Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Preservice teachers’ experiences of STEM integration: challenges and implications for integrated STEM teacher preparation

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the United States, recent STEM education reform initiatives call for teaching STEM subjects through integration of multiple related subjects. In response to this call, an integrated STEM education methods course was developed for secondary preservice teachers in STEM disciplines. At the conclusion of the course, qualitative data (e.g., interviews, student artifacts) were collected to examine the methods course students’ practices and experiences of STEM integration. Teachers’ learning was approached from situated perspectives that shed light on contexts in which teaching practices are situated and funds of knowledge that individual teachers bring to bear to their teaching contexts. While the students successfully developed STEM integration lessons and taught them, they faced challenges attributable to current school practices, limited interdisciplinary understandings, and a lack of role models. Acknowledging the numerous constraints in the current educational system and structure, several ways were suggested to mitigate the challenges and build on the strengths that preservice teachers established.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, A. E., Miller, B. G., Saul, M., & Pegg, J. (2014). Supporting elementary pre-service teachers to teach STEM through place-based teaching and learning experiences. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 18(5), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agunga, R., Connors, J. J., & Chen, H. Y. (2005). A study of The Ohio State University College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences’ ecological-paradigm model. NACTA Journal, 49(3), 2–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Library Association. (2006). Information literacy competency standards for higher education. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency.

  • Andrews, J., Yee, W. C., Greenhough, P., Hughes, M., & Winter, J. (2005). Teachers’ funds of knowledge and the teaching and learning of mathematics in multi-ethnic primary schools: Two teachers’ views of linking home and school. ZDM Mathematics Education, 37(2), 72–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Association of Public and Land-grant Universities. (2012). The land-grant tradition. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, A. L., & Knobloch, N. A. (2005). A document analysis of the pedagogical knowledge espoused in agriculture teaching methods courses. Journal of Agricultural Education, 46(2), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2005.02047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weis, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnosky, A. D., Ehrlich, P. R., & Hadly, E. A. (2016). Avoiding collapse: Grand challenges for science and society to solve by 2050. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 4(1), 000094.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 12(5/6), 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlin, D. F., & White, A. L. (2012). A longitudinal look at attitudes and perceptions related to the integration of mathematics, science, and technology education. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 20–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Institute for the Advancement of Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). Learning and unlearning: The education of teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(1), 5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corlu, M. S., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2014). Introducing STEM education: Implications for educating our teachers in the age of innovation. Education and Science, 39(171), 74–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, C. M. (2009). Engineering is elementary. The Bridge, 30(3), 11–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drake, S. M., & Burns, R. C. (2004). Meeting standards through integrated curriculum. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, C. A., Jordan, J., Porter, P., Breland, T. A., Lieblein, G., Salomonsson, L., et al. (2011). Innovative education in agroecology: Experiential learning for a sustainable agriculture. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 30(1–2), 226–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G., & Middle School Mathematics Through Applications Project Group. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A. (2006). Early experiences and personal funds of knowledge and beliefs of immigrant and minority teacher candidates dialog with theories of child development in a teacher education classroom. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 27(1), 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammersley, M. (2005). The myth of research-based practice: The critical case of educational inquiry. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(4), 317–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, E. S., & Gallard, A. J. (2004). Preservice science teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning: The influence of K-12 field experiences. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(4), 281–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, A., & Moore, S. (2000). Curriculum integration and classroom relevance: A study of teachers’ practice. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 15, 89–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedges, H. (2012). Teachers’ funds of knowledge: A challenge to evidence-based practice. Teachers and Teaching, 18(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2011.622548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Committee on Integrated STEM Education; National Academy of Engineering; National Research Council. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

  • Hutchins, E. (1995). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19(3), 265–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Technology Education Association (ITEA/ITEEA). (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Retrieved from https://www.iteea.org/File.aspx?id=67767&v=b26b7852.

  • Ivanitskaya, L., Clark, D., Montgomery, G., & Primeau, R. (2002). Interdisciplinary learning: Process and outcomes. Innovative Higher Education, 27(2), 95–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jewitt, C., & Kress, G. R. (2003). Multimodal literacy. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knobloch, N. A., Ball, A. L., & Allen, C. A. (2007). The benefits of teaching and learning about agriculture in elementary and junior high schools. Journal of Agricultural Education, 48(3), 25–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koirala, H. P., & Bowman, J. K. (2003). Preparing middle level preservice teachers to integrate mathematics and science: Problems and possibilities. School Science and Mathematics, 103(3), 145–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaPorte, J., & Sanders, M. (1995). Integrating technology, science and mathematics education. In G. E. Martin (Ed.), Foundations of technology education (pp. 179–219). New York: Glencoe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, W., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leader-Janssen, E. M., & Rankin-Erickson, J. L. (2013). Preservice teachers’ content knowledge and self-efficacy for teaching reading. Literacy Research and Instruction, 52(3), 204–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, T. D. (2014). Support for interdisciplinary engineering education through application of industry-focused case studies. Paper presented at the American Society of Engineering Education annual conference & exposition, Indianapolis, IN.

  • Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Middle school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 71–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31, 132–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadelson, L. S., Seifert, A., Moll, A. J., & Coats, B. (2012). i-STEM summer institute: An integrated approach to teacher professional development in STEM. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 13(2), 69.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2009). Transforming agricultural education for a changing world. Washington, DC: National Academies.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Retrieved from https://www.nextgenscience.org/search-standards.

  • O’Brien, S. (2010). A unique multidisciplinary STEM K-5 teacher preparation program. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved from http://assess.pages.tcnj.edu/files/2011/07/OQA_TechEd_09.pdf.

  • Ozturk, N., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2017). Preservice science teachers’ epistemological beliefs and informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 47(6), 1275–1304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Remesh, A. (2013). Microteaching, an efficient technique for learning effective teaching. Journal of Research in Medical Sciences: The Official Journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, 18(2), 158–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roehrig, G. H., Wang, H.-H., Moore, T. J., & Park, M. S. (2012). Is adding the E enough? Investigating the impact of K-12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM integration. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 31–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, December/January, 2009, 20–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, F., & Rist, S. (2014). Envisioning sustainable water futures in a transdisciplinary learning process: Combining normative, explorative, and participatory scenario approaches. Sustainability Science, 9(4), 463–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, C. A., Kurian, M., & Wescoat, J. L., Jr. (2015). The water-energy-food nexus: Enhancing adaptive capacity to complex global challenges. In M. Kurian & R. Ardakanian (Eds.), Governing the nexus (pp. 15–38). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. L., Rayfield, J., & McKim, B. R. (2015). Effective practices in STEM integration: Describing teacher perceptions and instructional method use. Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(4), 182–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stubbs, E. A., & Myers, B. E. (2016). Part of what we do: Teacher perceptions of STEM integration. Journal of Agricultural Education, 57(3), 87–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swackhamer, L. E., Koellner, K., Basile, C., & Kimbrough, D. (2009). Increasing the self-efficacy of inservice teachers through content knowledge. Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(2), 63–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • The National Council for Agricultural Education. (2015). Agriculture, food, and natural resources career cluster content standards. Retrieved from https://www.ffa.org/thecouncil/afnr.

  • Wang, H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 1(2), Article 2.

  • Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, J. G. (2016). Efficacy of the technological/engineering design approach: Imposed cognitive demands within design-based biotechnology instruction. Journal of Technology Education, 27(2), 4–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (expanded 2 ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(4), 343–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Department of Chemistry, Purdue University, 100 N. University Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

    Minjung Ryu

  2. Department of Technology Leadership and Innovation, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Purdue University, 155 S. Grant Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

    Nathan Mentzer

  3. Department of Youth Development and Agricultural Education, Purdue University, 615 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

    Neil Knobloch

Authors
  1. Minjung Ryu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nathan Mentzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Neil Knobloch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Minjung Ryu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ryu, M., Mentzer, N. & Knobloch, N. Preservice teachers’ experiences of STEM integration: challenges and implications for integrated STEM teacher preparation. Int J Technol Des Educ 29, 493–512 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9440-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9440-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation