Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

Elementary preservice teacher preparation to teach mathematics and science in an integrated STEM framework

Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, Volume 5, Issue 3, September 2022, pp. -
OPEN ACCESS VIEWS: 54 DOWNLOADS: 34 Publication date: 10 Jun 2022
A mixed-methods research design with a sequential, explanatory approach was used to investigate the extent to which successful completion of integrated mathematics and science methods of instruction courses related to elementary preservice teachers’ attitudes toward and confidence in teaching integrated STEM lessons. Participants (n = 24) were enrolled in their final two semesters of a teacher preparation program at a four-year public university leading to dual certification in elementary (K-6) and special education. Quantitative data were collected using the STEM Attitudes Questionnaire and the STEM Confidence Questionnaire and administered as a pre, post, and delayed post measure. Qualitative data were obtained from focus group participants and open-ended questions added to the delayed post-measures. Results indicated an overall positive change in attitudes and confidence over the 11-month period but no statistically significant difference in the participants’ attitudes toward or confidence in teaching integrated STEM lessons. Important implications for the numerous stakeholders of STEM education are presented.
Elementary STEM Education, Teacher Preparation, Attitudes, Confidence
Byrd, K. O., Herron, S., Robichaux-Davis, R., Mohn, R., & Shelley, K. (2022). Elementary preservice teacher preparation to teach mathematics and science in an integrated STEM framework. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 5(3), -.
  1. Achieve. (2012). Next generation science standards.
  2. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall.
  3. Al Orime, S., & Ambusaidi, A. (2011). The impact of using the integration approach between science and mathematics on acquiring the skills for solving scientific problems for fourth grade students. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 8(2), 9-23.
  4. Bandura, A. (1978). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Advances in Behavior Research and Therapy, 1(4), 139-161.
  5. Barcelona, K. (2014). 21st Century curriculum change initiative: A focus on STEM education as an integrated approach to teaching and learning. American Journal of Educational Research, 2(10), 862-875. http://doi:10.12691/education-2-10-4
  6. 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. DOI: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00111.x
  7. Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. NSTA press.
  8. Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Colorado Springs, Co: BSCS, 5, 88-98.
  9. Corlu, M. S., Capraro, R. M., & Corlu, M. A. (2015). Investigating the mental readiness of pre-service teachers for integrated teaching. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(1), 17-28.
  10. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed method research (2nd ed.). Sage Publishing.
  11. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
  12. Education Development Center. (1969). Goals for the correlation of elementary science and mathematics. Houghton Mifflin.
  13. Epstein, D., & Miller, R. T. (2011). Slow off the mark: Elementary school teachers and the crisis in science, technology, engineering, and math education. Center for American Progress, 77(1), 4–10.
  14. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2013). G*Power Version 3.1.7 [computer software]. Uiversität Kiel, Germany.
  15. Frykholm, J., & Glasson, G. (2005). Connecting science and mathematics instruction: Pedagogical context knowledge for teachers. School Science and Mathematics,105(3), 127-141.
  16. Furner, J. M., & Kumar, D.D. (2007). The mathematics and science integration argument: A stand for teacher education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(3), 185-189.
  17. Glasser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine.
  18. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.) Prentice Hall.
  19. Huntley, M. A. (1998). Design and implementation of a framework for defining integrated mathematics and science education. School Science and Mathematics, 98, 320-327. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.1998.tb17427.x
  20. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Sage Publications.
  21. Johnson, T. M., Byrd, K. O., & Allison, E. R. (2021). The impact of integrated STEM modeling on elementary preservice teachers’ self‐efficacy for integrated STEM instruction: A co‐teaching approach. School Science and Mathematics, 121(1), 25-35.
  22. Kelley, T. R., Knowles, J. G., Holland, J. D., & Han, J. (2020). Increasing high school teachers’ self-efficacy for integrated STEM instruction through a collaborative community of practice. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1-13.
  23. Kermani, H., & Aldemir, J. (2015) Preparing children for success: Integrating science, math, and technology in early childhood classroom. Early Child Development and Care, 185(9), 1504-1527.
  24. Kurup, P. M., Brown, M., Powell, G., & Li, X. (2017). Future primary teachers’ beliefs, understandings and intentions to teach STEM. IAFOR Journal of Education, 5(SI), 161-177.
  25. Maher, P. A., Bailey, J. M., Etheridge, D. A., & Warby, D. B. (2013). Preservice teachers' beliefs and confidence after working with STEM faculty mentors: An exploratory study. Teacher Education and Practice, 26(2), 266-284.
  26. Mobley, M. C. (2015). Development of the SETIS instrument to measure teachers’ self-efficacy to teach science in an integrated STEM framework [Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Tennessee]. The University of Tennessee Digital Archive.
  27. Moore, T. J., & Smith, K. A. (2014). Advancing the state of the art of STEM integration. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 15(1), 5-10.
  28. 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, 157-168. doi:10.1080/00220671.2012.667014
  29. National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council [NAE & NRC]. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
  30. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Author.
  31. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics.
  32. Navy, S. L., & Kaya, F. (2020). PBL as a pedagogical approach for integrated STEM: Evidence from prospective teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 120(5), 285-296. DOI: 10.1111/ssm.12408
  33. Nolan, M. M., Beran, T., & Hecker, K. G. (2012). Surveys assessing students’ attitudes toward statistics: A systematic review of validity and reliability. Statistics Education Research Journal, 11(2).
  34. Pimthong, P., & Williams, P. J. (2021). Methods course for primary level STEM preservice teachers: Constructing integrated STEM teaching. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(8), 1-14.
  35. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010). Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) for America’s future: Executive report. Executive Office of the President.
  36. Radloff, J., & Guzey, S. (2017). Investigating changes in preservice teachers' conceptions of STEM education following video analysis and reflection. School Science and Mathematics, 117(3-4), 158-167. http://doi:10.1111/ssm.12218
  37. Ramirez, C., Schau, C., & Emmioglu, E. (2012). The importance of attitudes in statistics education. Statistics Education Research Journal, 11(2), 57-71.
  38. Riegle-Crumb, C., Morton, K., Moore, C., Chimonidou, A., Labrake, C., & Kopp, S. (2015). Do inquiring minds have positive attitudes? The science education of preservice elementary teachers. Science Education, 99(5), 819–836. http://doi:10.1002/sce.21177
  39. Schau, C. (2003a). Survey of Attitudes Toward Statistics (SATS-36).
  40. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
  41. Thibaut, L., Knipprath, H., Dehaene, W., & Depaepe, F. (2018). The influence of teachers' attitudes and school context on instructional practices in integrated STEM education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 190-205.
  42. Thomas, T. A. (2014). Elementary teachers’ receptivity to integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education in the elementary grades. (Publication No. 3625770) [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Nevada]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
  43. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805.
Creative Commons License