Taiwanese Preservice Teachers’ Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Teaching Intention

Article

Abstract

This study applies the theory of planned behavior as a basis for exploring the impact of knowledge, values, subjective norms, perceived behavioral controls, and attitudes on the behavioral intention toward science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education among Taiwanese preservice science teachers. Questionnaires (N = 139) collected information on the behavioral intention of preservice science teachers engaging in STEM education. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, path analysis, and analysis of variance. Results revealed that, in terms of direct effects, higher perceived behavioral control and subjective norms were associated with stronger STEM teaching intention. More positive attitude and greater knowledge were indirectly associated with higher subjective norms and perceived behavioral control, which resulted in stronger STEM teaching intention. Additionally, gender did not affect preservice teachers’ intention to adopt STEM teaching approaches. However, preservice teachers whose specialization was in different fields tended to influence their knowledge and perceived behavioral control; these issues require further investigation.

Keywords

Preservice teachers STEM Teaching intention Theory of planned behavior 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of China under contract numbers NSC 102-2628-S-003 -001 and MOST 103-2628-S-003 -001. The findings and recommendations contained in this article of those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Ministry of Science and Technology. We are extremely grateful to Professor Larry D. Yore and Shari A. Yore for their mentoring efforts, the reviewers for their helpful comments, and the preservice teachers who participated in this study.

References

  1. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (2002). Engineering accreditation criteria. Baltimore, MD: Author.Google Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ajzen, I. & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 453–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: Project 2061. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bybee, R. W. (2010). What is STEM education? Science, 329, 996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  8. Chen, X. (2009). Students who study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in postsecondary education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  9. Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Chin, W. W. (2010). Bootstrap cross-validation indices for PLS path model assessment. In V. Esposito Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 83–97). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Darling-Hammond, L. & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597–604.Google Scholar
  12. DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Gura, M. (2012). Lego robotics: STEM sport of the mind. Learning & Learning with Technology, 40(1), 12–16.Google Scholar
  14. Han, S., Capraro, R. & Capraro, M. M. (2014). How science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) project-based learning (PBL) affects high, middle, and low achievers differently: The impact of student factors on achievement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s10763-014-9526-0
  15. Huang, T. (2012). Agents’ social imagination: The ‘invisible’ hand of neoliberalism in Taiwan’s curriculum reform. International Journal of Educational Development, 32(1), 39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. International Technology Education Association (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology (3rd ed.). Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  17. Kolter, P. (2000). Marketing management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  18. Kuenzi, J. J. (2008). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: Background, federal policy, and legislative action. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
  19. Mahoney, M. (2010). Students’ attitudes toward STEM: Development of an instrument for high school STEM-based programs. Journal of Technology Studies, 36(1), 24–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ministry of Education (2013). Yearbook of teacher education statistics: The Republic of China. Taipei, Taiwan: Author.Google Scholar
  21. Monroe, M., Day, B. & Grieser, M. (2000). GreenCOM weaves four strands. In B. Day & M. Monroe (Eds.), Environmental education & communication for a sustainable world (pp. 3–6). Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development.Google Scholar
  22. Nathan, M., Srisurichan, R., Walkington, C., Wolfgram, M., Williams, C. & Alibali, M. W. (2013). Building cohesion across representations: A mechanism for STEM integration. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(1), 209–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. National Research Council (1996). The national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  24. National Research Council (2012). Disciplinary core ideas-Engineering, Technology, and applications of Science. In H. Quinn & H. A. Schweingruber (Eds.), A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas (pp. 201–214). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  25. Nicholls, G. M., Wolfe, H., Besterfield-Sacre, M. & Shuman, L. J. (2010). Predicting STEM degree outcomes based on eighth grade data and standard test scores. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(3), 209–223.Google Scholar
  26. Nicholls, G. M., Wolfe, H., Besterfield-Sacre, M., Shuman, L. J. & Larpkiattaworn, S. (2007). A method for identifying variables for predicting STEM enrollment. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(1), 33–44.Google Scholar
  27. Price, J. (2010). The effect of instructor race and gender on student persistence in STEM fields. Economics of Education Review, 29(6), 901–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roberts, A. & Cantu, D. (2012). Applying STEM instructional strategies to design and technology curriculum. Proceedings of the Technology Education in the 21st Century, Sweden, 73, 111–118. Retrieved from http://www.ep.liu.se/ecp_article/index.en.aspx?issue=073;article=013
  29. Sanders, M. (2012). Integrative STEM education as “best practice.” Paper presented at the Seventh Biennial International Technology Education Research Conference, Queensland, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.sp2.upenn.edu/ostrc/stem/ documents/IntegrativeSTEM.pdf
  30. Tenenhaus, M. (2008). Component-based structural equation modelling. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 19, 871–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vescio, V., Ross, D. & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91.Google Scholar
  32. Vinzi, V. E., Trinchera, L. & Amato, S. (2010). PLS path modeling: From foundations to recent developments and open issues for model assessment and improvement. In V. Esposito Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 47–82). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiRepublic of China
  2. 2.The University of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations