Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Designing and Evaluating an Integrated STEM Professional Development Program for Secondary and Primary School Teachers in Australia

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Integrated Approaches to STEM Education

Part of the book series: Advances in STEM Education ((ASTEME))

Abstract

With reports into Australian students’ falling performance on international tests and fewer enrolments in senior secondary STEM subjects and university level STEM degrees, there has been increased attention on the need for quality teacher professional development. Addressing STEM engagement and achievement in schools requires designing curriculum which enthuses students, challenges their beliefs about the role of the STEM subjects in solving real-world problems, and inspires them to continue to study STEM into the future. To address these issues, a year-long professional development program was developed to assist schools in designing integrated STEM curriculum approaches and to evaluate the implementation of each school-based program using qualitative and quantitative research methods. Surveys measuring teacher efficacy, teacher outcome expectancies, pedagogical practices, and STEM career awareness were administered both before the start of the STEM professional development program and after completion of the program, from 178 teachers from 61 primary and secondary schools. Results reveal statistically significant changes in teacher efficacy, outcome expectancies, and STEM career awareness with large effect sizes. Additionally, significant changes in teacher practices were seen in increased use of small group problem-solving through inquiry, increased engagement, and increased opportunities for student reasoning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anderson, J., Holmes, K., Tully, D., & Williams, G. (2017). STEM professional learning: Evaluating secondary school teachers’ and students’ experiences. In A. Downton et al. (Eds.), 40 years on: We are still learning! Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of MERGA (pp. 586–603). Melbourne: MERGA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arhar, J. M., & Irvin, J. L. (1995). Interdisciplinary team organisation: A growing research base. Middle School Journal, 26(5), 65–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beane, J. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borko, H., Jacobs, J., & Koellner, K. (2010). Contemporary approaches to teacher professional development. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McDaw (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education, 7 (pp. 548–556). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bosse, 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruder, R., & Prescott, A. (2013). Research evidence on the benefits of IBL. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45, 811–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W. (2018). STEM education: Now more than ever. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, B. C. K., & Pak, A. W. P. (2006). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clinical and Investigative Medicine, 29(6), 351–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commonwealth of Australia. (2017). Australia 2030 prosperity through innovation: A plan for Australia to thrive in the global innovation race. Canberra: Innovation and Science Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Thomason, S., & Firth, A. (2005). The impact of collaborative continuing professional development (CPD) on classroom teaching and learning. Review: How do collaborative and sustained CPD and sustained but not collaborative CPD affect teaching and learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corn, J., Bryant, L., Maxfield, J., Walton, M., Patel, R., Weiss, S.P., Parker, B., Kellogg, S., Smart, A., Barrett, N. and Marks, J., (2013). Second Annual Race to the Top Evaluation Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, K., Brown, G., & McGowan, C. (2012). Curriculum integration in the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme: Literature review. Switzerland: International Baccalaureate Organisation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M., Gardner, M., & Espinoza, D. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davison, D., Miller, K., & Metheny, D. (1995). What does integration in science and mathematics really mean? School Science and Mathematics, 95, 226–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durksen, T. L., Klassen, R. M., & Daniels, L. M. (2017). Motivation and collaboration: The keys to a developmental framework for teachers’ professional learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 53–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • English, L. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enochs, L. G., Scharmann, L. C., & Riggs, I. M. (1995). The relationship of pupil control to preservice elementary science teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. Science Teacher Education, 79(1), 3–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, H. L. (1998). Concept-based curriculum and instruction: Teaching beyond the facts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, B., Marginson, S., & Tytler, R. (2015). Widening and deepening the STEM effect. In B. Freeman, S. Marginson, & R. Tytler (Eds.), The age of STEM: Educational policy and practice across the world in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (pp. 1–21). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friday Institute for Educational Innovation. (2012). Teacher efficacy and attitudes toward STEM survey. Raleigh, NC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goddard, R. D. (2001). Collective efficacy: A neglected construct in the study of schools and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 467–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, A. (2009). A decade of educational change and a defining moment of opportunity—an introduction. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2-3), 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, E., & Nelson, N. (2005). Important but not for me: Students’ attitudes towards secondary school science in England. Research in Science and Technology Education, 23, 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, J., Lyons, T., & Quinn, F. (2014). The continuing decline of science and mathematics enrolments in Australian high schools. Teaching Science, 60, 34–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klassen, R. M., Tze, V. M., Betts, S. M., & Gordon, K. A. (2011). Teacher efficacy research 1998–2009: Signs of progress or unfulfilled promise? Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 21–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, J. G. (2017). Impacts of professional development in integrated STEM education on teacher self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and STEM career awareness. Purdue University: Unpublished Doctoral dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakshmanan, A., Heath, B. P., Perlmutter, A., & Elder, M. (2011). The impact of science content and professional learning communities on science teaching efficacy and standards-based instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(5), 534–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mack, J., & Walsh, B. (2014). Mathematics and science combinations NSW HSC 2001-2011 by gender. Technical paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, A. J., Anderson, J., Bobis, J., Way, J., & Vellar, R. (2012). Switching on and switching off in mathematics: An ecological study of future intent and disengagement amongst middle school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPhan, G., Morony, W., Pegg, J., Cooksey, R., & Lynch, T. (2008). Maths? Why not. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations: Canberra. ACT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, T. J., Johnson, C. C., Peters-Burton, E. E., & Guzey, S. S. (2016). The need for a STEM road map. In C. C. Johnson, E. E. Peters-Burton, & T. J. Moore (Eds.), STEM road map: A framework for integrated STEM education (pp. 3–12). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadelson, L. S., & Seifert, A. L. (2017). Integrated STEM defined: Contexts, challenges and the future. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(3), 221–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Office of the Chief Scientist. (2014). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Australia’s future. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of the Chief Scientist. (2016). Australia’s STEM workforce: Science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penlington, C. (2008). Dialogue as a catalyst for teacher change: A conceptual analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(5), 1304–1316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawolle, S., Wells, M., Paatsch, L., Tytler, R., & Campbell, C. (2016). Improving schools: Productive tensions between the local, the systemic and the global. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Riggs, I. M., & Enochs, L. G. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher’s science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74(6), 625–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J., & Bruce, C. (2007). Professional development effects on teacher efficacy: Results of randomized field trial. The Journal of Educational Research, 101(1), 50–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Settlage, J., Southerland, S. A., Smith, L. K., & Ceglie, R. (2009). Constructing a doubt-free teaching self: Self-efficacy, teacher identity, and science instruction within diverse settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 102–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, A. (1998). Real learning: Real work. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, S., Wernert, N., O’Grady, E., & Rodrigues, S. (2016). TIMSS 2015: A first look at Australia’s results. Melbourne, Vic: ACER.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tschannen-Moran, M., & Barr, M. (2004). Fostering student learning: The relationship of collective teacher efficacy and student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(3), 189–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). The ‘grammar’ of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vars, G. F. (2000). Common learnings: A 50-year quest. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 16(1), 70–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasquez, J. (2015). STEM: Beyond the acronym. Educational Leadership, 72(4), 10–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasquez, J., Sneider, C., & Comer, M. (2013). STEM lesson essentials, Grades 3-8: integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. New York: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venville, G., Wallace, J., Rennie, L., & Malone, J. (1998). The integration of science, mathematics, and technology in a discipline-based culture. School Science and Mathematics, 98, 294–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venville, G., Wallace, J., Rennie, L., & Malone, J. (2002). Curriculum integration: Eroding the high ground of science as a school subject. Studies in Science Education, 37, 43–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vickers, M. (1998). Working to learn: Building science understandings through work-based learning. In A. Steinberg (Ed.), Real learning, real work (pp. 109–128). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voogt, J. M., Pieters, J. M., & Handelzalts, A. (2016). Teacher collaboration in curriculum design teams: Effects, mechanisms, and conditions. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22(3-4), 121–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sydney School of Education and Social Work, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia

    Judy Anderson

  2. The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia

    Deborah Tully

Authors
  1. Judy Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Deborah Tully
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Judy Anderson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Sydney School of Education and Social Work, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia

    Judy Anderson

  2. Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    Yeping Li

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Anderson, J., Tully, D. (2020). Designing and Evaluating an Integrated STEM Professional Development Program for Secondary and Primary School Teachers in Australia. In: Anderson, J., Li, Y. (eds) Integrated Approaches to STEM Education. Advances in STEM Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52229-2_22

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52229-2_22

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-52228-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-52229-2

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation