Journal Menu
Submit Manuscript via ScholarOne

EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education
Volume 13, Issue 6 (June 2017), pp. 2459-2484

DOI: 10.12973/eurasia.2017.01235a

Downloaded 527 times.

Research Article

Published online on May 24, 2017

How to reference this article?

 

Context of STEM Integration in Schools: Views from In-service Science Teachers

Heba EL-Deghaidy, Nasser Mansour, Mohammad Alzaghibi & Khalid Alhammad

Abstract

This study explores science teachers' views regarding Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) pedagogy and its interdisciplinary nature. It also seeks to identify teachers' views on the contextual factors that facilitate and hinder such pedagogy in their schools. Qualitative methodologies were used through focus group discussions and an interview protocol. From the specific contextual issues that were highlighted in the findings, was teacher self-efficacy, pedagogical-knowledge, issues related to establishing a collaborative school culture and familiarity to STEM education among school administrators, students and parents. Findings expressed teachers' concerns of their under-preparedness to enact STEM practices and illustrated that engineering is the least mentioned discipline to be integrated with science. The study ends with recommendations that could lead to develop a professional development model to enact STEM education in schools based on valuing partnership with universities and industries as a necessary step for enacting a STEM integrated model.

Keywords: in-service teachers: interdisciplinary learning; science: STEM education


References
  1. Alahmad, N., & Alshehri, F. (2010). Teacher education in Saudi Arabia. In K. G. Karras & C. C. Wolhuter (Eds), International handbook on teacher education worldwide: Issues and challenges for teacher profession (pp. 419-445). Athens: Atrapos Editions.
  2. Atkinson, R. D., & Mayo, M. J. (2010). Refueling the US innovation economy: Fresh approaches to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Washington, DC: The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation.
  3. Baker-Doylea, K., & Yoonb, S. (2011). In search of practitioner-based social capital: A social network analysis tool for understanding and facilitating teacher collaboration in a US-based STEM professional development program. Professional Development in Education, 37(1), 75–93.
  4. Basham, J. D., Israel, M., & Maynard, K. (2010). An ecological model of STEM education: Operationalizing STEM for all. Journal of Special Education Technology, 25(3), 9-19.
  5. Beane, J. (1996). On the shoulders of giants! The case for curriculum integration. Middle School Journal, 25, 6–11.
  6. Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM education: Innovations and research, 12(5/6), 23.
  7. Biasutti, M., & EL-Deghaidy, H. (2012).  Using Wiki in teacher education: Impact on knowledge management processes and student satisfaction. Computers & Education 59(3), 861–872. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.009 
  8. Biasutti, M., & EL-Deghaidy, H. (2014). Interdisciplinary project-based learning: An online wiki experience in teacher education. Technology Pedagogy and Education, 24(3), 1-17. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2014.899510
  9. Boix Mansilla, V., Miller, W. C., & Gardner, H. (2000). On disciplinary lenses and interdisciplinary work. In S. Wineburg & P. Grossman (Eds.), Interdisciplinary curriculum: Challenges of implementation. New York: Teachers College Press.
  10. Breiner, J. M., Johnson, C. C., Harkness, S., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What Is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science & Mathematics, 112(1), 3–11. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x
  11. Brown, R., Brown, J., Reardon, K. & Merrill, C. (2011). Understanding STEM: Current perceptions. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(6), 5–9. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2011-090606.55
  12. Bruce-Davis, M. N., Gubbins, E.J., Gilson, C. M., Villanueva, M., Foreman, J. L, & Rubenstein, L. D. (2014). STEM high school administrators’, teachers’, and students’ perceptions of curricular and instructional strategies and practices. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(3), 272-306.
  13. Bybee, R. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, Virginia: National Science Teachers Association Press.
  14. Casey, B. (2012). STEM education: Preparing for the jobs of the future. Report by the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee. Retrieved from: http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=6aaa7e1f-9586-47be-82e7-326f47658320
  15. Chiu, A., Price, C. A. & Ovrahim, E. (2015). Supporting elementary and middle school stem education at the whole school level: A review of the literature. Paper presented at NARST 2015 Annual Conference April 11-14 2015, Chicago, IL.
  16. Consortium of National Arts Education Associations. (2002). Authentic connections: Interdisciplinary work in the arts. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Retrieved from: http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/culture/Arts_Education/Resource_Links/Authentic_Connections.pdf
  17. Corporate Planning and Policy Directorate. (2010). Women in science and engineering in Canada. Retrieved from: http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/Reports-Rapports/Women_Science_Engineering_e.pdf
  18. Cramptona, A., Ragusab, A., & Cavanagh, H. (Feb, 2012). Cross-discipline investigation of the relationship between academic performance and online resource access by distance education students. Research in Learning Technology, 20, ISSN 2156-7077. Available at: http://www.researchinlearningtechnology.net/index.php/rlt/article/view/14430
  19. Cunningham, W. G., & Cordeiro, P. A. (2006). Educational leadership: A problem-based approach (3rd ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.
  20. Czerniak, C. M., Weber, W. B., Sandmann, A., Ahern, J. (1999). A literature review of science and mathematics integration. School Science and Mathematics, 99(8), 421-430.
  21. Diefes-Dux, H. A. & Duncan, D. (2007, October). Adapting engineering is elementary professional development to encourage open-ended mathematical modeling. Paper presented to the Committee on K-12 Engineering Education, National Academy of Engineering, National Research Council, Workshop and Third Meeting, Oct. 22, 2007, Keck Center of the National Academies, Engineering Education in Grades K-5.
  22. EL-Deghaidy, H. (2006). An investigation of pre-service teacher’s self-efficacy and self-image as a science teacher in Egypt. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching· Retrieved from https://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/v7_issue2/heba/ 
  23. EL-Deghaidy, H., Mansour, N., & Al-Shamrani, S. (2015). Science teachers’ typology of CPD activities: A socio-constructivist perspective. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 13(6), 1539-1566. doi:10.1007/s10763-014-9560-y
  24. Erdogan, N, Navruz, B., Younes, R., & Capraro, R. (2016). Viewing how STEM projects-based learning influences students’ science achievement through the implementation lens: A latent growth modelling. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(8), 2139-2154. 
  25. Fulton, K., & Britton, T. (2011). STEM teachers in professional learning communities: From good teachers to great teaching. National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. Retrieved from http://nctaf.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/01/NCTAFreportSTEMTeachersinPLCsFromGoodTeacherstoGreatTeaching.pdf
  26. Han, S., Yalvac, B., Capraro, M., & Capraro, R. (2015).  In-service teachers’ implementation and understanding of STEM project based learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(1), 63-76.
  27. Harrell, P. (2010). Teaching an integrated science curriculum: Linking teacher knowledge and teaching assignments. Issues in Teacher Education, 19(1), 145-165.
  28. Harrison, M. (2011). Supporting the T and the E in STEM: 2004-2010. Design and Technology Education, 16(1), 17-25.
  29. Hayes, D. (1997). In-service Teacher Development: International Perspectives. Hemel Hampstead: Prentice Hall.
  30. Hernandez, P. R., Bodin, R., Elliott, J. W., Ibrahim, B., Rambo-Hernandez, K. E., Chen, T. W., & de Miranda, M. A. (2014). Connecting the STEM dots: Measuring the effect of an integrated engineering design intervention. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(1), 107-120.
  31. Johnson, H. & Cotterman, M. (2013). Collaborative efforts to put the ‘E’ back in STEM. NSTA Reports, 25(4), 3. Retrieved from: http://www.nsta.org/docs/NSTAReportsNov13EntireIssueFinal.pdf
  32. Johnson, S., Monk, M., & Swain, J. (2000). Constraints on development and change to science teachers’ practice in Egyptian classrooms. Journal of Education for Teaching, 26(1), 9-24.
  33. Jones, C. (2009). Interdisciplinary approach – advantages, disadvantages, and the future benefits of interdisciplinary studies. ESSAI: The College of DuPage Anthology of Academic Writing Across the Curriculum, 7, 26. Retrieved from http://dc.cod.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1121&context=essai
  34. Kier, M. & Blanchard, M. & Osborne, J. & Albert, J. (2014). The development of the STEM Career Interest Survey (STEM-CIS). Research in Science Education, 44, 461–481
  35. Knezek, G., Christensen, R., & Tyler-Wood, T. (2011). Contrasting perceptions of STEM content and careers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 11(1), 92-117.
  36. Koirala, H. P., & Bowman, J. K. (2003). Preparing middle level preservice teachers to integrated mathematics and science: Problems and possibilities. School Science and Mathematics 103(3), 145–154.
  37. Krashen, E. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
  38. Mansour, N. (2007). Challenges to STS education: Implications for science teacher education. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 27(6), 482-497. doi:10.1177/0270467607308286.
  39. Mansour, N. (2010). The impact of the knowledge and beliefs of Egyptian science teachers in integrating an STS based curriculum. Journal of Science Teacher Education 21(5), 513-534. doi:10.1007/s10972-010-9193-0.
  40. Mansour, N. (2013). Consistencies and inconsistencies between science teachers’ beliefs and practices. International Journal of Science Education, 35(7), 1230-1275. doi:10.1080/09500693.2012.743196
  41. Mansour, N., EL-Deghaidy, H., Al-Shamrani, S. & Aldahmash, A. (2014). Rethinking the theory and practice of continuing professional development: Science teachers' perspectives. Research in Science Education, 44 (6), 949–973.
  42. McComas, W. F. (2014). The language of science education: An expanded glossary of key terms and concepts in science teaching and learning. Rotterdam: Sense publishers.
  43. Meagher, L. (2016). Interdisciplinary integration: Whose responsibility? Paper presented at Interdisciplinary Learning and Teaching: Frameworks and Practice. University of Sheffield, UK. April 7th, 2016.
  44. Mikser, R., Reiska, P., Rohtla, K., & Dahnke, H. (2008). Paradigm shift for teachers: Interdisciplinary teaching. The need for a paradigm shift in science education for post-Soviet societies: Research and practice (Estonian Example. Bern: Peter Lang Publishing Group.
  45. Ministry of Education (MoE), (2014).  School Study Plans. Unpublished manuscripts. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Directorate of Curricula. (In Arabic)
  46. National Research Council (NRC), (2011). Successful K-12 STEM Education: Identifying Effective Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Committee on Highly Successful Science Programs for K-12 Science Education. Board on Science Education and Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  47. National Research Council (NRC), (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a conceptual framework for New K-12 science education standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  48. National Science Learning Centre White Paper (2013). The future of STEM education. National Science Learning Centre, University of York, York, 17 Jul 2013. Retrieved from: https://www.sciencelearningcentres.org.uk/media/filer_public/7f/d3/7fd32ef0-a746-452b-a681-8e5d15f5a1da/the_future_of_stem_education_-web.pdf.
  49. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), (2012). Education at a glance 2012: Highlights. OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/eag_highlights-2012-en
  50. Park, J. Y., & Mills, K.A.  (2014). Enhancing Interdisciplinary Learning with a Learning Management System. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 299-313.
  51. Park, J. Y., & Son, J. B. (2010). Transitioning toward transdisciplinary learning in a multidisciplinary environment. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 6(1), 82-93. doi:10.5172/ijpl.6.1.82
  52. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  53. Person Middle East (2014). T4EDU math and science teacher development programme expected to have positive impact on math and science education in Saudi Arabia. Retrieved from: http://www.pearsonmiddleeastawe.com/t4edu-math-and-science-teacher-development-programme-expected-to-have-positive-impact-on-math-and-science-education-in-saudi-arabia
  54. Roberts, G. (2002). Set for success: The supply of people with science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills. London: HM Treasury. Retrieved from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/d/robertsreview_introch1.pdf.
  55. Spelt, E. J. H., Biemans, H. J. A., Tobi, H., Luning, P. A., & Mulder, M. (2009). Teaching and learning in interdisciplinary higher education: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 365-378. doi:10.1007/s10648-009-9113-z
  56. Stohlmann, M., Moore, T., & Roehrig, G. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28–34. doi:10.5703/1288284314653
  57. Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1996). Changing our schools: Linking school effectiveness and school improvement. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  58. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2014). Arab knowledge report: Youth and localisation of knowledge. Dubai: Al Ghurair Printing and Publishing. Retrieved from: http://www.undp.org/content/dam/rbas/report/UNDP-GENERAL-REPORT ENG.pdf
  59. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), (2010). Annual Report 2010, UNESCO Office Jakarta. Retrieved from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001921/192108e.pdf
  60. van Langen, A., Rekers-Mombarg, L., & Dekkers, H., (2006). Sex-related differences in the determinants and process of science and mathematics choice in pre-university education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(1), 71-94.
  61. Vasquez, J., Comer, M., & Sneider, C. (2013). STEM lesson essentials, grades 3-8: Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
  62. Wang, H-H, Moore, T., Roehrig, G., & Park, M. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice, Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 1(2), 1-13. doi:10.5703/1288284314636
  63. Wang, H-H. (2012). A new era of science education: science teachers’ perceptions and classroom practices of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) integration. Unpublished Thesis. University of Minnesota.
  64. Williams, J. (2011). STEM education: Proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education, 16(1), 26-35.
  65. Yan, C. (2007). Teachers’ needs: An important factor for longer-term sustainability of cross-cultural inset programs. English Language Teacher Education and Development, 10, 9-18.