Advertisement

Interpreting Integrated STEM: Sustaining Pedagogical Innovation Within a Public Middle School Context

  • Margery GardnerEmail author
  • John W. Tillotson
Article

Abstract

Integrated STEM education leverages interconnections between science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in order to reflect upon how each discipline operates within real world contexts. Students benefit from the integrated STEM approach because it values the real-life experiences of students along with the hands-on applications that mirror professional STEM work. Nevertheless, integrated STEM instruction remains ill-defined with many gaps evident in the existing research of how implementation explicitly works. The school setting central to this case study was a suburban public middle school that had sustained an integrated STEM program for a period of over 5 years. Through the use of phenomenological qualitative inquiry, we focused on both teachers’ and students’ experiences of participation in one integrated STEM model. Three major themes emerged as part of this inquiry. First, teachers engaged in continual reflection that along with district supports contributed to the durability of the model. Second, teachers and student engaged in dynamic learning transactions based on the particular task and concept covered. Third, science projects anchored learning opportunities deemed most successful by participants.

Keywords

STEM education Interdisciplinary instruction Secondary education Co-teaching 

Supplementary material

10763_2018_9927_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (49 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 48 kb)

References

  1. Anderson, C. W., Holland, J. D. & Palincsar, A. S. (1997). Canonical and sociocultural approaches to research and reform in science education: The story of Juan and his group. The Elementary School Journa l, 91(4), 359–383.Google Scholar
  2. Beane, J. (1991). The middle school: The natural home of integrated curriculum. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 9–13.Google Scholar
  3. Beane, J. A. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 616–622.Google Scholar
  4. Biesta, G. (2006). Beyond learning: Democratic education for a human future. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2010). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(1), 81–90.  https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009200119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. In J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, & R. R. Cocking (Eds.), Committee on learning research and educational practice (p. 385). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.  https://doi.org/10.17226/9853.Google Scholar
  7. Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70, 30–35.Google Scholar
  8. Contant, T. L., Bass, J. L., Tweed, A. A., & Carin, A. A. (2017). Teaching science through inquiry-based instruction. New York, NY: Pearson.Google Scholar
  9. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Fensham, P. J. (2009). Real world contexts in PISA science: Implications for context based science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 884–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ford, D. R. (2015). Pedagogy, social transformation, and space: Toward a revolutionary critical pedagogy for space (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest.Google Scholar
  12. Garza, G. (2011). Thematic collation: An illustrative analysis of the experience of regret. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 8(1), 40–65.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14780880903490839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guzey, S. S., Moore, T. J., & Morse G. (2016). Student interest in engineering design-based science. School Science and Mathematics, 116(8), 411–419.Google Scholar
  14. Heritage, M., & Heritage, J. (2013). Teacher questioning: The epicenter of instruction and assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 26(3), 176–190.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2013.793190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Herro, D. & Quigley, C. (2016). Exploring teachers’ perspectives of STEAM teaching: Implications for practice. Prof Dev Educ (under review).Google Scholar
  16. Keefe, B. (2009). The perception of STEM: Analysis, issues and future directions. Entertainment and Media Communication Institute, Division of Entertainment Industries Council, Inc. (EIC). Burbank, CA: EIC.Google Scholar
  17. Kozoll, R. H., & Osborne, M. D. (2004). Finding meaning in science: Lifeworld, identity, and self. Science Education, 88(2), 157–181.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lehesvuori, S., Viiri, J., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2011). Introducing dialogic teaching to science student teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(8), 705–727.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-011-9253-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  20. Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. National Research Council. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.  https://doi.org/10.17226/18612.Google Scholar
  22. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity—one’s own. Educational Researcher, 17(7), 17–21.Google Scholar
  24. Price, J. F., & McNeill, K. L. (2013). Toward a lived science curriculum in intersecting figured worlds: An exploration of individual meanings in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(5), 501–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rich, Y., & Almozlino, M. (1999). Educational goal preferences among novice and veteran teachers of sciences and humanities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(6), 613–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rowan, B., Correnti, R. & Miller, R. J. (2002). What large-scale, survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the prospects study of elementary schools (CPRE Research Report Series RR-051). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.Google Scholar
  27. Venville, G. J., Wallace, J., Rennie, L. J., & Malone, J. A. (2002). Curriculum integration: Eroding the high ground of science as a school subject? Studies in Science Education, 37, 43–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wang, H. H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 1(2), 2–13.  https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314636.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Colgate UniversityHamiltonUSA
  2. 2.Syracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations