Professional Development Through STEM Integration: How Early Career Math and Science Teachers Respond to Experiencing Integrated STEM Tasks

  • Rachael Eriksen BrownEmail author
  • Christopher A. Bogiages


Teachers often struggle to utilize reform-based teaching strategies in their first few years of teaching for many reasons (Ball, Thames & Phelps, Journal of Teacher Education 59, 389–407, 2008; Berlin & White, International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 8, 97–115, 2010; Frykholm & Glasson, School Science and Mathematics 105, 127–141, 2005; Lederman & Lederman, Science Teacher Education 24, 1237–1240, 2013). An important part of teachers’ learning to implement these pedagogically ambitious strategies is for teachers to experience learning themselves through an immersive experience in the new strategy (Louks-Horsley, Stiles, Mundry, Love & Hewson, Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics, 2010). Building on this body of research and a host of recent national education standards documents, this paper explores the various dispositions early career high school science and math teachers from across the USA demonstrate when engaging together as learners in integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) tasks. Embedded within a multi-year professional development program, teachers were engaged in two integrated STEM tasks during two separate professional development experiences. Following the tasks, teachers responded to writing prompts asking them to reflect on their experience during the tasks. Analysis of the reflections about the integrated STEM tasks fell into two broad categories of dispositions: engager and observer. The data suggest various strategies for professional development providers who are interested in providing professional development focused on integrated STEM instruction.


Mathematics education Professional development Science education STEM integration 



The authors wish to thank our colleagues that supported this work, particularly Kim Masloski, and contributors to our thinking, particularly Maria Hernandez. We would also like to thank the teachers who push us to continue to grow as educators.


  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. AAAS. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching what makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banerjee, A. (2010). Teaching science using guided inquiry as the central theme: A professional development model for high school science teachers. Science Educator, 19(2), 1–9.Google Scholar
  4. Banilower, E. R., Gess-Newsome, J., & Tippins, D. (2014). Supporting the implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) through research: Professional development. Retrieved from
  5. Bell, R. L. (2004). Perusing pandora’s box: Exploring the what, when, and how of nature of science instruction. In L. Flick & N. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 427–446). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Berlin, D. F., & White, A. L. (2010). Preservice mathematics and science teachers in an integrated teacher preparation program for grades 7–12: A 3-year study of attitudes and perceptions related to integration. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(1), 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bossé, M. J., Lee, T. D., Swinson, M., & Faulconer, J. (2010). The NCTM process standards and the five Es of science: Connecting math and science. School Science and Mathematics, 110(5), 262–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frykholm, J., & Glasson, G. (2005). Connecting science and mathematics instruction: Pedagogical context knowledge for teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 105(3), 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Furner, J. M., & Kumar, D. D. (2007). The mathematics and science integration argument: A stand for teacher education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(3), 185–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guskey, T. R. (2003). Analyzing lists of the characteristics of effective professional development to promote visionary leadership. NASSP Bulletin, 87(637), 4–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hernandez, M. (2004). Pass the candy—An introduction to recursive equations. Paper presented at the Teaching Contemporary Mathematics Conference, Durham, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  13. Herschbach, D. R. (2011). The STEM initiative: Constraints and challenges. Journal of sTEm Teacher Education, 48(1), 96–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  15. Johnson, C. (2013). Conceptualizing integrated STEM education. School Science and Mathematics., 113(8), 367–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Koestler, C., Felton, M., Bieda, K., & Otten, S. (2013). Connecting the NCTM process standards & the CCSSM practices. Reston, VA: National Council of Teacher of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  17. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 831–879). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2013). Is it STEM or “S & M” that we truly love? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 1237–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Loukes-Horsley, S., Stiles, K., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. (2010). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  20. Mayes, R., & Koballa Jr., T. R. (2012). Exploring the science framework. Science and Children, 50(4), 8–15.Google Scholar
  21. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  22. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, D.C.: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers.Google Scholar
  23. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1980). An agenda for action: Recommendations for school mathematics of the 1980s. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  24. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  25. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  26. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  27. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  28. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  29. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  30. Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education., 25, 177–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  32. Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  33. Stage, E. K., Asturias, H., Cheuk, T., Daro, S., & Hampton, S. B. (2013). Opportunities and challenges in next generation science standards. Science, 340, 276–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stohlmann, M., Moore, T., & Roehrig, G. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stein, M. K., & Smith, M. S. (1998). Mathematical tasks as a framework for reflection: From research to practice. Mathematics teaching in the middle school, 3(4), 268–275.Google Scholar
  36. Steen, L. (1988). The science of patterns. Science, 240, 611–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Svoboda J., & Passmore, C. (2011, April). Models as epistemic anchors: A framework for model based instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  38. Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meanings. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  39. Tekkumru-Kisa, M., Stein, M. K., & Schunn, C. (2015). A framework for analyzing cognitive demand and content-practices integration: Task analysis guide in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(5), 659–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tsupros, N., Kohler, R., & Hallinen, J. (2009). STEM education: A project to identify the missing components. Pennsylvania: Intermediate Unit, 1 and Carnegie Mellon.Google Scholar
  41. Vasquez, J., Comer, M., & Sneider, C. (2013). STEM lesson essentials, grades 3–8: Integrating science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  42. Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173–209.Google Scholar
  43. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rachael Eriksen Brown
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christopher A. Bogiages
    • 2
  1. 1.Penn State University – AbingtonAbingtonUSA
  2. 2.College of EducationUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations