Exploring teacher development courses in the lens of integrated STEM education: A holistic multiple case study

Year 2022, , 476 - 491, 20.09.2022

Filiz Mumcu , Nilüfer Atman Uslu , Fatih Özdinç , Bahadır Yıldız

https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.1035464

Abstract

Integrated STEM education is essential to ensure a more fair representation of disciplines. Failure to do so may result in incomplete learning about other disciplines under the name of STEM education. The implications on how TDCs should be designed for integrated STEM education are essential for in-class STEM education practices. This study compares the three teacher development courses (TDCs) accomplished to support teachers' professional development (PD) for integrated STEM education in terms of pedagogical knowledge, technological knowledge, and strategy. A holistic multiple-case study design was used in this study. Each TDC was considered a case study, and case-specific analyses were made. The findings obtained for each case were then compared. The first TDC included only computer science teachers and showed us the necessity of interdisciplinary work to enhance integrated STEM education. The second TDC showed that this work could be done by integrating the content knowledge of teachers from different disciplines, but the disadvantages of the second TDC were identifying real-world problems, the lack of response to the engineering approach for science and mathematics teachers, and the rigidity of the collaborative working strategy. In the third TDC, we used the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a resource to identify a real-world problem. Then, we focused on the role and purpose of "T"echnology. Finally, we gave the teachers learning tasks to work collaboratively with teachers in their disciplines first and teachers from other disciplines later. This study shows how a TDC should be designed effectively to support teachers' PD for integrated STEM education.

Keywords

Teacher development, Integrated STEM, Professional development, STEM teachers, Collaborative professional development

Project Number

This study was supported by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) with the number 118B147 in 2018, 218B542 in 2019 and 119B125 in 2020.

References

• An, S. A. (2017). Preservice teachers’ knowledge of interdisciplinary pedagogy: The case of elementary mathematics–science integrated lessons. ZDM, 49(2), 237-248.
• Asghar, A., Ellington, R., Rice, E., Johnson, F., & Prime, G. M. (2012). Supporting STEM education in secondary science contexts. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 6(2), 4.
• Baker, C. K., & Galanti, T. M. (2017). Integrating STEM in elementary classrooms using model-eliciting activities: responsive professional development for mathematics coaches and teachers. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 1-15.
• Balgopal, M. M. (2020). STEM teacher agency: A case study of initiating and implementing curricular reform. Science Education, 104(4), 762-785.
• Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: what is Involved and what is the role of the computer science education community?. Acm Inroads, 2(1), 48-54.
• Becker, K. and 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.
• Brown, R. E., & Bogiages, C. A. (2019). Professional development through STEM integration: How early career math and science teachers respond to experiencing integrated STEM tasks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(1), 111-128.
• Bybee, R.W. (2009). The BSCS 5E Instructional model and 21st Century skills. BSCS.
• Cheng, L., Antonenko, P. D., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., Miller, D., MacFadden, B. J., ... & Ziegler, M. (2020). Exploring the influence of teachers' beliefs and 3D printing integrated STEM instruction on students’ STEM motivation. Computers & Education, 158, 103983.
• English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM education, 3(1), 1-8.
• Eroğlu, S., & Bektaş, O. (2016). STEM eğitimi almış fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin STEM temelli ders etkinlikleri hakkındaki görüşleri. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 4(3), 43-67.
• Estapa, A. T., & Tank, K. M. (2017). Supporting integrated STEM in the elementary classroom: a professional development approach centered on an engineering design challenge. International Journal of STEM education, 4(1), 1-16.
• Falloon, G., Hatzigianni, M., Bower, M., Forbes, A., & Stevenson, M. (2020). Understanding K-12 STEM education: a framework for developing STEM literacy. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1-17.
• Günbatar, S. A., & Tabar, V. (2019). Türkiye’de gerçekleştirilen STEM araştırmalarının içerik analizi. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(1), 1054-1083.
• Gürkan, B. (2019). Examination of Secondary School Teachers' Opinions Regarding Interdisciplinary Teaching. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 9(1), 91-124.
• Hamilton, M., O’Dwyer, A., Leavy, A., Hourigan, M., Carroll, C., & Corry, E. (2021). A case study exploring primary teachers’ experiences of a STEM education school-university partnership. Teachers and Teaching, 1-15.
• Herro, D., & Quigley, C. (2017). Exploring teachers’ perceptions of STEAM teaching through professional development: implications for teacher educators. Professional Development in Education, 43(3), 416-438.
• Hudley, A. H. C., & Mallinson, C. (2017). “It’s worth our time”: A model of culturally and linguistically supportive professional development for K-12 STEM educators. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12(3), 637-660.
• Johnson, C. C. (2013). Conceptualizing integrated STEM education. School Science and Mathematics, 113(8), 367–368.
• Kelley, T. R., Knowles, J. G., Holland, J. D., & Han, J. (2020). Increasing high school teachers self-efficacy for integrated STEM instruction through a collaborative community of practice. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 1-13.
• Ketelhut, D. J., Mills, K., Hestness, E., Cabrera, L., Plane, J., & McGinnis, J. R. (2020). Teacher change following a professional development experience in integrating computational thinking into elementary science. Journal of science education and technology, 29(1), 174-188.
• Kurup, P. M., Li, X., Powell, G., & Brown, M. (2019). Building future primary teachers' capacity in STEM: based on a platform of beliefs, understandings and intentions. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1-14.
• Lehman, J., Kim, W., & Harris, C. (2014). Collaborations in a community of practice working to integrate engineering design in elementary science education. Journal of STEM Education, 15(3).
• Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y., & Froyd, J. E. (2020a). Research and trends in STEM education: A systematic review of journal publications. International Journal of STEM Education, 7:11, 1-16.
• Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y., Froyd, J. E., & Nite, S. B. (2020b). Research and trends in STEM education: A systematic analysis of publicly funded projects. International Journal of STEM Education, 7:17, 1-17.
• Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: a systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1-16.
• Martín‐Páez, T., Aguilera, D., Perales‐Palacios, F. J., & Vílchez‐González, J. M. (2019). What are we talking about when we talk about STEM education? A review of literature. Science Education, 103(4), 799-822.
• Morrison, J., Frost, J., Gotch, C., McDuffie, A. R., Austin, B., & French, B. (2020). Teachers’ Role in Students’ Learning at a Project-Based STEM High School: Implications for Teacher Education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1-21.
• Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013). Teacher STEM perception and preparation: Inquiry-based STEM professional development for elementary teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(2), 157-168.
• Newhouse, C. P. (2017). STEM the boredom: Engage students in the Australian curriculum using ICT with problem-based learning and assessment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(1), 44-57.
• Ortiz-Revilla, J., Adúriz-Bravo, A., & Greca, I. M. (2020). A framework for epistemological discussion on integrated STEM education. Science & Education, 29, 857-880.
• Ryu, M., Mentzer, N., & Knobloch, N. (2019). Preservice teachers’ experiences of STEM integration: Challenges and implications for integrated STEM teacher preparation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(3), 493-512.
• Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.
• Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J. S., Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Clark, D. (2013). Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies, 18(2), 351-380.
• Sevinç, Ş. (2019). Matematiksel Modelleme Nedir?. In Disiplinlerarası Eğitim Örnekleri: Disiplinlerarası Öğretmen Akademisi Etkinlikleri. Mumcu, F., Uslu, N.A., Yıldız, B., Şerife, Ş., & Kaya, G. (Ed.). ISBN: 978-605-031-312-3.
• Shernoff, D. J., Sinha, S., Bressler, D. M., & Ginsburg, L. (2017). Assessing teacher education and professional development needs for the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 1-16.
• Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142-158.
• Song, M. (2020). Integrated STEM teaching competencies and performances as perceived by secondary teachers in South Korea. International Journal of Comparative Education and Development, 22(2), 131-146.
• Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 2(1), 4.
• Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., ... & Depaepe, F. (2018). Integrated STEM education: A systematic review of instructional practices in secondary education. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 2.
• Thibaut, L., Knipprath, H., Dehaene, W., & Depaepe, F. (2019). Teachers’ attitudes toward teaching integrated STEM: The impact of personal background characteristics and school context. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(5), 987-1007.
• Vossen, T. E., Tigelaar, E. H., Henze, I., De Vries, M. J., & Van Driel, J. H. (2020). Student and teacher perceptions of the functions of research in the context of a design-oriented STEM module. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30(4), 657-686.
• Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127-147.
• Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Zhou, D., Gomez, R., Wright, N., Rittenbruch, M., & Davis, J. (2020). A design-led conceptual framework for developing school integrated STEM programs: the Australian context. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 1-29.