Keywords

Introduction

In Hong Kong, STEM education has become a major policy priority in 2015 after the Curriculum Development Council (CDC) published the document titled ‘Promotion of STEM Education—Unleashing Potential in Innovation’. In the Hong Kong curricular context, STEM education is promoted through the science, technology, and mathematics education key learning areas (KLAs) in secondary schools, and through mathematics and general studies (GS, which incorporates science, technology and personal, social, and humanities education) in primary schools. Thus, GS teachers with non-STEM related backgrounds are sometimes required to teach STEM in primary schools. Renewing the curricula of the KLAs and GS has been proposed as one of the main strategies for promoting STEM education, in addition to organizing STEM co-curricular activities (i.e. education fairs, outside classroom learning, competitions), enhancing learning and teaching resources, and targeting the professional development of KLAs and GS curriculum leaders (CDC, 2017). Based on the directional measures of the CDC (2017), curriculum content for KLAs and the GS curriculum were updated to foster a shift towards inquiry-based learning, cross-disciplinary integration, application of knowledge and skills, and hands-on and minds-on activities.

In 2020, the Task Force on Review of School Curriculum (Task Force School Curriculum), set up by the Hong Kong Education Bureau (EDB) to holistically review the primary and secondary curricula in Hong Kong, further suggested a developmental priority to define STEM education and develop a handbook for school-based STEM education to clarify expectations across the primary and secondary school levels. STEM curricular attention shifted from co-curricular activities to the formal curriculum and co-coordination among related KLAs and GS curricula. Additionally, initiatives for STEM professional development programmes further emphasized strengthening the professional capacities of frontline teachers, specifically on teaching strategies and technological and pedagogical content knowledge of STEM topics (Task Force School Curriculum, 2020).

Continuous teacher professional development is emphasized and supported by the Hong Kong government, especially under the ongoing renewal of the curriculum. The Task Force on Professional Development of Teachers (Task Force Professional Development) was set up by the EDB in 2017 to further study the development, promotion, and implementation of teachers’ professional growth. As part of teachers’ continuous professional development (CPD) stipulated by the Hong Kong government, there is a basic requirement for every teacher to complete no less than 150 hours of professional development activities (e.g. overseas visits, exchanges, learning circles, seminars, workshops, etc.) in a three-year cycle. In addition, to be eligible for promotion, relevant training courses (e.g. refresher courses and management training courses) are also required for teacher CPD, guided by professional development guidelines, such as the ‘T-standard+’ launched by the Committee on Professional Development of Teachers and Principals (COTAP) (Task Force Professional Development, 2019). STEM education has been stipulated as a major initiative for school-based development (Task Force Professional Development, 2019), and has also been a primary focus of the professional development programmes offered by the Curriculum Development Institute of the EDB for primary school teachers (especially for GS teachers), covering topics relating to STEM knowledge, the application of science process skills in STEM education, STEM curriculum planning and implementation, STEM teaching and assessment, and coding and computational thinking (Curriculum Development Institute, 2021).

Research, especially Asian-based STEM education research, is still in an emerging state (Lee et al., 2019), and there has been less research on Asian teachers’ perceived readiness to implement STEM (see Margot & Kettler, 2019) and STEM TPD (see Chai, 2019; Geng et al., 2019). In Hong Kong, only a few and very recent studies on STEM TPD have examined STEM pedagogy (e.g. project-based learning, robot-based pedagogy, design-based pedagogy) (Chiu et al., 2021; Kong et al., 2020; Szeto et al., 2021) and teachers’ attitudes towards designing STEM curriculum activities (Lin et al., 2021). In their quantitative study of Hong Kong teachers’ responses to STEM education, Geng et al. (2019) found that only around 6% of school teachers perceived themselves as being ‘well prepared’ for STEM education, and suggested further professional development, pedagogical support, and curricular resources relating to ‘information’ (e.g. how to perform STEM instruction, share information through learning circles), ‘management’ (e.g. receiving supports in time-related concerns, such as administrative tasks, class hours), and ‘consequences’ (e.g. hoping to optimize STEM pedagogical approaches, access to promoted STEM resources to further empower STEM teaching).

Against the research background and the nascent STEM education directional measures in Hong Kong for the STEM curriculum, instruction and teacher professional development, a STEM TPD project for Hong Kong primary teachers was conducted.

Engaging Teachers in Practitioner Research as a Form of Teacher Professional Development

The nature of the recent development of teacher professional development (TPD) has seen a move away from workshops and courses to workplace and professional learning communities (Campbell et al., 2004), with school-university partnerships as one prevalent approach to facilitating teachers’ professional learning (Cheng & So, 2012; Day & Smethen, 2010). One form of the school-university partnership focuses on the generation of educational knowledge through practitioner research (PR). PR is a paradigm of educational research that involves teachers’ dual roles as practitioner and researcher and is considered as a strategy to foster TPD by enhancing teachers’ research skills and teaching effectiveness in their work contexts (Burns, 2009; Cain & Milovic, 2010; Cheng & Li, 2020).

In the context of new curriculum directives and reforms, studies have shown that collaborative curriculum development — as one form of professional development in which teachers work together with university facilitators to create curriculum materials — fosters teachers’ active professional learning and provides opportunities for in-service teachers to examine their beliefs and classroom teaching practices and to increase their subject matter and content knowledge (Drits-Esser & Stark, 2015; Handelzalts, 2019).

Literature relating to teacher professional development has recognized the impact of constructivist learning theory on the conceptions, organization, and structure of professional development (Cheng et al., 2009; Harfitt & Chan, 2017; Keiny, 1994; Sparks, 2002), and an array of studies have claimed successful implementation of curriculum changes involving TPD programmes underpinned by the constructivist framework (e.g. Fung, 2000; Howe & Stubbs, 1997; Zehetmeier et al., 2015). The key feature of these programmes is that they helped teachers to construct their own learning experiences, reflect, and take more responsibility for and control over their own learning. PR engages practitioners in a ‘systematic and intentional inquiry’ (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009, p. 142) of one’s own professional practices. The stance of PR, situating teachers as learners, connects PR to constructivist and inquiry-based approaches, and serves as a way to promote different aspects of teachers’ professional learning through reflective teaching practices and teacher collaboration (Atay, 2007; Stavroula et al., 2015).

Challenges and the Professional Development Support Needed by School Teachers to Implement STEM Instruction

International studies on school teachers’ perceived challenges in implementing STEM education and the professional development needs for STEM education are limited, especially studies involving primary school teachers (Chai, 2019). However, the studies have shown that school teachers perceive different challenges in STEM teaching. Relating to STEM pedagogical content knowledge, the concerns include insufficient understanding of subject content and integrated STEM instruction (Shernoff et al., 2017), concerns on more efficient and optimized STEM pedagogical approaches (Geng et al., 2019), the need for professional learning in teaching inquiry-based STEM (Nadelson, et al., 2012, 2013) and knowledge on implementing engineering-designed based STEM curriculum units in mathematics or science lessons (Guzey et al., 2016; Guzey et al., 2014).

Other concerns on teaching resources, including the lack of appropriate instructional materials and technological resources (Shernoff et al., 2017), were also voiced by teachers when implementing STEM instruction. Additionally, organizational and contextual-related concerns were also expressed, including the lack of opportunities for teacher collaboration and development on STEM practices, concerns about additional workload and time spent on collaboration and administrative issues, and the availability of class hours to perform STEM activities (Geng et al., 2019). Students’ lack of understanding or lack of motivation to learn in different ways was also one of the many classroom challenges encountered by school teachers when implementing STEM instruction (Shernoff et al., 2017).

Other literature on school teachers’ perceptions of the effective STEM TPD components highlighted teachers' needs in terms of content, process, and contexts of TPD in STEM education. For content, school teachers stressed the practicality and relevance of the TPD content to directly connect to student STEM learning. STEM TPD contents would include STEM content knowledge, STEM activities that meet the curriculum outcomes, pedagogy (e.g. instructions for teaching diverse learners) and assessment techniques (Goodnough et al., 2014). In terms of the process of STEM TPD, school teachers emphasized planned opportunities for collaboration and active learning (Goodnough et al., 2014; Shernoff et al., 2017), opportunities to access good examples and models (e.g. review video recordings of experienced teachers), first-hand experiences of structured lesson plans and materials for key pedagogical approaches (such as project-based learning) (Goodnough et al., 2014; Shernoff et al., 2017), and space for individualization and autonomy in the application (Goodnough et al., 2014). For contexts of STEM TPD, concerns about organizational supports (e.g. release days to collaboration) or programme supports (e.g. specialist supports, supports within school, technological supports) (Goodnough et al., 2014) were also expressed.

Broader literature on teacher professional development concluded different core features that have a powerful effect on learning and changes in classroom practice (Campbell et al., 2004; Garet et al., 2001; Llinares & Krainer, 2006). Whilst espousing managerial supports, the studies highlighted TPD core features on subject-matter knowledge (content), creating opportunities for active learning among teachers (process), and fostering coherence in relation to individuals’ previous experiences and alignment with wider curricular framework and assessment (context) to have significantly affect teacher learning. The few studies reviewed above on school teachers’ perceptions of the ideal STEM TPD components (e.g. Goodnough et al, 2014; Shernoff et al., 2017) echoed these findings.

Considering the current need for further understanding of Hong Kong primary school teachers’ perceived challenges, supports, and future directions for STEM TPD, the following research questions were investigated in this STEM TPD study in the Hong Kong context:

  • RQ 1: What are the challenges, as perceived by the primary school teachers, when implementing STEM education?

  • RQ 2: What are the supports received in the STEM TPD through the school-university partnership, as perceived by the primary school teachers?

  • RQ 3: What are the future directions for STEM TPD, in terms of content and process of professional development, as perceived by the primary school teachers?

The Design of the Study

The project engaged teacher professional development through a school-university partnership that aimed at enhancing primary school teachers’ professional capacity of designing STEM activities relevant to the Hong Kong curriculum, with an emphasis on the learning of crosscutting concepts. The study makes reference to the Next Generation Science Standards (National Research Council [NRC], 2013), a multi-dimensional standard for STEM learning currently implemented in the United States for K-12 that emphasizes combining core ideas, practices, and cross-cutting concepts, and STEM research conducted in Asia suggesting the lack of attention given to the integration or evaluation of cross-cutting concepts in STEM programmes (see Cheng & Yeh, Chap. 2). As stated by NRC (2013), cross-cutting concepts are to ‘bridge disciplinary core boundaries’ for explaining the core disciplinary knowledge. The cross-cutting concepts are observed patterns, cause and effect, the structure of phenomena, system models, limitations of the system, function (e.g. interaction of humans and nature), and change (e.g. growth, changes in states of matter, energy) (NRC, 2013).

Two key cross-cutting concepts of ‘change’ and ‘human and nature’ are the focus of the construction of the STEM learning framework for STEM TPD for this study. The two cross-cutting concepts were chosen to reflect the emphasis of the primary school curriculum in Hong Kong. In particular, ‘human and nature’, a cross-cutting concept developed by the project team, echoes one of the key strands, ‘People and Environment’, in the General Studies curriculum for primary schools (CDC, 2017). Apart from cross-cutting concepts, the 6E teaching cycle was also introduced to the teachers such that they may consider emphasizing the ‘engineering’ component in designing STEM lessons. The 6E instructional cycle for STEM (Burke, 2014) is a modification of the 5E instructional model for science instruction (Bybee et al., 2006) which comprised the inquiry cycle of engage, explore, explain, expand, and evaluate. The 6E instructional cycle added a practical element of ‘engineering’ to emphasize meaning making and the construction of knowledge from hands-on experiences and learning by doing. The 6E teaching cycle for STEM comprises the main steps: engage, explore, explain, engineer, enrich, and evaluate (Burke, 2014).

The research adopted a PR approach to working with primary school teachers. The two primary investigators of the project are researchers with backgrounds in science and teacher education from a university in Hong Kong that specializes in teacher education. A total of 36 primary school teachers from six Hong Kong schools that follow the local curriculum framework were recruited. Each participating school involved four to eight primary school teachers in the school-based STEM TPD (Teachers were identified in the research through an alphabet and number system).

Research members and the participating teachers co-constructed and designed school-based lessons that demonstrated the integration of cross-cutting concepts, skills, and attitudes. Additionally, active professional learning was further encouraged through purposefully designed opportunities for teachers to provide insights to improve instructional materials, peer observations, and expert feedback on STEM teaching trials during the STEM TPD. Teaching trials were implemented in each school by one to three teachers, with teaching trial lessons ranging from three to six class periods depending on the school-based, co-constructed lesson designs. Altogether 12 teachers were involved in conducting the teaching trials. This chapter reports findings from investigating the STEM TPD experiences of these 12 teachers from six different local primary schools.

The 12 primary school teachers comprised six male and six female teachers. Five teachers have bachelor’s degrees in STEM-related majors (computer science, mathematics, biology), two reported having a background in GS, four reported neither a STEM nor a GS background, and one did not specify their academic background. Participants’ teaching experiences in core STEM-related subjects, that is, in GS and in mathematics, differed. The majority of the 12 teachers had 3–10 years of teaching experience in GS, while most participants had either no or 3 to 5 years of experience of mathematics teaching (see Table 15.1). The more experienced teachers (6 years experiences and above) that participated in the teaching trials were usually senior teachers or subject coordinators of the schools. The school-based STEM TPD was implemented for a duration of one school term (about 4 months).

Table 15.1 Participants’ teaching experiences in general studies and mathematics (N = 12)
Full size table

Semi-structured interviews (Creswell, 2002) with participating teachers were carried out to examine the effectiveness of STEM TPD on the pedagogical skills and awareness of the development of cross-cutting concepts, and to collect their observations on teachers’ professional development and views on the integration of cross-cutting concepts in designing STEM lessons. Interviews were carried out in participants’ schools before, during, and after the teaching intervention, which lasted around 30 min each. The study examined the data set from the 12 teachers’ post teaching intervention interviews.

The audio-recorded interviews were transcribed. When analysing the interview data, teachers’ perceived challenges were categorized with reference to three aspects of challenges, namely pedagogical content knowledge, resources, and contextual/organizational level concerns. Furthermore, three core features of effective professional development, that is, content, active professional learning, and coherence, served as a typology to categorize the qualitative interview data related to teachers’ perceived received support, and future directions for STEM TPD were examined.

The research team obtained ethical approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the university before the research project began. Informed consent was obtained from the teacher and students in the teaching trials. Designated labels were used for the teachers in reporting the interview findings.

Findings and Discussion

Teachers’ Perceived Challenges

Participating in the project has proved to be a challenging experience for the teachers. Three main types of challenges were reported, including those during the preparation and teaching phases, relating to students’ needs, and collaborating with other teachers. Challenges during the preparation and teaching phases were reported by 10 teachers, including the lack of time as STEM lessons require extra teaching time and careful preparation, addressing technical issues, conducting trials, teaching outside textbooks, finding relevant resources and teaching materials, considering safety precautions and possible safety issues, ensuring a smooth flow of the lesson, and handling unexpected results during the teaching.

These challenges during the preparation and teaching phases are related to STEM instruction and lesson planning, limited resources, and other concerns embedded in broader contextual situations. For example, some teachers talked about the lack of access to structured lesson plans and instructional materials, and the extra time needed for lesson preparation.

‘I need to find more extra time for preparation, from curriculum design, to figure out the relevant scientific principle for teaching. [I] will need to spend extra time … textbooks provided sufficient information to teach the topic in the past… and with this [STEM] the publisher [textbooks] may not be providing the information, teachers have to prepare it…' (T14)

‘The teacher has to put in more effort in lesson preparation. We used to rely on textbooks and it was a lot easier. I now feel pressure as I have to produce a booklet; being not very familiar with the topic, I have to find a lot of information.’ (T46)

One teacher reflected on the challenges and opportunities of lesson preparation within the broader concept of integrated STEM lesson planning (i.e. better linkage between topics and subjects) and collaborative teaching.

‘In this project, I am teaching with Mr Chan (pseudonym) but our teaching topics are different…. Each of us has to consider our topic, we know the general direction, but I have to figure out the details and try… It is better to involve all the teachers at the same level, and each class can try and improve after the previous class finishes the teaching… The topics can actually be linked, for example, we can link the discussion of hydrogen vehicles to energy problems and the environment, etc.’ (T54)

Other teachers expressed concerns about lack of access to adequate space and environment for experiments (laboratory)-based STEM integration.

‘There were some safety concerns in conducting experiments. [In the classroom,] it was not very convenient, for example, having water or hot water, students may hurt themselves.’ (T14)

‘The problem is to find the location. We need to test the parachutes, there are safety concerns. We have spent a lot of time considering the right timing and location. When will the sports field not be occupied by PE lessons?’ (T21)

Time-scheduling and completing the curriculum were also challenges perceived by the teachers, especially with the government guidance on COVID-19 preventions and social distancing measures for schools.

‘Colleagues who figure out the class timetable arrangement have a hard time. The number of lessons has been reduced, and we have less time to complete the curriculum. There is additional challenge due to the half-day school arrangement during COVID-19.’ (T46)

Other than challenges related to resources and contextual limitations, managing students’ behaviours, learner differences, and engaging students in group learning were also challenging aspects during the STEM lesson implementation. Two of the teachers reflected on how to handle students’ behaviour during STEM lessons, such as ‘managing the difference in responses from the boys and girls’ (T45), ‘young children having difficulties using scissors and they cannot control the precision, [and] how to stimulate students to discuss among themselves, work out solutions instead of waiting for teachers to provide them with answers’ (T23). One of the teachers found it challenging to engage students to achieve the learning objectives (in prediction and explanations) during STEM activities,

‘There are differences among students. Some would want to “play and try” as soon as possible, and were impatient as the teacher said, “you need to predict”, they may think “why do we need to predict? Can we just try now!” …. We need to strike a balance, this is what we put importance on and we need to explain; however, too much talking will make them feel bored.’ (T54)

Teachers’ Perceptions of the Support Received and Their Own Learning

Teachers participating in the project reflected on having received four main types of support from the STEM TPD relating to the pedagogical knowledge of STEM teaching, namely having a clearer idea of planning and implementing STEM lessons; realizing how cross-cutting concepts may work as a framework; and realizing how alternative content and ideas could be included in STEM lessons.

Three of the teachers, T23, T21, and T51, found themselves having a clearer idea of how to plan and implement STEM lessons having received the examples and reading materials from the project team. They reported ‘knowing what to do’, although the project team provided flexibility for the teachers to plan their lessons. Pedagogically, the teachers reported gains as they learned to ‘teach outside the classroom’ (T46), experienced ‘more systematic lesson preparation, for example, using 2E in Primary 3 and 6E at the upper primary level’ (T51), ‘know more about 6E’ (T63), and realizing ‘the importance of pedagogical theories underpinning the design of the activities, such that teachers are not “implementing the activities for the sake of doing them’ (T67). The implementation of 6E has benefited student learning, as suggested by one of the teachers as follows:

‘We used to adopt POE (predict, observation, explain) when we conducted experiments in the past. This time we are using 6E and I think we learnt more. … 6E has facilitated students’ development of higher order thinking.’ (T32)

Three of the teachers realized ‘the possibility of using cross-cutting concepts to frame STEM lessons’ (T51), and ‘with this framework, we know how to add new activities’ (T63). The introduction of cross-cutting concepts in the STEM TPD like ‘nature and people’ has provided teachers with a framework for lesson planning that is coherent with their previous teaching.

‘When we planned STEM teaching or the curriculum in our school, key words like ‘nature and people’ never appeared. However, nature is related to other aspects of knowledge, and is related to the activities covered in our previous STEM curriculum. Realizing this has helped us to prepare STEM lessons and make the purpose of our activities more explicit.’ (T51)

‘The most obvious difference is the consideration of cross cutting concepts; this impacts on our preparation, to consider the key concepts and directions, how to guide students to think. This is very different.’ (T21)

Three teachers, T46, T54, and T14, appreciated the provision of resources and alternative content and ideas. One of the teachers (T54) felt that the most significant benefit of participation was having received ‘new ideas and directions’, and ‘an alternative way of teaching’. Furthermore, two of the teachers realized a different role for teachers as they reflected,

‘I realized that STEM is not about assembling a simple machine but to adjust [the activity] to their level, related to daily life experience, let them consider the problem and suggest solutions. Teachers are there to support the process.’ (T16)

‘This is inquiry teaching. I used to tell them answers, they copy, remember and go to exams. This time, I explain the objectives, tell them what they have to do, they find out their answers and there are no standard answers; it is up to them to find out and learn.’ (T45)

With the content support from the STEM TPD programme, teachers also reported changes in their attitudes towards teaching STEM. The change in teachers’ attitudes towards STEM were all positive including having ‘a more open attitude towards teaching STEM’ (T23), agreeing that ‘teaching STEM is a good direction to take’ (T46), and both T54 and T14 found themselves more receptive of or open to new ideas about STEM teaching.

Directions for Professional Development

Teachers participating in the project provided six directions as their future professional development needs. Among these six directions, three are content-focused, including lesson planning (e.g. template or framework for planning STEM learning), input related to pedagogical considerations (e.g. relating to cross-cutting concepts, diverse student needs), and enriching their content knowledge, which in turn supports their teaching. The fourth direction is related to active professional learning in STEM TPD, such as engaging teachers in the STEM learning experience. Finally, the fifth and sixth directions are to further address the coherence of STEM TPD relevant to teachers’ background (e.g. changing teachers’ conceptions or mindset) and the STEM curricular context in Hong Kong.

Content Components of STEM TPD: Lesson Planning, Pedagogical Skills, Content Knowledge

Three teachers mentioned their need for further professional development on lesson planning. They would like to find ways to organize a STEM lesson, how to handle previous suggestions on lesson or curriculum planning when they are including new ideas about STEM and need help to identify focus in lesson planning. For example,

‘How to plan a lesson or the consideration of the organization of a lesson?’ (T14)

‘I would like to have some expert views on how to focus and arrange given there are so many skills, six thinking hats, etc. How do we change our practice? Does it mean giving up old practices? Would there be more suggestions on curriculum planning and can they let us know how many to focus on? There are many ways related to creative teaching. Professional Development could provide teachers with a clear direction and how to focus.’ (T54)

The teachers mentioned professional development (PD) needs on specific pedagogical skills, including ways to teach the cross-cutting concepts, for example, ‘change’, guiding students through a design cycle, ways to distinguish a ‘good’ STEM lesson, catering for diverse student needs and assessing students’ learning outcomes/performance. For example,

‘It is particularly useful to find out new ways to teach, especially related to “change” and “humans and nature”.’ (T14)

‘Teachers need to know how to guide students to go through a design cycle, fair tests, etc., not just completing the experiments as instructed.’ (T23)

‘To provide teachers with more lesson examples, how to conduct STEM lessons, and what is a good STEM lesson.’ (T67)

‘We will need some training related to science concepts, how to assess if students have these concepts. There is a worry about whether the content is too difficult or too easy, do we need to teach them? Some content is not covered in the textbooks, some classes have higher ability, and do we need to teach them certain concepts?’ (T32)

There is some confusion as to whether some STEM-related concepts which are not covered in the textbooks have to be taught, and it is deemed a challenge for teachers to pitch the content to match students’ ability levels.

Active Professional Learning in STEM TPD: Opportunities for First-Hand Experiences

Planned opportunities for active learning, specifically opportunities to experience STEM learning in the STEM TPD was also mentioned. Teachers expressed the importance of having first-hand STEM learning experience themselves before they plan lessons for their students. One of the teachers concurred that ‘it will be useful to let teachers experience STEM learning themselves. We then know how to organize the lesson’ (T46).

Coherence: Addressing the Challenges Relevant to STEM Curricular, Instructional Context, and Teachers’ Backgrounds

Teachers expressed their weaknesses in relation to the wider curriculum focus on coding, experiments, and connecting daily life experiences to the formal curriculum in the Hong Kong STEM contexts. More relevant knowledge and teachers’ own experience in learning more STEM-related knowledge, technology, coding and updated knowledge related to daily life experiences will then be translated or incorporated into their STEM lessons, and the teachers will find themselves more confident in designing activities for STEM teaching. For example,

‘Teachers are weaker in technology and coding, and do not pay as much attention to data analysis in the M(mathematics) part.’ (T32)

‘This is new to primary teachers; we didn’t have “Coding” in our curriculum before. There is a lot of pressure on primary school teachers.’ (T51)

‘To know more about STEM knowledge, which is the experiments that may be suitable and the new ideas for integrating into the lesson.' (T63)

‘It is important for teachers to update their STEM knowledge, consider how to introduce it to the students, relate to daily life experiences and design a good lesson.’ (T16)

In a similar vein, one of the teachers realized a shift in pedagogical practices, for example, from 5 to 6E: ‘How to lead students to complete STEM activities, linking STEM lessons. There are a lot of variations for STEM teaching, I would find how to write lesson plans useful. It used to be 5E and POE when I was a university student and it is now 6E’ (T45). The need for further input on how to develop linkage between STEM lessons is reflected.

The coherence of the STEM TPD for primary school teachers was also expressed in relation to the broader curriculum connection between school levels. Two of the teachers found it important to consider the linkage between STEM lessons and even the linkage or development of a framework describing STEM learning between primary and secondary levels. The teacher suggested, ‘The linkage and framework showing the relationship between primary and secondary school. For example, students may need to learn micro:bit, mBot and Scratch at the primary school level, and learn Python and coding at the secondary level.’ (T16)

Within the Hong Kong context, teachers with non-STEM related backgrounds are sometimes required to teach STEM. This means that STEM teaching is very different from other primary school subjects like Chinese or mathematics, and teaching STEM means leaving their comfort zone. One direction for coherence in STEM TPD is to address the needs of teachers with different subject backgrounds. A change of mindset on the importance of the process as compared with covering the content as planned was well reflected by one of the teachers as follows:

‘Teachers have different needs, I have a General Studies background, and my preparation is fine. The situation is different for Math and Chinese teachers…. STEM is different from traditional subjects, there are no standard answers and many colleagues are not accustomed to this. Many colleagues hope to see some answers, share with their students and they can follow the next time. This is a change in mindset and needs a long way to go. This is different from teaching Chinese and Math. The process is more important for STEM.’ (T21)

Conclusion and Implications

Many efforts were made in the last few years, since the STEM guideline was published, to offer TPD providing input for teachers to implement STEM lessons in schools. For example, the Task Force on Review of School Curriculum (2020) set directions to ‘further enhance STEM-related professional development programmes and equip teachers with necessary knowledge and skills to further promote STEM education in schools’ (p. v), and numerous opportunities were provided including dissemination of good practices. STEM is no longer a new endeavour for primary school teachers in Hong Kong.

Findings suggest that researchers may need to move away from assuming that teachers need professional development for STEM because they have little idea of how to conduct STEM lessons. With the support and guidance provided by the education community including the government, universities, and other organizations, primary teachers in Hong Kong have been planning and implementing STEM lessons. With these experiences, there are some issues to be resolved before a further enhancement in terms of quality and quantity of STEM lessons could be realized. The teachers have identified some challenges that need to be addressed including access to structured lesson plans and instructional materials, extra time involved in preparing and implementing STEM instruction and teacher collaboration, access to adequate space and environments for experiments (laboratory)-based STEM integration, and timetabling issues in schools.

For future STEM TPD, a few directions are pertinent, including addressing the needs of the teachers to provide them with authentic STEM learning experiences. Taking a constructivist point of view for TPD (Zehetmeier et al., 2015), teachers themselves need to construct their own successful learning experience, and this experience will form a basis upon which they can design STEM learning for their students.

As reflected by one of the teachers in the study, teachers need to adopt a ‘more open attitude’ towards STEM teaching. This may be the most fundamental basis as teacher educators consider STEM TPD opportunities. Teachers need to reconstruct their conceptions of teaching, that is, having to provide standard answers, not allowing failures, covering and following textbooks, and guiding students to a perfect solution. STEM teaching may be seen as challenging their beliefs and practices which they have adopted for years in other subjects such as mathematics and languages. STEM TPD opportunities will have to address these changes in conceptions and work with the teachers to change their fundamental beliefs.

Teachers participating in this study were keen to improve the quality of their STEM teaching. There were questions like ‘What does good STEM teaching look like?’, ‘How can we implement 6E?’, and ‘How can we develop a linkage between primary and secondary STEM teaching?’. Similar to STEM learning, there are no fixed or standard answers to these questions. Quality STEM teaching will need to be adapted to the needs of the students.

In the design of TPD, Llinares and Krainer (2006) underlined ‘reflection’, which is the attitude towards, and competence in (self-)criticism of one’s own action, and ‘networking’, which is the attitude towards, and competence in communicative and cooperative work (p. 12) as key interventions in TPD programmes. The stance of PR, in the form of school-university partnership, engages teachers in authentic STEM professional learning through systematic and intentional reflection of their own professional practices and teacher cooperation and communication. PR which situates teachers as practitioners, researchers, and learners serves as a way to foster STEM professional learning. It is, therefore, proposed that future STEM TPD adopt a practitioner research model and engage teachers in researching into their own teaching. Teachers will then be able to collect evidence of student learning, analyse the impact of their teaching, and adjust and re-adjust their teaching strategies to enhance the quality of their teaching. Promoting active professional learning is crucial if the STEM education community is keen to ensure the quality of STEM lessons in classrooms.