Advertisement

Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Teaching Integrated STEM: the Impact of Personal Background Characteristics and School Context

  • Lieve Thibaut
  • Heidi Knipprath
  • Wim Dehaene
  • Fien Depaepe
Article

Abstract

A promising approach to increase students’ motivation for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) is integrated STEM education (iSTEM). This is an instructional approach that emphasizes the deeper connections between the STEM disciplines by involving students in design challenges centered around real-world problems. However, the successful implementation of a new instructional approach, such as iSTEM, strongly depends on teachers’ attitudes toward the innovation. Therefore, a deeper understanding of teachers’ attitudes toward teaching iSTEM is necessary. This study uses a survey method to investigate the influence of teachers’ background characteristics and school context variables on teachers’ attitudes toward teaching iSTEM. To do so, a differential approach is used. Attitudes toward five key principles for iSTEM (integration, problem-centered, inquiry-based, design-based, and cooperative learning) are examined separately to get a more in-depth and nuanced insight into the factors influencing these attitudes. Results of the multiple regression analyses show that participation in professional development is positively linked to teachers’ attitudes toward all key principles, whereas several other teacher and school context variables are positively correlated with attitudes toward one or two principles. Moreover, experience in mathematics and total years of teaching show a negative correlation with several aspects of teachers’ attitudes toward teaching iSTEM. Findings of this study are valuable, since they not only provide insight into possible barriers to the implementation of iSTEM but also suggest opportunities for overcoming these barriers.

Keywords

Attitudes Secondary education STEM Survey Teachers 

Notes

Funding

This work was supported by the IWT-SBO (grant name STEM@school).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. London, England: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173–221). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Al Salami, M. K., Makela, C. J., & de Miranda, M. A. (2017). Assessing changes in teachers’ attitudes toward interdisciplinary STEM teaching. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(1), 63–88.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9341-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aldemir, J., & Kermani, H. (2017). Integrated STEM curriculum: Improving educational outcomes for head start children. Early Child Development and Care, 187(11), 1694–1706.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1185102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andersen, H. M., & Krogh, L. B. (2010). Science and mathematics teachers’ core teaching conceptions and their implications for engaging in cross-curricular innovations. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 6(1), 61–79.  https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Appleton, K. (2003). How do beginning primary school teachers cope with science? Toward an understanding of science teaching practice. Journal for Research in Science Teaching, 33, 1–25.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023666618800.Google Scholar
  7. Ayub, A. F. M., Bakar, K. A., & Ismail, R. (2015). Factors predicting teachers’ attitudes towards the use of ICT in teaching and learning. In I. Mohamed, L. T. How, A. C. Y. Mui, & W. K. Bin (Eds.), AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1682, No. 1, p. 030010). Melville, NY: AIP Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc..Google Scholar
  10. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.Google Scholar
  11. Barham, A. I. (2002). An assessment of the effectiveness of cooperative learning strategies in promoting problem-solving skills and achievement in mathematics (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from University of Huddersfield Repository: http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/6907/
  12. Bryan, L. A., Moore, T. J., Johnson, C. C., & Roehrig, G. H. (2015). Integrated STEM education. In C. C. Johnson, E. E. Peters-Burton, & T. J. Moore (Eds.), STEM roadmap: A framework for integration (pp. 23–37). London, England: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  13. Capps, D. K., & Crawford, B. A. (2013). Inquiry-based instruction and teaching about nature of science: Are they happening? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(3), 497–526.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9314-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen, Z., & Yeung, A. S. (2015). Self-efficacy in Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language in Australian Schools. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(8), 24–42.  https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n8.2.Google Scholar
  15. Christensen, R., Knezek, G., & Tyler-Wood, T. (2015). Alignment of hands-on STEM engagement activities with positive STEM dispositions in secondary school students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(6), 898–909.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9572-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clark, L. M., DePiper, J. N., Frank, T. J., Nishio, M., Campbell, P. F., Smith, T. M., Choi, Y. (2014). Teacher characteristics associated with mathematics Teachers’ beliefs and awareness of their Students' mathematical dispositions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(2), 246–284.  https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.45.2.0246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cohen, J., McCabe, L., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 180–213.Google Scholar
  18. Day, C., & Sachs, J. (2004). Professionalism, performativity and empowerment: Discourses in the politics, policies and purposes of continuing professional development. In C. Day & J. Sachs (Eds.), International handbook on the continuing professional development of teachers (pp. 3–32). Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  19. DeChenne, S. E., Koziol, N., Needham, M., & Enochs, L. (2015). Modeling sources of teaching self-efficacy for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics graduate teaching assistants. CBE Life Sciences Education, 14(3), 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-09-0153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Denessen, E., Vos, N., Damen, T., Koch, S., Louws, M., & Wigboldus, D. (2011). Explicit and implicit measures of teacher attitudes towards science and technology. In M. J. de Vries, H. van Keulen, S. Peters, & J. Walma van der Molen (Eds.), Professional development for primary teachers in science and technology (pp. 107–119). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Diggs, V. (2009). Ask-think-create: The process of inquiry. Knowledge Quest, 37(5), 30–33.Google Scholar
  22. Donaghue, H. (2003). An instrument to elicit teachers' beliefs and assumptions. ELT Journal, 57(4), 344–351.  https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/57.4.344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Drake, S. M., & Burns, R. C. (2004). Integrated curriculum, meeting standards through. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  24. Durlak, J. (1998). Why program implementation is important. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 17(2), 5–18.  https://doi.org/10.1300/J005v17n02_02.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. Eck, M. J. (1969). Occupational experience: A business teachers' asset. Business Education. Forum, 24(3), 30–31.Google Scholar
  27. Engeln, K., Euler, M., & Maass, K. (2013). Inquiry-based learning in mathematics and science: A comparative baseline study of teachers’ beliefs and practices across 12 European countries. ZDM, 45(6), 823–836.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0507-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Felder, R., Felder, G., Mauney, M., Hamrin, C., & Dietz, J. (1995). A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. III. Gender differences in student performance and attitudes. Journal of Engineering Education, 84(2), 151–163.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.1995.tb00162.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitudes, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Retrieved from https://www.GR%20downloadables/STEM%20Education.pdf.
  30. Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18(3), 326–339.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(81)90019-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  32. Han, S., Yalvae, B., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2015). In-service teachers' implementation and understanding of STEM project based learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(1), 63-76.  https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1306a
  33. Henson, R. K. (2001). Teacher self-efficacy: Substantive implications and measurement dilemmas. Invited keynote at the annual meeting of the Educational Research Exchange, Texas A & M University, Texas.Google Scholar
  34. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 236–262.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ho, M. K., Yang, H. J., & Yang, H. H. (2016). Design and Verify an instrument of assessing attitude toward STEM teaching. International Journal of Education and Information Technologies, 10, 41–50.Google Scholar
  36. Huberman, M. (1989). The professional life cycle of teachers. Teachers College Record, 91(1), 31–57.Google Scholar
  37. Jarski, R. W., Kulig, K., & Olson, R. E. (1990). Clinical teaching in physical therapy: Student and teacher perceptions. Physical Therapy, 70(3), 173–178.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/70.3.173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory Into Practice, 38(2), 67–73.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849909543834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jones, C., & Levin, J. (1994). Primary/elementary teachers’ attitudes toward science in four areas related to gender differences in students’ science performance. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 6(1), 46–66.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03170649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jones Jr., M. E. (1973). Work experience programs in business education. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 15(2), 22–32.Google Scholar
  41. Kafai, Y. B., & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Ke, F. (2014). An implementation of design-based learning through creating educational computer games: A case study on mathematics learning during design and computing. Computers & Education, 73, 26–39.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. King, J. (1986). Keeping current: Eight teachers share their secrets. Vocational Education Journal, 61(5), 36–38.Google Scholar
  44. Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers' self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 741–756.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Koballa, T. R. (1988). Attitude and related concepts in science education. Science Education, 72(2), 115–126.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730720202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lin, K. Y., & Williams, P. J. (2016). Taiwanese preservice teachers’ science, technology, engineering, and mathematics teaching intention. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(6), 1021–1036.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9645-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Maasz, J., & Schlöglmann, W. (Eds.). (2009). Beliefs and attitudes in mathematics education: New research results. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  48. Maio, G., & Haddock, G. (2014). The psychology of attitudes and attitude change. London, England: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  49. Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & Hau, K. T. (1996). An evaluation of incremental fit indices: A clarification of mathematical and empirical processes. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling techniques (pp. 315–353). Hillsdale, MI: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  50. Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  51. Mellati, M., Khademi, M., & Shirzadeh, A. (2015). The relationships among sources of teacher pedagogical beliefs, teaching experiences, and student outcomes. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 4(2), 177–184.  https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.4n.2p.177.Google Scholar
  52. Menmuir, J., & Adams, K. (1997). Young children's inquiry learning in mathematics. Early Years, 17(2), 34–39.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0957514970170207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Metin, M., Acisli, S., & Kolomuc, A. (2012). Attitude of elementary prospective teachers towards science teaching. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 2004–2008.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Moore, T. J., & Smith, K. A. (2014). Advancing the state of the art of STEM integration. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 15(1), 5–10.Google Scholar
  55. Mustafa, N., Ismail, Z., Tasir, Z., Said, M., & Haruzuan, M. N. (2016). A meta-analysis on effective strategies for integrated STEM education. Advanced Science Letters, 22(12), 4225–4228.  https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2016.8111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.667014
  57. National Academies of Science. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm. Report from the committee on prospering in the global economy of the 21 st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  58. National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  59. Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317–328.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027870190403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. National Society of Professional Engineers. (2013). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. (NSPE Position Statement No. 1768). Retrieved from https://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/resources/
  61. Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  62. Raudenbush, S. W., Rowan, B., & Cheong, Y. F. (1992). Contextual effects on the self-perceived efficacy of high school teachers. Sociology of Education, 65(2), 150–167.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2112680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Reed, P. A. (2003). Inquiry in technology education. In K. D. Helgeson & A. E. Schwaller (Eds.), Selecting instructional strategies for technology education (pp. 117–129). Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  64. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 102–119). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  65. Sade, D., & Coll, R. (2003). Technology and technology education: Views of some Solomon Island primary teachers and curriculum development officers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1(1), 87–114.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026155003835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schreiner, C., & Sjøberg, S. (2007). Science education and youth’s identity construction—Two incompatible projects? In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, & R. Gunstone (Eds.), The re-emergence of values in the science curriculum (pp. 231–249). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  67. Stains, M., & Vickrey, T. (2017). Fidelity of implementation: An overlooked yet critical construct to establish effectiveness of evidence-based instructional practices. Life Sciences Education, 16(1), 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0113.
  68. Stodolsky, S. S., & Grossman, P. L. (1995). The impact of subject matter on curricular activity: An analysis of five academic subjects. American Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 227–249.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032002227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. J ournal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER) , 2(1), 28-34.  https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314653
  70. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2002). The influence of resources and support on teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  71. Thibaut, L., Knipprath, H., Dehaene, W., & Depaepe, F. (2017a). Development and validation of an instrument for measuring teachers' attitudes toward teaching integrated STEM (HIVA Working Paper). Retrieved from Research Institute for Work and Society website: https://hiva.kuleuven.be/nl/backupoud/docs/working-papers/HIVA_WP2017_Lieve_Thibaut.pdf
  72. Thibaut, L., Knipprath, H., Dehaene, W., & Depaepe, F. (2017b). How school context and personal factors relate to teachers’ attitudes toward teaching integrated STEM. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. Advance online publication.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9416-1
  73. Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., Depaepe, F. (2018a). Integrated STEM education: A systematic review of instructional practices in secondary education. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 02.  https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/85525
  74. Thibaut, L., Knipprath, H., Dehaene, W., & Depaepe, F. (2018b). The influence of teachers’ attitudes and school context on instructional practices in integrated STEM education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 190-205.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.014
  75. van Aalderen-Smeets, S. I., & Walma van der Molen, J. H. (2015). Improving primary teachers’ attitudes toward science by attitude-focused professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(5), 710–734.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. van Aalderen-Smeets, S. I., Walma van der Molen, J. H., & Asma, L. J. (2012). Primary teachers' attitudes toward science: A new theoretical framework. Science Education, 96(1), 158–182.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wang, H. 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), 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314636.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Group Education and Labour MarketResearch Institute for Work and Society (HIVA)LeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.MICAS, Microelectronics and sensors, Department of Electrical Engineering (ESAT)LeuvenBelgium
  3. 3.Centre for Instructional Psychology and TechnologyFaculty of Psychology and Educational, SciencesLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations