Supporting STEM Education in Secondary Science Contexts
Main Article Content
Abstract
Science education scholars emphasize the significance of an integrative, interdisciplinary STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education that encourages students to learn about the natural world through exploration, inquiry, and problem-solving experiences. This article reports on a professional development program aimed at improving a group of secondary science and mathematics teachers’ competence in using a problem-based approach in the teaching of STEM. Through surveys, qualitative interviews and focus groups, the study investigated the teachers’ understanding and perceptions of problem-based learning (PBL) as an approach to interdisciplinary STEM education as well as their perceptions of the personal and systemic challenges in implementing such an approach in their professional practice. This investigation offers insight into how university-based professional development programs can support secondary educators’ understanding of, and ability to use an interdisciplinary problem-based STEM approach in their schools and classrooms. The study concludes with implications for practice and a discussion of how future interdisciplinary professional development can be conceptualized.
Article Details
1. Publication and Promotion: In consideration of the Publisher’s agreement to publish the Work, Author hereby grants and assigns to Publisher the non-exclusive right to print, publish, reproduce, or distribute the Work throughout the world in all means of expression by any method now known or hereafter developed, including electronic format, and to market or sell the Work orany part of it as Publisher sees fit. Author further grants Publisher the right to use Author’s name in association with the Work inpublished form and in advertising and promotional materials
2. Copyright: Copyright of the Work remains in Author’s name.
3. Prior Publication and Attribution: Author agrees not to publish the Work in print form prior to publication of the Work by the Publisher. Author agrees to cite, by author, title, and publisher, the original Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning publication when publishing the Work elsewhere
4. Author Representations: The Author represents and warrants that the Work:
(a) is the Author’s original Work and that Author has full power to enter into this Agreement;
(b) does not infringe the copyright or property of another;
(c) contains no material which is obscene, libelous, defamatory or previously published, in whole or in part.
Author shall indemnify and hold Publisher harmless against loss of expenses arising from breach of any such warranties.
5. Licensing and Reuse: Reuse of the published Work will be governed by a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc/4.0/). This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon the Work non-commercially; although new works must acknowledge the original Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning publication and be non-commercial, they do not have to be licensed on the same terms.
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. NY: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy.
NY: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1996). Summary comparison of content between National Science Education Standards and Benchmarks for Science Literacy and Science for All Americans. Washington, DC: Author.
American Educational Research Association. (2004). Closing the gap: High achievement for students of color. Research Points, 2(3). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Anderson, J. (2007). Enriching the teaching of biology with mathematical concepts. The Ameri- can Biology Teacher, 69(4), 205-209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1662/0002-7685(2007)69[205:ET TOBW ]2.0.CO;2
Atkinson, R. D., Hugo, J., Lundgren, D., Shapiro, M. J., & Thomas, J. (2007).
Addressing the STEM challenge by expanding specialty math and science high schools. NC-SSMST Journal, 12, 14–23.
Barron, B. J., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., Bransford, J. D., & the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 271-311.
Barrows, H. S. (1994). Practice-based learning: Problem-based learning applied to medical education. Springfield, IL: Southern Illinois University School of Medicine.
Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 68, 3-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219966804
Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem based learning: An approach to medical education. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Basista, B., & Mathews, S. (2002). Integrated science and mathematics professional development programs. School Science and Mathematics, 102(7), 359-370. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb18219.x
Barnes, M. B., & Barnes, L. W. (2005). Using inquiry processes to investigate knowledge, skills, and perceptions of diverse learners: An approach to working with prospective and current science teachers. In A. J. Rodriguez & R. S. Kitchen (Eds.), Preparing mathematics and science teachers for diverse classrooms: Promising strategies for transformative pedagogy (pp. 61–86). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Berlin, D. F., & Lee, H. (2005). Integrating science and mathematics education: His- torical analysis. School Science and Mathematics, 105(1), 15-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2005.tb18032.x
Berlin, D. F., & White, A. L. (1998). Integrated science and mathematics education: Evolution and implications of a theoretical model. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), Kluwer international handbooks of education: Vol. 2. International handbook of science education (pp. 499-512). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Berry, R. Q., Reed, P. A., Ritz, J. M., Lin, C. Y., Hsiung, S., & Frazier, W. (2004). Stem initiatives: Stimulating students to improve science and mathematics achievement. The Technology Teacher, 64(4), 23-34.
Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Bottge, B. A., Heinrichs, M., Chan, S., & Serlin, R. C. (2001). Anchoring adolescents’ understanding of math concepts in rich problem-solving environments. Remedial and Special Education, 22(5), 299-314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/074193250102200505
Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (1991). The challenge of problem-based learning. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Capon, N., & Kuhn, D. (2004). What’s so good about problem-based learning? Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 61-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532690Xci2201_3
Cavanagh, S. (2006). Math, science academies favored to challenge top-tier students. Education Week, 26(14), 1.
Chen, P. H. (2007). A study of STEM integrated teaching applied in the field of physics in junior high school. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, Pingtung, Taiwan.
Cichon, D., & Ellis, J. G. (2003). The effects of MATH Connections on student achievement, confidence, and perception. In S.L. Senk & D.R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 345-374). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Clark, A. C., & Ernst, J. V. (2007). A model for the integration of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The Technology Teacher, 66(4), 24-26.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (1998). State policy and classroom performance: Mathematics reform in California (CPRE Policy Brief RB-23). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916-937. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1098- 2736(200011)37:9<916::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-2
Colliver, J. A. (2000). Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: Research and theory. Academic Medicine, 75(3), 259-266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200003000- 00017
Demski, J. (2009). STEM picks up speed. T.H.E. Journal, 36(1), 22-26.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development:
Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140
Dodds, R. (1997). An action research study of the effectiveness of problem-based learning in promoting the acquisition and retention of knowledge. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 423-37.
Duch, B. J., Groh, S. E., & Allen, D. E. (Eds.). (2001). The power of problem-based learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Ertmer, P., Glazewski, K., Jones, D., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Goktas, Y., Collins, K., & Kocaman, A. (2009). Facilitating technology-enhanced problem-based learning (PBL) in the middle school classroom: An examination of how and why teachers adapt. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 20 (1), 35-54.
Ertmer, P. A., Simons, K. D., Jones, D., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Goktas, Y., Collins, K., & Kocaman, A. (2007). Facilitating problem-based learning (PBL) in the middle school classroom: An examination of how and why teachers adapt. Paper presented at AECT Conference. Retrieved March 11, 2009 from http://www.edci.purdue.edu/ertmer/docs/AECT07_PBL-Challenges.pdf
Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). Science and math for all?. School Science and Mathematics, 102(1), 1-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb18190.x
Frykholm, J., & Glasson, G. (2005). Connecting science and mathematics instruction: Pedagogical context knowledge for teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 105(3), 127-141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2005.tb18047.x
Gallagher, S. A., Sher, B. T., Stepien, W. J., & Workman, D. (1995). Implementing problem-based learning in science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 95(3), 136-146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1995.tb15748.x
Gallagher, S. (1992). Middle school predictors of science persistence. Paper presented at the International symposium for Public Understanding of Science and Technology, and Science and Mathematics Education of Youth, Tokyo, Japan.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004915
Goodnough, K., & Cashion, M. (2006). Exploring problem-based learning in the context of high school science: Design and implementation issues. School Science and Mathematics, 106(7), 280-295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2006.tb17919.x
Gordon, P., Rogers, A., Comfort, M., Gavula, N., & McGee, B. P. (2001). A taste of problem-based learning increases achievement of urban minority middle-school students. Educational Horizons, 79(4), 171-175.
Hmelo, C. E., & Evensen, D. H. (2000). Problem-based learning: Gaining insights on learning interactions through multiple methods of inquiry. In D. H. Evensen & C. E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 1-16). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem- based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368
Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy. (2010). Introduction to problem-based learning model. Retrieved on March 2009; from http://pbln.imsa.edu/model/intro/
James, R. K., Lamb, C. E., Householder, D. L., & Bailey, M. A. (2000). Integrating science, math- ematics, and technology in middle school technology-rich environments: A study of implementation and change. School Science and Mathematics, 100(1), 27-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb17317.x
Jordan, T. (1989). Themes and schemes: A philosophical approach to interdisciplinary science teaching. Synthese, 80(1), 63-79. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00869948
Judson, E., & Sawada, D. (2000). Examining the effects of a reformed junior high school science class on students’ math achievement. School Science and Mathematics, 100(8), 419-425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb17330.x
Lee, O., & Paik, S. (2000). Conceptions of science achievement in major reform documents. School Science and Mathematics, 100(1), 16- 26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb17316.x
Lehman, J., Park, S., Cramer, J., Grove, K., & Ertmer, P. (2003). Barriers to teachers’ adoption and use of technology-supported learner-centered pedagogies. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2003 (pp. 1761-1766). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Lieux, E. M. (1996). A comparative study of learning in lecture versus problem-based format. About Teaching, 50, 25-27.
Lieux, E., & Duch, B. (1995). Strategies for teaching quantity food production and service: Lecture method versus problem based learning. In C. Kohnke & R. Maize (Eds.), Back to the future: Foodservice management education in the 21st century. Proceedings of the 18th Biennial conference of Food Service Management Educators Practice Group of ADA, Olive Branch, MS.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Loepp, F. (1999). Models of curriculum integration. Journal of Technology Studies, 25(2), 21-25. Lou, S. J., Shih, R. C., Diez, C. R., & Tseng, K. H. (2011). The impact of problem-based learning strategies on STEM knowledge integration and attitudes: An exploratory study among female Taiwanese senior high school students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(2), 195-215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9114-8
Loucks-Horsley, S, Hewson, P.W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. W. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Loucks-Horsley, S., & Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on professional development for teachers of mathematics and science: The state of the scene. School Science and Mathematics, 99(5), 258-271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1999.tb17484.x
Mathematics Learning Study Committee. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Marshall, J. Horton, B. & Austin-Wade, J. (2007). Giving meaning to the numbers. Science Teacher, 74(2), 36-41.
Maxwell, N. L., Bellisimo, Y., & Mergendoller, J. (2001). Problem-based learning: Modifying the medical school model for teaching high school economics. The Social Studies, 92(2), 73- 78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00377990109603981
Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
McConnell, T. J., Stanway, J. C., Eberhardt, J., Parker, J. M., Lunderberg, M. A. & Koehler, M. J. (2008). Building a better PBL problem: Lessons learned from the PBL Project for Teachers. MSTA Journal, 53(1), 52-57.
Meier, S., Hovde, R., & Meier, R. (1996). Problem solving: Teachers’ perceptions, content area models, and interdisciplinary connections. School Science and Mathematics, 96(5), 230- 237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1996.tb10234.x
Merriam, S. B. (1991). Case study research in education: A qualititative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Minstrell, J., & van Zee, E. (2000). E. Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science
Moseley, C., & Utley, J. (2006). The effect of an integrated science and mathematics content- based course on science and mathematics teaching efficacy of preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 18(2), 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03174684
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989) Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. J. Bransford, Brown, A, & Cockling, R. (Eds). Washington, DC: National Academy Press
National School Board. (2006). America’s pressing challenge: Building a stronger foundation. Arlington, VA: NSB.
Nikitina, S., & Mansilla, V. B. (2003). Three strategies for interdisciplinary math and science teaching: A case of the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy (GoodWork Project Report Series, No. 21). Cambridge, MA: Project Zero, Harvard University. Retrieved on March 10, 2009 from http://www.goodworkproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/21-Strategy-for-ID-Math-Science-3_03.pdf
Norman, G., & Schmidt, H. G. (2000). Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: theory, practice and paper darts. Medical Education, 34(9), 721–728. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/ j.1365-2923.2000.00749.x
Novak, J. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 937-949. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660271003
Paige, K., Lloyd, D., & Chartres, M. (2008). Moving towards transdisciplinarity: An ecological sustainable focus for science and mathematics pre-service education in the primary/middle years. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(1), 19-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13598660701793350
Park, S. H., Cramer, J., & Ertmer, P.A (2004). Implementation of a technology enhanced problem-based learning curriculum: A year-long case study. Proceedings of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology Conference (AECT). http://discover.education.purdue.edu/challenge/web_TKB_research/04/04_aect/04_aect_TKB_proceeding_final.pdf
Park, S., Lee, E., Blackman, J., Ertmer, P., Simons, K., & Belland, B. (2005). Examining the barriers encountered when planning and implementing technology-enhanced PBL in the middle school classroom. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2005 (pp. 2039-2043). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Park, S. H. & Ertmer., P. A. (2008). Examining barriers in technology-enhanced problem-based learning: Using a performance support systems approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 631–643. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00858.x
Park-Rogers, M., Volkmann, M., Abell, S. (2007). Science and mathematics: A natural connection. Science and Children, 45(2), 60-61
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pease, M. & Kuhn, D. (2008, March). The value of problem-based learning for comprehension, integration and application: An experimental study. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New York.
Ramsey, L. L., Radford, D. L., & Deese, W. C. (1997). Experimenting with interdisciplinary science. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(8), 946. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed074p946
Sage, S. (1996, April). A qualitative examination of problem-based learning at the K-8 level: Preliminary findings. New York: Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED398263)
Sage, S. & Torp, L. (1997). What does it take to become a teacher of problem-based learning? Journal of Staff Development, 18(4), 32-36.
Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 9-20.
Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2006). Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schoen, H. L., & Hirsch, C. R. (2003). The Core-Plus mathematics project: Perspectives and student achievement. In S. L. Senk and D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards oriented school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 311-343). Manwah, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shepard, L. A., & Dougherty, K. C. (1991, April). Effects of high-stakes testing on instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Starkman, N. (2007). Problem solvers.. T H E Journal (Technological Horizons In Education), 34(10), 35+.
Stepien, W. & Gallagher, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: As authentic as it gets. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 25-28.
Stepien, W., Gallagher, S., & Workman, D. (1993). Problem-based learning for traditional and interdisciplinary classrooms. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 338-357. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511557842
Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Supovitz, J. A., Mayer, D. P., & Kahle, J. B. (2000). Promoting inquiry-based instructional practice. The longitudinal impact of professional development in the context of systemic reform. Educational Policy, 14(3), 331-356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0895904800014003001
Swartz, R. J., Costa, A. L., Beyer, B. K., Reagan, R., & Kallick, B.(2007). Thinking based learning: Activating students’ potential. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Tchudi, S., & Lafer, S. (1996). The interdisciplinary teacher’s handbook: Integrated teaching across the curriculum. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Toulmin, C., & Groome, M. (2007). Building a science, technology, engineering, and math agenda. Washington, DC: National Governors Association. Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/0702INNOVATIONSTEM.PDF
Torp, L. & Sage, S. (2002). Problems as possibilities: Problem-based learning for K-16 education (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tsai, H. W. (2007). A study of STEM instructional model applied to science and technology in junior high school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, Pingtung, Taiwan.
Venville, G., Rennie, L., & Wallace, J. (2004). Decision making and sources of knowledge: How students tackle integrated tasks in science, technology, and mathematics. Research in Science Education, 34(2), 115-135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:RISE.0000033762.75329.9b
Ward, J. D., & Lee, C. L. (2002). A review of problem-based learning. Journal of Family and Consumer Science Education, 20(1), 16-26.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Zeidler, D. L. (2002). Dancing with maggots and saints: Visions for subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge in science teacher education reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 27-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1015129825891
Zhang, M., Lundeberg, M., Koehler, M. J., Eberhardt, J., & Parker, J. (2008). Teachers’ burning questions: Understanding challenges that science teachers face and problem-based learning as a framework to support teacher research. Poster Presented at the 2008 International Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Baltimore, MD, March 31, 2008.