strong foundation in mathematics
content as part of their teacher preparation programs. The National Mathematics Advisory
Panel (2008) emphasized the need for teachers to know mathematics for teaching in order to
teach effectively. Teachers must have a full understanding of the content and concepts that
students are expected to learn above and below the grade levels at which they teach. They
must build on students‘ prior learning and prepare them for the skills and concepts they will
be expected to master as they proceed in their learning of mathematics (National Mathematics
Advisory Panel, 2008).
Most teachers seeking certification in elementary education can do so without rigorous
college-level STEM courses (Epstein & Miller, 2010). Elementary teacher certification in
most states does not require the in-depth mathematical knowledge or the expertise in
scientific inquiry needed to prepare students who want to pursue STEM careers. Epstein and
Miller (2010) made the following recommendations that are very much in alignment with the
suggestions of the NCTQ: (1) increase the selectivity of programs that prepare teachers for
elementary grades; (2) implement teacher compensation policies that make teaching more
attractive to STEM college graduates; (3) include more mathematics and science content and
pedagogy in schools of education; (4) require candidates to pass the mathematics and science
subsections of licensure exams; and (5) explore innovative staffing models that extend the
reach of elementary level teachers with an affinity for mathematics and science and
demonstrated effectiveness in teaching them (p.10).
FROM PLAIN MATHEMATICS TO STEM EDUCATION
So how does a mathematics instructor prepare to integrate STEM approaches into the
teaching of mathematics while addressing the requirement of the new Common Core State
Standards? Vasquez, Sneider, and Comer (2013) suggested five guiding principles to assist
instructors.
First principle. Focus on integration (Vasquez, Sneider, & Comer, 2013). Mathematics
can be much more meaningful when students can see the application of mathematical
94 Michael Uttendorfer
principles of processes in real world settings and not made up problems like the traditional
two trains traveling in opposite directions or other unrealistic ―word problems.‖ If students
see mathematics as a means to solve a real-world problem in science, engineering or other
disciplines, they can begin to tie together concepts that are naturally connected in the real
world. Problem-based or project-based learning activities promote those connections in ways
that traditional mathematics instruction often does not. Similarly, The National Mathematics
Advisory Panel (2008) reinforced this concept of connecting mathematics to real-world
problems. In STEM education the connections made among science, technology, engineering
and mathematics are even more important.
The report stated that the use of ―real-world‖ contexts can help to introduce mathematical
concepts to students if taught using ―real-world‖ situations, therefore students‘ performance
on assessments involving similar ―real-world‖ issues are improved (National Mathematics
Advisory Panel, 2008).
Second principle. Establish relevance (Vasquez, Sneider, & Comer, 2013). If students can
see how new knowledge and skills in mathematics can be applied in solving a meaningful
problem, there is a greater likelihood that the new knowledge and skills will be retained.
Third principle. Place an emphasis on 21st century skills (Vasquez, Sneider, & Comer,
2013). Creative problem-based and project-based learning activities can not only build
important knowledge and skills in areas such as math and science but help students develop
other important skills such as collaboration, working in teams, and effective communication
(Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2009).
Fourth principle. Challenge your students (Vasquez, Sneider, & Comer, 2013). Using
guidance from resources such as the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics,
instructors can develop activities that are grade-level appropriate while reinforcing important
concepts and skills students are expected to master (National Governors Association Center
for Best Practices, 2010).
Fifth principle. Mix it up. Use multiple approaches to teach STEM subjects. Include
problem-based activities that provide interesting questions and challenges for students to
solve by applying their STEM skills and understandings. In addition, create project-based
opportunities in which students can explore in greater depth STEM topics that are of interest
to them (Vasquez, Sneider, & Comer, 2013).
Resources for Professional Growth in Mathematics for STEM Instruction
Teachers who wish to improve their skills and knowledge in mathematics instruction or
who wish to integrate technology resources into their STEM classroom instruction have a
wide range of online materials at their disposal. Listed in Table 1 are just a few of the sites
that provide high-quality lessons, interactive activities and videos to enhance teachers‘
mathematics instruction particularly related to STEM topics. Other resources are listed at the
end of the chapter.
Preparing Teachers in Mathematics for STEM Education 95
Table 1. Resources in Mathematics for STEM Instruction
Organization Website Address Description
National Council http://illuminations.nctm.org NCTM‘s Illuminations web site provides free
of Teachers of lessons and activities aligned to national and
Mathematics CCSS in mathematics for all students. It is part of
Illuminations the prestigious Verizon Thinkfinity program.
(NCTM)
Verizon http://www.thinkfinity.org Thinkfinity is the Verizon Foundation‘s free
Foundation‘s www.curriculumpathways.org online professional learning community for
Thinkfinity educators. The site provides easily searchable
teaching resources for K-12 which are aligned to
SAS Curriculum state standards and the CCSS. In addition at
Pathways teaching resources, Thinkfinity enables teachers
to collect online and collaborate through
discussion boards, blogs and affinity groups.
SAS Curriculum Pathways offers free online
content and resources for grades 6 and above. In
addition to lesson plans, interactive activities and
videos in the major curricular areas of
English/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science,
Social Studies and Spanish. SAS Curriculum
Pathways offers professional development in
integration support for its resources, a video
library of training, and opportunities to share in
webinars and professional development courses.
The site supports a professional learning
community where teachers share best practices
and exchange ideas and teaching strategies.
LearnZillions www.learnzillions.com LearnZillions is a web-based application that
helps both teachers and parents support the
learning of students. LearnZillions offers over
2,000 free lessons that were built in alignment
with the new CCSS. Each lesson includes a short
video to introduce the content with lesson guides
and other downloadable resources. One special
feature of the site is the ―coach‘s commentary‖
which offers suggestions and background
information to help with teacher present an
effective lesson.
Khan Academy www.khanacademy.org The Khan Academy is a library of free online
videos that cover K-12 math and science topics
such as biology, chemistry, and physics. It also
includes lessons in Humanities, History,
American Civics, Art History and business topics
in Finance and capital markets, Microeconomics,
Macroeconomics. Exercises that follow the video
instruction can be used to help the teacher assess
each students understanding of the content
presented in the lesson.
96 Michael Uttendorfer
Organization Table 1. (Continued)
Edutopia
Website Address Description
www.edutopia.org
Edutopia site provides research, teaching
resources, access to curricular experts and
educators who are willing to share innovative
ideas that work in their schools. Edutopia also
provides PD videos and learning communities in
Comprehensive Assessment, Integrated Studies,
Project-Based Learning, Social and Emotional
Learning, Teacher Development, and Technology
Integration. The ―Schools That Work‖ section
provides concrete examples of the application of
best practices in teaching and learning that other
educators can model in their own schools.
CONCLUSION
Recent press on the need for a well-prepared workforce for STEM-related occupations
has brought much needed attention to the mathematics preparation of U.S. students. If the
U.S. is going to be successful in its goal to increase the number of students who are fully
prepared to meet the nation‘s rapidly growing needs in STEM careers, teachers need to be
better prepared before and after they enter the teaching profession. Elementary and middle
school teachers, in particular, need to be well prepared in mathematical skills and knowledge.
Higher education institutions preparing tomorrow‘s teachers need to make sure their
programs provide the content knowledge and teaching strategies for teachers to be successful.
All teachers responsible for teaching our students mathematics need to be aware of the
resources available to assist them with effective instructional strategies. Using techniques
such as project-based and problem-based learning have proven to be effective methods to
integrate science, technology, engineering and mathematics in meaningful ways for students.
The Internet abounds with excellent lessons, activities and professional development
opportunities to help teachers improve their knowledge and skills in mathematics. As
important are the online learning communities where educators and researchers can share
what works in their schools. Teachers are encouraged to seek and share these resources as a
way to improve mathematics education in our schools.
REFERENCES
Ball, D. L. (2000). Bridging practices: Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching and
learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 241–247.
Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning
to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on
the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 83–104). Santa Barbara: Greenwood
Publishing Group.
Preparing Teachers in Mathematics for STEM Education 97
Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a
practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes
(Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ball, D. L., Lubienski, S. T., & Mewborn, D. S. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics:
The unsolved problem of teachers‘ mathematical knowledge. In V. Richardson (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.), (pp. 433-456). New York: Macmillan.
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.
Business-Higher Education Forum. (2005). A commitment to America‘s future: Responding
to the crisis in mathematics & science education. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Business-Higher Education Forum. (2007). An American imperative: Transforming the
recruitment, retention, and renewal of our nation‘s mathematics and science teaching
workforce. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Community for Advancing Discovery Research in Education. (2011). Retrieved from
http://cadrek12.org/projects/community-advancing-discovery-research-education-cadre-0
Epstein, D., & Miller, R.T. (2011). Elementary school teachers and the crisis in STEM
education. Education Digest, 77(1), 4-10.
McGraner, K., VanDerHeyden, A., & Holdheide, L. (2011). Preparation of effective teachers
in mathematics. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
National Academy of Sciences. (2009). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America. 106(24), 9539-9543.
National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. (2011). Preparation of effective teacher
in mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010).Common Core State Standards – Mathematics. Washington, DC:
Author.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of
the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2012). Closing the opportunity gap in
mathematics education: A position of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Retrieved from http://www.nctm. org/uploadedFiles/AboutNCTM/Position_ Statements/
Opportunity%20Gap.pdf.
National Research Council. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence of sound policy.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. In J.
Kilpatrick, J. Swaford, & B. Findell (Eds.), Mathematics Learning Study Committee,
Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Studies and Education.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2011). Successful STEM education: A workshop summary.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). Frameworks for 21st century skills. Washington,
DC: Author.
98 Michael Uttendorfer
President‘s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010). Prepare and inspire: K-
12 science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education for America‘s future.
Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-
stemed-report.pdf.
President‘s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to excel:
Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default
/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-final_2-25-12.pdf.
U.S. Department of Education. (2011). The nation‘s report card: Mathematics 2011.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Vasquez, J., Sneider, C., & Comer, M. (2013). STEM lesson essentials: Integrating science,
technology, engineering technology, engineering and mathematics. Portsmouth, NH:
Heineman.
Resources in Mathematics for STEM Instruction
A Plus Math http://www.aplusmath.com/.
A+ Math http://www.aplusmath.com/.
ABC Ya http://www.abcya.com.
Annenberg Learner http://www.learner.org/.
Aplusmath.com http://aplusmath.com/.
Arlington Algebra Project http://teacherweb.com/NY/Arlington/AlgebraProject/hf0.aspx.
Ask Dr. Math. http://forum.swarthmore.edu/dr.Math/dr-Math.html.
BBC Skillswise http://www.bbc.co.uk/skillswise/topic/percentages.
Brain Pop http://www.brainpop.com/math/.
Brain Teasers http://www.eduplace.com/Math/brain/.
Carrot Sticks http://www.carrotsticks.com.
Cool Math http://www.coolmath.com.
Coolmath4kids http://www.coolmath4kids.com/.
Cornell Lab of Ornithology http://www.birds.cornell.edu/birdsleuth/.
CSI: Web Adventures http://forensics.rice.edu/index.html.
Discovery Education http://www.discoveryeducation.com/.
Econedlink http://www.econedlink.org/educator/.
Edheads http://www.edheads.org/.
Education Northwest http://educationnorthwest.org/resource/1334.
Eisenhower National Clearinghouse http://www.goenc.com/.
Eric's Treasure Trove of Mathematics
http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~eww6n/Math/Math.html
Fibonacci Numbers and the Golden Section.
http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fib.html.
Free Rice http://freerice.com/category.
Fun 4 The Brain http://www.fun4thebrain.com.
FunBrain http://www.funbrain.com/.
Interactivate http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/activities/.
IXL http://www.ixl.com/.
Preparing Teachers in Mathematics for STEM Education 99
JMAP http://jmap.org/.
Johnnie‘s Math Page www.jmathpage.com.
Magna High http://www.magnahigh.com.
Math Bits http://mathbits.com/.
Math Central http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/index.php.
Math Fact Cafe http://www.mathfactcafe.com/company/.
Math Playground http://www.mathplayground.com/.
Math Slice.com http://mathslice.com/.
Math Tools http://mathforum.org/mathtools/.
Math-drills.com http://www.math-drills.com/.
Mr. Nussbaum http://www.mrnussbaum.com.
National Geographic Video http://www.natgeoeducationvideo.com/.
National Library of Virtual Manipulatives http://nlvm.usu.edu/en/nav/vlibrary.html.
NetSmartz http://www.netsmartz.org/Educators.
PBS http://www.pbs.org/teachers/classroom/6-8/math/resources/.
Planting Science http://www.plantingscience.org/.
Practical Uses of Math and Science https://pumas.gsfc.nasa.gov/.
Professor Garfield http://www.professorgarfield.org.
Science News for Kids http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/.
Scientific American http://www.sciam.com.
Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum http://airandspace.si.edu/.
Study Zone http://www.studyzone.org/testprep/math4new.cfm.
Super Kids Math Worksheet Creator http://www.superkids.com/aweb/tools/math/index.shtml.
The Galileo Project http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo.
The Geometry Center http://www.geom.umn.edu/.
The Grey Labyrinth http://www.greylabyrinth.com/index.htm.
The Largest Known Primes http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/largest.html.
The Math and Science Partnership Network http://njmsm.mspnet.org/.
The Math Forum http://forum.swarthmore.edu/.
TryScience http://www.tryscience.org.
Virtual Calculus http://archives.math.utk.edu/visual.calculus/.
Voices of Girls in Science, Mathematics, and Technology
http://www.ael.org/nsf/voices/index.htm.
Web Math http://www.webmath.com/.
In: STEM Education ISBN: 978-1-62808-514-3
Editor: Satasha L. Green © 2014 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 7
EFFECTIVE STEM INSTRUCTION
IN K-12 SETTINGS
Elfreda V. Blue, Ph.D.*
Hofstra University, US
ABSTRACT
This chapter 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 chapter begins with an
overview of the essential literacies for STEM and authentic instruction, and the levels of
scientific inquiry in problem-based learning. The benefits of incorporating principles of
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in STEM settings are also discussed. Examples of
problem-based learning in STEM curriculum are provided throughout the chapter.
INTRODUCTION
In order to develop effective STEM thinkers, teachers must develop STEM literacy—
basic competency in each of the STEM areas. In today‘s global society, literacy in STEM
areas has expanded past basic computation and formulaic calculation to the ability to
demonstrate STEM literacy in multiple contexts. Scientific literacy utilizes scientific method
beyond prescribed experimentation to real-life experimentation through exploring, observing,
collecting, and constructing. The ultimate goal is to learn, think, make decisions, and develop
a scientific way of thinking.
Technology literacy requires competence in the operation, use, and development of
technology resources—software, Web 2.0 applications, and mobile devices to communicate,
innovate, and collaborate in real-world and global contexts. Teachers who have knowledge
and skills in engineering literacy are able to utilize mathematics and science concepts to solve
real-world problems, clearly define a problem, and identify the challenges associated with it
* [email protected].
102 Elfreda V. Blue
to develop a solution. Mathematical literacy transcends basic skills, logic, and an
understanding of orders of operations to the use of numeracy, logic, and reasoning beyond
school worksheets to economics, statistics, and geometry in real-life applications.
ORCHESTRATING STEM THINKING
Purposeful teachers can change students‘ engagement, solidify understanding of essential
concepts, and support students‘ development of a ―STEM way of thinking.‖ Learning
experiences are carefully designed for authentic, hands-on STEM experiences during which
students ask the questions, plan the path toward solution, and reflect on the limitations of their
research, design, and findings. By doing so, STEM teachers orchestrate thinking and facilitate
effective instruction. Table 1 presents key elements of effective instruction.
Table 1. Key Elements of Effective Instruction
How does a classroom teacher develop STEM thinking?
Become knowledge proficient about each STEM content areas;
Participate in extended learning experiences connected to each content area;
Participate in integrated STEM learning experiences; and
Experiment with independent STEM experiences.
MODELING STEM THINKING
In a STEM classroom, teachers are the ―most knowledgeable other‖ or ―master thinker‖
in the classroom context. Their role is to guide learners in the scaffolded use of STEM
literacies to develop authentic habits of thinking toward STEM solutions. More specifically,
teachers are the model for (a) questioning, wondering, and curiosity, (b) brainstorming
processes, (c) developing a plan, (d) generating a litany of educated guesses about a particular
situation, and (e) examining theories, ideas, and potential solutions espoused by others. In
essence, the teacher is a very knowledgeable individual and a thinker who does not
regurgitate the thoughts and ideas of others. As the lead thinker in the classroom, teachers do
not engage in a general information gathering approach in teaching. Rather, they grapple with
new information and ideas in search of the ―holes‖ in previous thought and build a classroom
context that enables students to internalize the thinking process (i.e., brainstorming,
questioning, analysis, and critical thinking).
EFFECTIVE STEM INSTRUCTION IS AUTHENTIC INSTRUCTION
The foundation of effective STEM instruction is based on Piaget (1969) and Vygotsky‘s
(1978) constructivist and social constructivist theories about teaching and learning. Teachers
structure the learning environment with essential learning scaffolds or supports, thus, making
instruction authentic—genuine, true, and real. Students learn by doing as they participate in
Effective STEM Instruction in K-12 Settings 103
real-world activities as apprentices. They internalize thinking processes associated with
learning experiences and learn the jargon or language associated with the processes.
Authentic instruction is high-quality instruction designed to improve students‘ academic
performance (Newmann, Marks, & Gamoran, 1996; Newmann & Wehlage, 1993). As
illustrated in Figure 1, the five components of authentic instruction include: (a) higher-order
thinking, (b) depth of knowledge, (c) connectedness, (d) substantive conversation, and (e)
social support for student achievement.
Figure 1. An illustration of the five components of authentic instruction which include: higher order
thinking, depth of knowledge, connectedness, substantive conversation, and social support for student
achievement.
In authentic instruction, higher-order thinking is the foundation for student learning.
Instruction is designed to ensure that students have the opportunity to rethink, postulate,
analyze, and evaluate information to develop new and practical meaning. Instruction
facilitates students‘ depth of knowledge by using content knowledge to solve problems and
construct knowledge. It connects learning, processes, and problems to the real world in a way
that learners can relate. Substantive conversations include sharing ideas, exchanges of
information, and processes. Authentic instruction maintains high expectations for student
performance and is inclusive of all learners.
Authentic instruction makes room for student participation in ―ill-structured ― learning
experiences to solve problems, articulate cause and effect, predict what happens next, and
makes a case for a specific process (Dennis & O‘Hair, 2010). ―Ill-structured‖ learning
experiences are those, which have no specific parameters, are clumsy, rough, and not elegant.
Students identify the focus of the learning, the method for finding solutions or figuring out
challenges, and develop an appropriate hypothesis.
104 Elfreda V. Blue
Authentic instruction veers away from traditional testing practices to assess student
achievement. The end result of authentic instruction is ―authentic achievement‖ (Dennis &
O‘Hair, 2010). Students construct knowledge, develop disciplined inquiry, and recognize the
value of their knowledge beyond school. Instead of reliance upon paper and pencil exams,
assessment artifacts in authentic instruction are original products—video, recordings,
interviews, documentaries, and experimental results. Authentic instruction immerses students
in learning experiences that mirror the work world of STEM professionals. Learners solve
real-life problems, offering real-life solutions.
Authentic Instruction and Students with Disabilities. The benefits of authentic instruction
have been observed for learners with disabilities. The Research Institute on Secondary
Education Reform for Youth with Disabilities (RISER) studied authentic instruction and
found it to be beneficial to students with disabilities (King, Schroeder, & Chawszczewski,
2001). In a study by Hanley-Maxwell, Phelps, Braden, and Warren (2003), they found that
high standards and authentic instruction were predictors of student outcomes, more so than
disability or academic ability. After high school, students with disabilities who had access to
authentic learning in and who were taught in inclusive classrooms were highly engaged in
post-secondary schooling experiences, had higher levels of job satisfaction, had high rates of
college completion, and community engagement.
Research suggests that access to authentic instruction can be beneficial to students from
diverse academic and cultural backgrounds. Newman, Marks and Gamoran (1996) studied the
performance of diverse learners of varying abilities in 24 schools and found that when
authentic instruction was implemented in classrooms, the average student performance of
culturally diverse students increased from the 30th percentile to the 60th percentile.
Authentic instruction positively impacts the performance of average students. Preus‘
(2012) research found that the most common components of authentic instruction are: (1)
strategy instruction, (2) modeling of assignment tasks, (3) peer editing, (4) reading, (5)
listening or viewing content with quick writes and discussion, and (6) individual conferences
with teachers. The goals of authentic instruction were to (a) foster higher order thinking skills
(i.e., metacognitive thinking, asking and using probing questioning), (b) challenge students to
question the status quo, and (c) provide writing prompts to encourage analysis. As students
model thinking processes, they make explicit connections between previous knowledge and
new understandings.
SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY IN AUTHENTIC STEM INSTRUCTION
Scientific inquiry is at the center of authentic STEM instruction. Inquiry-based
instruction is a pedagogical approach ―that combines the curiosity of students and the
scientific method to enhance the development of critical thinking skills while learning STEM
curriculum‖ (Warner & Myers, 2012, p.1) through problem-based learning. The basic goals of
science education have been to engage school-aged learners in scientific reasoning (American
Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993; National Research Council, 1996) and
scientific inquiry tasks (i.e., observation and experimentation) into the core science
curriculum. Although these goals provide the learning context for scientific reasoning they do
not afford students the scientific reasoning associated with authentic science. Science
Effective STEM Instruction in K-12 Settings 105
education must expand its curriculum to connect with technology, engineering, and math to
develop a cogent STEM curriculum. As illustrated in Figure 2, the scientific inquiry process
must become an integral part of integrated STEM curriculum (Carin, Bass, & Contant, 2005).
Ask a
question.
Communicate Plan and
procedures, conduct an
data, and investigation.
explanations.
Scientific
Inquiry
Use research Use tools and
and evidence techniques to
to interpret gather data.
findings.
Figure 2. Science education must expand its curriculum to connect with technology, engineering, and
math to develop a cogent STEM curriculum. As illustrated in this figure, the scientific inquiry process
must become an integral part of integrated STEM curriculum. Adapted from: Carin, A. A., Bass, J. E.,
& Contant, T. L. (2005). Methods for teaching science as inquiry (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Students must be oriented to the process of scientific method –from identifying the
problem through experimentation, reporting results, and evaluating method effectiveness.
Authentic inquiry allows teachers to address specific elements of scientific inquiry (see Table
2). Once teachers integrate the essential elements of scientific inquiry into STEM instruction,
students develop a scientific way of thinking.
Effective teachers utilize high quality instruction and maintain high expectations for all
students to construct knowledge. They orchestrate students‘ participation in disciplined
inquiry and ensure that students gain value from the inquiry experience, which extends
beyond the school grounds. They successfully incorporate the essential elements of scientific
inquiry into STEM curriculum.
106 Elfreda V. Blue
Table 2. Essential Elements of Scientific Inquiry
Elements: Notes:
Planning Finalize the thing to be studied.
Generate research questions.
Design studies. Plan the look and function of the study.
Identify variables. Name the thing(s) to be investigated (location,
environment).
Plan procedures. Outline the step-by-step process of the study.
Control variables. Control the study variables under examination.
Plan measures. Decide whether you will collect scores, time, and length.
Implementing
Begin procedures. Follow your plan.
Make observations. Collect data.
Reporting
Explain results. Write a report or prepare a presentation.
Translate observations into data sources. Develop data collection forms, processes.
Find flaws in the research. Critique the study in terms of its limitations.
Draw inferences about research questions. Use data and analysis to figure out answers to your
questions.
Generate an explanation. Write a report of what you found out, as a result of your
study.
Argue an interpretation. Make a case for your way of thinking.
Develop a theory. Identify the prevailing principle that emerges.
Disseminate findings in multiple studies. Submit research reports on different aspects of the study.
Study research reports for information pertinent Read research conducted by others on the same or similar
to their study. topic.
Authentic inquiry allows teachers to address specific elements of scientific inquiry. Adapted from Fang,
Z, Lamme, L., and Pringle, R. (2010). Chapter 1: Teaching science as inquiry (pp. 1-17). In
Language and literacy in inquiry-based science classrooms, Grades 3-8. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
STRUCTURED INQUIRY AND PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING
Table 3. Scientific Inquiry: Levels of Problem-based Learning
PBL Inquiry Name Description
Level
Is the Problem Given? Is the Information Is the Solution
Provided? Provided?
1 Structured Inquiry Students follow directions to confirm a concept or principle; the
solution is known in advance.
2 Guided Inquiry Students investigate a teacher-developed problem; they develop
procedures and process to find an unknown solution.
3 Open Inquiry Students investigate a problem they identified and formulate
processes and procedures for solving the problem; the solution is
unknown.
Student-centered learning experiences rely upon problem-based leared, situation in scientific inquiry.
This table presents the three levels of problem-based learning. Colley, K. (2008). Project-based
science instruction: A primer. The Science Teacher, 75(3), 23-27.
Effective STEM Instruction in K-12 Settings 107
Educators who aim for student-centered learning experiences rely upon problem-based
learning, situated in scientific inquiry (Colley, 2008). (See Table 3). Level 1 of scientific
inquiry is ―Structured Inquiry,‖ a method from a medical approach to learning (Colley, 2008).
Levels 2 and 3 of scientific inquiry are ―Guided Inquiry‖ and ―Open Inquiry‖ (level 3). Table
3 provides an overview of the levels of problem-based learning.
STRUCTURED INQUIRY
Structured inquiry is Level 1 of the problem-based learning approach. At this level,
students learn a particular concept through problem-solving procedures and materials
prescribed by the instructor. Teachers design activities and guide questioning techniques
around one of two problems. The goal of problem-based learning is for students to understand
a process or solve a problem (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980). According to Barrow and Tamblyn
(1980), ―the problem is encountered first in the learning process and serves as a focus or
stimulus for the application of problem-solving or reasoning skills, as well as for the search
for or study of information or knowledge needed to understand the mechanisms responsible
for the problem and how it might be resolved‖ (p. 18).
Reliance upon structured inquiry as the mainstay of the STEM curriculum will not
develop scientific reasoning in students. Still, this method of inquiry serves three important
purposes: First, it provides a platform for conceptual development for students who have
limited knowledge about science content. Second, it scaffolds students‘ understanding and
acts as a building block for processing information and reporting results. Third, it levels the
content ―playing field‖ for all learners.
In the example below, the problem is clearly stated and the outcome is prescribed.
Students will learn principles of weather patterns and come to conclusions that are not new
information. The results are known in advance. Student responses will be judged by how
closely they match what is ―known.‖
Example: Structured Inquiry
After hearing the news about a devastating tornado in Moore, Oklahoma, students are charged to
use meteorology data to document the weather patterns of three damaging storms in the last
decade.
Many science curriculums include interactive activities associated with STEM concepts
and utilize structured inquiry as the basis of activities. One example is The Full Option
Science System [FOSS] (2011), a science curriculum with hands-on manipulative tools, a
concept-related textbook with specific content outcomes, and instructional activities. FOSS is
a horizontal curriculum—presenting one concept at a time, with many activities for each
grade level.
FOSSweb.com provides numerous structured inquiry activities. The Force & Motion
module connects the science of force and motion to engineering, mathematics, and
technology. In activity one, ―Measuring Force,‖ students observe force (science), make a
―push-pull meter‖ (engineering) using low-tech resources (technology), and measure force
(mathematics). Subsequent activities are consistent with the incorporation of STEM subject-
matter. For each of the five activities outlined above, the goals are observation, measurement,
108 Elfreda V. Blue
and use of specific resources to gain understanding of STEM concepts. Students discuss,
suggest, and draw conclusions and they follow directions, which lead to specific outcomes.
Structured inquiry tasks are frequently observed in textbooks. These problem-based tasks
provide students with explicit directions. Research questions, study design, variables, and
procedures are all provided. Students follow directions about what to measure, what to
observe, and what to illustrate. Observations guide learners toward generalizations of similar
scenarios, using simple contrastive, inductive, or deductive reasoning.
GUIDED INQUIRY
Guided inquiry, Level 2 of problem-based learning, provides students with opportunities
to investigate a teacher-generated problem, using student-generated design and procedures.
What is important is the learning that results from the process of working toward resolution or
understanding a particular problem (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980). Colley (2008) described the
essential elements of problem-based learning as follows: (1) a rich, complex driving question
that is relevant to students‘ lives, (2) production of artifacts, (3) student-centered learning, (4)
collaboration, (5) technology, (6) accountability, (7) authentic use of technology, (8)
interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary inquiry, (9) extended time frame, and (10) valid and
reliable performance-based assessment.
Successful implementation of this method requires scientific thinking. Learners must be
oriented to the process of scientific method—from identifying the problem through (a)
experimentation, (b) reporting results, and (c) evaluating methods of effectiveness. In the
example below, students are challenged to use the scientific method to design a shelter.
Students plan the procedures, the resources, and the focus of their work. The resulting design
is unknown before students begin their work. This inquiry affords them the opportunity to
draw upon STEM knowledge to develop a solution of their own.
Example: Guided Inquiry
After hearing the news about a devastating tornado in Moore, Oklahoma, a fourth grade class in
Buffalo, New York are challenged to use scientific method to design an emergency shelter which
protects the school and the community, in the event of a storm.
Hybrid Instructional Model. An example of guided inquiry can be seen in what STEM
researchers at Hofstra University refer to as a ―hybrid‖ instructional model. This approach
combines a hands-on activity with an instructional technology-based engineering design. In
the bedroom-design problem, instruction begins within the context of the problem. The
Bedroom Design problem, as part of a Mathematics and Science Partnership project
conducted at Hofstra University (2009), begins with the following challenge:
Once the problem is identified and connected to the core curriculum standards, STEM
teachers use informed design to support students‘ understanding of important concepts and to
guide student inquiry using open-ended design. Students are provided a challenge with
specific guidelines and constraints.
Informed design relies upon careful attention to key concepts, guiding questions, and
instructional hints. Important to ―informed design‖ is the students‘ concept development
before they begin design projects, recognizing that faulty concept development will lead to
Effective STEM Instruction in K-12 Settings 109
poor design. Teachers engage students in learning experiences called knowledge builders and
skill builders, also referred to as KSBs. The bedroom design problem guides student inquiry
by providing instruction relative to geometric shapes, factoring, mathematics scaling,
spreadsheets and pricing. Students use technology resources to develop a bedroom floor plan,
considering the constraints placed upon the design in the challenge.
The bedroom design problem provides students guided scaffolding of thinking about
designing the bedroom. The problem is organized around multiple processes, thereby guiding
students through the process. Students make their own bedroom model. They select paint,
furnishing, and room layout. They determine the materials and cost estimates for the design.
Mathematics plays a prominent role in this problem as does engineering and technology. The
science connection lies in material selection and composition.
PROBLEM SITUATION
You are moving to a house that is being built for you. The architect who is working on the
project needs information regarding your lifestyle to determine the best design for your bedroom.
It can be a dream bedroom. The budget is $27,500 for a rectangular bedroom with a minimum
area of 120 square feet. However, the budget increases to $30,000 for a nonrectangular bedroom
with the same minimum area.
THE CHALLENGE
You and your teammates will design a furnished bedroom. You will build virtual and actual
scale models of your bedroom, with furnishings.
CLARIFY THE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS AND CONSTRAINTS
To solve the problem, your design must meet the following specifications and
constraints:
The window area must be equal to at least 20% of the floor area.
The minimum room size is 120 square feet. The minimum height of all ceilings is 8 feet
and the maximum is 12 feet.
The bedroom will have two outside walls and two interior walls. In both models one
interior wall can be removed for easy visualization of the design.
The budget is $27,500 for a rectangular bedroom and $30,000 for a nonrectangular
bedroom.
The cost of basic construction is estimated at $150 per square foot of floor area.
Figure 3. The ―hybrid‖ instructional model is an example of guided inquiry. It combines a hands-on
activity with an instructional technology-based engineering design. Burghardt, D.M. (2009). Exemplary
bedroom design unit—instructor’s guide. Hofstra University. Mathematics & Science Partnership
Project. Retrieved from https://www-cloud2.hofstra.edu/
Academics/Colleges/SOEAHS/CTL/ITEA/itea_activity_bedroomdesign.html
Another example of guided inquiry is available through the Massachusetts STEM Solar
Lab (2013). The instructor guides students through a solar lab weather connection. The solar
lab replicates electrical power produced during weather observations so that students figure
out how weather affects electrical power or energy produced in a solar lab.
The solar lab sets the stage for students to compare and contrast weather observations and
predictions. Thereafter, students are asked the following question: ―How would you design an
investigation to determine which weather variable had the most significant effect on how
much electrical power the STEM Solar Lab produced?‖ (Solar Lab Weather Connection
Guide, 2013, p.3).
110 Elfreda V. Blue
Teachers guide students through the process of information gathering, providing them
choices relative to the solar lab upon which to focus, and timeframe for weather prediction
and observation. After conceptual knowledge has been developed and students are adept at
procedures for navigating technology, resources for information gathering, students are given
the opportunity to design an investigation, focusing on the variable they think is most
important in determining production of electrical power in the STEM solar lab. The science
content of this lesson is weather and scientific method. The math component is collecting
data, and doing a comparative analysis of energy production in a STEM solar lab. A next step
may be to have students design a solar panel with greater energy collection capacity during
low-energy production timeframes.
Guided inquiry can expend extensive class time. Once the challenge is established and
teachers have facilitated instruction relative to the curriculum context for the problem,
students must be provided time, resources, and access to a STEM thinker as they plan,
implement, and report on their investigation and solution. The STEM teacher‘s role is to
model STEM thinker in this context. As STEM thinker, the teacher facilitates thinking,
researching, critiquing ideas, processes, and procedures. Students develop a STEM way of
thinking. An important benefit of guided inquiry is student apprenticeship in STEM thinking.
Students learn ―how to‖ while solving real-world problems. One of the greatest obstacles to
problem-based learning is management: managing the process--problem design, time, groups,
instruction, assessment, and technology (Ertmer & Simons, 2005; Hung, 2008; Mergendoller
& Thomas, 2005). Each of these can interfere with short-term and long term planning.
OPEN-INQUIRY
Open-inquiry (Level 3) facilitates a problem-based learning environment wherein
students choose and investigate their own questions and develop real-life solutions or
products. In this context, students think of science as an action, a process, a way of thinking
(Tinker, 1992). Problems are long-term investigations (Laffey &Tupper, Musser, & Wedman,
1998), organized around ―driving questions‖ (Krajcik, Czerniak, & Berger, 1999).
Investigations lead to student knowledge about scientific process and content while learning
occurs with peers (Moje, Collazo, Carillo, & Marx, 2001). The difference between simple
inquiry tasks, often presented in science textbooks and authentic scientific inquiry, is that the
research is carried out by real scientists in the field (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). In open-
inquiry, students engage in long-term projects of their own design. Colley (2008) outlined
four types of projects associated with project-based instruction: (1) problem-solving projects,
(2) process-skill projects, (3) design and engineering projects, and (4) content-related or
subject-focused projects.
Problem-solving projects develop problem-solving and critical thinking skills. Process-
skill projects apprentice students in scientific method—which involves a research question, a
hypothesis, an experimental design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Students also
learn to report results and identify areas for further study. Design and engineering projects
provide students opportunities to design, test, and develop tangible products and resources.
Content-related projects allow students to develop expert knowledge on a particular topic.
Successfully implemented project-based instruction is executed through experimentation,
Effective STEM Instruction in K-12 Settings 111
observations, interviews, data collection via surveys, research using library and online
resources (research databases or virtual libraries, museums, websites).
Each type of project serves a specific purpose. The outcome of the problem may be
contextualized to the situation upon which the student focuses. If a student chooses to design
a pair of shoes for postal workers in Artic regions, the outcome may be a shoe prototype,
expert knowledge about Alaskan terrain, critical thinking, as well as scientific method.
Students will need to draw upon expert knowledge and conduct extensive research on the use
of wear and tear of shoes worn by postal workers. Secondly, students will need to examine
the impact of weather conditions on shoes. Thirdly, students will investigate how weather
conditions impact the foot comfort in ―uniform‖ foot apparel for postal workers in the Artic
region.
A clear understanding of each project type and potential learning outcomes empowers the
teacher toward flexible learning outcomes. The example below provides a context for any one
of the project types discussed thus far. While at first glance one may assume the focus of the
project centers around physical health, a deeper examination of the problem demonstrates
numerous possibilities.
Example: Open-inquiry
One local school district has removed physical education from the school curriculum because of
budget cuts, even though the state has the highest rate of childhood obesity in the country.
Students may develop a problem-solving project to figure out the variables that led to the
dilemma. A process-skill project may afford learners an opportunity to use scientific method
to investigate a possible solution to the problem. Because students in the district need more
exercise or a healthier diet, the design and engineering project type allows learners to develop
a new healthy snack, a new exercise gadget that would be popular with school-age students,
or a new weight-loss regimen. A content-related project may yield an expert on school
budgets, childhood obesity, nutrition, and/or physical exercise.
Each of these projects is relevant to STEM instruction. The science curriculum focus can
range from energy and motion, food intake or the digestive system. The technology focus can
be data collection, recording interviews, or disseminating findings or solutions. Technology
may become the focus of some students‘ study, if they decide to examine technology
resources, which can impact weight loss (i.e., Wii, Smart Phone Apps for monitoring weight
loss, Nike wristband monitoring system). The challenge to STEM educators is to (a) provide
students the time, space, and support necessary to investigate the problem, (b) develop a
process or solution and, (c) rethink a traditional approach to a specific problem.
According to Morrison (2006), students who have access to STEM education should be
problem solvers, innovators, inventors, self-reliant, logical thinkers, and technologically
literate. Because the STEM initiative is presently emerging in the U.S., the outcomes
Morrison envisions have not emerged. Examples of open inquiry instruction are extremely
limited. Such inquiry occurs in highly technical colleges and universities such as
Massachusetts Institute of Technology wherein students develop their own inquiry and invent
real-world life-changers (i.e., Facebook, 3-D printers).
STEM instruction can have a transformative impact on all learners. The greatest barrier is
the STEM content, itself. Students in kindergarten through twelfth grade many times develop
a disdain for math and fear of science. Few have opportunities to learn engineering. Although
112 Elfreda V. Blue
technology is available in schools, the extent of use is dependent upon teacher confidence in
technology implementation and application. Careful attention must be given to STEM
curriculum design to ensure that all learners, to the extent possible, are able to access STEM
content and participate in meaningful scientific inquiry activities through problem-based
learning. One approach, which diminishes barriers and increases accessibility is Universal
Design for Learning (UDL).
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING IN STEM CURRICULUM
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is an instructional approach to curriculum, which
empowers teachers to plan instruction dependent upon flexible instructional materials,
techniques, and strategies in order to meet the needs of the greatest number of users. This
approach makes retrofitted curriculum differentiations unnecessary (McGuire, Scott, & Shaw,
2006). Teachers can provide students access to the STEM curriculum by implementing
instruction that reflects CAST‘s (2011) principles of UDL: multiple means of (a)
representation, (b) engagement, and (c) expression (see Table 4).
STEM teachers regularly use multiple means of concept representation--i.e., audio, video,
and/or written text--to support student learning without consideration of how these resources
support more students. UDL encourages teachers to incorporate these resources in a
systematic and predictable manner and provide such resources to all students, without
requiring any one medium, giving learners choices in accessing STEM content. This is
extremely important since some students may benefit from access to video clips, which bring
to life important events from the past. In fact, FOSS online resources include videos, which
explain concepts and demonstrate mechanical energy (pulleys and levers). Many STEM
textbooks make available audio files of text content, which further supports students‘ access
to the curriculum.
Table 4. Universal Design for Learning Guidelines
I Provide Multiple Means of Representation
1 Provide options for perception
2 Provide options for language and symbols
3 Provide options for comprehension
II Provide Multiple Means of Action and Expression
4 Provide options for physical action
5 Provide options for expressive skills and fluency
6 Provide options for executive functions
III Provide Multiple Means of Engagement
7 Provide options for recruiting interest
8 Provide options for sustaining effort and persistence
9 Provide options for self regulation
Teachers can provide access to STEM curriculum by implementing instruction that reflects the
principles of UDL: multiple means of (a) representation, (b) engagement, and (c) expression.
CAST (2011). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.0. Wakefield, MA: Author.
Effective STEM Instruction in K-12 Settings 113
The opportunities for using multiple means of engagement and expression in STEM
curriculum are endless. UDL principles supports peer collaboration, goal setting, using
multimedia resources in learning and disseminating information. For instance, in a UDL
classroom, after completing a guided inquiry investigation, students have the option of
making their own video to record procedures, observations, and findings. Or they may
develop a documentary of their work to solve a real-world problem or invent a solution. UDL
can be utilized to facilitate support in students‘ comprehension of content and concepts during
structured inquiry, progress monitoring during guided inquiry, and self-assessment during
open inquiry.
The key to successful STEM instruction is capturing interest, maintaining interest, and
supporting students toward self-regulation. Traditional classroom approaches to instruction in
STEM curriculum has failed. While a move toward scientific inquiry for problem-based
learning can guide learners toward STEM thinking, the scientific inquiry or problem-based
learning approach will not make available STEM thinking to most learners. One way to
remove the barriers to STEM curriculum is to incorporate UDL principles and guidelines into
scientific inquiry and problem-based instruction.
CONCLUSION
Implementation of effective STEM instruction requires commitment over time. Research
suggests that when the instructional paradigm shifts from the traditional approach to an
authentic instructional approach, learners need time to adjust to the new way of thinking,
learning, and processing information. A move from rote memorization to comparative
analysis, synthesis and evaluation does not happen overnight. Teachers and education support
staff should make every effort to scaffold the learning process as students expand their way of
thinking to embrace new habits.
Effective STEM instruction cannot fit into traditional instructional constraints. Effective
reasoning cannot be constrained to 50-minute lessons. In order to facilitate scientific inquiry
effectively, students must learn strategies for reasoning through information as well as how to
develop theory. Commitment to the incorporation of these methods into effective instructional
practices may lead to meaningful learning about authentic scientific inquiry, processes,
findings, and theory.
REFERENCES
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science
literacy. Washington, DC: Oxford University Press.
Barrows, H. S. & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical
education. New York: Springer
Carin, A. A., Bass, J. E., & Contant, T. L. (2005). Methods for teaching science as inquiry
(9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
CAST. (2011). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.0. Wakefield, MA:
Author.
114 Elfreda V. Blue
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A
theoretical framework for evaluating learning tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218.
Colley, K. (2008). Project-based science instruction: A primer. The Science Teacher, 75(3),
23-27.
Dennis, J., & O'Hair, M. (2010). Overcoming obstacles in using authentic instruction: A
comparative case study of high school math and science teachers. American Secondary
Education, 38(2), 4-22.
Ertmer, P. A., & Simons, K. D. (2005). Scaffolding teachers‘ efforts to implement problem-
based learning. International Journal of Learning, 12(4), 319-328.
Fang, Z., Lemme, L., & Pringle, R. (2010). Chapter 1: Teaching science as inquiry (pp. 1-17).
In Language and literacy in inquiry-based science classrooms, Grades 3-8. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Full Option Science System (FOSS). (2011). Force and Motion Module. Retrieved from
http://www.fossweb.com
Hanley-Maxwell, C., Phelps, A., Braden, J. & Warren, V. (2003). Schools of authentic and
inclusive learning. Research Institute on Secondary Education Reform for Youth with
Disabilities Brief No. 1. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Hung, W. (2008). The 9-step problem design process for problem-based learning: Application
of the 3C3R model. Educational Research Review, 4(2) 118-141.
King, M.B., Schroeder, J., & Chawszczewski, D. (2001). Authentic assessment and student
performance in inclusive schools. Research Institute on Secondary Education Reform for
Youth with Disabilities Brief. No. 5. Retrieved from http://archive.wceruw.org/
riser/Brief%205%20text%20only.pdf
Krajcik, J., Czerniak, C., & Berger, C. (1999). Teaching children science: A project-based
approach. Boston: McGraw Hill College.
Laffey, J., Tupper, T., Musser, D., & Wedman, J. (1998). A computer mediated support
system for project-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development,
46(1): 73–86.
Massachusetts STEM Solar Lab. (2013). Solar lab weather connection guide. Retrieved from
http://www.umassk12.net/solarlabl/goals.html
Mathematics & Science Partnership Project. (2009). Exemplary bedroom design unit—
instructor’s guide. Hofstra University. Retrieved from https://www-cloud2.hofstra.edu/
Academics/Colleges/SOEAHS/CTL/ITEA/itea_activity_bedroomdesign.html
McGuire, J., Scott, S., & Shaw, S. (2006). Universal design and its application in educational
environments. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 166-175.
Mergendoller, J. R., & Thomas, J. W. (2005). Managing project-based learning: Principles
from the field. Retrieved from http://www.bie.org/images/uploads/general/
f6d0b4a5d9e37c0e0317acb7942d27b0.pdf
Moje, E. B., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R., & Marx, R. W. (2001). ―Maestro, what is ‗quality‘?‖:
Language, literacy, and discourse in project based science. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 38(4), 469–498.
Morrison, J. (2006). STEM education monograph series: Attributes of STEM education--The
student, the school, the classroom. Baltimore, MD: Technology Institute for Excellence
in STEM
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press..
Effective STEM Instruction in K-12 Settings 115
Newman, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1993). Five standards of authentic instruction.
Educational Leadership, 50(7), 8-12.
Newman, F. M., Marks, H. M., & Gamoran, A. (1996). Authentic pedagogy and student
performance. American Journal of Education, 104, 280-312.
Piaget, J. 1969. The psychology of the child. Translated by Helen Weaver. New York: Basic
Books.
Preus, B. (2012). Authentic instruction for 21st century learning: higher order thinking in an
inclusive school. American Secondary Education, 40(3), 59-79.
Tinker, R. F. (1992). Thinking about science. Princeton, NJ: College Entrance Examination
Board.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Eds. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, and E. Souberman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Warner, A. J., & Meyers, B. E. (2012). What is inquiry-based instruction? University of
Florida. AEC394. Retrieved from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/WC/WC07500.pdf
In: STEM Education ISBN: 978-1-62808-514-3
Editor: Satasha L. Green © 2014 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 8
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.
Chicago State University, Illinois, US
ABSTRACT
Although there are notable shifts within racial and ethnic demographics in our
society, these changes are not readily reflected in the number of culturally and
linguistically diverse (CLD) students in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) programs. Educators, parents, policy makers and other stakeholders
continue to voice major concerns about 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.
Nonetheless, it is clear that the foundation of this dynamic is squarely grounded in
student preparation at the K-12 level.
Within the scope of this chapter, the case is made for improving the opportunities for
CLD students in STEM programs through the use of culturally and linguistically
responsive teaching (CLRT) and practices in K-12 settings. As, mathematics and science
in K-12 settings continue to be the ―gatekeepers‖ to entry into STEM programs and
careers, 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.
INTRODUCTION
There has been a notable shift in the racial and ethnic demographics in the last decade
within the United States. The proportion of Whites declined from 79.9% to 65.6%, and
African American and American Indian populations remained stable at approximately 12%
and 1%, respectively. Yet, within the same time frame, the Latino population increased from
* [email protected].
118 Cheryl A. Utley, Satasha L. Green and Kimberly M. Edwards
6% to 15%, and the number of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders increased from nearly
2% to 4% of the total U.S. population (National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP],
2011).
Variations of the changes in racial and ethnic compositions are also reflected within the
student population in our school systems. At present, the proportions of children in U.S.
schools from kindergarten through twelfth grades are 59.6% White, 21.8% Latino, 15.0%
African American, 4.1% for Asian groups and 0.7% for American Indian/Alaskan Native.
Examining recent patterns of immigration, 1.8% of White and 2.7% of African American
children are foreign-born compared to 11.4% of Latino and 23.9% of Asian children. Patterns
of language usage in the homes also vary across ethnic and racial groups. Approximately 67%
to 72% of Asian and Latino children resided in a home in which a language other than
English was the primary language compared to just under 7% for both White and African
American children. Considering only foreign-born children, 49% and 19% were from Latin
American and Asian origins, respectively (NAEP, 2011).
Given these recent demographic changes in U.S. society and schools, there are major
concerns about equity in 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. These concerns are central to
the policies focused on developing a technologically literate work force and citizenry (Lee,
2002; Lubienski, & Bowen, 2000; National Science Foundation, 2012). Strong mathematics
achievement in all children is important for meeting the needs of our increasingly
technological society and for workforce equity (National Academies, 2011). Mathematics
competence is associated with entry into the science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) disciplines in higher education, as well as STEM-related occupations
(National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2012).
Race-based differences in mathematics and science are inextricably related to equity
outcomes. An earlier report titled, Reaching the Top: A Report of the National Task Force on
Minority High Achievement (The College Board, 1999) noted that for the majority of African-
American, Latino, and Native American youth in the United States, the educational system is
not fulfilling its promise of developing the talents of all students to their fullest. This result is
evidenced by the disparities that appear when national education achievement data is
disaggregated by race or ethnicity. National statistics reveal persistent income disparities that
correlate with low mathematics achievement among different diverse groups in public
schools. In fact, the data have been clear for decades: children within lower socioeconomic
classes and children of color are consistently shortchanged when it comes to mathematics. For
instance, disproportionate numbers of poor, African American, Latino, and Native American
students drop out of mathematics and perform below standard on tests of mathematical
competency, and are thus denied both important skills and a particularly important pathway to
economic and other enfranchisement (Schoenfeld, 2002). As another example, consider the
following breakdown by race of mathematics scores on the NAEP. The critical scores are at
age 17, when students are about to graduate from high school. In recent years more than two-
thirds of the White 17-year-olds sampled by NAEP performed at benchmark levels— that is,
were deemed to know the appropriate level of mathematics. Yet, only about 40% of the
Latino 17-year-olds, and less than one third of the African American 17-year-olds, met
benchmark performance levels. An alarming comparison of scores for 9-, 13- and 17-year-
olds shows that the gap in scores between Whites and non-Whites increases as students get
Infusing Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Instruction ... 119
older (Schoenfeld, 2002). These differences have dire consequences once students leave
school. For instance, African Americans and Latinos are much less likely than Whites to
graduate from high school, acquire a college or advanced degree, or earn a living that places
them in the middle class. Further, African Americans and Latinos are much more likely than
Whites to suffer the social problems (e.g., unemployment, low wages, low education
attainment, etc.) that often accompany low socio-economic status (Chubb & Loveless, 2002).
Historically, the need to address these disparities has been cloaked in global economic
competition and attainment, ―rather than genuine ethical actions devoted to increasing the
scientific competencies of students of color, students acquiring English, and other
traditionally underserved urban students‖ (Tate, 2001, p. 1018). Thus, the experiences of
these students become a vital factor in determining a course of action in addressing this issue.
Flores (2007) shifted the frame of reference from looking at measures of educational
outcomes to examining what students actually experience in schools results in a very different
way of describing disparities among students in schools. He states the following:
This new frame calls attention to the fact that African American and Latino students are
less likely than White students to have teachers who emphasize high quality mathematics
instruction, and appropriate use of resources. For example, African American and Latino
students are less likely than White students to have access to: teachers who emphasize
reasoning and non-routine problem solving; computers; and teachers who use computers for
simulations and applications (p. 32).
The position of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] (2012) with
respect to closing the achievement gap is that ―differentials in learning outcomes are not a
result of inclusion in any demographic group, but rather are significantly a function of
disparities in opportunities that different groups of learners have with respect to access to
grade-level (or more advanced) curriculum, teacher expectations for students and beliefs
about their potential for success, exposure to effective or culturally relevant instructional
strategies, and the instructional supports provided for students‖ (p. 1). More specifically, one
of the solutions to closing the achievement gap in math is framed as the need to infuse
culturally and linguistically responsive teaching (CLRT) in STEM programs. CLRT in
mathematics instruction is ―comprised of a diversity of practices that make it historically,
culturally, socially, and politically situated as any other human activity‖ (Greer,
Mukhopadhyay, Powell, & Nelson-Barber, 2009, p. 2).
Carey (2004) noted that the single most important and influential school-based factor in
student learning, particularly for those students who enter school with academic deficits, is an
effective teacher who utilizes Common Core standards as the target for effective instruction
and student learning. The Common Core proposes the following eight mathematical practices
through which all content is taught: (1) make sense of problems and persevere in solving
them, (2) reason abstractly and quantitatively, (3) construct viable arguments and critique the
reasoning of others, (4) model with mathematics, (5) use appropriate tools strategically, (6)
attend to precision, (7) look for and make sense of structure, and (8) look for and express
regularity in repeated reasoning. All students are expected to demonstrate competency in
learning mathematics through these 8 practices. These are implemented and reinforced daily
to become ritualized in all mathematics classrooms.
Significant domain-specific recommendations for mathematics through CLRT for the
Common Core State Standards were reviewed for bias and cultural sensitivity (Relevant
Strategies, 2011). The mathematics reviewers reiterated the need for educators to ―respect
120 Cheryl A. Utley, Satasha L. Green and Kimberly M. Edwards
home culture and values and ensure cultural congruence in instruction to bridge the contexts,
examples, vocabulary, and problem solving situations presented in the classroom to learners‘
lived real-world experiences and home situations [i.e., cultural, ethnic/ racial,
socioeconomic]‖ (p. 17). Furthermore, given the cultural diversity of learners in the
classroom, it is imperative that educators provide scaffolding as a CLRT procedure to ensure
that unknown contexts, settings, vocabulary, tools, and problem solving scenarios are
introduced to culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students using techniques such as
pictures, manipulatives, numerical representations and verbalizations based upon cultural,
ethnic/racial, disability, and socioeconomic considerations.
Therefore, the purposes of this chapter are to (a) identify the need for culturally and
linguistically responsive teaching, (b) define culturally and linguistically responsive teaching
(CLRT), (c) identify the importance of CLRT in STEM education, and (d) provide
recommendations to infuse/integrate CLRT into STEM education.
ACCESS TO STEM CURRICULUM, TEACHER PREPARATION
AND PERCEPTIONS
Three factors that may help explain CLD students‘ under-achievement in STEM subject
areas include (1) access to STEM curriculum, (2) teacher preparation in STEM content areas,
and (3) teacher perceptions and attitudes about CLD students. All students deserve a high
quality education however some students are denied such an education due to their race, class,
gender, language, and ability statuses. Gifted and talented (GT) education/programs that often
provide and introduction to and opportunities in STEM education can no longer be reserved
for a set few. In the 21st century, it is essential that those who have historically been denied
access to these programs, (e.g., low-income and students of color) have the opportunity to
participate in gifted and talented and STEM classes/programs. More than two-thirds of low-
income and CLD students are in schools with minimal access to preparatory curriculum,
enrichment courses and gifted and talented programs (Schott Foundation for Public
Education, 2009; Huang & Moon, 2009). According to the U.S. Department of Education,
only 29 percent of high schools with high-CLD student populations offer calculus, compared
to 55 percent of schools with low-CLD populations. This under-representation of CLD
students in GT and STEM programs/classes has become a national epidemic that contributes
to the shortage of underrepresented groups in STEM careers. It then becomes imperative to
provide CLD students in K-12 settings opportunities to participate in GT and STEM
programs/classes. It is also important to provide teacher candidates in their teacher education
programs the content knowledge and skills to effectively teach STEM subject areas as well as
be culturally and linguistically responsive in their instruction.
Cultural competence of teachers, administers, counselors and pre-service teachers and the
use of culturally and linguistically responsive STEM teaching is imperative to educate CLD
students in both K-12 and higher education. For far too long in our public school system CLD
students have been sentenced to attending low-performing schools, having the least qualified
teachers and a lack of quality STEM instruction. These students have not been challenged
and/or provided enrichment and college preparatory courses that help to develop their
knowledge and skills in STEM (Huang & Moon, 2009). Culturally and linguistically
Infusing Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Instruction ... 121
responsive STEM instruction may help to resolve this issue that many CLD students face
(Perry, Steele, & Hilliard, 2003). We must begin to provide STEM education and align our
curriculum and instruction to be culturally and linguistically responsive to not only address
students learning needs but their socio-cultural needs (Ladson-Billings, 2001). (See figure 1).
According to the Community for Advancing Discovery Research in Education [CADRE]
(2011), student outcomes are impacted by teachers in the classroom. This is especially true in
mathematics, which forms the foundation for all future STEM learning (p.1). Unfortunately,
in many urban schools, CLD students have teachers who are less-qualified, who are not
certified or who have alternative licensures (Kozol, 2005; Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002;
Turnbull, Turnbull, & Wehmeyer, & Shogren, 2010).
According to the Dissecting the Data: The STEM Education Opportunity Gap in
California Report (2012), twenty-five percent of math classes in low-income secondary
schools are taught by teachers without a credential or college major in the subject, compared
to 11 percent in non-poverty schools. Additionally, there is a shortage of highly skilled
mathematics and science teachers who teach in STEM programs (CADRE, 2011). High
quality STEM instruction requires teachers to have deep content knowledge and expertise in
pedagogy that meets the needs of all learners (CADRE, 2011).
Culturally and Linguistically Responsive STEM
Instruction
CLRT STEM Instruction
Cultural values Diverse Diverse Science Technology Engineering Math
and ways of cultural/ethnic discourse-Native
Knowing representation in language/dialect
learning Usage
materials
Figure 1. Culturally and Linguistically Responsive STEM Instruction. The figure identifies and takes
advantage of cultural ways of knowing through aligned STEM teaching best practices, while using
diverse discourse structures and curriculum. Green, S.L. (n.d). Culturally and Linguistically
Responsive STEM Instruction.
Additionally, there is a limiting pipeline to STEM in higher education and the workforce
which leaves a significant number of CLD students deprived of opportunities to develop
mathematics and science skills that prepare them for careers in the fastest-growing and most
lucrative occupations of the future (Dissecting the Data: The STEM Education Opportunity
Gap in California Report, 2012). There is a continuous need to remain globally competitive
while the nation‘s demographics are changing. Increasingly, educators are working with,
CLD student populations. Over the last three decades, urban schools have become vastly
122 Cheryl A. Utley, Satasha L. Green and Kimberly M. Edwards
made up of CLD students (Piana, 2000). Therefore, it becomes imperative for teachers to
provide their CLD students with culturally and linguistically responsive STEM instruction.
People of color make up 39% of individuals under the age of 18 in the United States and
this population will continue to increase (Anderson & Kim, 2006; U.S. Census Bureau,
2000). However, U.S. CLD students are vastly underrepresented in STEM jobs and among
STEM degree holders despite making up nearly half of the U.S. workforce and half of the
college-educated workforce (Level Playing Field Institute, 2013). That leaves an untapped
opportunity to expand STEM employment in the U.S. which is crucial to America‘s
innovative capacity and global competitiveness.
Teacher Perceptions
Teachers‘ perceptions and attitudes about their students are important in the
teacher/student relationship and reciprocity in contexts experienced during teacher and
student interactions. Teachers‘ positive perceptions, recognition, and acceptance of diverse
ways of knowing and learning serve to support students, particularly CLD students in STEM.
Teachers‘ negative perceptions about diverse ways of knowing and learning influence the
lack of acceptance and applicability of CLRT in the classroom (Anderson et al., 2003).
Negative attitudes toward students‘ abilities also play a role in determining teachers‘
expectations of student performance (Tsiplakides & Keramida, 2010) in STEM assignments
and coursework. Furthermore, CLD students who frequently encounter negative teacher
attitudes can develop negative opinions about their own work and learning abilities, which
may influence their choices to pursue STEM education and careers.
When demands of the classroom are not met teachers may perceive CLD students to be
intellectually inferior (Obiakor, 2007). Teachers‘ lack of awareness of diverse ways of
knowing and learning and their negative perceptions may hinder CLD students‘ learning and
confidence in STEM. It is important for teachers to first change their ingrained attitudes and
behaviors towards diverse ways of knowing and learning in order to circumvent the under-
representation of CLD students in GT and STEM programs.
According to Irvine (2002), one of the critical roles as a teacher is to incorporate the daily
experiences of students‘ prior knowledge within teaching new concepts. Teachers must
connect students‘ personal cultural knowledge to STEM learning objectives. By utilizing
culturally familiar ways of instruction, teachers have the opportunity to encourage and
include the cultural knowledge of their students in STEM curriculum (Irvine, 2002). Teacher
preparation programs must develop pre-service teachers‘ awareness of the needs of CLD
students in STEM which may vary from their mainstream cultural peers because of
differences in attitudes, values, beliefs and behavioral patterns. Such differences may cause
incongruities for CLD students between their home and the school‘s culture (Gay, 2000). Gay
(2000) articulated how this mismatch is manifested in virtually every component of teaching:
The fact that many [teacher education] students do not share the same ethnic, social,
racial and linguistic backgrounds as their students may lead to cultural incongruities in
the classroom which can mediate against educational effectiveness. These
incompatibilities are evident in value orientation, behavioral norms and expectations and
Infusing Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Instruction ... 123
styles, social interactions, self-presentation, communication and cognitive processing. (p.
159).
Subsequently; pre-service teachers need to be aware that CLD students tend to struggle
for acceptance and acknowledgement of their strengths. This situation becomes extremely
problematic when educators interpret cultural and linguistic differences of CLD students as
academic deficits (Webb-Johnson, 1999) leaving CLD students as outsiders in the current
system of public education. This trend creates academic failure for some CLD students and
destroys motivation and engagement in STEM subjects and even school. CLD students can
easily become outsiders in the existing educational system that is fundamentally developed
and implemented, to a large degree around White middle class values and perspectives
(LeCompte & McCray, 2002). Because it is essential in becoming an effective educator,
teachers in urban schools both pre-service and in-service teachers must become culturally
competent.
If we are sincere about utilizing multiculturalism, CLRT, respecting diversity, and being
inclusive, we need to honestly ask ourselves how we can make sure that our CLD students are
being accepted for who they are and what strengths they bring to the classroom. Multicultural
training in CLRT is needed for both in-service and pre-service teachers; and teacher
preparation programs must focus on culture and language of students. In-service teachers
should have on-going training in the form of seminars, workshops, and hands on experiences
with this population. Many teachers have limited training in both STEM and multicultural
education. Educators without expertise/proper training in STEM content areas and those with
little experience with CLD populations generally are unable to provide effective culturally
and linguistically responsive STEM instruction (see Figure 1).
Teacher preparation is one of the most critical factors in obtaining a level of overall
success in student achievement of CLD students in STEM education. Many teacher
preparation programs require teacher candidates to complete few mathematics and science
courses and some variance of multicultural education instruction as a part of their curriculum.
Yet, many educators continue to feel inadequately prepared to teach STEM content areas as
well as children from CLD backgrounds. Rueda, Monzó, & Higareda (2004) noted that
teachers who have been prepared through traditional models of education, without extensive
exposure to STEM and CLRT, have difficulties relating to diverse student populations which
could lead to ―lower student participation, and result in teachers‘ misconceptions of student
motivation, ability, and potential‖ (p. 57) in STEM. Therefore, it is critical for educators to
understand and utilize, ―existing research [that] suggests that having knowledge about the
students‘ communities, cultural practices, and primary language [which] can potentially
provide meaningful and engaging learning contexts… for greater academic gains‖ (p. 60). It
is through the understanding of this assertion that educators should consider their
responsibility for creating student preparedness for STEM through CLRT.
Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Teaching (CLRT)
Culturally and linguistically responsive teaching (CLRT) utilizes ways for students to
connect with the content material and is designed to acknowledge the presence of cultural
diversity (Montgomery, 2001).When students are provided CLRT they perform better
124 Cheryl A. Utley, Satasha L. Green and Kimberly M. Edwards
academically and are more motivated to learn (McIntyre, 1997). CLRT focuses on collective
and individual empowerment similar to critical pedagogy (Lane, 2006). One of the objectives
of CLRT is to allow children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds in the
development of a ―cultural personality‖ to not only choose but to prefer academic excellence
and identifying that academic excellence with their own cultures (Lane, 2006). Although
CLRT is essential for all learners, it has been categorized as a method just for traditionally
and systematically marginalized students and students from CLD backgrounds (Lane, 2006).
When providing students with instruction that is responsive, it encourages them to be actively
involved in the process of learning (Singleton, Livingston, Hines, & Jones, 2008).
Averill (2012) and Averill, Anderson, Easton, TeMaro, Smith, and Hynds (2009) noted
that culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogy is advocated as pathways toward
enhancing student outcomes by reducing discontinuities between students‘ homes and schools
where they exist. This type of pedagogy connects learning contexts and cultural backgrounds
of students to foster effective teacher-student relationships and student-centered teaching
practices. Gay (2002) defined the five essential elements of culturally responsive teaching as:
(1) developing a knowledge base about cultural diversity, (2) including ethnic and cultural
diversity content in the curriculum, (3) demonstrating caring and building learning
communities, (4) communicating with ethnically diverse students, and (5) responding to
ethnic diversity in the delivery of instruction.
Culturally and linguistically responsive teaching is an approach particularly suited to
urban schools where educating linguistically, culturally, and racially diverse students is a
reality that some teachers find challenging. Many teacher educators in higher education are
often unfamiliar with effective CLRT strategies and practices to provide beneficial instruction
to pre-service teachers in their teacher preparation programs. Therefore, many pre-service and
in-service teachers have insufficient training in teaching CLD student populations in urban
areas. Research has shown it is particularly, imperative for pre-service teachers to be prepared
to deal with the increasingly diverse population of students found in today‘s urban classrooms
(Fogel & Ehri, 2006; Villegas & Lucas, 2002).
Culturally relevant pedagogy uses cultural referents to impart knowledge, skills, and
attitudes which can empower students intellectually, socially, emotionally, and politically
(Ladson-Billings, 1994). Shujaa (1995) asserted that ―the intent of culturally relevant
pedagogy is to increase student achievement, to help students develop the skills to achieve
economic self- sufficiency, and to develop citizenship skills based on a realistic and thorough
understanding of the political system‖ (p. 200). Shujaa (1995) contended that in order to
support CLRT, professional development must be directed toward enabling teachers to focus
on their conceptions of themselves and others, their cultural knowledge, and their classrooms‘
social structure. Further, Shujaa (1995) argued that culturally relevant pedagogy requires
teachers to recognize who they are racially, culturally, and economically as individuals and
how they have learned to view others who are racially, culturally, and economically different
from themselves in order to develop cultural understanding. Cultural understanding
incorporates a person‘s knowledge of and experiences with the values, mores, beliefs, and
traditions of cultures that are different from one‘s own (Grant & Sleeter, 2006).
Only when education reformers begin to accept the fact that CLD students‘ needs are
different, can we move towards culturally and linguistically responsive STEM teaching and
evaluation. CLRT should be designed to acknowledge the presence of cultural diversity—the
goal must be to find ways for students to incorporate their knowledge, skills and resources
Infusing Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Instruction ... 125
from their communities to assist in learning in the classroom which also supports problem-
based and inquiry-based learning which are essential in effective STEM instruction.
In order to successfully and effectively meet the needs of those students we must begin
to align STEM curriculum, instruction, and evaluation practices to match their cultural values
and ways of knowing and learning. The current mono-cultural approach to STEM teaching
and evaluation is detrimental to the academic health, wellbeing, and future STEM aspirations
of students of color. In addition, this approach to teaching and evaluation perpetuates the
under-representation of this population of students going into STEM education and careers.
The underlying idea of a mono-cultural approach to teaching is that, if you are not a member
of the dominant culture, the expectation is that you must conform. This lack of conformity is
viewed as resistance and a lack of cooperation on the part of the student. Gay (2002), argued
the importance of developing a ―critical cultural consciousness‖ for teachers in the public
school system. Cultural consciousness begins with teachers becoming aware of their values,
biases, and stereotypes that they bring into the classroom (Gay, 2002; Green, 2007, 2009).
CLRT practices are specific educational practices, instructional strategies, team
processes, and curricula content which have been established by research to increase the
achievement of CLD students. CLRT practices are grounded in the evidence that CLD
students excel in academic endeavors when their culture, language, heritage, and experiences
are valued and used to facilitate their learning and development (NCCRESt, 2004). Strategies
for the implementation of CLRT practices include (1) providing early intervention processes;
(2) utilizing culturally appropriate curriculum and CLRT skills; and (3) strengthening
family/parental involvement and community partnerships (National Education Association,
2007). It is through the lens of CLRT practice that educators can begin to effectively address
the disparities of underrepresented groups within STEM education especially at the K-12
levels (see Figure 1).
Early Intervention
A preponderance of research suggests that students‘ levels of success in STEM fields are
correlated with ample preparation in mathematics and science at the K-12 level (National
Science Foundation, 2012). Science and mathematics serve as a conduit to higher education,
more specifically, STEM majors. Yet, despite this significant parallel between STEM success
in higher education and academic preparation in K-12 settings, there is a disproportionately
low number of African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans enrolled in mathematics
and science courses at the K-12 level. Several researchers have produced similar lists of
barriers many of these middle and high school students face when pursuing STEM fields,
which address teacher preparedness, poor facilities and a lack of available courses (Brown &
Campbell, 2008). More specifically, in an extensive review of literature addressing the
underrepresentation of students of color in STEM programs, Museus, Palmer, Davis, &
Maramba (2011) identified several factors that contribute to the lack of preparedness for
racial and ethnic minority students in STEM: (1) lack of school funding, (2) large numbers of
placements in remedial courses, (3) underrepresentation in advanced placement courses, (4)
unqualified teachers, (5) low teacher expectations, (6) stereotyping, and (7) high dropout
rates.
126 Cheryl A. Utley, Satasha L. Green and Kimberly M. Edwards
Disparate levels of funding to schools catering to students within lower socio-economic
districts is not a new phenomenon. There is an existing plethora of research suggesting the
correlation between lack of adequate school funding and poor student performance, especially
in schools that serve underrepresented groups. In the instance of mathematics and science
education, CLD students are often at a distinct disadvantage, as a lack of resources severely
limits the availability of and access to the latest technology and other resources that supports
successful academic achievements in these areas, including the availability of the classes
needed for adequate preparation for STEM education (Margolis, Estrella, Goode, Holme, &
Nao, 2008). For instance, in 2010-11, 46% of African American students attended
predominantly African American schools which were deemed comparatively conditionally
inferior when compared to predominately White schools (NCES, 2012). Further, students
within underfunded schools often find themselves assigned to teachers with a novice level of
experience in the subject matter; many having less than three years of teaching experience
(Ladson-Billings, 1994; Tate, 2005). Consequently, early intervention is needed to support
STEM education at major junctions within K-12 education.
As the vast majority of underrepresented students ―lose interest in and develop negative
attitudes towards science by the time they complete middle school‖ (Barton, 2002, pp. 1-2)
and ―aspirations of females and underrepresented students for STEM careers are limited by
their low levels of academic preparation at an early time point in school‖ (Riegle-Crumb,
Moore, & Ramos-Wada, 2010), policy makers, school leaders and teachers are challenged
with the task of implementing CLRT in the earliest possible stages within the K-12
educational system. Nestor-Baker and Kerka (2009) noted several challenges for
underrepresented CLD students, including self-defeating behaviors, low confidence levels
and the belief that others understand materials better than themselves. Encouragement from
teachers requires no additional resources and recognizing these beliefs and assisting CLD
students in creating their own counter narratives regarding their current abilities in math and
sciences.
Family/Parental Involvement and Community Partnerships
Parental and family involvement is often examined when considering student
achievement (or lack thereof). Some educators attribute academic success to the level of
involvement by parents and families within the learning process. Unfortunately, when
considering shortfalls in student academic achievement, there is often a deficit perspective
suggesting that lack of academic achievement is rooted in lack of support, lack of ability or
family dysfunction (Garcia & Guerra, 2004; Valencia, 1997). While challengeable, this
deficit model presents an opportunity to examine the family support structure within the
context of underrepresented students‘ achievement in STEM-focused instruction.
It is impossible to comprehensively discuss disparities within racial and ethnic
demographics without considering the intersection of socioeconomic differences. The issue of
CLD student achievement has these intricately interwoven within its complexities. Many
CLD students often advance in households representing lower socioeconomic classes.
Further, parents often have little education beyond high school, and have environments that
lack the technological resources that advance learning (Weiher & Tedin, 2006). It should be
noted that children with one or more parents working in STEM fields are more likely to enter
Infusing Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Instruction ... 127
a STEM major in college. Yet, the percentages of African American, Latino, and Native
American students with one or more parents in STEM fields are much lower than Asian and
White children (Chute, 2009). In fact, the number of African American, Latino, and Native
American children having a parent with a bachelor‘s degree or higher are among the lowest.
For example, the percentage for African American children is only 20% compared to Asian,
59%, and White, 44% (NCES, 2012). Given these grim statistics, a prodigious challenge
constantly looms to identifying viable support systems for these groups of students.
The visibility of math and science teachers of color has proven to be an important factor
in encouraging CLD children to pursue STEM programs (Griffin, Perez, Holmes, & Mayo,
2010). As CLD students observe professionals in these fields who represent their own or
similar racial or ethnic identity, the ability to visualize themselves as a contributing
professional within STEM fields becomes more of their reality. The presence of these
professionals serves a dual function of countering negative stereotypes and presenting a
consortium of role models which can encourage entry into STEM fields. However, Gandara
and Maxwell-Jolly (1999) exposed a very different reality, noting the impact of the disparate
representation of teachers with these racial and ethnic identities. Moreover, the National
Science Foundation (2012) noted an extremely low number of African American and Latino
math and science teachers in relation to their White counterparts. The need for more CLD
teachers within mathematics and the sciences in K-12 educational settings is an apparent
concern that needs to be fully explored by educational leaders and policy makers.
Nevertheless, for teachers who are diverse from their overall student population, there is
the opportunity to present meaningful experiences for students interested in STEM-focused
subject matter or programs. Seeking partnerships outside of the school setting provides
opportunities to identify professionals within STEM fields who are able and willing to build
partnerships that expose CLD students to those in the field who represent the same or similar
racial and ethnic demographics. Further, the development of after school support programs or
the identification of partnerships with institutions of higher education to explore strategies to
create inclusive and supportive learning environments within mathematics and science
education serve as methods to support academic achievement of CLD students focused on
STEM fields.
Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Teaching in Action
As mathematics and science have been identified as the gatekeepers to STEM programs,
it should be beneficial to explore CLRT within the confines of these two fields, specifically
within K-12 educational settings. Before either of the subjects can be effectively explored
through culturally responsiveness, educators have the responsibility of deconstructing beliefs
that these are subjective, culturally-neutral topics with absolute, universal truths. The
overarching goal of CLRT is to engage all students to participate in active learning through
the lens of their own realities and experiences. CLRT does not replace, but enhances,
traditional pedagogies.
Building on Ladson-Billings‘ (1994) conception of culturally relevant pedagogy, Barton
(2003) noted that culturally responsiveness requires that a curriculum (a) allows multiple
points of entry, (b) allows for thinking about structures through one‘s own identity and frame
of reference, and (c) allows the development of identities and relationships centered on a
128 Cheryl A. Utley, Satasha L. Green and Kimberly M. Edwards
desire for change. Thus, educators are encouraged to allow for objective dialog which is
clearly centered within students‘ understandings and experiences as defined by their
respective cultural identities.
In practice, Barton (2002) noted the engagement of her students in science through the
exploration of multiple points of entry by allowing for the exploration of their own interests.
She noted, ―engaging in a practice of science involved many different values, experiences,
practices, and people, all of which went into making science a viable place for the children to
transform their lives and the science they do‖ (p. 163). Therefore, even through the
exploration of science through the individual lenses of her students, she still maintained high
expectations within the learning process and did not alter the goals of traditional learning
processes.
Tate (2005) provided an example of how culture and the need for shared meanings and
frames of reference impact students understanding of mathematics. He noted an observation
of a student teacher presenting a mathematical equation using pumpkin pies. Within the
observation, although the White students in the class were involved, there was a disengaged
African American student. In questioning the student teacher, the student teacher confessed to
having an aversion to math. Tate noted that the consideration of cultural differences should
have been a consideration, specifically that many African Americans prepare sweet potato
pies versus pumpkin pies. Through this scenario, not only did the student teacher formulate an
assessment through a lens of ethnocentricity, but overlooked the opportunity to involve the
student in the learning process.
Table 1. Reflection of Questions for Implementation of CLRT Practices
Who is learning math/science in my classroom Am I open to divergent thinking and
and who is not, and why? problem processing style?
What is my expectation for each of my students Do I look to understand students‘
in mathematics/science learning? strategies and logic when they engage in
problem solving?
How am I scaffolding instruction for student How caring and supportive is the learning
mathematics/science learning? context I foster?
Do I use word problems that are familiar to my How did each of my students do today?
students?
What social and community issues am I How was I responsive to each of my
integrating into mathematics/science curriculum students today?
and instruction?
For educators to address the needs of students in science and mathematics, they must be
―engage[ed]…in experiences that are grounded in an understanding of science and in the
theoretical framework of how learners construct meaningful knowledge‖ (Dana, Campbell, &
Lunetta, 1997). Adopted from Ukopokodu‘s (2011) study of cultural responsiveness within
mathematics education, it is suggested that teachers engage in self-critique of the
implementation of CLRT practices through the reflection of the following questions (see
Table 1).
While very important, CLRT practices correspondingly require educators to conclude
each instance of instruction with a critical level of self-reflection. Reflection, reassessment
Infusing Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Instruction ... 129
and constant, consistent implementation of CLRT practices creates learning environments
conducive for learning, not just for CLD students, but for all students in an equitable manner.
CONCLUSION
Despite the various levels of noted progress in recent years, preparation of
underrepresented racial and ethnic groups remains an issue within STEM education,
especially at the K-12 level. Although the National Science Foundation noted a rise of the
attainment of degrees in science by these groups, a close look reveals that these gains have
been in concentrations that fall outside of the physical sciences and engineering, specifically
in psychology, social sciences and computer sciences (NSF, 2012). Underrepresented groups
in the fields of engineering and physical science have not increased and participation in
mathematics has decreased for this population (NSF, 2012).
These assertions brand the charge of increasing the success of CLD students in STEM as
essential within our national education system. Not only is meeting this charge one of
promoting and advancing economic development, it is one of social responsibility and
cultural consciousness. Through the use of CLRT in STEM education, educators fashion a
conduit for significantly influencing the success of CLD students in STEM fields. CLRT is a
multidimensional process that not only addresses the design and implementation of culturally
responsive curricula and pedagogy, but empowers students to learn through the lens
developed within their own cultures and experiences (Gay, 2000). This level of commitment
can only be accomplished through the development of habits and mindsets that support the
implementation of culturally and linguistically responsiveness within STEM curricula.
REFERENCES
Anderson, M., Beard, K. Delgado, B., Kea. C. D., Raymond, E.B., Singh, N. N., Sugai, G.,
Townsend, .B. L., Voltz, D., & Web-Johnson, G. (2003). Excerpts from working with
culturally and linguistically diverse children, youth, and their families: Promising
practices in assessment, instruction, and personnel. Beyond Behavior, 12(2), 12-16.
Anderson, E., & Kim, D. (2006). Increasing the success of minority students in science and
technology. Fourth in a series: The unfinished agenda: Ensuring success for students of
color. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Averill, R. (2012). Reflecting heritage cultures in mathematics learning: The views of
teachers and students. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education,5( 2), 157–181.
Averill, R., Anderson, D., Easton, H., Te Maro, P., Smith, D., & Hynds, A. (2009). Culturally
responsive teaching: Three models from linked studies. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 40, 157–186.
Barton, A. C. (2002). Urban science education studies: A commitment to equity, social
justice, and a sense of place. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 1-37.
Brown, R., & Campbell, M. D. (2008). Recent trends in preparing ethnic minorities for
careers in mathematics and science. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 8, 225–241.
130 Cheryl A. Utley, Satasha L. Green and Kimberly M. Edwards
Carey, K. (2004). The real value of teachers: Using new information about teacher
effectiveness to close the achievement gap. Thinking K-16, 81-41.
Chubb, J. E., & Loveless, T. (2002). Bridging the achievement gap. Retrieved from
http://www.brookings.edu/press/books/chapter_1/bridgingtheachievementgap.pdf.
Chute, E. (2009). Lack of diversity part of equation in STEM fields: Colleges try to increase
numbers of women, minorities in science and engineering. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Retrieved November 28, 2013 from http://www.post-azette.com/pg/09041/947952-
298.stm#ixzz0g1ceZiGK.
Community for Advancing Discovery Research in Education. (2011). Retrieved from
http://cadrek12.org/projects/community-advancing-discovery-research-education-cadre-0
Dana, M.T., Campbell, L.M., & Lunetta, V.N. (1997). Theoretical bases for reform of science
teacher education. The Elementary School Journal. 97(4), 419-432.
Dissecting the Data: The STEM Education Opportunity Gap in California Report. (2012).
Retrieved from http://www.lpfi.org/dissecting-data-stem-education-opportunity-gap-
california.
Flores, A. (2007). Examining the disparities in mathematics education: Achievement gap or
opportunity gap?. The High School Journal, 29-42.
Fogel, H. & Ehri, L. (2006). Teaching African American English forms to standard American
English-speaking teachers: Effects on acquisition, attitudes, and responses to student use,
Journal of Teacher Education, 57(5), 464-480.
Gandara, P., & Maxwell-Jolly, J. (1999). Priming the pump: Strategies for increasing
achievement of underrepresented minority graduates. New York: The College Board.
Garcia, S. B., & Guerra, P. L. (2004). Deconstructing deficit thinking: Working with
educators to create more equitable learning environments. Education and Urban Society,
36, 150-163.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education,
53 (2), 106-116.
Green, S.L. (2007). Preparing special educators to work with culturally and linguistically
diverse students. The Black History Bulletin, 70 (1), pp. 12-19.
Green, S.L. (2009) Motivating African American Learners in Reading: Using Culturally and
Linguistically Responsive Scientifically-based Reading Instruction. VDM Publishing
House: Germany.
Greer, B., Mukhopadhyay, S., Powell, A.B., & Nelson-Barber, S. (2009). Culturally
responsive mathematics education. New York: Routledge.
Griffin, K. A., Perez, D., Holmes, A.P.E., & Mayo, C.E.P. (2010). Investing in the future:
The importance of faculty mentoring in the development of students of color in STEM.
New Directions for Institutional Research, 148, 95- 103.
Huang, F. L., & Moon, T. R. (2009). Is experience the best teacher? A multilevel analysis if
teacher characteristics and student achievement in low performing schools. Educational
Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(3), 209-234.
Irvine, J. J. (2002). In search of wholeness: African American teachers and their culturally
specific classroom practices. New York: Palgrave.
Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America.
New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.
Infusing Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Instruction ... 131
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teaching for African-American
students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to Canaan: The journey of new teachers in diverse
classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lane, L. S. B. (2006). Black in the red zone: A study of disproportionate suspension of
African American males. Dissertations Abstracts International, 68(1), 55.
Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teaching sorting and the plight of urban
schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, (24)1, 37-
62.
LeCompte, K. N., & McCray, A.D. (2002). Complex conversations with teacher candidates:
Perspectives of Whiteness and culturally responsive teaching. Curriculum and Teaching
Dialogue, 4(1), 25-35.
Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the progress toward
equity? Educational Researcher, 31(1), 3-12.
Level Playing Field Institute. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.lpfi.org/
Lubienski, S. T., & Bowen, A. (2000). Who‘s counting? A survey of mathematics education
research 1982-1998. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(5), 626-633.
Margolis, J., Estrella, R., Goode, J., Holme, J., & Nao, K., (2008). Stuck in the shallow end:
Education, race and computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McIntyre, A. (1997). Making meaning of Whiteness. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Montgomery, W. (2001). Creating culturally responsive, inclusive classrooms. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 33(4), 4-9.
Museus, S. D., Palmer, R. T., Davis, R. J., & Maramba, D.C. (2011). Racial and ethnic
minority students' success in STEM education. ASHE Higher Education Report, 36(6).
National Assessment of Education Progress (2011). Washington, DC: US Department of
Education.
The National Academies. (2011). Expanding underrepresented minority participation:
America’s science and technology talent at the crossroads. The National Academies
Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12984.
National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems. (2004). Culturally
responsive pedagogy and practice. Retrieved from http://www.nccrest.org/professional/
culturally_responsive_pedagogy-and.html.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2012). Higher Education: Gaps in access and
persistence study (NCES 2012-046). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/
pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012046.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2012). Closing the opportunity gap in
mathematics education: A position of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Retrieved from http://www.nctm. org/uploadedFiles/AboutNCTM/Position_ Statements/
Opportunity%20Gap.pdf.
National Education Association of the United States & National Association of School
Psychologists. (2007). Truth in labeling: Disproportionality in special education.
Washington, DC: NEA Professional Library.
National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. (2012). Women,
minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering (Special Report NSF
11-309). Arlington, VA. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/sex.
132 Cheryl A. Utley, Satasha L. Green and Kimberly M. Edwards
Nestor-Baker, N., & S. Kerka. (2009). Recruitment and retention of underrepresented
students in STEM fields. The Ohio State University: Columbus.
Obiakor, F.E. (2007). Multicultural Special Education: Effective Intervention for Today's
Schools. Intervention in School and Clinic, 42(3), 148-155.
Perry, T., Steele, C., & Hilliard, A., (2003). Young gifted and black: Promoting high
achievement among African-American students. Boston: Beacon Press.
Piana, L.D. (2000). Still separate. Still unequal: 46 years after Brown v. Board of Education
(Fact-sheet on Educational Inequality). Oakland, CA: Applied Research Center.
Relevant Strategies. (2011). Bias and sensitivity review of the Common Core State Standards
in English language arts and mathematics: Implementation recommendations report.
Washington State: Author.
Riegle-Crumb, C., Moore, C., & Ramos-Wada, A. (2010). Who wants to have a career in
science or math? Exploring adolescents‘ future aspirations by gender and race/ethnicity.
Science Education, 95(3), 458-476.
Rueda, R., Monzo, L., & Higareda, I. (2004). Appropriating the sociocultural resources of
Latino. Paraeducators for effective instruction with Latino students: Promise and
problems. Urban Education, 39(1), 52-90.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2002). Making mathematics work for all children: Issues of standards,
testing, and equity. Educational Researcher, 31(1), 13-25.
Schott Foundation. (2009). Lost opportunity: A 50 state report on the opportunity to learn on
America. Retrieved from http://www.otlstatereport.org/50_state_report_national_
summary.pdf
Shujaa, M. (1995). Cultural self meets cultural other in the African-American experience:
Teachers' responses to a curriculum content reform. Theory into Practice, 34 (3), 194-
201.
Singleton, D. M., Livingston, J., Hines, D., & Jones, H. (2008). Underrepresentation of
African American students in gifted education programs: Implications of the
identification process. African American research Perspectives, 1(12), 11.
Tate, W. (2001). Science education as a civil right: Urban schools and opportunity-to-learn
considerations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 1015-1028.
Tate, W. F. (2005). Race, retrenchment, and the reform of school mathematics. In E. Gustein
& B. Peterson (Eds.), Rethinking mathematics: Teaching for social justice by the
numbers (pp. 31-40). Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools Publication.
The College Board. (1999). Reaching the top a report of the national task force on minority
high achievement. New York: The College Board.
Tsiplakides, T., & Keramida, A. (2010). The relationship between teacher expectations and
student achievement in the teaching of English as a foreign language. English Teaching,
3(2), 22-26.
Turnbull, A., Turnbull, R., Wehmeyer, M., & Shogren, K. (2010). Exceptional lives: Special
education in today’s schools (6th ed.). Columbus, OH: Pearson.
Ukpokodu, O. N. (2011). How do I teach mathematics in a culturally responsive way?
Identifying empowering teaching practices. Multicultural Education, 18(3), 47-56.
United States Census Bureau. (2000). Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/
main/www/cen2000.html.
Valencia, R. (1997). Conceptualizing the notion of deficit thinking. In R. Valencia (Ed.), The
evolution of deficit thinking (pp. 1-12). London, England: Palmer Press.
Infusing Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Instruction ... 133
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: A coherent
approach. New York: State University of New York Press.
Webb-Johnson, G. C. (1999). Cultural contexts: Confronting the overrepresentation of
African American learners in special education. In L. Meyer & J. Scotti (Eds.).
Behavioral intervention: Principles, models, and practices. (pp. 449-464). Baltimore,
MD: Brookline Publishers.
Weiher, G. R., & Tedin, K. L. (2006). Minority student achievement. The Review of Policy
Research, 23(5), 5. Retrieved November 30, 2013, from Global Issues In Context via
Gale:http://find.galegroup.com.ezproxy.com/gic/start.do?prodId=GIC.
In: STEM Education ISBN: 978-1-62808-514-3
Editor: Satasha L. Green © 2014 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 9
USING STEM CONCEPTS AND APPLICATIONS
TO ASSESS K-12 STUDENT LEARNING
Carolyn Coil, Ed.D
Pieces of Learning
ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses many ways to assess student learning of STEM concepts and
disciplines. It shows assessment for learning as well as assessment of learning. Topics
include pre-assessment, formative assessment, and summative assessment. The main
focus of this chapter is how to develop assessment criteria for student projects, products,
and performances. Readers will learn how to design and use quality authentic
assessments such as criteria cards, complex rubrics, and mini-rubrics. Throughout this
chapter the reader will see examples of STEM activities with their corresponding
assessments. From these examples, readers will know and understand how to develop a
wide variety of STEM assessments to meet their needs. Currently, there are no specific
STEM standards; however, many of the Common Core State Standards can be used
within the context of STEM. For this reason, the examples in this chapter use the
Common Core State Standards as the basis for assessment.
INTRODUCTION
STEM, the integration of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, is a new
offering in many schools throughout the United States. These subjects are generally
integrated in such a way that they are taught with an interdisciplinary focus rather than
separately by subject area. STEM education gives students the opportunity to make sense of
the world as a whole rather than learn about it through isolated topics and disciplines. STEM
requires that we assess higher-order thinking and learning as well as students‘ abilities in
problem solving and teamwork.
Email: [email protected].
136 Carolyn Coil
To have powerful and meaningful assessment, we should not simply assess rote
memorization of formulas, algorithms, or scientific vocabulary. If we do only this, our
assessment of STEM subjects and topics will be severely lacking.
Because standards in U. S. schools tend to be isolated by subject area rather than
integrated across disciplines, at present there are no unified or combined STEM standards.
However, many of the Common Core State Standards that have been adopted by most states
have multiple applications to STEM subjects and activities. This is particularly true when
such activities are project-based and require authentic performance assessments. Furthermore,
quality assessments can be used to connect the expectations and learning goals of each STEM
subject into a more cohesive whole.
This chapter examines the various meanings of and approaches to assessment with
particular emphasis on using rubrics, criteria cards, and other types of authentic assessments
within the context of STEM subjects and topics. Because quality assessments generally focus
on targeted learning objectives and standards, the examples will show the use of the Common
Core State Standards in the assessment process.
ASSESSMENT: WHAT IS IT AND WHY DO WE DO IT?
Assessment is any method by which we gather data or find out information about
something. Through assessment we may measure, evaluate, or test something, or we may
discover information in more informal ways (Coil & Merritt, 2011).
There needs to be a purpose beyond giving a grade or score when we assess student
work. The method of assessment must match the purpose. Any type of assessment results
should yield usable data, and these must be communicated to the students, their parents, and
other stakeholders.
We assess students for many different reasons. We assess in order to (a) direct and plan
instruction, (b) show how well students are mastering standards and attaining educational
benchmarks and objectives, (c) evaluate student work, and (d) report their progress. Whatever
the purpose, all assessment should emphasize challenge and growth. Assessment should
reflect a student‘s individual growth and improvement and provide a means to target what
each student can and cannot do. All students should aim for the goal of learning new things
and adding to what they already know. Assessment should reflect these goals and promote the
value of reaching toward higher goals and new challenges rather than avoiding more difficult
and rigorous work.
To accomplish these goals in STEM subjects and topics, assessment may include open-
ended tasks where students can demonstrate their knowledge and show higher levels of
thinking in applying this knowledge to new problems or situations. It also means assessing
students‘ products and performances in different ways, using rubrics, checklists, learning
logs, self- assessment, and observations, instead of one standardized assessment tool.
A simple checklist may be all that is needed for some STEM products and performances.
Other assessments may be kept in a portfolio or log book in order to show growth and effort
over time. Teachers can use more complex rubrics that list specific criteria and define levels
of competence and excellence.
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