University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Elementary STEM policies, practices and implementation in California

(USC Thesis Other)

Elementary STEM policies, practices and implementation in California

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: ELEMENTARY STEM 1

ELEMENTARY STEM POLICIES, PRACTICES AND IMPLEMENTATION IN
CALIFORNIA

by

Rebeca Judith Andrade

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2016

Copyright 2016 Rebeca Judith Andrade
ELEMENTARY STEM 2
Table of Contents
List of Tables 5
List of Figures 6
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 8
Statement of the Problem 8
Purpose of the Study 9
Research Questions 9
Significance of the Study 10
Limitations and Delimitations 10
Key Concepts and Definition of Terms 11
Definition of Terms 12
Organization of the Study 12
Chapter Two: Literature Review 14
STEM Origins in U.S. Public Schools 14
STEM in Secondary Schools 15
Rationale for STEM Programs in Elementary Schools 16
STEM Skills, Abilities, and Competencies 17
Mathematics, Critical Thinking and Problem Solving 17
STEM and 21
st
Century Skills 18
STEM and the Common Core State Standards 18
The Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts 19
The Common Core State Standards in Mathematics 19
STEM and the Next Generation Science Standards 20
Student Achievement Outcomes in The United States 21
California Students’ Academic Results and Accessibility to STEM 22
Further Academic Considerations 23
The Economics of STEM Funding 23
Economic Competitiveness 25
Workforce and Job Demands 26
California’s Local Control Funding Formula 27
Receptivity to STEM from Classroom Practitioners 29
STEM Collaboration 29
Teacher Training in STEM Content Curricula and Pedagogy 30
Administrative Support for STEM Initiatives 32
Innovation Through STEM as America’s Solution to Globalization 33
Theories of Change, Motivation and Organizational Frames 35
Further Considerations and Potential Implications 36
Diversion 36
Diversity and Access 37
Common Understanding of STEM Concept 38
Ethical Considerations 39
Chapter Three: Methodology 40
Research Design and Methods 41
Mixed-methods Design 42
ELEMENTARY STEM 3
Sample and Population 43
Instrumentation 44
Access/Entry 44
Protocols 45
Credibility and Trustworthiness 46
Ethics 46
Data Collection 46
Data Analysis 47
Surveys 47
Interviews 48
STEM in Elementary Grades 49
Chapter Four: Findings 50
Data Collection Methodology 50
Organization of Data Analysis and Results 52
Demographics of Survey and Interview Participants 52
Key Attributes of School Characteristics 53
Survey Response Rates 54
Years of Experience 55
Characteristics of Interview Participants 55
Research Question 1 57
Leadership and Organizational Frames 57
Instructional Changes 59
Curriculum Integration 60
Organizational Differentiation and Integration of Labor 60
Financial Resources 61
Human Resources 61
Signature Programs and Parent Options 62
Reframing STEM Continuity 62
Research Question 2 63
Teacher Reaction to STEM Implementation 66
21st Century Skills 67
Thematic Integration 67
Training and Professional Development 68
Perceived Student and Teacher Support 69
Research Question 3 71
Conceptualizing and Understanding STEM 71
Positive Receptivity to STEM in Elementary Grades 72
Networks and Administrators' Collaborative 74
STEM as a Competitive Market 74
STEM Teaching and Learning 75
School Climate 78
Research Question 4 78
Motivation and Excitement as Successful STEM Indicators 79
Student Engagement as Successful STEM Indicator 80
Additional Findings 81
ELEMENTARY STEM 4
Concerns of STEM Implementation 82
Political Landscape and District Dynamics 84
Chapter Five: Summary, Implications and Recommendations 85
Discussion of Findings 86
Policies Impacting STEM Implementation 87
State Content Standards 87
STEM Training Standards 87
Local Control Funding Formula 88
Conceptualizing STEM 88
Professional Learning 89
Student Performance Assessments 91
Engagement and Motivation as STEM Indicators 91
Theoretical Framework Revisited 92
Implications for Practice 93
Integrated Curriculum 93
STEM Rubrics and Indicators of Success 95
Limitations of the Study 95
Future Research 96
Population Size and Sub-groups 96
Diffusions of Innovation as Conceptual Framework 97
Classroom Observations 97
Conclusions 98
References 99
Appendix A: Research Design Matrix 108
Appendix B: Research Questions and Protocol Grid 109
Appendix C: Survey Protocol 111
Appendix D: Consent Form 114

ELEMENTARY STEM 5
List of Tables
Table 1: School Characteristics 54
Table 2: Summary of Survey Responses 54
Table 3: Survey Participants’ Years of Experience 55
Table 4: Interviewed Teachers' Professional Background 56
Table 5: Interviewed Administrators' Professional Background 57
Table 6: Frequencies and Percentages of Teachers’ Positive Receptivity to STEM 65
Table 7: Frequencies and Percentages of Teachers’ Negative Receptivity to STEM 66
Table 8: Frequencies and Percentages of Administrators’ Positive Receptivity to STEM 73
Table 9: Frequencies and Percentages of Administrators’ Negative Receptivity to STEM 73
Table 10: Participants with High and Very High Concerns Regarding STEM
Implementation 83

ELEMENTARY STEM 6
List of Figures
Figure A: Conceptual Framework 41
Figure B: Research Design 42
Figure C: Axial and Second Cycle Codes 51
Figure D: Teachers’ Regard for STEM in Elementary Grades 64
Figure E: Administrators’ Regard for STEM in Elementary Grades 71
Figure F: NRC Integrated STEM Framework 94

ELEMENTARY STEM 7
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the organizational frameworks used for
STEM implementation by administrators as well as elementary teachers’ perceptions of
STEM implementation in California’s schools. This study examined: (a) organizational
frameworks used when steering school staff into STEM implementation, (b) teachers’
perceptions on the need to implement STEM in their classroom, (c) administrators’
perceptions of STEM implementation, and (d) how teachers and site leaders assess
effectiveness of STEM strategies utilized. This study used surveys and semi-structured
interviews using a sequential-explanatory mixed-methods approach with a sample of 52
California administrators and teachers. Moreover, document review analyses were
conducted of school and district websites and documents (Creswell, 2009; Fink, 2013;
Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2003). The data collected from the surveys on perceptions and
receptivity to STEM and the need for STEM implementation was analyzed as ordinal
quantitative data. Interpretative data collected from interviews assisted in creating and
developing themes and, through a constant-comparative method, a micro-theory emerged
(Harding, 2013; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009; Miles, Huberman & Saldana, 2014). This
study’s findings indicate positive receptivity from both site administrators and classroom
teachers to STEM implementation at the elementary grades, serving to further policy and
practice initiatives. Further, participants identified specific barriers to successful STEM
implementation in California’s elementary schools.
Keywords: Elementary STEM; Administrator and Teacher Perceptions; Implementation
ELEMENTARY STEM 8
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
The U.S. Department of Education's Blueprint for Reform (2010) calls for
educational shifts beyond college and career-ready instruction to emphasize science,
technology, engineering and math instruction (STEM). A policy and practice emphasis on
STEM is aligned with both the immediate need of addressing current educational shifts
(e.g., 21
st
Century learning and assessments) as well as the future economic demands of
students as they graduate and enter the workforce. In California, there is an 11%
unemployment rate and jobs in the STEM sector are predicted to grow 22% by 2020
(Ortega, 2014). To address economic, professional, and political shifts in education,,
rigorous instructional lessons grounded in brain-based learning (Medina, 2008; Rodriguez,
2012) may augment how STEM education is implemented. Considering the current
graduation rates and workforce demands, and understanding that the job of education is to
invigorate democracy (Dewey, 1900), STEM education must be kept at the forefront of staff
and community conversations across California’s schools.
Statement of the Problem
In California, STEM curriculum and instruction has primarily focused on secondary
efforts. However, over the last few years, there has been an increase in attention to
elementary schools’ implementation of STEM. Many factors have influenced this
movement, such as declining student enrollment patterns and magnet and public school
choices. In some cases, schools and districts apply for competitive grants and become the
recipients of federal and state STEM awards, such as “Race to the Top (Obama, 2009).”
This study explores how elementary classroom teachers’ and site administrators’
perceive STEM policies, practices and implementation in California elementary grades at a
ELEMENTARY STEM 9
time in the state’s educational history where new rigorous standards are expected yet many
schools do not have set accountability measures, such as the Academic Performance Index
(API) structures of years past.
Purpose of the Study
For the purpose of this study, only elementary public schools in California that
transitioned to a STEM emphasis without redesignation to magnet or charter status, as
defined by the California Department of Education, were selected (CDE, 2016).
Understanding current teacher and site administrator perceptions of STEM instruction,
along with their perceived need for STEM in Kindergarten through grade 6 classrooms, is
essential for planning professional development, identifying best practices for teaching and
learning, and building a common language as a school, at each grade level, and in individual
classrooms.
How schools modify their instructional focus to STEM requires a thorough
consideration of values and cultural practices; therefore, understanding the motivations of
classroom practitioners and site administrators is essential for success and sustained change
(Adams, 2014; Bolman & Deal, 2003; Spillane, 2014). This case study is bound (Merriam,
2009; Yin, 2008) to the perceptions of teachers and site administrators in nine California
public elementary schools.
Research Questions
1. What organizational shifts were selected to steer school staff into STEM
implementation?
2. What are teachers’ perceptions regarding the need to implement STEM in their
classrooms?
ELEMENTARY STEM 10
3. What are site administrators’ perceptions of STEM implementation?
4. How do teachers and site leaders assess effectiveness of STEM strategies?
In answering the research questions, Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four-frame
organizational models were compared in relation to site and district leadership theories
about teacher learning and change, in particular as they relate to behaviorist, cognitive and
sociocultural perspectives.
Significance of the Study
Findings from this study are insightful to school leaders and districts that have
existing STEM programs in secondary schools and wish to extend such programming to
elementary schools. Results from interviews and surveys contribute examples of
opportunities and obstacles to inform leaders desiring to emphasize STEM curriculum and
instruction in elementary schools. School leaders may find this study’s explicit connections
to effective practices, sustainability factors, and organizational dynamics beneficial.
Limitations and Delimitations
The qualitative nature of the study may reflect unique attributes that may not be
representative of all STEM elementary programs in California schools or in the nation. As a
result, findings from this study may not be replicated at additional schools or in different
organizational contexts. The data collection took place from October 2015 to January 2016.
Interview instrumentation cannot anticipate the extent of knowledge that may exist in
answering best strategies and knowledge of STEM at the elementary level from participants,
as it relies on perceptions and therefore the honesty of participants in answering the
questions. Finally, potential biases and validity threats exists from this researcher serving as
instrumentalist (Maxwell, 2013).
ELEMENTARY STEM 11
Delimitations in this study involve school site selection and timeline of study. This
study focuses on elementary schools in California that are public schools and do not have a
magnet designation. Private, charter, and magnet schools were not included. Additionally,
secondary STEM efforts and programs were not part of this study.
Key Concepts and Definition of Terms
Understanding both site administrators’ and teachers’ perceptions of both the need
for as well as implementation of STEM offers insights for addressing motivation and
necessary support for implementation. As Spillane (2014) notes, “support is essential” but
knowing what kind of support to address first, such as staff development in curriculum,
STEM knowledge, or cultural proficiency training, can determine sustainability for this
change. There is also a mixture of professional, bureaucratic, and market challenges to
organizational shifts in curriculum and instruction (Furhman, 2004; Hentschke &
Wohlstetter, 2004; Stetcher & Kirby, 2004) that must also be considered, since
contemporary political pressure from some school districts is to have schools of choice, and
this translates to transforming or changing schools. School transformational challenges, such
as STEM emphasis, happen when educators perceive a sense of urgency and a need for
change (Waters & Cameron, 2007). Understanding the cultural identity of the organization
will inform observations of the cultural setting, along with teachers’ self efficacy (i.e.,
motivation).
Key concepts in this study are in the areas of site administrators’ and teachers’
STEM perceptions as well as STEM knowledge and skills as pertinent to their self-efficacy
(i.e., motivation) and implementation of STEM instruction. Concepts are grounded in the
particular organizational context and political landscape.
ELEMENTARY STEM 12
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined as follows:
Behavior intentions: A teacher's’ level of physical and verbal support or opposition toward
STEM at the elementary grades (Thomas, 2015; Waugh & Godfrey, 1993).
Complex problem solver: Identifying complex problems and reviewing related information
to develop and evaluate options and implement solutions (Carnevale, Smith & Melton,
2011).
Critical Thinking: Using logic and reasoning to identify the strengths and weaknesses of
alternative solutions, conclusions, or approaches to problems (Carnevale, Smith & Melton,
2011).
Elementary Teacher: A certificated classroom teacher able to instruct in multiple subjects
from Kindergarten through grade 6. Typically assigned to one grade by the school.
Receptivity: A measure of elementary participants’ attitude toward STEM education in the
elementary grades (Thomas, 2015).
STEM Education: The instruction of science, technology, engineering and math in an
integrated approach, or as close as possible (Carnevale et al., 2011; Merril & Daughtery,
2010).
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is organized in five chapters. Chapter 1 presented an overview of
the importance of STEM at the elementary level as well as its implications to the workforce
and economy. Chapter 1 also presented the statement of the problem, purpose of the study,
research questions, significance of the study, limitations and delimitations of the study, key
concepts, and definitions of terms. Chapter 2 is a literature review of educational policy and
ELEMENTARY STEM 13
practice efforts at the elementary level in STEM. Literature reviewed in each STEM subject
is explored separately while advancing relationships to economic sustainability, theory of
change relevance, and influence to academic accountability and student success. Chapter 3
describes the methodology, population, as well as data collection and analysis procedures
for the study. Chapter 4 presents the findings of the study, including descriptive and
statistical analysis of collected data. Chapter 5 summarizes the findings and offers
implications to current and aspiring school leaders interested in developing STEM
curriculum and instruction at the elementary school level. Future recommendations for
further study and analysis are also found in Chapter 5.

ELEMENTARY STEM 14
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This review of the literature provides a synthesis of current research in STEM efforts
across the nation and in California. Specifically, the economics of STEM implementation
are reviewed by presenting state, federal and other sources for funding STEM initiatives
especially at the elementary level. Knowledge regarding teacher and administration
receptivity toward STEM implementation at grades K-6, along with a presentation of
student achievement in the areas of science and mathematics, follows. A brief discussion of
organizational frames is presented as a theoretical framework for this study. Finally, a case
is made for STEM implementation at the elementary grades while noting the important role
of site administratiors and teachers in achieving this goal.
STEM origins in U.S. Public Schools
There is no commonly agreed-upon definition of STEM (Breiner, Johnson, Harkness
& Koehler, 2012; Carnevale et al., 2011; U.S. Bureau Department of Labor Statistics, 2012).
A relationship toward STEM conceptualization may be reached by analyzing the job in the
fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics in the United States. To this end,
in 2010 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) was tasked by the Standard
Occupational Classification (SOC) to recommend options for defining STEM occupations.
As a result, STEM is defined as replacing traditional lecture-style instruction with inquiry
and project-based learning. Theoretically, this is to be taught through an integrated
approach, but as Thomas (2014) asserts, there is little evidence that authentic STEM
integration is experienced in a standardized form across the nation (Breiner et. al., 2012;
Brown, Brown, Reardon & Merrill, 2011). In this study, STEM is defined as the instruction
ELEMENTARY STEM 15
of science, technology, engineering and math in an integrated approach, or as close as
possible (Carnevale et al., 2011, Merril & Daughtery, 2010).
In California, State Superintendent Tom Torlakson commissioned a task force to
study and design STEM for the state. In Innovate: A Blueprint for Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics (2014), the task force defined STEM thus:
K-12 STEM education encompasses the processes of critical thinking,
analysis, and collaboration in which students integrate the processes and
concepts in real world contexts of science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics, fostering the development of STEM skills and competencies
for college, career, and life. (Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation,
[CDEF], STEM Blueprint, 2014 p. 8)
STEM in Secondary Schools
STEM education is disproportionately funded between elementary and secondary
schools. During the last two presidential administrations, the majority of K-12 STEM
programming budget allocations was directed toward creating STEM initiatives at the high
school levels (ACC, 2007; GAO, 2005). Additionally, President Obama’s Race to the Top
(2009) allocation was specifically targeted for high school reform including refining STEM
focus. An additional example of this STEM emphasis in secondary schools is the North
Carolina School of Science and Mathematics (NCSSM) for high school juniors and seniors.
In NCSSM, secondary students participate in rigorous STEM courses and opportunities to
participate in research and mentoring programs. NCSSM has been very successful, with
99% of their student body entering college after graduation (Barakos, Lujan, & Strang,
2012; Park, 2011).
Park (2011) delineates several other high school programs, such as the Thomas
Jefferson High School of Science and Technology in Virginia, Illinois, and the Brooklyn
Technical High School in New York. Moreover, Project Lead the Way has incorporated
ELEMENTARY STEM 16
over 100 STEM programs in the nation and efforts in California efforts are focused on
serving high school students as well as a ten-week engineering course for middle grades
(Kelly & Pieper, 2009; PLTW, 2015). Thus, secondary programs are disproportionately
funded from both federal and local governments and are more likely to participate in STEM
partnerships with universities, relative to elementary schools (Carnevale, et. al., 2011).
Rationale for STEM Programs in Elementary Schools
A Nation at Risk (1983) first explored the notion that American schools needed to
emphasize instruction of science and mathematics; yet the efforts nationwide went into
reading. With the advent of the U.S. Department of Education’s A Blueprint for Reform
(2010), renewed efforts went into STEM education at the K-12 grades. Although the
importance of STEM learning has been widely acknowledged, California presents several
factors as the basis for limited access to STEM education, such as the focus on English
language arts and skill-based mathematics required by No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2010)
as well as insufficient funding and lack of adequate teacher training (CDE, 2015). Yet the
advent of new standards and assessments aligned to 21
st
century skills may prove as the
appropriate opportunity to finally address STEM at the elementary levels by integrating
subject matters (Lottero-Perdue, Lovelidge, & Bowling; 2010). Research also points to
students’ self-management benefits of hands-on and inquiry-based learning for all but
especially for those where traditional instructional approaches are not effective. Moreover,
elementary STEM learning serves as the motivation for students to continue science and
mathematics courses in high school and college (Hatchock, Stonier, Levin & Dickerson,
2012; Russell, Hancock & McCullough, 2007).
Although the lack of a consensus definition for STEM education poses a challenge
ELEMENTARY STEM 17
to how STEM is implemented in the elementary grades, studies conclusively reveal that the
demands for a STEM workforce in the United States require cognitively-meaningful STEM
experiences in the elementary grades (Carnevale et. al., 2011; DeJarnette, 2012; Murphy &
Mancini-Samuelson, 2012). However, one important challenge for implementing STEM
education in elementary schools is the vast array of proposed priorities. For example, calls
exist to focus on teaching engineering concepts, integrate STEM within the instructional
day, and establish out of school STEM programs (Bagiati, Yoon, Evangelou, & Nagambeki,
2010; Brenner, 2009; Bybee & Fuchs, 2006; DeJarnette, 2012; Swift & Watkins, 2004;
Walker, 2012). Determining which instructional focus is of most importance remains a
contested matter in STEM education.
STEM Skills, Abilities, and Competencies
Carnevale et. al (2011) categorize several skills, abilities, work interests, and work
values directly correlated to STEM. Skills include foundational content skills, such as
mathematics; processing skills, such as critical thinking and self-awareness; and problem
solving skills, such as evaluating options and implementing solutions. Abilities are defined
as enduring personal attributes that influence performance at work, such as creativity,
innovation, reasoning, and oral and written communication. Work values are individual
preferences for work outcomes, such as recognition, responsibility, or advancement. Work
interests are defined as individual preferences for work environments such as environments
that are artistic, enterprising, or conventional (Carnevale et. Al., 2010; CDEF, 2015).
Mathematics, Critical Thinking, and Problem Solving
In Carnevale et. al. (2011), mathematics, critical thinking and problem solving stand
out as the defining STEM skills. According to Carnevale et. al (2011), mathematics
ELEMENTARY STEM 18
knowledge is the most transferable kind of STEM knowledge, citing it is very or extremely
important in 55% of STEM occupations. In the workforce, 96% of STEM occupations and
92% of STEM competitor jobs consider critical thinking and complex problem solving to be
either very important or extremely important to those jobs.
STEM and 21
st
Century Skills
Carnevale et. al (2011) also identify skills that are highly concentrated in STEM
education, such as critical thinking, complex problem solving, troubleshooting, and systems
analysis. These are directly correlated to the aims of 21
st
century teaching and learning (The
Partnership for 21
st
Century Learning, 2015). In K-12 U.S. schools, 21
st
Century Skills are
defined as including what is known as the Four Cs: Creativity and innovation; critical
thinking and problem solving; communication and collaboration. Evidence of elementary
students’ ability to problem solve, communicate, collaborate and think critically is expected
to be available with national assessment data that has been aligned with Common Core State
Standards (CDE, 2014; USDOE; 2013). Ultimately, one goal of STEM education is to
develop students’ 21st-century skills necessary for job seekers to be employable in the
rapidly evolving high-tech workforce (Bybee & Fuchs, 2006; Meyrick, 2011; Hanushek,
Schwerdt, Weiderhold & Woesmann, 2013), thus, having a school-to-work alignment is
necessary.
STEM and the Common Core State Standards
Forty-four states adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) as of 2010. As
an educational policy, CCSS is intended to bridge gaps among students by providing
academic guidelines to all educators, in all grade levels, in all states and territories to ensure
college and career readiness (Robison, 2012; Russell, 2012). This national standardization is
ELEMENTARY STEM 19
designed to help all students prepare for college and career, even if they change schools or
move to a different state (CDE, 2015). California adopted the Common Core State
Standards in 2010. These guidelines were subsequently renamed as the California State
Standards (CSS). This study utilizes both acronyms, CCSS and CSS.
The Common Core State Standards for English-language Arts
The CCSS in English Language Arts states that students are to build knowledge
through content-rich informational texts; reading and writing is to be grounded in evidence
from text (i.e., close reading and writing to sources); and there is to be regular practice with
complex text and its academic vocabulary (CDE, 2013). Unlike the prior assessment system
that mostly assessed students’ ability to retell, restate and choose answers from multiple
choice questions, the CSS are focused on 21
st
century skills to prepare students’ ability to
think critically, creatively, problem solve, communicate effectively, and access various
information and media to support arguments. (CDE, 2013; Partnership for 21
st
Century
Learning, 2012).
The Common Core State Standards in Mathematics
CCSS mathematics standards are demanding, incorporate real-world problems, and
seek to focus students’ attention on why they are doing mathematics over how to do it
(Thomas, 2014). They address both acquiring conceptual mathematical knowledge and
developing “processes” or skills (CCSS, 2010) also referred to as mathematical practices.
For the California educational system, the teaching and learning of mathematical concepts
was already taking place. However, teaching mathematical practices is new and therefore
challenge practitioners to develop and create new lesson designs and models. The
mathematical practices are critical as they are correlated to creating the skills and abilities
ELEMENTARY STEM 20
necessary for college and career. Carnevale et. al (2011) state that mathematical reasoning
and deductive reasoning are two abilities that are used most often in STEM occupations, but
they are required at comparable levels in direct STEM competitor occupations, such as
managerial and health professional occupations, as well as across the rest of fields
contributing to the U.S. economy.
The mathematical practices remain constant throughout K-12 grades while expecting
that rigor and implementation change as students gain mastery. The eight practices are: (a)
make sense of problems and persevere in solving them; (b) reason abstractly and
quantitatively; (c) construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others; (d) model
with mathematics; (e) use appropriate tools strategically; (f) attend to precision; (g) look for
and make use of structure; (h) look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning (CCSS,
2010).
STEM and the Next Generation Science Standards
The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) integrate science, technology, and
engineering throughout the K-12 curriculum and correlate with the CCSS in English
language arts and mathematics. Similar to the CCSS, particularly in math, the Next
Generation Science Standards (2013) focus attention on processes; that is, more emphasis is
placed on how to reach understanding in science than on the conclusions themselves.
Further, these standards incorporate big themes and ideas that require grasp of the multiple
STEM content areas, their interactions, and major ideas that crosscut the disciplines, such as
cause and effect, patterns, and systems (CDEF, 2014; Thomas, 2014).
California adopted the NGSS in 2013 with the goal to bring science instruction up-
to-date by emphasizing a deeper focus on incorporating science and engineering practices,
ELEMENTARY STEM 21
and applying crosscutting concepts within and across the scientific disciplines of earth and
space, life, and physical science (CDEF, 2014).
Student Achievement Outcomes in The United States
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also known as “The
Nation’s Report Card,” is the largest nationally representative assessment in the U.S. that
measures what students know and can do in various subject areas. The assessments remain
the same year-to-year, allowing for decreased variables, and serves as a common metric for
all states (NCES; 2016). Between the years 2011 to 2015, 60% of fourth graders remained
below grade level. The ethnic achievement breakdown demonstrate that 19% of Black
students and 26% of Hispanic students were proficient, compared to 65% Asian and 51%
White (The Nation’s Report Card, 2015).
U.S. students are also compared internationally in academic achievement. The
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) provides ongoing
comparative data (NCES, 2016). TIMSS is sponsored by the International Association for
the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) and managed in the U.S. by the National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES) as part of the U.S. Department of Education.The
most recent TIMSS data collection was 2015, with more than 60 countries (and other
education systems) participating. These results have not been made public as of this study.
Longitudinal data demonstrates that, when compared with international students,
U.S. students perform favorably in math and science early in elementary school. The gap
between the scores of American students and the scores of students in other industrialized
countries, however, has widened with time (Carnevale et al., 2011). The Carnevale et al.
(2011) report also notes that there is significant diversion from students entering STEM
ELEMENTARY STEM 22
before college: About 30% of students who test in the top quartile in math do not have a
Bachelor’s degree eight years later, representing an enormous loss of potential STEM
workers.
California Students’ Academic Results and Accessibility to STEM
California’s population is highly diverse, yet it is known that students living in poor
urban or rural areas, and many students from underrepresented groups, lack access to high-
quality STEM education (Mosqueda & Maldonado, 2013). This has resulted in lack of
academic proficiency that disproportionately impacts students of color. Persistent
achievement gap among racial and ethnic groups in math and science remain in California.
Eighth graders in California have made gains in mathematics on the 2013 National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). However, most students have far to go to
reach a score of 299, NAEP’s cutoff for “proficient” performance. The average score for all
students was 273, for African American students 258, and for Hispanic students 263
(NAEP, 2013). On the grade 8 NAEP science assessment, only 22% of California students
tested proficient or above, and 47% tested below basic in science. In 2011, 39% of White
eighth graders reached the proficiency level in science while only 8% of African American
students and 11% of Hispanic students reached that level (NAEP, 2013). One consequence
of California’s lack of access to STEM education for all students is that the STEM
workforce does not reflect the demographics of the state. This is also true at the national
level where minorities continue to be underrepresented in STEM occupations relative to
their position in the labor market as a whole (Carnevale et al., 2011).

ELEMENTARY STEM 23
Further Academic Considerations
The U.S. education system sorts students in ways that reflect the racial, ethnic, and
economic advantages that lie beneath the test scores, grades, and other metrics of
educational performance. As the demand for STEM competencies expands beyond
traditional STEM occupations, we can no longer afford to rely on a system that sorts instead
of a system that develops STEM talent more broadly. The rigorous academic demands we
are placing on students (Adams, 2010; Darling-Hammond, L., Witlhoit, G., Pittenger, L.,
2014) involve major and dynamic shifts in how we address instructional strategies as well as
how we will fund the initiatives. Moreover, research has conclusively demonstrated that
high-stakes testing can have permanent consequences for long-term schooling attainment
and labor market outcomes (Lavy, V., Ebenstein, A. and Roth, S., 2014).
The Economics of STEM Funding
Support from federal funding was intended to address poverty and equality concerns
across the nation; therefore, the U.S. education funding system is only loosely aligned with
STEM labor market demands. In a comprehensive study delineating the recent effects of the
economic recession, Baker (2014) found that during the downturn, low poverty districts
compensated strongly for cuts to state aid while high poverty districts were unable to do the
same. Likewise, Baker (2014) posits a direct relationship between disparate revenues and
spending: The more stable the revenues the less contrasting the spending. In recent years,
the federal funding to education increased to compensate for the state’s decreased education
funding due to the recession (Odden & Picus, 2014). Although the federal government
stepped in to provide relief, the research demonstrates that the added infusion of funds was
short lived, leaving many states with “persistent aid gaps in their general aid formulas”
ELEMENTARY STEM 24
(Baker, 2014, p. 2). President Obama recently highlighted in the 2011 State of the Union
address the importance of science and technology to innovation and job creation—but, as
the data demonstrates, the U.S. labor force is dependent on foreign-born workers (Bybee &
Fuchs; 2006; Carnevale et al., 2011).
President Obama’s plan to “educate to innovate” is a result of the dismal scores of
U.S. students in national and international measures, along with the lack of available
workforce. According to the U.S. Census (2010), less than five percent of all U.S. citizens
with bachelor’s degrees majored in any of the following STEM areas: computers,
mathematics, statistics, or physical sciences (Thomas, 2014). Preparing the next generation
with the skills necessary for competing with their international peers is imperative for
maintaining the U.S’s economic health (Bybee & Fuchs, 2006).
Park (2011) suggests that as many as 140,000 engineering-related jobs in the U.S.
are outsourced to foreign-born job seekers because of the nation’s current inability to
produce its own. Ehrlich (2007) posits that over that period of time, middle-income earners
have lost about a generation of economic growth. The U.S. government recognized the
STEM workforce need in mathematical and science literacy and, through “Race to the Top”
initiatives (Obama, 2009; Obama, 2013), committed over 7.1 billion dollars from 2009
through 2014 in their fiscal budgets toward STEM programs.
In assessing the relationship between education and the workforce, the U.S.
Government Accountability Office [GAO] (2014) analyzed trends in STEM since 2002
using three criteria: (a) number of degrees and jobs in STEM fields, (b) the extent to which
federal postsecondary STEM education programs take workforce needs into consideration,
and (c) the extent to which federal K-12 STEM education programs prepare students for
ELEMENTARY STEM 25
postsecondary STEM education. The GAO Report (2014) found a 55% increase in STEM
degrees awarded from the academic year 2002-2003 to 2011-2012. The extent of STEM
graduate alignment to the workforce needs was harder to measure due to factors such as the
recent economic recession. Since not all post-secondary schools measure outcomes directly
to agencies’ stated objective, the GAO therefore continues their 2012 recommendation for
post-secondary agencies to use the National Science and Technology Council guidance to
better incorporate STEM education outcomes into their performance plans and reports. Of
the 30 K-12 programs surveyed by the GAO, all reported working closely in preparing
students for post-secondary STEM instruction. This is despite the U.S. Academic
Competitive Council (2007) findings that 80% federal funding allocations toward STEM
educational goals are invested in post-secondary programs, leaving K-12 teacher training
and programs as the lowest priority.
Economic Competitiveness
Implementation of STEM education is believed to be crucially important for
maintaining the United States’ global competitiveness and preparing citizens to fill current
and future high-tech jobs (Bybee & Fuchs, 2006; National Research Council, 2007).
Tspuros, Kohler, and Hallinen (2009) relate:
STEM education is an interdisciplinary approach to learning where rigorous
academic concepts are coupled with real world lessons where students apply science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics in contexts that make connections
between school, community, work, and global enterprise enabling the development
of STEM literacy and with it the ability to compete in the new economy (as cited in
Lantz, 2009 p. 1).

U.S. investment is needed today in integrated STEM education to produce innovation that
will allow the U.S. to maintain its international competitiveness (Bybee & Fuchs, 2006;
Dejarnette, 2012).
ELEMENTARY STEM 26
Although the United States’ GDP has grown annually at an average of 2.7% from
1990 to 2008, the world’s annual average growth at 3.4% has outpaced the U.S’s. growth by
almost 1% per year. China’s 9.9% and India’s 6.3% annual GDP growth far exceeds the
United States and the rest of the world’s economic growth over the past two decades
(Haskel, Lawrence, Leamer, & Slaughter, 2012). China’s and India’s success is attributed to
their greater international competitiveness, particularly their ability to produce improved
technology and innovation. Improved technology and innovation can be attributed, in part,
to a labor force capable of producing it (Bevins et al., 2012). As Carnevale (2011) points
out: “To remain competitive in the emerging knowledge economy, we need an education
system capable of teaching higher-level competencies to all students” (p. 76). The marked
discrepancies in funding structures, along with the economic recessions directly impact how
quality is defined and ultimately presented to in classrooms (Hanushek, Jamison, Jamison,
& Woessmann, 2008).
Workforce and Job Demands
Schools' primary function is to provide high quality instruction that prepares
individuals to enter the workforce and research demonstrates that a highly skilled workforce
earns higher wages (Adams, 2010; Autor, 2014; Daly, M., & Bengali, L., 2013). One goal of
integrated STEM education is to build a workforce with the skills necessary to work in the
STEM fields (Barakos, Lujan, & Strang, 2012; Merrill & Daugherty, 2010). The U.S. is not
producing enough qualified STEM workers to meet current employment opportunities
within its borders. While the total number of jobs in the United States will grow 10 percent
between 2008 and 2018, from 148 million to 162 million, the number of STEM jobs is
projected to grow by 17 percent, making it one of the most dynamic occupation clusters in
ELEMENTARY STEM 27
the economy, surpassed in growth rates only by Healthcare occupations (Carnevale et. al.,
2011; Ehrlich, 2007).
As stated earlier, almost half of all foreign-born U.S. residents with bachelor’s
degrees or higher hold degrees in STEM fields (includes the aforementioned fields plus
biological, agricultural, and social sciences) compared to 33% of U.S. citizens. In addition,
although foreign-born residents make up only 16% of the population holding bachelor’s
degrees in the U.S., they possess 33% of all engineering degrees, 1/4 of all computer,
mathematics, statistics, and physical sciences degrees, and 17% of biological,
environmental, and agricultural sciences degrees (U.S. Census, 2010).
The U.S. may need two more engineers for every one that is produced and reports
indicate that 27% of the total computer engineer workforce is now comprised of foreign-
born employees (Park, 2011). Foreign-born workers already make up about 17% of the
domestic STEM workforce, with levels reaching 18% in computer occupations and 25% in
life and physical science occupations (Carnevale et. al., 2011; Bybee & Fuchs; 2006).
California’s Local Control Funding Formula
The vast majority of education funding relies on state property taxes. Each state,
region, district, and geographic area has enough individuality to render its student needs
unique; thereby requiring additional or different resources (Furtick & Snell, 2013; Gamron
& Long, 2006, Odden & Picus, 2009); yet, complex funding formulas have the potential to
hide the mechanisms that derail student performance and outcomes (Adams, 2010). The
2013-14 California budget replaces the previous K-12 finance system with a new Local
Control Funding Formula (LCFF). LCFF is an attempt to address three issues: persistent
gaps, the academic needs of high need students, and provide flexibility for local districts
ELEMENTARY STEM 28
(Diepenbrock, 2014). The model, considered currently the purest in form in the nation, uses
a “weighted student funding” to address inequities and improve achievement. Facing an
11% unemployment rate with jobs in the STEM sector predicted to grow 22% by 2020
(Ortega, 2014), LCFF not only signals a change in how funds are allocated but potentially
addresses this demand and need by divesting funds through STEM initiatives. As part of the
LCFF, school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools are required to
develop, adopt, and annually update a three-year Local Control and Accountability Plan
(LCAP), beginning on July 1, 2014, using a template adopted by the California State Board
of Education. LCAP planning provides an opportunity for teachers, administrators, parents,
and community members to have a voice in shaping the NGSS and CCSS implementations
in their communities and ensuring that they include STEM competencies.
The enacted 2014-2015 spending budget allocates most of the new K-12 money to
increase base budgets and funding for disadvantaged students by a total of $4.75 billion, per
the new Local Control Funding Formula. In addition, $255 million is added to increase
support for state preschool and child-care programs. Another $250 million is earmarked for
grants to enhance career-oriented programs in high school. In higher education, community
colleges will receive almost $400 million in new funding, including $140 million to increase
attendance by 2.75% and $170 million for counseling and other student support services
(Taylor, 2014; Warren & Fund, 2014;). Although there is no specific delineation for STEM
education, the California budget provides local communities the ability to allocate resources
to STEM education if that is a local priority. LCFF provides decentralization control over
education funds but Fuller and Tobben (2014) posit that it must balanced with a common
focus, evidence of growth, formative and summative feedback and a clear delineation of
ELEMENTARY STEM 29
labor. California’s 2014-2015 Spending Plan encompasses the many facets of government
services that must be covered and gives a small glimpse of changes and patterns across the
years (Taylor, 2014; Warren, 2014). A stark reality is evident in the level of public services
that encompass the majority of spending dollars. Taylor (2014) cautions that the over-
reliance of personal income taxes creates an unstable system.
Receptivity to STEM from Classroom Practitioners
Henchke and Wohlstetter (2004) define accountability as a “contractual” relationship
between two parties. In this study the teaching staff is seen as “provider” to both the
organization and parents while the role of director may be given to both the school and
parents that can leverage opt-out practices to send their children elsewhere if educational
services are considered unsatisfactory. The National Science Board (2007) has recognized
that it will take the combined efforts of all those responsible for developing, implementing,
and improving integrated STEM education in the United States. It is no surprise that
teachers will play a significant role in this process. Research has shown that teachers’
receptivity to educational reform is a strong indicator for influencing successful or
unsuccessful outcomes (Waugh, 2000; Yin & Lee, 2008).
STEM Collaboration
Contemporary policy makers cite teacher participation as a concrete and common
sense reform strategy, as participation improves schools by improving the quality of school-
level decisions (Turnbull, 2002). Teachers’ partnerships, collaboration, insight, and
perceptions are important for productive school environments, especially during times of
change. When policymakers and administrators view all contributors as valuable parts of a
collective whole, a school culture of cohesive leadership and responsibility can ensue to best
ELEMENTARY STEM 30
suit all parties affected by the change (Waugh & Collins, 1998). Teachers have a key
influence on the success of curricular change (Waugh, 2000; Yin & Lee, 2008). Teachers of
varying expertise must work together to strive to present lessons that allow integrated
STEM content to naturally flow and merge (Merrill, 2009).
Addressing this issue from an elementary school perspective, DeJarnette (2012)
suggests that one way to address STEM literacy issues is to improve working relationships
between higher education and elementary education to shift pedagogical practices to allow
more student inquiry and problem-based learning. Others suggest that STEM professionals
working in the field should be included in this collaboration (Kuenzi, 2008; Kuenzi,
Matthews, & Mangan, 2006; National Science Board, 2007).
Another aspect of collaboration is directly embedded in how we address innovation.
Post-industrial expansion is notable for using existing science and technology in ever more
complicated networks. Google, for example, creates new wealth by developing networks
made from available technology in collaboration with its users. These new, networked
innovation systems require a novel set of soft-skills among STEM professionals who work
outside of traditional research environments (Fountain & Atkinson, 1998).
Teacher Training in STEM Content Curricula and Pedagogy
Access to adequately prepared teachers is seen as a critical issue for all students, it is
especially true for underserved (e.g., racial-ethnic and linguistic minority) populations
(Mosqueda & Maldonado, 2013). Rigorous content in science and math courses plays a
significant role on the academic achievement of students, and lack of student achievement
and access opportunities are linked to teachers’ lack of appropriate content knowledge
preparation (Darling-Hammond & Youngs, 2002; Mosqueda & Maldonado, 2013).
ELEMENTARY STEM 31
Contemporary STEM education literature, in particular at the elementary level, is limited to
science and math whereas engineering or technology literature, in terms of teaching code
language or computing skills for elementary grade students, is scant.
Contemporary math and science curricula is organized as discrete hierarchies—a
student moves from geometry, to algebra two, to trigonometry, to calculus. Rather than
exclusively focus on preparing students for the next level, educational systems should
prioritize developing curricula that emphasizes academic competencies embedded within
applied career and technical pedagogies that are linked to postsecondary programs in the
career clusters. To address quality pedagogical practice through curriculum development,
Project Lead the Way (PLTW) and Engineering is Elementary (EiE), along with other
innovators, are addressing the demand for STEM-educated individuals. Both are programs
dedicated to developing integrated STEM curriculum with an emphasis on engineering and
science that promotes hands-on, project- based learning opportunities. EiE, due to its
elementary focus, incorporates literacy and social studies to inform students about STEM
occupational settings and professionals (Brenner, 2009; Lottero-Perdue, Lovelidge, &
Bowling, 2010).
To date there is no STEM pre-service or training model for elementary teachers.
Therefore the literature reviewed here focused on science and mathematical studies. Studies
on teachers’ need of pre-service and training in science, in relation to providing science
lessons, are inconclusive (Epstein & Miller, 2011; Nowicki, 2013). Nowicki, Sullivan-
Watts, Shim, Young & Pockalny, (2013) found that there was no correlation between the
accuracy of science content and common measures of teacher content knowledge (i.e.,
number of college science courses, science grades, or scores on a general science content
ELEMENTARY STEM 32
test). Nowicki (2013) concluded that when provided with high quality curricular materials
and targeted professional development, elementary teachers learned needed science content
and presented it accurately to their students. However, Epstein and Miller (2011) place their
priority in recruiting STEM majors into the teaching profession. They additionally
recommend increasing the selectivity of programs that prepare teachers for elementary
grades and requiring candidates to pass mathematics and science subsections of licensure
exams. Yet, all studies reveal that teacher training in science content and inquiry strategies
is needed (Darling-Hammond & Youngs, 2002; Mosqueda & Maldonado, 2013; Nowicki,
2013).
Administrative Support for STEM Initiatives
According to Wohlstetter, Datnow, and Park (2008), those closest to the students are
in the best position to judge their needs and abilities and, hence, to choose the most suitable
methods and technologies for successful learning. A school charged with implementing a
STEM initiative needs to have the decision rights at the school site so teachers may identify,
develop and implement an intervention strategy based on their analysis of data.
Reforms stand a better chance of contributing to student achievement if teacher
leadership can be nurtured (Urbanski & Nickolaou ,1997). Strengthening and empowering
teacher leadership (Lee, 2011) requires individuals who are willing to translate theory into
practice and rhetoric into action (Urbanski & Nickolaou, 1997). California’s STEM Task
Force (2015) recognized that STEM pre-service teacher preparation is necessary for
successful STEM implementation; yet efforts to address teacher training for those already in
the classroom is lacking (CDEF, 2015)
ELEMENTARY STEM 33
Innovation Through STEM as America’s Solution to Globalization
Established in 2008, the Office of Educational Entrepreneurship and Innovation
(OEEI) signals a change in how the federal government will remain involved in education.
The OEEI has three goals: scale up successful educational entrepreneurship; invest into
longer term, high-risk research and development; and build a culture of entrepreneurship
and innovation (Mead & Rotherman, 2008). Additionally, establishing this office provides
stability and growth to efforts of current educational entrepreneurs (EEs) while fostering
innovative solutions to the American educational system. Innovation through STEM
education is one way to maintain competitiveness and prevent economic stagnation and
decline in the United States and improve international competitiveness (Business
Roundtable, 2005; DeJarnette, 2012; National Science Board, 2007). According to Erlich
(2007), innovation is a process of a functional education system that promotes thinking
creatively, generating ideas, conceptualizing processes for the realization of those ideas, and
recognizing skill sets workers will need to utilize the innovation. Park (2011) posits that
innovative capabilities are a distinguishing factor that separate developed from emergent
economies. Innovation raises annual production and increases overall national output value,
which in turn improves national prosperity (Ehrlich, 2007). Integrated STEM education is
beneficial two-fold: (a) it prepares the next generations with the high-tech skill set they need
to fill the jobs currently left unfilled by U.S. citizens, and, (b) those workers produce
innovation that will require skilled labor to develop, manufacture, and use it (Ehrlich, 2007;
ITEA, 2009; Lantz, 2009).
Earlier in this review the foreign-born STEM workforce was examined in relation to
economic impact. There is substantial evidence to suggest that foreign-born STEM workers
ELEMENTARY STEM 34
provide a net benefit to the American economy because they appear to be unusually
innovative and create more jobs than they take from native-born Americans (Kerr 2008;
Hunt and Gauthier-Loiselle 2008). This can become a dual arrangement where innovation
techniques are learned by U.S. native-born and thus increase human capital overall.
As Carnevale et. al (2011) point out, STEM workers design our bridges, invent our
medicines and our phones, and create the architecture of our buildings and our electronic
communication. Moreover, because of the key role they play in inventing and making
technologies available for commercial use, STEM workers are a significant source of
technological changes that ultimately result in up-skilling across the full range of
occupations. The process of innovation is becoming more collaborative and socially
engaged. Our former “linear conception of the relationship between science and innovation
needs to be replaced by an interactive, dynamic, networked understanding that emphasizes
learning” (Hansson, Husted, and Vestergaard 2005, p. 1041). At its core, innovation still
depends on a solid foundation of basic research in the physical, biological, and
mathematical sciences as well as in engineering. But the economic value of innovation has
shifted toward applications customized to meet critical individual and social needs
(Carnevale et. al., 2011). Advanced economies need to innovate, the argument goes, in order
to grow their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and, therefore, need a continuous supply of
scientists and engineers to drive innovation (Donovan, Moreno Mateos, Osborne & Bisaccio
2014). Innovation raises annual production and increases overall national output value,
which in turn improves national prosperity (Ehrlich, 2007). Most researchers agree that
innovation is crucial for the U.S. to maintain and improve international competitiveness
(Business Roundtable, 2005; DeJarnette, 2012; National Science Board, 2007). A functional
ELEMENTARY STEM 35
education system that promotes creativity and conceptualizing processes for the realization
of those ideas is the key to fostering innovation as a skill in students.
Theories of Change, Motivation and Organizational Frames
Education contributes to economic growth by producing human capital. Districts
must coordinate with schools to have an action plan where both parties are involved in the
planning and development of the respective program. For instance, with vertical
coordination, supervisory staff controls the work of subordinates through authority, rules
and policies, and planning and control systems (Bolman & Deal, 2003), yet this does not
necessarily lead to higher output and efficient systems. The most effective systems bring
school stakeholders together in the development of a shared educational vision and in
contemporary policies this theoretical imperative is linked to funding distributions (LCAP,
2014; Rhodes, Hemmings, & Stevens, 2011).
Bolman and Deal’s (2003) Four Frames are a useful conceptual model to assist in the
analysis of organizational behavior, especially the behavior of the leader. Skillful leaders
use the symbolic and political frames more extensively and effectively than those less
skillful counterparts. Organizational frames must also adjust to the changes on how
collaboration and innovation take place globally. Hill (2007) argues that innovative firms
are fundamentally different from the industrial-era firms dominated by direct application of
basic research. These newer, networked organizations have learned to meet human needs in
new ways without making advances in basic science. In Hill’s view, the cutting edge of
technology-based economic innovation—and where the most value is added—is in the
interface with cultures, communities, and individuals (Hill, 2007).
ELEMENTARY STEM 36
Further Considerations and Potential Implications
Close to two-thirds (65%) of STEM jobs will require a Bachelor’s degree or more
advanced degrees by 2018. Carnevale et. al (2011) conclude that our education system is not
producing enough STEM-capable students to keep up with demand both in traditional
STEM occupations and other sectors across the economy that demand similar competencies.
The demand for STEM competencies outside STEM occupations is strong and growing. Our
nation is facing a STEM scarcity in some occupations because STEM capable workers
divert from STEM into non-STEM occupations, particularly managerial, professional and
healthcare occupations.
In this context, the boundaries between STEM occupations and the broader process
of innovation blur. Lines are also blurring between the policy domains of science and
technology, higher education, workforce development, and economic development
(Goddard, 2005). Integrating these policy domains is the cutting edge in policy formation
and is essential for remaining competitive in a global, knowledge-based economy.
Diversion
Carnevale et. al (2011) define diversion as a process in which students and workers
who have a demonstrated capability in STEM (either at the high school or postsecondary
levels) do not end up in STEM fields of study or STEM occupations for a variety of
economic and noneconomic reasons. This is a factor in determining how to maintain interest
– and increase persistence – as STEM is implemented. The Business Higher Education
Forum (BHEF) is tying STEM work interest to the choice of STEM careers. BHEF uses
census data and standardized test scores to track students as they proceed through the K-16
system and into STEM careers. BHEF recognizes that “Both interest in a STEM career and
ELEMENTARY STEM 37
proficiency in STEM subjects . . . are necessary prerequisites for students to select and
succeed in a STEM major” (2010, p. 2). BHEF further recommends that interventions be
targeted to help maintain student interest in STEM, recognizing that sheer competency is not
enough (The Business Higher Education Forum, 2010).
Diversity and Access
Equity demands that STEM diversity be addressed. As innovation and the STEM
workforce become more global, international diversity in STEM becomes more important in
the global contest for talent. Although women are 44% of mathematics majors, they are
underrepresented in STEM careers. There is substantial literature that suggests women are
influenced by traditional ideas about women’s roles in society and the workplace. These
ideas subtly influence women from early childhood, when they are given dolls to play with
instead of building blocks. Researchers and advocates have noted that these biases begin
having an effect on girls in middle school.
African-American students are also significantly behind their White peers in STEM
commitment before college. Compounding the problem is the persistent test-score gap
between African-American and White students within the American education system. That
gap is wider in STEM subjects than in others, with African-American students typically
scoring one standard deviation below White students. There is a significant test-score gap
between African-Americans and Whites on the SAT; mean test scores for African-
Americans are about 100 points lower than for Whites, and this gap is even greater on the
mathematics portion of the exam. Latinos do slightly better than African-Americans but still
score significantly behind their White counterparts (The College Board, 2008). Women and
minorities are a significant portion of the population—well over half; therefore, failure to
ELEMENTARY STEM 38
access the talent within that population is both inefficient and wasteful (Carnevale et. al.,
2011). Meeting the economic demand for STEM competencies is no longer a matter of
sorting our brightest students into STEM while ignoring the potential in all. The bar must be
raised across the board by teaching math and science competencies to a wider audience in a
discipline-relevant, more accessible way.
Common Understanding of STEM Concept
As science once again becomes an important subject in schools beyond standardized
testing, systematic planning, integration with other classroom subjects, and the support of
partnership teams is needed. When science begins as children enter school and continues to
be integrated throughout their academic career, students will have the opportunity to grow
and bloom into strong science students, citizens, and professionals (McCloskey & Nyberg,
2008). When systems support the scaffolding of science content and processes are designed
and science is integrated with other subjects, educational programs—including STEM
programs—become stronger (McGough & Nyberg, 2013).
The power that STEM occupations have over the rest of society is great—STEM
occupations are not just the impetus for economic expansion; they play an important role in
expanding human possibility. As Carnevale et al. (2011) points out: STEM workers and
those with STEM professional backgrounds, develop new technologies, and increasingly
influence the way we interact with economic markets by designing the architecture of our
computers and electronic communication. Projections clearly show that demand is rising—
there will be 2.4 million job openings for STEM workers by 2018 (Breiner et al., 2012;
Carnevale et al., 2012). With this demand there is a need to have a common
conceptualization of STEM that strengthens the sharing of best practices across systems.
ELEMENTARY STEM 39
Ethical Considerations
Research indicates that high stakes accountability leads to a greater temptation to be
performance versus mastery oriented (Dweck, 2013; Kidder, 1995; Murdock & Anderman,
2006). Ethical practice is stopping and reflecting on codes and reality before making
decisions (Velasquez, Andre, Thomas Shanks, & Meyer, 2011). Considering the STEM
workforce and demand is growing at an accelerated pace, addressing the cultural model and
setting, as well aim at instilling a practice of teachers’ self-reflection is imperative. As
science and technology shift from the ivory tower to the community, workplace, and the
home, demand for STEM competencies has moved from the periphery to the core of the
economy. In a democratic society, groups that hold such enormous power over our lives—
whether they are politicians or scientists—must represent all sectors of the populace.
There is also a mixture of professional, bureaucratic, and market challenges to the
organization (Furhman, 2004; Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004; Stetcher & Kirby, 2004)
since the current political pressure from district administration is to have schools of choice.
Transformative change happens when teachers perceive a sense of urgency and a need for
change (Waters & Cameron, 2007) and both needs should be met with an ethical balance for
providing choice while instilling quality education for all students.

ELEMENTARY STEM 40
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The U.S. Department of Education's Blueprint for Reform (2010) calls for science,
technology, engineering and math, otherwise known as STEM. In California, STEM
coverage has primarily focused on secondary efforts (CDE, 2014). However, over the last
few years there has been an increased focus at elementary schools’ implementation of
STEM. There are many factors influencing this movement, such as providing solutions to
declining enrollment, offering magnet and public school choices to parents. In some cases,
schools and districts apply to competitive grants and become the recipients of federal and
state STEM awards. This study explored the teacher and administrative perceptions on the
need of STEM at elementary schools. This chapter provides a conceptual framework (See
Figure A) and rationale for the chosen methods to gather data on the following research
questions:
1. What organizational shifts were used when steering school staff into STEM
implementation?
2. What are the teachers’ perceptions on the need to implement STEM in their
classroom?
3. What are the site administrators’ perceptions of STEM implementation?
4. How do teachers and site leaders know that the STEM strategies utilized are
effective?

ELEMENTARY STEM 41
Figure A: Conceptual Framework

Research Design and Methods
Qualitative and quantitative data, in the form of observations, interviews, and
surveys, were collected. Participants were given the option to be interviewed in the setting
most comfortable to them to produce the best data (i.e. their classroom, the school
conference room, principal's office, etc.). After participant selection and gaining their
permission, interview questions will be given to them via email two to three days prior to
the face-to-face interviews.
The survey for this study was sent to site administrators and teachers in nine
elementary schools in California and this data was analyzed quantitatively. Eight to twelve
interviews with administrators were anticipated from the pool of survey participants.
Participants were purposefully chosen based on receptivity to STEM implementation in the
elementary grades. However, all participants were chosen form schools that met the bound
system (Miles, Huberman & Saldana, 2009): non-magnet public elementary schools. The
ELEMENTARY STEM 42
research design, sample and population, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis
are presented in the remainder of this chapter.
Mixed-methods Design
Glasner argues that “all is data” (as cited in Maxwell, 2013, p. 87), and this certainly
is the case when choosing mixed methods approach. Creswell (2009) delineates the brief
history of mixed-methods, starting with Campbell and Fisk (1959) used multi-methods to
study validity of psychological traits and how this method progresses as researchers found
strengths in the triangulation and convergence advantages of this approach. Of the three
mixed-methods approaches found in the literature, sequential, concurrent and
transformative, this study will use sequential (i.e., QUAN → Qual). In a sequential design,
quantitative data was analyzed first (Creswell, 2009). Given that STEM at the elementary
levels is a relatively new phenomenon, the mixed-methods approach allowed the researcher
to explore the existing general variables prior to following up with the selected participants
to obtain specificity of voices, perceptions, and language on this topic (Creswell, 2009). The
researcher acknowledges challenges to this approach, such as having to analyze and codify
numeric and text data. Another challenge involved timing of when the mixing of methods
occurred to connect and integrate the findings. Figure B represents the diagram of this
study’s sequential design (Creswell, 2009).
Figure B: Research Design

ELEMENTARY STEM 43
Sample and Population
This study surveyed 100-200 elementary site administrators and teachers in
California public schools that are implementing STEM. From these responses. Sampling
was purposeful (Merriam, 2009) based on limitations of scope of study and available time to
complete study for dissertation deadlines. However, the sampling was also purposeful in
gaining a broad insight into teacher and site administrator’s perceptions of STEM at the
elementary grades that may prove useful for further studies. Particular attention was given to
the grade level of each classroom teacher that participated in the interviews; including years
of teaching experience, at the site and in general; curricular leadership at the school; and
understanding of instructional strategies beyond English language arts.
The selected teachers are currently serving in public school, fully certified, have at
least three years of teaching experience, and range from Kindergarten through grade 6. The
range of experience in teachers is critical in providing a broad scope of what beginning to
experienced teachers might perceive and experience at their site, along with their pre-service
training. In addition, some teachers were selected from Title I schools that also have large
EL student populations.
The site administrators selected for interviews were from sites where teachers were
selected. Data was gathered on their perceptions on the need for STEM, along with
organizational shifts they may or may not have implemented. Community and parental
involvement in steering the school’s direction toward STEM implementation was also a
factor considered when selecting schools. Schools not considered for this study were those
designated as magnet, schools of choice, receiving specific STEM grant funding, or that
have charter status.
ELEMENTARY STEM 44
Instrumentation
Following Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval from the University of
Southern California, targeted elementary schools and district officials were sent a
recruitment letter to participate in this study. Once the study was approved by school
districts, emails were sent to site administrators with a link to the online survey instrument.
Principals were also be asked to forward the link to all certificated K-6 teachers working in
their schools. The email briefly described the study and invited teachers to take the online
survey via a direct link. The survey was available to teachers for a 3 month period.
Reminder emails for participation were sent to principals to forward to their teachers one
week after the initial email and again three days prior to the end of the 3 month period.
Following survey completion, participants were selected to participate in a face-to-
face interview. Teaching experience and grade level were sought as part of the contact
information. Title I eligibility was accessed through the California Department of Education
(CDE) website. Interview participants were contacted approximately one week after survey
completion period. A mutually convenient time and place was decided upon to conduct a
15-20-minute, face-to-face, semi-structured interview. The research design matrix
(Appendix A) specifies the purpose of the research and targeted study populations. Research
protocols and research questions (Appendix B) were aligned to the literature review and
theoretical frameworks used in this study. Survey instrumentation with Likert-type items
were uploaded onto SurveyMonkey (Appendix C).
Access/Entry
Access or entry challenges were a consideration. The online survey was sent to
district personnel , mostly Human Resources or STEM department. Once approved by
ELEMENTARY STEM 45
district personnel, the online survey was sent to site administrators.
Protocols
Participants were given a consent form (Appendix D) prior to initiating the
interviews. The interview protocol provided a brief introduction of the research topic. For
consistency, the introduction was typed as a narration that included thanking the participants
for their time and asked permission to record the conversation:
Thank you for allowing me to spend some time with you. I
know how busy you are and I appreciate the time you’re
giving me. I am conducting a study for my Ed.D.
dissertation and I appreciate your assistance. I am interested
in learning what teachers, classroom teachers, believe on
the topic of STEM implementation in the elementary
grades. Everything that you share with me will be kept
confidential. To help me in capturing as much as possible
about our conversation, I will tape record our interview, is
this OK with you?

Once consent was granted, each participant was asked six interview questions:
1. What are the reasons for implementing STEM instruction in your classroom?
2. If your school were to implement integrated STEM education, what would your
initial reaction be? What are your concerns or worries, if any?
3. From your point of view, what are the reasons, if any, to implementing STEM
education in the elementary grades?
4. From your point of view, what are some potential obstacles, if any, to implementing
STEM in the elementary grades?
5. Generally speaking, how do you think your colleagues would react to implementing
integrated STEM at your school?
6. What other perspectives would you offer concerning the implementation STEM
education that I have not asked?
ELEMENTARY STEM 46
Credibility and Trustworthiness
The primary source of credibility in this study relied on the triangulation method of
using data from surveys, interviews, and documents along with literature reviewed. Memos
and jottings (Miles, Huberman & Saldana, 2014) were utilized to ensure and increase
validity of findings. Memos written for this report focused on reflections on how this
researcher might be wrong (Maxwell, 2013), such as how the researcher’s role as site
administrator might cloud the interpretations of the findings; or how personal and
professional knowledge of topic and participants might bias the findings. Analytic memos
were used to include limitations on how the interview data might hold information that
participants might believe was the “right answer.”
Ethics
Participants were asked to sign an Informed Consent Form (Appendix D) to protect
their rights to privacy; assert their right to withdraw from this study at any point; mitigate
concerns; and address transparency in the gathering and analyzing of data (Glesne, 2011). A
template from the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) for
non-medical research was used to create the consent form. An additional reason for use of
the informed consent forms was that it created a “symmetrical relationship between
researcher and researched” (Glesne, 2011, p. 166).
Data Collection
Quantitative data was collected from online survey responses. The goal was to
collect responses from all teaching and administrative staff at nine elementary schools
selected. Researcher sought participant responses in answering research questions related to
organizational change, receptivity to change, conceptualizing STEM, how STEM is being
ELEMENTARY STEM 47
implemented in the elementary grades, and how the schools (administrators and teachers)
are measuring effectiveness. Participants were both classroom teachers in grades K-6 and
site administrators from nine public schools in California.
Interviews with site administrators and teachers were critical because data on
perceptions is not observable and information on their experience, thoughts, and emotions
could be gathered best by a purposeful and structured conversation (Bogdan & Biklen,
2007; Merriam, 2009) with them. Highly structured interviews lead to reduced amount of
data and may not allow access to the participants' perspectives, but only yield their
reactions; therefore, careful consideration was given to crafting semi-structured questions
(Merriam, 2009). Less structure lends itself to exploring the site administrators and teachers'
contextual understanding (Maxwell, 2013) of STEM as well as allowing the researcher to
focus on their particular responses.
The interviews were recorded with a digital recorder and typed on the researcher’s
laptop. This approach is solely for efficiency purposes, as the researcher can type faster and
that is critical when capturing data as it takes place in the moment. Certain key words and
concepts were typed as participants said them, along with hand gestures and facial
expressions throughout the interview.
Data Analysis
Survey
A Likert-type online survey, using five points, gathered data on perceptions and
receptivity to change from a wide range of participants; understanding of STEM
conceptualization; and the need for STEM implementation. The survey instrumentation was
adapted from Thomas’ (2014) study on receptivity to STEM integration and used the work
ELEMENTARY STEM 48
of Waugh and Godfrey’s (1995, 1995) as foundational sources. Close-ended questions were
chosen, rather than open-ended items, for efficiency and reliability purposes (Fink, 2013).
The first five items on the survey provided categorical data, such as gender, number
of years in the teaching profession, years at the current grade level and highest degree
earned. The next nine items provided continuous (Fink, 2013) data on receptivity to change
and STEM implementation. These Likert-type items induced the participant to choose
statements ranging between strongly disagree to strongly agree. The responses were
analyzed as ordinal data.
Interviews
In analyzing the data, a microtheory (Harding, 2013) was developed by identifying
relevant codes and creating themes and categories. The first codes that emerged from
interviews were compared to survey responses. Initial categories from these 1
st
level codes
(Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014), along with a priori codes (Maxwell, 2013; Miles,
Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014) were gathered from literature reviewed and assisted in
creating developing themes.
Using document review and observational data, initial themes and categories were
further refined in the second cycle coding process and, through this constant-comparative
method, codes were rearranged and moved into sub-categories that allowed for patterns and
themes to emerge (Miles, Huberrman, & Saldaña, 2014). These are discussed in the findings
section of this study. It is important to note that pattern coding is not a precise data (Miles,
Huberrman, & Saldaña, 2014), as qualitative analysis naturally lends itself to interpretation.
ELEMENTARY STEM 49
STEM in Elementary Grades
The literature provided ample evidence that STEM instruction in the elementary
grades is attainable (Bagiati, Yoon, Evangelou, & Nagambeki, 2010; Brenner, 2009; Bybee
& Fuchs, 2006; DeJarnette, 2012; Swift & Watkins, 2004; Walker, 2012). There is an
economic imperative and a national call to action to further STEM implementation. In
California, the movement to innovate through STEM implementation has started (CDE,
2014) with common core standards and the adoption of the next generation science
standards (NGSS). However, theories of change revealed that teachers’ perceptions , as well
as student achievement and curricular shifts, impact student achievement (Spillane, 2014;
Thomas, 2014).

ELEMENTARY STEM 50
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
This study explored teacher and administrators’ perceptions and receptivity to STEM
implementation in the elementary grades. Distinctive objectives of this study include
understanding the organizational shifts schools use when steering staff toward STEM
implementation; teacher and administrator perceptions on the need for STEM education at
the elementary grades; and effective strategies teachers and site leaders utilize. The second
aim of this chapter is to present and triangulate findings and results using the quantitative
(electronic survey) and qualitative data (interviews and document analysis) collected
(Creswell, 2009; Merriam, 2009).
Data Collection Methodology
The quantitative data was the initial data collected on this sequential mixed-methods
study and it involved a Likert-type survey for teachers and administrators on receptivity to
STEM implementation in the elementary grades. This study also explored the relationship
between receptivity to STEM education and possible concerns associated with
implementation (Thomas, 2015), especially in light of the recent adoption of Common Core
State Standards in California schools. Finally, individual interviews were conducted with
five volunteers from those who participated in the survey. Interviews were semi-structured,
which enabled the researcher to ask follow-up questions for clarification and elaboration.
After selecting the five participants and gaining their permission, interview questions were
given to them via email two to three days prior to the interviews.
Each interview was audio recorded and transcribed (Bogdan, 2007; Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam; 2009). All data was reviewed for themes and assigned codes. These were then
organized into categories. In analyzing the data, a microtheory (Harding,2013) was
ELEMENTARY STEM 51
developed by identifying relevant codes and creating themes and categories. The first
codes, approximately 235, emerged from both survey responses and interviews. Initial
categories from these 1st level codes (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014), along with a
priori codes (Maxwell, 2013; Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014) gathered from literature
reviewed and researcher’s personal experience, assisted in creating and developing themes.
Initial themes and categories were refined in the second cycle coding process and,
through this constant-comparative method, codes were rearranged and moved into sub-
categories that allowed for patterns and themes to emerge (Miles, Huberrman, & Saldaña,
2014). It is important to note that pattern coding is not a precise data (Miles, Huberrman, &
Saldaña, 2014), as qualitative analysis naturally lends itself to interpretation. The word
cloud (Figure A) is a visual representation of the most salient codes that emerged from this
study. Words that are larger and bold were echoed more often and repeatedly by interview
participants, as presented in Figure C.
Figure C: Axial and Second Cycle Codes

ELEMENTARY STEM 52
Organization of Data Analysis and Results
The data analysis for this study is organized into sections providing both quantitative
and qualitative data. The qualitative phase of the study was designed to support, and to some
extent, explain and extend the quantitative results. The first section of the analysis contains
the demographics of the survey and interview participants. The next sections contain
findings, analysis, and results that pertain to the study’s research questions. :
1. What organizational shifts were used when steering school staff into STEM
implementation?
2. What are the teachers’ perceptions on the need to implement STEM in their
classroom?
3. What are the site administrators’ perceptions of STEM implementation?
4. How do teachers and site leaders know that the STEM strategies utilized are
effective?
The final section of the analysis will examine findings generated in this study that do not
directly pertain to the research questions.
Demographics of Survey and Interview Participants
Using California Department of Education (CDE) resources and sources from the
California STEM Learning Network (CSLNet, 2015), nine elementary schools with a focus
on STEM were contacted. Upon conversations with some district personnel from the Inland
Empire region, two STEAM schools were invited to participate in this study as well. Data
collection took place from October 2015 through January 2015.
ELEMENTARY STEM 53

Key Attributes of School Characteristics
Schools were chosen from the Central, Southern, and Inland regions of California.
Careful consideration was given to providing equal representation from each region in an
effort to represent California’s public elementary school demographic as much as possible.
Two schools chosen were designated as non-Title 1 and all schools serve English Learner
populations to varying degrees. All schools in this study are considered either urban or
suburban schools. The percentage of students on Free and Reduced Lunch represents a
comparable degree of variance reflective of California’s landscape in public education.
The Ethnic Diversity Index (EDI) is a new feature presented in Ed-Data and it
reveals the race/ethnicity diversity of the school’s student population. A school where all
students at the school are of the same ethnicity would have an index of zero. The more
evenly distributed the student body is in a given school, the higher the EDI number (Ed-
Data, 2016). The schools selected demonstrated varying degrees of diversity; however, it is
important to note that none were highly diverse.
Eight of the schools had over 50% of their student population receiving Free and
Reduced Lunch and two schools had very small populations of English Learners. Five
schools have what is considered average enrollment for an elementary site (400-600
students). Of the remaining three campuses, two are considered small and one is a large
campus serving over 1,000 students.
Two of the school had less than 10% of their student population identified as English
learners. Three schools had over 50% of English language learners and the remaining
schools ranged from 12% to 42% of English language learner population.
ELEMENTARY STEM 54
Table 1: School Characteristics
Schools
California
region
Enrollment
N
Ethnic
diversity
index
Free and
reduced
lunch
Percentage
of English
learners
School A Southern 419 26
76% 42%
n=330 n=179
School B Southern 555 46
25% 15%
n=142 n=85
School C Southern 621 13
99% 57%
n=615 n=357
School D Central 601 21
82% 56%
n=494 n=337
School E Central 354 15
93% 64%
n=328 n=227
School F Central 1209 38
55% 0.08%
n=661 n=100
School G Inland 447 44
61% 12%
n=270 n=55
School H Inland 827 40
50% 0.09%
n=415 n=73
School I Inland 635 41
82% 15%
n=519 n=97
Source: California Department of Education through the California Longitudinal Pupil
Achievement Data System (Retrieved from Ed-Data, www.ed-data.org 2016)
Survey Response Rate
A quantitative survey was distributed to 112 participants throughout the state of
California. As Table 2 demonstrates, the response rate for the electronic survey was 46.60%
for classroom teachers and 44.44% for administrators. Although the time constraints of this
study limited data collection, this researcher was satisfied with having a high percentage of
respondents meeting the criteria to participate in the interview phase.
Table 2: Summary of Survey Responses

ELEMENTARY STEM 55
Survey items were assigned value descriptors along a five adjective scale, starting
with strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree and strongly agree. Eight items measured
attitudes and perceptions toward STEM implementation. Six items measured issues of
concern, practicality and support (Thomas, 2015).
Years of Experience
As part of the demographic information years of experience for interview
participants was collected. Table 3 below indicates the number of years both teachers and
administrators have been in their field. The majority (73%) of participating teachers have 10
or more years of classroom experience. However only 33% had ten or more years teaching
in their current grade level. This study revealed that teachers stay an average of 9.6 years on
their current grade level assignment.
Table 3: Survey Participants’ Years of Experience

Characteristics of Interview Participants
Qualitative data in the form of interviews was collected for this study. Two site
administrators and three classroom teachers were selected from the survey participants for
interviews. The criteria for choosing teachers for interviews, as Table 4 below demonstrates,
ELEMENTARY STEM 56
included: (a) More than 10 years of classroom experience; (b) at least 3 years in the current
position; (c) having at least 25% of EL students in their classroom; and (d) leadership in the
school. Teachers were given the option to be interviewed in the setting most comfortable to
them to produce the best data (i.e. their classroom, the school conference room, principal's
office, etc.).
Table 4: Interviewed Teacher’s Professional Background

The intention was to include at least one principal or administrator from each region:
Central, Inland and Southern California. Time constraints and demographic considerations
are significant factors limiting administrator interview participants on this study. The two
site administrators that participated in the interview phase were selected with the following
ELEMENTARY STEM 57
criteria in mind: (a) years of experience leading their site and (b) percentage of English
Learner population at their site. One school receives Title 1 funds and is situated in an
urban setting while the other site is considered a non-Title 1 suburban school.
Table 5: Interviewed Administrator’s Professional Background
Research Question 1
What organizational shifts were used when steering school staff into STEM implementation?
Bolman and Deal (2003) assert that major theories of organizational thought can be
consolidated into four frames: Structural, human resource, symbolic and political. This
study used the four frames as the conceptual framework throughout the findings.
Leadership and Organizational Frames
Principal Hill, who describes her leadership style as collaborative, stated that leading
a STEM school meant changing her typical approach and being very “directive” to set the
tone as a new administrator. Teachers approached her with comments such as “now that
there’s new leadership, are we going to change the STEM initiative?” Her response was:
“This is what we’re doing, we’re not changing. This is our pathway. Now what are we going
to do, collaboratively, towards that?”

ELEMENTARY STEM 58
An analysis of four years of documents from Principal Hill’s school demonstrated
that steering the school into STEM involved an approach markedly structural (Bolman &
Deal, 2003) through community forums; creation of a task force of parents and school staff;
and development of a strategic plan.
The organizational shifts Principal Jackson described in her interview, and analyzed
in documents reviewed, demonstrated elements of all four frames at different times. This is
consistent with Bolman and Deal (2003) who assert that leaders access aspects of each
frame at all times albeit emphasizing one over others depending on the situation. Principal
Jackson’s interview revealed that the political and human resource frames were emphasized
the most in the initial stages when steering the school staff toward STEM implementation.
In describing her leadership style Principal Jackson stated: “I really firmly believe that you
can be more effective by building relationships with people. I have a very strong
relationship with the people who work for me.”
The human resource frame was initially a tool that allowed Principal Jackson to
transition to the political frame of bargaining and negotiating (Bolman & Deal, 2003), as
declining enrollment and lagging test scores served as impetus to start STEM as a new
initiative. Using the political frame (Bolman & Deal, 2003), she added: “Whenever you start
a program, you have to sell it, teachers must be supportive of it and have their buy in and
see the value of it, because without it it’s going to go flat.” Echoing the same message,
Principal Hill stated: “Buy in is really important at the beginning.”
At the time of this study, Principal Jackson’s school was in the third year of STEM
implementation and she reported that she utilizes mostly trust and relationship-building as
her leadership style:
ELEMENTARY STEM 59
STEM is a lot of work, so building relationships was HUGE in building
STEM. So expecting it of people, because it is such a big shift... if they don’t
trust you or they don’t like you… I try to say that I can’t appeal to everybody
but let’s say the majority of people… they’re more apt to trust your decisions
if you have mutual respect.
Instructional Changes
Only the two site administrators interviewed mentioned science test scores as part of
the instructional change to STEM. Principal Jackson discussed test scores in science with
her staff and cited “14% students were proficient in science and the rest below and far below
basic. We had to start with the science.” Principal Hill mentioned how science scores
“dropped for the last three years of CST scores.”
Accessing the structural frame (Bolman & Deal, 2003), Principal Jackson and her
staff began instructional changes in science. “Then we added the TEM. Mostly it was
science at the beginning. Then we focused on the technology, engineering and math.” Both
principals spoke of the addition of a science lab as an instructional change toward “hands-
on” learning. Change, of both instructional practices and student expectations, was
expressed by all teachers interviewed.
Implied instructional change was mentioned by the interviewed teachers, with an
amplification of teachers’ understanding of STEM. Teachers were the most animated during
this part of our conversations. Ms. Holloway, a third grade teacher, gesticulated
emphatically when describing how STEM is changing instruction by “integrating
technology, science, math, engineering and with our next generation science standards.” A
deeper implication of change alluded to classroom practice in relation to students: “They’re
not just learning English language arts at one time,” Ms. Josephson concluded, “they’re
making connections throughout the whole day.” Principal Jackson also alluded to a shift of
how content is presented to students:
ELEMENTARY STEM 60
We made it a point to say that we’re going to integrate---because that’s really
what it is: integration throughout the curriculum. For each unit of study, let’s
stay it’s Structures... Second grade had Structures: How do they work? How
are they put together? How are they balanced? How are they built for
strength? Part of the project was bridge building, following the engineering
and design process where you imagine something, you design it and then you
build it. Then you go back and you approve it!

Curriculum Integration
The integration of subject matter is what Lottero et. al (2010) posit as the opportunity
STEM implementation presents in elementary grades. Principal Jackson provided the
following concrete example of what STEM implementation looks like at her site in a writing
lesson:
An example I can give you is a lesson that I saw that reviewed structures
from different kinds of bridges and what kind of materials they use. And then
it went into “we’re going to be reading a story and stories have structures
too. Let’s take a look at the structure of the story.” Then another lesson in
writing was “we’re going to look at writing a paragraph and there is a
structure to writing a paragraph.”

The concept of having different disciplines present universal themes or patterns was
implied by teachers and administrators. Thematic and project based learning was mentioned
by all teachers interviewed and Principal Jackson’s comment summarized how this idea was
expressed by all: “We actually look at the curriculum in different areas and how we can tie
them to our universal theme.”
Organizational Differentiation and Integration of Labor
There are two design areas to organizational structure (Bolman & Deal, 2003): How
to allocate work (differentiation) and how to coordinate roles and responsibilities
(integration). Public schools in California operate with scarce resources from fiscal
challenges originating in 2007. Only in 2015 have the funding allocations increased in
California; however this brings funds to the 2007 level and keeps California as the 48th in
ELEMENTARY STEM 61
state funding for the United States (ACSA, 2016). Policies such as the Local Control
Funding Formula and curriculum mandates such as the Common Core State Standards are
changing the landscape of how schools allocate resources and these were topics alluded to
by the interviewed participants as major organizational shifts changing allocation of
resources.
Financial Resources
In schools without Title 1 funding, the number one concern was finding adequate
fiscal resources for STEM funding. Ms. Hill stated that the largest challenge was the
financial challenge at her site: “You need start-up funds...tapping into the PTA or the
foundation.” Teachers interviewed mentioned inadequate funding for supplies for hands-on
instructional materials. Participants in year 3 or more of STEM implementation discussed
grant opportunities at the local and federal level.
Human Resources
Both administrators discussed major shifts in how staff is utilized. With limited
funding, Principal Hill discussed at length the creation of an Instructional Leadership Team
(ILT) composed of teachers per grade level whose responsibility is to assist in professional
development and steering STEM instructional focus. “I think having the instructional
leadership team do research or visit other schools,” Principal Hill continued, “so that they
kinda get to see what’s out there. And as the ILT they really take umm, the leadership role
of creating ‘what does that program look like for us, at our campus?’” Other participants
discussed providing a dedicated science teacher. Principal Jackson hired a science teacher
for all grades, while some teachers interviewed discussed dividing subjects by grade level.

ELEMENTARY STEM 62
Signature Programs and Parent Options
For some participants, STEM is seen as a political maneuver by top management
rather than representative of better instructional change for the future. Ms. Lopez stated that
her district is “trying to develop new… programs and uh… things to offer parents with
choices, uh, that will hopefully persuade them to keep their students in our public schools -
and so they’ve developed signature programs such as STEM in some schools.” Whether it
was from a political, symbolic, human resource or structural frame (Bolman & Deal, 2003),
analysis of documents reviewed revealed that STEM implementation at the elementary
grades increased student enrollment.
Reframing STEM Continuity
Structures must be designed to fit an organization’s circumstances (including its
goals, technology, workforce, and environment (Bolman & Deal, 2003). This elasticity was
evident when participants discussed continued STEM implementation in their organization.
The themes for teacher training and teacher leadership emerged but the approach varied. Ms.
Lopez viewed initial STEM implementation as a district directive (political frame) and
proposed increased teacher input and leadership (human resources frame) for continued
STEM implementation. Alluding to political mandates, her voice rose with passion and her
hands vigorously raised when she stated: “If it’s framed in a way that it’s like ‘here let me
spoon-fed this to you because this is what the governor or president wants.’” Her hands
mimicked the motion of raising a spoon to her lips, pausing for a moment before she
brought them down and concluded: “It’s not going to happen. It’s not going to happen.”
Principal Jackson recognized that NGSS implementation “is what the federal government
requires” but also sees it as a great opportunity for integrated teaching and learning.
ELEMENTARY STEM 63
Integration of standards, Common Core (CCSS) and Next Generation Science
Standards (NGSS) were next steps for all participants. The methodology of how to approach
this varied. Principal Hill is waiting for direction from her school district while Ms.
Holloway and Ms. Josephson are trying to integrate lessons on their own. Principal Jackson
sees NGSS as the necessary ingredient that was missing in her site’s STEM implementation:
“We were trying to go subject at a time: Science, then math, and technology. But it’s not
until NGSS that we could begin to look at engineering. Because it really is included in all of
the standards and it became really important.”
All participants shared an expansive sense of being at the initial stages of STEM
implementation and demonstrated a flexibility to continued change, viewing themselves and
their work as “a work in progress,” said Ms. Holloway. Ms. Josephson energetically
discussed continuous improvement and multiframe thinking (Bolman & Deal, 2003) as
“every time we meet a goal, there’s another one that presents itself.” The receptivity to this
elasticity of mind was described by Principal Jackson as “We haven’t become yet. That’s
the nature of education and a society that is always changing. We are working on just
bettering our instruction.”
Research Question 2
What are the teachers’ perceptions on the need to implement STEM in their classroom?
Organizations are composed of people with their own interpretations, each version
containing a glimmer of truth; yet each also a product of prejudices and blind spots (Bolman
& Deal, 2003). Acknowledging this inherent bias, this study found that 85% of
participating teachers considered STEM/STEAM education with high or very high regard in
elementary classrooms. The actual distribution is displayed on Table 6 below. Teachers
ELEMENTARY STEM 64
were given an opportunity to provide further comments and insights and these are listed
below the table.
Figure D: Teachers’ Regard for STEM in Elementary Grades

The following are quotes provided as additional information on how teachers regard
STEM implementation:
• “Implementing STEAM/STEM lessons take extra planning and resources
that are critical for making the learning more engaging while also raising
the depth of knowledge.”
• “The integration of science, tech, engineering, math, and the arts makes
teaching and learning more fun… it also helps the kids to see the
connections in their worlds.”
• “STEM/STEAM is essential in K-6 or K-5. It allows students to have
control over their own learning through hands-on experience and real-life
experiments. STEM/STEAM provides opportunities for students to think
critically and make connections to reality. It is important that students
have this opportunity so that they are prepared for life outside of school.”
2
1
4
18
25
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Very Low Low Neutral High Very
High
Frequencies
Regard For STEM (N=48)
ELEMENTARY STEM 65
Survey items were assigned value descriptors along a five adjective scale, starting
with strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree and strongly agree. Eight items measured
attitudes and perceptions toward STEM implementation. Frequency distributions of positive
receptivity and attitudes are demonstrated in Table 7 on the next page. However, the
response by classroom teachers to STEM implementation was overwhelmingly positive,
with over 70% of responses in the strongly agree and agree categories. Teachers in the
neutral categories are notable in the areas marking STEM as reasonable (20.83%), wise
(18.75%) and wanted (19.15%). Negative receptivity by classroom teachers was less than
4% and this is explored further in this study under Further Findings.
Table 6: Frequencies and Percentages of Teachers’ Positive Receptivity to STEM

Additional insights included:
• “It is an urgent need in our schools.”
• “We need well rounded students, so definitely believe that STEAM needs
to be done on a daily basis in the classroom. Plus, all our kids learn
differently, so when art is used to express themselves or show their
learning, their true knowledge comes out.”
ELEMENTARY STEM 66
There were two items included in the survey specifically designed to measure
negative receptivity to STEM by asking teachers’ perception on STEM value and
reasonableness. Classroom teachers overwhelmingly disagreed with these. However, it is
important to note that more than 10% of teachers agreed and strongly agreed on these items.
Table 7: Frequencies and Percentages of Teachers’ Negative Receptivity to STEM

Participating teachers provided further comments on these items:
• “I feel that STEM/STEAM education is valuable, exciting and important.
However, I do feel that the majority are not excited about implementing
STEM/STEAM into their classrooms.”
• “For some students a STEM/STEAM challenge can spark more than you
see. I think it is very important. I also believe, though, that students need
balance in education and must have structured time to learn the basics.”
Teacher Reaction to STEM Implementation
A critical finding is that participants in this study revealed positive reactions to
STEM implementation. Ms. Lopez expressed how “lesson plans need to adapt and change
according to what the students find out.” There was a clear understanding of change, from
traditional instructional methods, consistently expressed by all participants. “Is having hands
on projects,” Ms. Lopez elaborated, to which Ms. Holloway agreed with “the hands on part
and project based activities really gets them to learn and STEM is the real world.”
ELEMENTARY STEM 67
21st Century Skills
Teachers interviewed described STEM education as an approach to instill
communication, collaboration and critical thinking skills: “Our schools have focused so long
with, reading and math, reading-and-math, reading and math - and we have lost sight of
science,” Mrs. Lopez asserts. She concluded her thought by adding: “More and more we’re
pushing towards helping student become global citizens and be able to develop the skills
that they need to function in a society where uh, there needs to be more collaboration - of
course communication – and critical thinking skills.”
Thematic Integration
An approach toward meeting 21st Century Skills was described by classroom
teachers as presenting concepts thematically. Ms. Lopez reported: “I try to integrate all
subject matter so that students are exposed to science concepts or technology or even
engineering concepts through thematic-based instruction.” Thematic units have been used
by teachers for decades, the difference, as expressed by classroom teachers, is actively
engaging students in scientific inquiry and concepts. Ms. Lopez provided the following
example:
So if I’m doing, for example, a unit on celebrations - because just happens to
be something we’re learning about on social studies - I also bring in objects
that are… that pertain to our celebrations unit. You know it could be like a
balloon or a juice box or a little cupcake or things like that, and we talk about
these items and then we talk about states of matter. And then we can look
and… sort things by their state of matter: Is it gas, is it solid, is it liquid? Just
little things like that. Or we’ll talk about weather and we’ll start charting
weather and find patterns in weather and then we include mathematical
concepts in there as well as measurement and so there’s a lot of different
things that we could integrate.

ELEMENTARY STEM 68

Training and Professional Development
Teacher training in STEM was a consistent and recurring theme in all teacher
interviews. The concept of not enough, more, or specific training was clearly stated
throughout and with each participant. Perhaps a further analysis might look at how prevalent
is the perception of needed training in the minds of experienced and new teachers alike as it
relates to their confidence to teach STEM.
The lack of confidence in their ability, or that of their colleagues to implement
STEM, was evident in Ms. Lopez’ response when stating, “as long as they are trained and as
long as the umm training is equal for all teachers and that it’s specific to umm their grade
level, they’d be willing to implement it.” Ms. Holloway echoed the same concern during her
interview, saying, “I think it would be great if each teacher could go to a conference, each
teacher can uh have some training… I remember when there was money, but of course, right
now there is no money.” Ms. Josephson believes “we are in a profession where you don’t
work an eight to five man, we are constantly thinking and learning and now we have so
many videos and resources… look at teachers pay teachers, or the teacher channel man…
Yes, we need more training but it’s also there at our fingerprints - with the touch of a
button.” The assertion of this study is that training is necessary for teachers to express
confidence in STEM implementation. However, a closer analysis of the interview data
demonstrates that teacher responses imply targeted training, such as conferences, grade-
level specific, and varied in delivery method (for instance, use of videos). This finding can
be aligned to literature reviewed, where studies reveal that teacher training in science and
math is needed, but provided with targeted professional development, elementary teachers
ELEMENTARY STEM 69
learn required science and math content and present it accurately to students (Darling-
Hammond & Youngs, 2002; Mosqueda & Maldonado, 2013).
Ms. Lopez shared a further insight and a possible solution to teacher training:
I would think something that is important to remember is the fact that
teachers who do not feel themselves confident about science because of their
own upbringing or their own experiences in education or their own
interests… there’s a specific group of people who have said no thanks to
science – and there’s a reason for that - and if we could somehow activate
that part of them that was in Kindergarten in that Kindergarten classroom at
one point where they were not afraid to make discoveries and talk about their
discoveries. if there was some way to activate that in teachers then we would
be a lot more successful in implementing a program – such as STEM.
Perceived Student and Teacher Support
Participants in this study were not concerned with student support as it relates to
STEM implementation except for Ms. Lopez, who had the largest percentage of English
Learners of all teachers interviewed in her class:
I would be concerned that my English Learners uh don’t have the basic
language knowledge that they require, um, in order to successfully
collaborate and cooperate with one another and discover and explore
scientific concepts and then present it to their peers because they don’t have
the language.

Research on English Learners and STEM (Mosqueda & Maldonado, 2013) not only posit
that students have the ability and skills but that STEM is the gateway to having ELs student
achievement rise. Ms. Lopez’ comments reflect how this research or methodologies have
not reached elementary grades practitioners: “So, English Learners have this ability… they
have the skill set… They just… uh, we just haven’t been able to tap into those basic
concepts – that-that basic foundation that they need language-wise. How the English
Learners are going to be able to be successful in this program?”
Classroom teachers are pivotal in the curricular success (Waugh, 200; Yin & Lee,
2008) of all initiatives and teachers of varying expertise must work together to strive to
ELEMENTARY STEM 70
present lessons that allow integrated STEM content to naturally flow and merge (Merrill,
2009). All interview participants discussed the collaboration taking place yet the theme of
requiring more support was best described by a sense of anxiety.
Ms. Lopez described this dichotomy between collaboration and self-confidence in
STEM knowledge: “I would also be a little bit anxious. And I think I would be a little bit
anxious because... to implement a new program requires a lot more uh, planning and
thinking and collaboration and… and support – having support and resources. And that
would cause a little bit of anxiety because ‘Gosh I really would like to do this because I
believe it’s important but would I be able to do it effectively?’”
This lack of self confidence in STEM content knowledge by teachers was furthered
amplified by Ms. Holloway: “STEM requires that teachers to come together and write their
own curriculum and that requires uh collaboration but also support and if you don’t have the
support that you need but you still have the expectations then uh the tendency will be to
create something that is rushed or kind of haphazardly put together and then it doesn’t - it
doesn’t… It completely defies the purpose of what STEM is supposed to be in theory.”
Throughout the interviews, teachers mentioned support - or lack of support in the
interviews, but when this researcher probed further it demonstrated a vagueness in
specificity of types of support. This generalization is best described by Ms. Lopez:
“Everyone - every teacher wants what’s best for their students at heart. They just don’t
know what they don’t know.” Addressing this issue from an elementary school perspective,
DeJarnette (2012) suggests to improve working relationships between higher education and
elementary education to shift pedagogical practices to allow more student inquiry and
problem-based learning. Others suggest that STEM professionals working in the field
ELEMENTARY STEM 71
should be included in this collaboration (Kuenzi, 2008; Kuenzi, Matthews, & Mangan,
2006; National Science Board, 2007).
Research Question 3
What are the site administrator perceptions of STEM implementation?
100% of participating administrators considered STEM/STEAM education with high
or very high regard in elementary classrooms. The number of participating administrators is
a limitation of this study; therefore this researcher cautions particular attention to bias
(Glesne, 2011) and the particular power dynamic and frame (Bolman & Deal, 2003) in these
responses. The actual distribution is displayed on Table 9 below.
Figure E: Administrators’ Regard for STEM in Elementary Grades

Conceptualizing and Understanding STEM
Participating administrators hold STEM in very high regard at the elementary
grades; yet demonstrated a hesitancy when probed to conceptualize or provide a deeper
understanding of STEM. Lacking a conceptual definition of STEM state and nationwide
ELEMENTARY STEM 72
(Breiner et al., 2012; Carnevale et al., 2011; US Bureau Department of Labor Statistics,
2012) left participating administrators with generalized descriptors. For instance, Principal
Jackson’s understanding of STEM was: “STEM? It’s because that’s the best way to prepare
students for the future. The future is definitely going to have opportunities for people that
are trained in this way and received an education that is rich on STEM.”
The inarticulate understanding and hesitancy was also evident in Principal Hill’s
response: “I think it was really to uh, create a… very well-rounded, holistic education for
students umm, that prepares them for the 21st century umm, and sort of give them
opportunities in umm, all kinds of facets of STEAM. You know, art, engineering… kind of
going above and beyond the typical umm, curriculum… umm, and really pushing kinda to
the next level.”
Positive Receptivity to STEM in Elementary Grades
Survey items were assigned value descriptors along a five adjective scale, starting
with strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree and strongly agree. Eight items measured
attitudes and perceptions toward STEM implementation. Frequency distributions of
Administrators’ positive receptivity and attitudes are demonstrated in Table 8.
The highest values were given to important (100%) and exciting (75%). All
administrators agreed (50%) or highly agreed (50%) with descriptors of desirable, wise and
wanted. The only descriptor receiving a neutral response by a participant was reasonable
(25%). It is important to note that the survey sample size is limited to four participants and
that attitudes and perceptions are from site administrators who volunteered for this study, as
there might be a positive bias inherent in the reported findings.

ELEMENTARY STEM 73
Table 8: Frequencies and Percentages of Administrators’ Positive Receptivity to STEM

There were two items included in the survey specifically designed to measure
negative receptivity to STEM by asking administrators’ perception on STEM value and
reasonableness. It is important to note that the sample size of administrators limited the
findings in this study. 75% of participants strongly disagreed with negative descriptors of
STEM at the elementary level as not valuable or unrealistic. However, it is important to note
a neutral response (25%) in the unrealistic reasonableness of STEM in the Elementary
grades by the participating administrators.
Table 9: Frequencies and Percentages of Administrators’ Negative Receptivity to STEM

The themes on teaching and learning; instruction and access; and support and
resources expressed by the participating teachers also emerged in the administrators’
interviews. However, themes that were unique to their perspective were in the areas of
networks, competitive market; STEM teacher training; and school climate.
ELEMENTARY STEM 74
Networks and Administrative Collaborative
Administrators interviewed discussed fostering teacher collaboration in vertical and
horizontal approaches at their sites. Resources for grade level planning with a focus on
STEM was mentioned in both interviews. However, a sense of administrators working in
isolation emerged in conversations. An analysis of documents revealed that the majority of
participating schools in this study were the only STEM elementary school in their school
district. Principal Hill’s comment belies the administrative perspective on this topic: “You
know, I think I wish that more schools collaborated on this [STEM] initiative, because it
feels like we work very much in isolation as a campus.”
Further analysis of nearby schools of those participating in this study revealed that
elements of STEM in the form of Robotics teams, clubs and competitions existed across
campuses. Others also offered science fair, Olympiads and STEAM open houses. When
probed further, participants described that each initiative was developed by each school and
not in collaboration among schools. Principal Hill continued: “I know that there are other
elementary schools, for example, who have like robotics programs. Maybe they don’t have a
STEAM initiative, but they have different programs that they use umm, and I wish that there
was more collaboration about that.”
STEM as a Competitive Market
Research for this study revealed that STEM is a competitive drive in the global
economic arena (Bybee & Fuchs, 2006; Dejarnette, 2012; National Research Council,
2007). However, the interviews with school administrators disclose a different type of
competition - that between schools within or outside their district and mostly for higher
student enrollment. An explanation for maintaining a competitive edge and a possible
ELEMENTARY STEM 75
reason for less collaboration among schools was given by Principal Hill, who hesitatingly
offered:
Where I think… umm, and maybe it’s just in our district – there’s a little bit
of competition I feel like, between the schools like “ooh, what are you doing
that’s unique and different?” and I wish there was more “hey let’s all do this
because it’s for the benefit of kids.” Rather than “oh, look what I’ve got.
You don’t have that.” You know what I mean?” (laugh). So that’s… I wish
umm, that within our own-we have such a big – I think - a big district, that
we could really like work with each other.

Document analysis demonstrated that Principal Hill’s school is located in a school
district that has approximately 28 elementary schools serving over 20,000 students. Only
three schools have been designated magnet schools open to residents and students from
other districts. The majority of the schools are encouraged to create programming that
attracts enrolling on their own. Principal Hill’s elementary school is the only one in her
district attempting STEM as their initiative.
Principal Jackson’s school is in a district that is open enrollment for all students. Her
frame was distinctly about ensuring that her school had a brand or signature program, such
as STEM, that attracts higher enrollment. This is their third year of STEM status and
implementation and she added: “We are looking at including dual immersion programs in
addition to STEM implementation in the future,” She is one of two elementary schools in
her school district considered STEM.
STEM Teaching and Learning
The administrators in this study recognized teacher collaboration as a key ingredient
in STEM implementation at the elementary grades. This is aligned to literature reviewed
noting that teachers have a key influence on the success of curricular change (Waugh, 2000;
Yin & Lee, 2008). Principal Jackson’s comment summarized this universal theme from all
ELEMENTARY STEM 76
administrators: “Collaboration is HUGE because if you have STEM training without
collaboration it’s not going to go anywhere.” This study found that while all administrators
agree on teacher collaboration, the methodology and approach vastly varied per site. A
possible reason for a lack of training structure that guides STEM elementary schools in
California might be that, at the time of this study, the literature in STEM instruction, in
particular at the elementary level, is limited to science and math. Scant engineering or
technology literature, in terms of teaching code language or computing skills, is available
for elementary grades (Nowicki, 2003; Epstein & Miller, 2011).
In some schools, the training began by hiring an “expert” teacher in science, who
provided direct instruction and professional development training to the staff. When probed
further, administrators described this expert as a classroom teacher with an undergraduate or
graduate degree in science. In other schools, a Trainer of Trainer model was followed,
where selected teachers received in-depth training and coaching with the expectation of
passing along the information to their peers. Documents analyzed demonstrated that in one
region, the county offices of education became directly involved, with the creation of STEM
directors, to help schools develop and train their teachers.
Principal Jackson’s approach was to provide distinct training per discipline: “We
began with science. Then we added the TEM. Mostly it was science at the beginning. Then
we focused on the technology, engineering and math.” Expanding on this discreet approach
to professional development, she added: “We were trying to go a subject at a time: science,
then math, and technology. But it’s not until NGSS that we could begin to look at
engineering.” Principal Jackson credited the inclusion of engineering into the standards that
allowed her staff to begin integrating curriculum. Discussing both formal and informal
ELEMENTARY STEM 77
observations, she noted: “Now with TEM we are doing more integration so you can teach
through universal themes. We can connect every subject matter as much as you can connect
it with STEM.” After a brief pause, she added: “Kids see the connections and begin to
understand.” The NGSS, as read on literature reviewed for this study, incorporate big
themes and ideas that require grasp of the multiple STEM content areas, their interactions,
and major ideas that crosscut the disciplines, such as cause and effect, patterns, and systems
(Innovate; 2014; Thomas, 2014).
Principal Hill’s teacher training and collaboration can best be described as being in
the initial stages, and she attributed part of the reason to being new to the school and to
STEM in general. Documents revealed that her site began the STEM shift with an increased
focus on science by integrating it into the English Language Arts lessons given by the
teachers the year before, as part of the CCSS roll-out. Looking ahead, Principal Hill want to
visit and have her team visit other schools:
I would love to go and visit campuses that have STEAM, specifically - I
mean STEM is great, but to have that Art component… I’d like to see what
other campuses in Southern California umm, are doing, with that. And you
know, what can we steal or recreate or borrow from them? Because I think
that that’s how we will grow. Because I believe in working smarter not
harder.

Spillane (2014) notes, that “support is essential” but knowing what kind of support
to address first, such as staff development in curriculum, STEM knowledge, or cultural
proficiency training can determine sustainability for this change. As of this study, the
California Department of Education was working with a task force to determine STEM
implementation (CDE, 2016).
ELEMENTARY STEM 78

School Climate
The administrators in this study discussed teacher positive response as a major
indicator of STEM implementation, teaching and learning. The other two indicators being
utilized are family participation in STEM initiatives and student motivation. STEM
administrators described their campuses as positive places filled with “energy.” Principal
Hill reported that “the staff is really… energized! But I’m not in the classroom - in the
trenches with them, so that’s just my perspective, but they seem to be really excited about it,
and that’s – I think – a positive thing.” Almost intuitively, administrators are responding and
fostering to what research has shown: that teachers’ receptivity to educational reform is a
strong indicator for influencing successful or unsuccessful outcomes (Waugh, 2000; Yin &
Lee, 2008).
Research Question 4
How do teachers and site leaders know that the STEM strategies utilized are effective?
California is currently developing new indicators of student success in response to
both the newly adopted Student Success Act (ESEA, 2016), and the Local Control Funding
Formula (LCFF, 2015). As a result, this study found that both classroom teachers and
administrators felt at a loss on how to measure whether STEM strategies utilized were
effective. Principal Jackson exclaimed: “Well, right now the effectiveness is mostly
measured by the kids, their engagement in class… that kind of thing because we don’t really
have test results to look at it at this point in time.”
Principal Hill linked knowing that the STEM strategies are effective to the high level
of energy:
ELEMENTARY STEM 79
Right now we are completely evaluating it on the energy and the motivation
of the students that are most interested in it. Umm, along truly, with their
families. There’s a lot of energy around science and technology... art. And I
think that momentum is a good thing, but how do we tangibly track it? We
aren’t.

Classroom teachers and administrators discussed lack of data. On the comment
sections provided in the quantitative survey, a participant shared the following insight
related to assessment:
• “Student achievement should not be based on a single high stakes test…
STEM/STEAM learning reaches parts of the brain and talents that many
students haven't yet used.”
Although the participants interviewed discussed lacking data to measure STEM
effectiveness, the themes that emerged from participants demonstrated ample data -
although not the standardized type of previous accountability efforts that educators want as
indicators. These authentic data are in the areas of motivation and engagement.
Motivation and Excitement as Successful STEM Indicator
Throughout this study, teachers and administrators discussed the high level of
motivation and excitement evident in students. Moreover, teacher motivation and
excitement was alluded to by both teachers and administrators. Classroom teachers
interviewed expressed themselves as excited about STEM and how it’s changing their
lesson delivery methods. Ms. Lopez provided an explanation tying it to her years of service:
I’ve been teaching for over 20 years and uh, I am at a point where I think I
enjoy learning something new and preparing students for this fast moving
area in technology and preparing them to – to be better, uh, citizens… To
offer more as they grow and become part of the workforce. It is exciting - I
think it would be a learning opportunity for myself as well.

ELEMENTARY STEM 80
Ms. Lopez teachers Kindergarten and has done so for the last 15 years. She credited
the developmental stage of her students as making STEM implementation natural to
teaching and learning: “In a Kindergarten level... I feel it’s a little bit easier to
introduce students to this because it just comes so naturally to them to collaborate
with one another to build things together to come up with ideas together to uh and
just you know explore on their own and discover things on their own – through play,
mostly – because developmentally that’s where they’re at.” Motivation was also discussed
in relation to “hands-on” learning and project based learning (PBL) by participants. A
survey response from the quantitative survey applied to struggling students in particular:
• “I am finding that my struggling students are actually doing better
when working in a hands-on STEM environment. They are thriving
with PBL”
Student Engagement as Successful STEM Indicator
Participants in this study measured student engagement in STEM by formal,
informal and anecdotal observations of students during lessons and activities. Student
participation in STEAM and Science Fairs, along with student portfolios, photographs and
videos of students during lessons activities, and class presentations were mentioned as
indicators of STEM strategies being effective. Ms. Lopez gave an example of how she
checks for engagement through observations in a given day: “To see if the child is applying
what we learned - and see if they’re really engaged. If one of them… if they’re working in
partners and only one of them – it’s like a one-way conversation and the other one is kind of
staring up at the ceiling or not engaged then I know I need to come in here and engage this
student.” She also discussed providing presentation time to her students as groups.
ELEMENTARY STEM 81
Classroom teachers interviewed build in presentation time, both group and
individual, to their lessons and view this skill as essential in building collaboration and
communication skills in students. Ms. Josephson and Ms. Holloway provide their students
with rubrics. One is given to the presenting team and one to the students serving as audience
so they all participate. Students are expected to be able to talk about the concepts learned
and defend or present counter points to critical discussions from their peers. While Ms.
Lopez does not provide rubrics to her Kindergarteners, she has student-led conferences
where students share learning “successes with their families and so they are able to tell their
families what they’ve learned and they can present a product that shows that they’ve learned
what they’ve learned.”
Principals interviewed discussed investing on “kinetic” and “collaborative”
engagement strategy trainings. The emphasis of all participants when discussing whether
STEM strategies utilized are effective relied on student talk. “Getting kids to talk,”
emphasized Principal Jackson, “is what we want to see.”
Additional Findings
This study found an overwhelming support and excitement among practitioners to
implement STEM/STEAM at the elementary grades. However, there were also instances of
concern expressed pertaining to alignment with state standards and student achievement. In
a comparative analysis, teacher and administrator concerns are displayed for further
exploration. Furthermore, concerns in regards to school climate and district-teacher
relationships were voiced by some participants. This information is provided at the end of
the chapter. The overall consensus from participants is positive in regard to STEM
implementation at the elementary grades.
ELEMENTARY STEM 82
Concerns of STEM Implementation
22.92% of teachers expressed a concern that STEM is not aligned to CCSS whereas
no administrators shared this concern. Administrators instead saw STEM as an opportunity
to address the CCSS in the classrooms. A shared concern from participants was in current
math and literacy achievement. Although a small percentage of teachers (10.41%) were
concerned that STEM would mean less time for literacy and social students, 25.53% of
teachers and 75% of administrators were concerned that with STEM, not enough attention to
current math and literacy achievement would take place. Only a small percentage of
participating teachers (4. 17%) were concerned that STEM might lead to lower student
achievement. 14.58% of teachers described a concern between classroom management and
STEM implementation. However, the largest concern shared by participants was in the area
of knowledge: 37.50% of teachers and 75% of administrators shared a concern regarding
teacher’s understanding of content knowledge in STEM subjects.
There was only one comment in the teacher survey that was openly negative when asked to
share their concerns:
• “Who is teaching and using this program? Who has been trained on
theses programs? Where are the materials for these programs? This
district expects you to teach a program with no training and no
materials. Funny.....”
Further insights in the area of training and content knowledge for teachers follows
with this succinct teacher quote from the survey:
• “Could use more professional development in STEAM.”
ELEMENTARY STEM 83
Table 10: Participants with High and Very High Concerns Regarding STEM
Implementation

The teacher training concern was also explicitly mentioned in the administrator’s survey:
• “A concern from teachers - a legitimate concern is all of a sudden we
are STEM school but we don’t have expertise. We need PD.”
Principal Jackson acknowledged the teachers’ concern with STEM expertise. She
viewed her role as one that provides the pressure to accomplish STEM goals balanced with
understanding: “Being a STEM school means that we are working towards it. Everybody
understands that.” She continued by sharing the message that she wants her teachers to
understand: “You have to realize you are not the expert - and you never are truly an expert
ELEMENTARY STEM 84
because you will always be on a cycle of continuous improvement. So you don’t have to
feel like you’re lacking just because we are a STEM school.”
Political Landscape and District Dynamics
At the time of this study, three of the nine schools shared with this researcher that
they were in salary negotiations with the teacher’s collective bargaining units. Four of the
five participants discussed district changes, such as superintendents and board members. All
participants touched upon new site responsibilities. All classroom teachers mentioned
increased class sizes in the last few years. Three of the teachers made references to not
having enough time as a result of larger class sizes (document analysis revealed that the
average class size for primary teachers increased from 20:1 to 27:1) One teacher in
particular was candid about the current climate in her district (but asked the researcher to not
mention her, even if given a pseudonym): “Well, uh I have to share with you that,” she
paused, “right now our district is uh is at an impasse.” She ended with a nervous laugh. She
continued with increased confidence:
Our teachers are – are really… disappointed with the way that, uh that they
are being… uh, compensated. And so, because-because we have reached this
point… There is -there is uh a lot of… uh, tendency… to resist. New things.
Because it’s seen as something that is one more thing on their plate that is
something that a district is imposing on them... So, currently, right now I
think an obstacle – a huge - HUGE obstacle, would be just getting the
teachers on board… quite frankly uh they are doing or trying to do the bare
minimum until the district responds… or values their - their request for better
compensation. So that would be one big obstacle.

All participants expressed that STEM implementation requires increased attention
from them as professionals. “It requires more,” Ms. Holloway stated. Three of the interview
participants shared a concern regarding “what’s on their plate” and “getting things off their
plate.”
ELEMENTARY STEM 85
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter four reported the analysis and results of the findings. Chapter five presents
summaries of key findings, implications, and recommendations for further research. The
background and purpose of this study, research questions, and methodology, are briefly
summarized to provide context to key findings. The chapter concludes by identifying study
limitations and suggested areas for future research.
This study explored classroom teacher and site administrator perceptions and
receptivity to STEM implementation at the elementary grades. How elementary teachers
implement STEM in their classrooms, and how teachers and site leaders know that the
STEM strategies utilized are effective, were also examined. This study explored four
research questions:
1. What organizational shifts were used when steering school staff into STEM
implementation?
2. What are the teachers’ perceptions on the need to implement STEM in their
classroom?
3. What are the site administrators’ perceptions of STEM implementation?
4. How do teachers and site leaders know that the STEM strategies utilized are
effective?
This study followed a sequential mixed methods design (Creswell, 2009).
Quantitative data in the form of an electronic survey examined teacher and administrator
receptivity to STEM from nine California public elementary schools in three regions.
Further, this study looked at participant’s perceived regard for STEM at the elementary
grades and concerns and challenges in implementation. This was followed with qualitative
ELEMENTARY STEM 86
data, in the form of semi-structured interviews. Five participants (three classroom teachers
and two site administrators) were selected from the survey. Classroom teacher participants
represented a variety of grade levels, and student diversity in English learner designation
and socio economic status of students. The criteria for choosing teachers for interviews
included: (a) 3-10 years of classroom experience; (b) at least 3 years in the current position;
(c) having at least 25% of EL students in their classroom; and (d) team or committee
leadership participation. All site administrators who volunteered to be interviewed
participated in this study and represent suburban and urban schools with a range of
administrative years of experience.
In general, regard for STEM implementation at the elementary grades, was rated as
high or very high by study participants (85% of teachers and 100% of administrators).
Further analysis demonstrated that the majority of participants have high or very high
receptivity, describing STEM as desirable (85%), important (91%), and exciting (88%). The
five interviews confirmed high receptivity for STEM and deepened findings on possible
challenges in the areas of implementation, design, and policies. Overall, potential concerns
shared by participants were in the areas of professional learning; access to resources and
support networks; and indicators of success.
Discussion of Findings
The economic demand for skilled workforce is a reality America faces as increased
foreign talent fills the unmet workforce gap, while domestic unemployment steadily
stagnates within a range (U.S. Bureau of Statistics, 2013; CDE, 2013). Addressing the 21
st

Century skills through STEM implementation is a challenge many California public
elementary schools are attempting and this study closely looked at the attempts of nine
ELEMENTARY STEM 87
public elementary schools throughout California. The initial objective of this study was to
understand the organizational structure of STEM elementary schools. The second objective
was to investigate classroom teacher and administrative receptivity to STEM
implementation at the elementary grades. Lastly, interviews were used in this study to
understand how teachers and site administrators determine effective STEM strategies. This
study found three major themes prevalent across all research questions, and as such, will be
presented by theme: Conceptualizing STEM; professional learning; and policies impacting
STEM implementation.
Policies Impacting STEM Implementation
State Content Standards. This study found a misalignment in how CCSS
implementation is perceived as it relates to STEM by practitioners: 22.92% of teachers
expressed a concern that STEM is not aligned to CCSS whereas no administrators shared
this concern. Administrators instead saw STEM as an opportunity to meet the CCSS in the
classrooms. Only one of the five interview participants described integrating Next
Generation Science Standards (NGSS), adopted by California’s State Board of Education in
2013, as part of their school’s standards for teaching and learning. Standards are important
indicators of excellence (Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin, 1995; Kaser & Bourexis,
1999) and as of this study California began statewide implementation of Common Core
State Standards (CCSS) in language arts and math.
STEM Training Standards. The training described in this study by participants
varied widely from no training at all to explicitly focus on science instruction. Participants
discussed lack of STEM training, with classroom participants correlating it to a perceived
lack of support from district administration. As yet, there are no standards in California for
ELEMENTARY STEM 88
providers of STEM professional learning; moreover, there are no standards for any provider
in the integration of these subjects (CDE, 2013). Consequently, school districts and
educators have no guidelines to identify quality professional STEM learning providers.
Local Control Funding Formula. Participants in this study were peripherally aware
of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) as it relates to STEM in their classrooms and
schools; although a key element of LCFF is the inclusion of community, teachers, and
parents in shaping their local plan (LCAP). Instead, participants discussed stagnant teacher
salary negotiations and increased class sizes as a perceived challenges to STEM
implementation and utilization of funds to meet these needs. Principals discussed hiring
expert staff in content areas of science, technology, and art through grants or fundraising.
The flexibility to use funds to meet the local needs of educational agencies has been
welcomed by all stakeholders; yet the vague language can add to lack of statewide direction
in STEM implementation. California PTA President Justine Fischer response to the vague
language is: “A vital premise of the new Local Control Funding Formula is that decisions
about student success are best made by those closest to the classroom. But simply adding a
requirement for more parent and family engagement is not enough” (CAPTA, 2016).
Conceptualizing STEM
This study found a high regard and receptivity to STEM implementation at the
elementary grades but the ambiguously defined STEM concept (Breiner, J. M., Johnson, C.
C., Harkness, S., & Koehler, C. M., 2012) is creating obstacles between the conceptual and
theoretical desires of practitioners and the applied classroom practices. Participants in this
study were readily able to verbalize necessary skills, calling for instance for “collaboration
and communication” skills but had an ambiguous response when attempting to define
ELEMENTARY STEM 89
STEM. Ms. Lopez stated: “I think that’s uh… STEM is about uh…. helping student
become global citizens (tilting her voice into a question mark at the end of her statement)
and Principal Hill stated “I think it’s uh, about creating a well-rounded, holistic education
for students.” In all interviews, the tone of voice, gestures, and body language lacked the
confidence expressed by participants in other areas, such as when sharing effective
strategies and personal perspectives regarding challenges. This assertion is supported by
literature reviewed, denoting the lack of common understanding on components and key
characteristics of STEM instruction (Breiner et al., 2012; Carnevale et al., 2011; U.S.
Bureau Department of Labor Statistics, 2012).
The study sample size of participants (n=52) limits the generalizability of this
assertion and threats to validity are a consideration on the self-reported information received
via interviews (n=5). As of this study, California’s State Superintendent created a
STEM task force that has developed a definition (Innovate: A Blueprint for STEM in
California, 2013):
K-12 STEM education encompasses the processes of critical thinking,
analysis, and collaboration in which students integrate the processes and
concepts in real world contexts of science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics, fostering the development of STEM skills and competencies
for college, career, and life.
Professional Learning
“In the final analysis, there are no policies that can improve schools if the people in
them are not armed with the knowledge and skills they need” (California Department of
Education, Educator Excellence Task Force, 2012, p. 9). This study revealed that
participants lack confidence in STEM teaching and learning, relating it to a perceived lack
in professional development and training models. The largest concern shared by participants
ELEMENTARY STEM 90
was in the area of knowledge: 37.50% of teachers and 75% of administrators shared a
concern regarding teacher’s understanding of content knowledge in STEM subjects.
California’s intersection of new standards in language arts and math (CCSS), science
(NGSS), and financial re-alignment through Local Control Funding (LCFF), is proving to be
a challenge for practitioners in STEM elementary schools because standards for quality
STEM learning have yet to be developed (Innovate: A Blueprint for STEM Education,
CDE, 2013). Schools in this study approached STEM professional development by
presenting core subjects in isolation, investing in single subject teachers or “experts” in
science, and funding science labs (as reported by Principals Jackson and Principal Hill). The
majority of participating teachers described a lack of administrative support as demands to
create and develop STEM lesson plans increased (this was particularly evident in interviews
with Ms. Josephson and Ms. Lopez). While teacher collaboration increased out of necessity,
as reported by all classroom teacher participants, site administrators described a sense of
isolation. Principal Hill’s comment, “I wish umm, that we could really like work with each
other,” was an elaboration regarding being the only school in her district with a STEM
initiative. This study found that most participating schools were the sole STEM elementary
school within their school districts. Such was the case with Principal Hill, who wished that
“more schools collaborated on this [STEM] initiative, because it feels like we work very
much in isolation as a campus.”
Literature reviewed consistently decries that challenging curriculum and school
reform requires highly skilled educators who are well supported by their organization
(Darling-Hammond & Youngs, 2002; CDE, 2013). A limitation of this finding involves the
scant STEM resources readily accessible to schools to support professional learning as well
ELEMENTARY STEM 91
as the sample size of study participants (N=52). This finding contradicts what research
supports: Sustained student progress requires opportunities for professional learning that
requires collaboration and critical reflection of practice (Weiss et al., 1999; Zucker, Shields,
Adelman, Corcoran, and Goertz, 1998; U.S. Department of Education, 2000).
Student Performance Assessments
Participants in this study, in particular the site administrators, perceived the lack of
statewide assessment data as a hindrance to measuring STEM effectiveness in their practice
and sites. This finding supports the transition in assessments currently taking place in the
state. In 2015, California transitioned to computer adaptive assessments known as the
California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP). Student
achievement in critical thinking skills, communication, and problem solving skills, all
desired STEM attributes, are being assessed through CAASPP. A limitation of this study is
the lack of statewide data to quantitatively correlate student achievement and progress to
STEM school practices.
Engagement and Motivation as STEM Indicators
All participants in this study reported measuring STEM success through student
engagement indicators and student and family engagement. Classroom teachers discussed
anecdotal observations, student portfolios, photographs and videos of students during
lessons and activities. All participants discussed student participation in fairs
(STEM/STEAM and Science Fairs) as indicators of increased STEM success at their
schools. A limitation of this finding is the small population sample (N=5) of interviews.
ELEMENTARY STEM 92
Theoretical Framework Revisited
Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four-frame organizational models were compared in
relation to teacher and administrator leadership theories about teacher learning and change,
in particular as they relate to behaviorist, cognitive and sociocultural perspectives. The
findings from the study demonstrate that site administrators supported STEM organizational
shifts by using the structural and human resources frames. Evidence of the human resources
frame was evident in several aspects of research question one, two and three. These findings
include seeking feedback of key stakeholders and using teachers to lead professional
development. One of the two principals interviewed discussed including all stakeholders in
the development of goals. Structural frame was evident in conversations with three out of
the five interview participants and the political frame, as it relates to STEM initiatives, was
mentioned in four out of the five interviews. (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
Bolman and Deal’s (2003) Four Frames are a useful conceptual model to assist in the
analysis of organizational behavior. Skillful leaders use the Symbolic and Political Frames
more extensively and effectively than those less skillful counterparts. Organizational frames
must also adjust to the changes on how collaboration and innovation take place globally.
Participants in this study indicated that they are receptive to implementing STEM at the
elementary grades. However, they also reported challenges to successful implementation.
As Thomas (2015) posits, bureaucratic top- down approaches in education can discourage
buy-in and creativity and this assertion was supported by classroom participants in this
study. This study found that all participants acknowledged the critical role of classroom
teachers in the shared commitment to STEM implementation to ensure success.
Considering that teachers are in the classroom every day engaged with students, their
ELEMENTARY STEM 93
perceived challenges to STEM implementation can inform other stakeholders of
impediments that may be otherwise unforeseen (Thomas, 2015).
Implications for Practice
There is a sense of urgency to prepare students to meet the needs of our state and
nation’s economic STEM job demands, especially with the increasingly competitive global
workforce (National Science Board, 2010). This study contributes to the awareness of
STEM implementation and access at the elementary grades in California schools to better
prepare students as part of the effort to meet workforce needs. Research indicates that
STEM interest is developed before students enter secondary grades (Carnevale et. al., 2011;
DeJarnette, 2012; Murphy & Mancini-Samuelson, 2012); therefore analyzing how STEM
implementation can be integrated into elementary grades is essential. The results of this
study show that elementary teachers have a high and very high receptivity to STEM
implementation and this is an important understanding, considering what research has
indicated about the influence that teachers’ receptivity can have on the successful and
unsuccessful outcomes of educational reform (Darling-Hammond, 2000). This study also
contributes to recognizing barriers to implementation and access to STEM at the elementary
grades.
Integrated Curriculum
STEM education provides the unique opportunity to present subject matter in an
integrated approach through hands-on learning and project-based learning situations. Some
participants in this study discussed thematic integration, where students make connections
and communicate their understanding of STEM concepts: Concepts that were once taught in
isolation become tangible and relevant to students’ daily lives. However, the majority of
ELEMENTARY STEM 94
participants identified STEM as the inclusion of science and technology in their lessons.
Some discussed having a robotics team. This supports research where STEM education is
often distilled down to one or two disciplines, where a school with a robotics program may
identify as a STEM school or may focus on science and mathematics education (CDE,
2015). Only one school discussed engineering education as part of their curriculum.
Integrated approaches to education in the context of real-world issues can enhance
motivation for learning and improve student interest, achievement, and persistence (Masoni,
2015), while meeting the state standards assessed through CAASPP in critical thinking and
problem solving skills.
This study provides a case for practitioners to provide curriculum for connections to
real world and through integration of subject disciplines The National Academy of
Engineering and National Research Council [NRC] (2014) provided a framework,
represented in Figure F below, for connections that may assist practitioners when integrating
STEM.
Figure F: NRC Integrated STEM Framework

ELEMENTARY STEM 95
STEM Rubrics and Indicators of Success
Data collection and analysis is essential to measure any initiative’s success. Study
participants measured STEM success by student motivation and engagement while
describing a lack of statewide test results. However; the new statewide assessment
framework is provide an expanded focus beyond just summative assessments to include
interim as well as formative assessment tools (CDE, 2015; Smarter-Balanced, 2013). This
researcher posits that the current crossroads of state standard adoptions and changing
accountability measures is an opportunity to develop rubrics where student motivation and
engagement are included as STEM indicators of success. Authentic assessments in the form
of observational notes, student portfolios and lesson images and videos are taking place; yet
practitioners are not seeing them as real assessments of STEM success. Evidence gained
from formative assessment tools such as quizzes, observations, classroom discussions,
and/or student projects will be used by teachers to guide instruction and by students—
individually and/or in groups—to reflect on and evaluate their own learning. By integrating
both summative and formative tools, assessment becomes more integrated with the overall
process of teaching and learning by providing relevant and timely insight into the learning
process as well as evidence of achievement (National Research Council, 2013a)
Limitations of the Study
The mixed-methods nature of the study may reflect unique attributes that may not be
representative of the STEM elementary programs in all California schools. As a result, it is
difficult to determine whether the results obtained from this study can be replicated at
additional schools or in different organizational contexts. The data collection took place
within the span of a few months. Population size was limited in survey (N=52) and
ELEMENTARY STEM 96
interview (N=5) participants. Interview instrumentation cannot anticipate the extent of
knowledge that may exist in answering best strategies and knowledge of STEM at the
elementary level from participants, as it relies on perceptions and therefore the honesty of
participants in answering the questions. Finally, potential biases and validity threat exists
from serving as instrumentalist (Maxwell, 2013).
Delimitations in this study involve school site selection and timeline of study. This
study focuses on elementary schools in California that are public schools and do not have a
magnet designation. Private, charter, and magnet schools in the state and across the nation
are not considered. Secondary STEM efforts and programs are not part of this study.
Future Research
This study looked at classroom teachers’ and administrators’ receptivity to STEM
implementation at the elementary grades. Future research might modify this study to include
larger population sizes and different conceptual frameworks.
Population size and sub-groups
Larger population size may amplify this study’s themes and present significantly
nuanced findings. Magnet, charter and rural schools might provide differences in
receptivity, perspectives, or concerns discussed in this study. Additionally, future research
might include looking at other demographic subgroups where differences in receptivity may
occur (i.e., personal--gender, age, race/ethnicity, and education; school—
urban/suburban/rural and large/small). Lastly, receptivity among same school between site
administrator and staff may yield findings significant for STEM development toward
classroom implementation.

ELEMENTARY STEM 97
Diffusions of Innovation as Conceptual Framework
This study utilized Bolman and Deal’s (2003) Four Frames as conceptual
framework, comparing site leadership theories about teacher learning and change, in
particular as they relate to behaviorist, cognitive and sociocultural perspectives. Future
research might consider using Rogers (2003) diffusion of innovations theory. Ash and
D’Auria (2013) have operationalized the three stages for the diffusion of innovative
practices in a school into 1) Awareness and innovation 2) Learning, resistance and working-
through stage 3) Integration. According to Ash and D’Auria (2013), effective schools use
this approach to: allow teachers to work in groups sharing and implementing promising
practices; encourage teachers to discover, adopt and adapt innovative educational solutions;
and create a culture that makes it possible to diffuse these innovative approaches and best
practices school-wide. In schools that are, for instance, seeking to implement STEM as an
innovative practice, Ash and D’Auria (2013) also advocate finding high-leverage points for
maximum impact. These high-leverage points are defined as “places within a complex
system (a corporation, an economy, a living body, a city, an ecosystem) where a small shift
in one thing can produce big changes in everything” (Ash and D’Auria, 2013, p. 162-163,
citing Meadows, 2009).
Classroom Observations
Forthcoming studies should consider including classroom observations in their
methodology. STEM implementation findings, such as the ones reported in this study, will
add to the literature to provide additional knowledge regarding teachers’ and site
administrators’ receptivity to STEM education in elementary grades; however,
understanding STEM implementation necessitates data analysis of classroom practices.
ELEMENTARY STEM 98
Conclusions
STEM education at the elementary grades, especially if integrated curriculum and
authentic assessment measures are used, has the potential to profoundly transform the
educational system by breaking down disciplinary, motivational, psychological and social
barriers that have existed in instruction and learning when addressing teachers’ receptivity
and potential challenges, in particular in STEM content knowledge and confidence. As Ms.
Lopez stated: “Everyone - every teacher wants what’s best for their students at heart. They
just don’t know what they don’t know.”

ELEMENTARY STEM 99
References
Adams, J.E. (2010). Ambitious Learning Goals Require a new Approach to Educational
Resources. Chapter 1 in Adams. pp. 29-54
Autor, D.H. (2014). Skills, Education, and the Rise of Earnings Inequality among the “other
99 Percent.” Science, 344, 843, May 23, 2014.
Bagiati, A., Yoon, S.Y., Evangelou, D., & Nagambeki, I. (2010). Engineering curricula in
early education: Describing the landscape of open resources. Early Childhood
Research & Practice (ECRP), 12(2), 1-14.
Baker, B.D. (2014). Evaluating the Recession’s Impact on State School Finance Systems.
Education Policy Analysis Archives 22(91), September 15, 2014
http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1721/1357
Barakos, L., Lujan, V., & Strang, C. (2012). Science, Technology, Engineering,
Mathematics (STEM): Catalyzing change amid the confusion. Portsmouth, NH:
RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction
Bensimon, E. M., Hao, L., & Bustillos, L. T. (2007). Measuring the state of equity in higher
education. In P. Gandara, G. Orfield, & C. Horn (Eds.), Leveraging promise and
expanding opportunity in higher education. Albany: SUNY Press.
Breiner, J. M., Johnson, C. C., Harkness, S., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A
discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School
Science & Mathematics (finish citation)
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction
to theories and methods (5
th
ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
ELEMENTARY STEM 100
Business Roundtable. (2005). Tapping America’s potential: The education for innovation
initiative. Washington, DC: Business Roundtable.
Bybee, R. W., & Fuchs, B. (2006). Preparing the 21st century workforce: A new reform in
science and technology education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3),
349-352. doi:10.1002/tea.20147. Bybee,
Bybee, R. W. (2009). The BSCS 5E instructional model and 21st century skills. National
Academies Board on Science Education. Retrieved from
http://itsisu.concord.org/share/Bybee_21st_century_Paper.pdf. Business-Higher
California Department of Education (2014). Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/
California Department of Education (2016). Definition of a School. Retrieved from:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/si/ds/dos.asp
Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation [CDEF] (2014). Innovate: A Blueprint for
Science Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Report. Dublin: California
Retrieved from:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/pd/ca/sc/documents/innovate.pdf#search=STEM&view=FitH
&pagemode=none
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory (3
rd
ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Daly M.C. and Bengali L. (2014). Is It Still Worth going to College? San Francisco, CA:
FRBSF Economic Letter, May 5, 2014
Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining “highly qualified teachers”:
What does “scientifically-based research” actually tell us? Educational Researcher,
31(9), 13-25.
ELEMENTARY STEM 101
Darling-Hammond, L., Withoild, G., Pittenger, L. Accountability for College and Career
Readiness: Developing a New Paradigm. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for
Opportunity Policy in Education.
DeJarnette, N. K. (2012). America’s children: Providing early exposure to STEM (Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Math) initiatives. Education, 133(1), 77- 84.
Dewey, J. (1900). The School and Society. ON: Brock University
Diepenbrock, W. (2014). California’s New School Funding System Stumbles Into Its First
Year. The Hechinger Report.
Donovan B, Moreno Mateos D, Osborne J, Bisaccio D (2014). Revising the Economic
Imperative for US STEM Education. PLoS Biol 12(1): e1001760.
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001760
Dowd, A. C., (2005). Data don’t drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of inquiry to
assess community college performance. Boston: University of Massachusetts,
Lumina Foundation for Education.
Ehrlich, E. (2007). A call to action: Why America must innovate. National Governors
Association. Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/cms/home/nga-center-for-best-
practices/center-publications/page-ehsw-publications/col2-content/main-content-
list/a-call-to-action-why-america-mus.html George,
Epstein, D. and Miller, R.T. (2011). Elementary school teachers and the crisis in STEM
education. The Education Digest, 77(1), 4. Retrieved from:
http://usc.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwVZ1BCgIxDEWD
eAJB116g0GZsp12LgweYC6RNvjvvv7QBF3qGQPh_8f4jurYZ2rsLcFTntRUN2pN
Pk0Xh1VT-0Oifb76d6GDvM-
ELEMENTARY STEM 102
3bY78_w1cGEF63nIJKcSRLMFrhig7fRTPU4Ua5GrHYwgNOgVZYbppnDBItAG
NFNE4XOs4-bR9C_iZI
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. (5
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE
Fuller, B. and Tobben, L. (2014). Local Control Funding Formula in California. Berkeley,
CA: The Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy.
Furhman, S. H. (2004). Introduction. In S. H. Furhman & R. F. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning
Accountability Systems for Education (pp. 3-14). New York: Teachers College Press.
Furtick, K. and Snell, L. (2013). Weighted Student Formula Yearbook: Overview. The
Reason Foundation.
Gamron, A., Long, D.A. (2006). Equality of Educational Opportunity: A 40-Year
Retrospective. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Working
Paper No. 2006-9.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4
th
ed.). Boston:
Pearson.
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Hathcock, S., Stonier, F., Levin, D., & Dickerson, D. (2012). The great build-a-buoy
challenge. Science & Children, 50(4), 62-66.
Hanushek, E., Schwerdt, G., Wiederhold, S., Ludger Woessmann (2013). Returns to skills
around the world. OECD Education Working Paper N. 101
ELEMENTARY STEM 103
Hanushek E., Jamison D., Jamison E, Woessmann L. (2008) Education and economic
growth: It’s not just going to school, but learning something while there that matters.
EdNext 8: 62–70. 3.
Hansson, Finn, Kenneth Husted, and Jakob Vestergaard. 2005. “Second Generation Science
Parks: From Structural Holes Jockeys to Social Capital Catalysts of the Knowledge
Society.” Technovation 25 (9): 1039–1049. http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0166497204000537
Haskel, J., Lawrence, R. Z., Leamer, E. E., & Slaughter, M. J. (2012). Globalization and US
wages: Modifying classic theory to explain recent facts. The Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 26(2), 119-139.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlsetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. USCUrban
Ed. Los Angeles: University of Southern California: Rossier School of Education.
Htt://www.edsource.org/pub_new-fed-policies.html
Kelley, T., & Pieper, J. (2009). PLTW and epics-high: curriculum comparisons to support of
problem solving in the context of engineering design. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue
University Hall of Technology
Lantz Jr., H. B. (2009). Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
education what form? what function? Retrieved from
http://www.currtechintegrations.com/pdf/STEMEducationArticle.pdf Lee,
Lavy, V., Ebenstein, A. and Roth, S. (2014). The Long Run Human Capital and Economic
Consequences of High-Stakes Examinations. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of
Economic Research, Working Paper 20647.
Lottero-Perdue, P. S., Lovelidge, S., & Bowling, E. (2010). Engineering for all. Science and
ELEMENTARY STEM 104
Children, 47(7), 24-27.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Los
Angeles: Sage Publications.
McGough, J., & Nyberg, L. (2013). Strong STEMs need strong sprouts!. Science &
Children, 50(5), 27-33.
Mead, Sara, and Rotherham, Andrew (2008). Changing the Game: The Federal Role in
Supporting 21
st
Century Educational Innovation, Washington, D.C., The Brookings
Institution, pp. 1 – 62.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Medina, J. (2008). Brain Rules:12 principles for surviving and thriving at work, home, and
school. New York: Pear Publishing.
Miles, Huberrman, & Saldaña (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A methods sourcebook (3
rd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Mosqueda, E. & Maldonado, S.I. (2013). Racial and linguistic achievement disparities:
Mathematics course taking in urban schools. In M. M., Capraro, Editor, R. M.,
Capraro Editor and C. W., Lewis, Editor (Eds.), Improving Urban Schools: Equity
and Access in K-12 STEM Education for All Students (55-79). University of
California, Santa Cruz.
Murphy, T. P., & Mancini.-Samuelson, G. J. (2012). Graduating STEM competent and
confident teachers: The creation of a STEM certificate for elementary education
majors. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(2), 18-23.
ELEMENTARY STEM 105
National Center for Education Statistics (2016). National Assessment of Educational
Progress. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/
National Science Board. (2007). A National Action Plan for Addressing the Critical Needs
of the U.S. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education System.
Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/stem/.
Nowicki, B., Sullivan-Watts, B., Shim, M., Young, B., and Pockalny, R. (2013). Factors
Influencing Science Content Accuracy in Elementary Inquiry Science Lesson.
Research in Science Education, 43 (3), 1135-1154.
Nyberg, Nyberg, B. L. (2010). Seeding Science in Elementary Schools, 84–89.
Odden, A.R. and Picus, L.O. (2014). School Finance: A Policy Perspective, Chapter 4 –
Adequate Staffing and Resources for America’s Schools. New York, NY: McGraw
Hill.
Ortega, J. (2014). Linked learning gains traction in filling California jobs. California
Economic Summit. Retrieved from:
http://www.caeconomy.org/reporting/entry/linked-learning-gains-traction-in-filling-
california-jobs
Park, D. Y., (2011) STEM education as a reformative engine in the United States. Retrieved
from seer.snu.ac.kr/maru/transfer.php?atid=1273&PHPSESSID
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Rodriguez, F. (2013). Focused, adaptable-structured, teaching: a framework for brain-
based learning. Retrieved from:
http://www.riseedservices.com/RISEed/RISE_Educational_Services.html
ELEMENTARY STEM 106
Stetcher, B., & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Introduction. In B. Stetcher & S. N. Kirby,
Organizational improvement and accountability: Lessons for education from other
sectors (pp. 1-7). Santa Monica, CA : Rand Corporation. Retrieved November 14,
2005, from http://www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG136?
Taylor, M. (2014). The 2015-16 budget: California’s Fiscal Outlook. California Legislative
Analyst.
The 2014-15 Budget: California Spending Plan. (2004). California Legislative Analyst.
Available at: http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2014/budget/spending-plan/california-
spending-plan-080414.pdf
The Nation’s Report Card (2015). Mathematics & Reading Assessments. Retrieved from:
http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#mathematics?grade=4
Thomas, T. A. (2014). Elementary Teachers ’ Receptivity to Integrated Science ,
Technology , Engineering , and Mathematics ( STEM ) Education in the Elementary
Grades.
Turnbull, B. (2002). Teacher participation and buy-in: Implications for school reform
initiatives. Learning Environments Research, 5(3), 235-252. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/62212243?accountid=14749
U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Report of the Academic Competitive Council.
Washington DC: Ed Pubs
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.
(2010). A Blueprint for Reform: The reauthorization of the elementary and
secondary education act. Washington, DC: Ed Pubs
ELEMENTARY STEM 107
U.S. Department of Education, Government Accountability Office. (2014). Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics: Assessing the relationship between
education and the workforce. Washington, DC: Ed Pubs. Retrieved from:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/663079.pdf
Warren, P. (2014) California’s State Budget: the Enacted 2014-15 Budget. Available at
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=358
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from Strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York: The Free Press.
Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks CA:
Sage.
ELEMENTARY STEM 108
Appendix A: Research Design Matrix

What do I need to
know?
Who will it involve?
What type(s) of
settings (e.g.,
classroom,
teachers’ lounge)
will I need to
observe?
What is my
sampling strategy?
(Maxwell pp. 98-
99)
Who are the
gatekeepers?
Who will I need
to speak with to
obtain access?
From whom do
I need consent?
What are my
relationships with
possible informants?
(i.e., do I supervise
them? Are they my
colleagues?)
What are the
implications of these
relationships?
RQ 1: What
organizational shifts
were used when
steering school staff
into STEM
implementation?
Participants will be
site administrators
and teachers
N/A
Online survey
Purposive
100-200
participants in
California
elementary schools
District’s HR
department, site
administrators,
school
secretaries.
There is no relationships
between researcher and
participants.
RQ 2: What are the
teachers’ perceptions
on the need to
implement STEM in
their classroom?
Participants will be
classroom teachers.
Online survey and
interviews in the
participants’
school site
Eight interviews
with elementary
school teachers in
California. At least
three from Title I
schools with EL
students
Site
administrators,
school
secretaries.
There is no relationships
between researcher and
participants.
RQ 4: What are the
site administrator
and district
leadership
perceptions of
STEM
implementation?
Participants will be
site administrators.
Online survey and
interviews
Five to eight
interviews with site
administrators in
public elementary
schools in
California
HR Departments,
site
administrators,
school
secretaries.
There is no relationships
between researcher and
participants.
RQ 5: How do
teachers and site
leaders know that the
STEM strategies
utilized are
effective?
Participants will be
site administrators
and teachers.

Online survey,
interviews and
documents
Survey responses,
Classroom
observational data,
document review.
Site
administrators,
classroom
teachers, school
secretaries.
There is no relationships
between researcher and
participants.
Adapted from Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach, p. 131
ELEMENTARY STEM 109
Appendix B: Research Questions and Protocol Grid

Research Question #1
What organizational shifts were used when steering school staff into STEM
implementation?

Survey Questions
1. What is STEM?
2. How do you feel about STEM/STEAM at the elementary levels?
3. Some people believe that professional development and training in STEM is essential prior to
implementation, how certain/uncertain do you feel that the classroom teachers have appropriate and
sufficient content knowledge in one or more of the content areas emphasized by STEM/STEAM?

Interview Questions
4. How are your teachers implementing STEM/STEAM in their classroom instruction? What specific
strategies are they using? How is their instruction different?
6. How would you describe your leadership style? What leadership strategies have you utilized, or been
most effective, in leading a STEM/STEAM school?

Artifacts (School Documents, Website etc.)
1. Review of school and district websites for STEM information
2. Review of school plans
3. Review of district Local Accountability Plan/LCFF
4. Review of state policies

Research Question #2
What are the teachers’ perceptions on the need to implement STEM in their classroom?

Survey Questions
1. How positively or negatively you think or feel about STEM/STEAM implementation in grades
Kindergarten through 6?
3. How strongly do you feel about STEM implementation at the elementary grades?
5. How well prepared do you think you are to implement STEM in your classroom?
Interview Questions
1.What are the reasons for implementing STEM at the elementary level?
2. If your school were to implement STEM as their schoolwide focus, what would your initial reaction be?
3. From your point of view, what are some potential obstacles, if any, to implementing STEM in the
elementary grades?
4. Generally speaking, how do you think your colleagues would react to implementing STEM at your
school?
10. What are your concerns or worries about STEM implementation, if any?
11. From your point of view, what are the reasons, if any, to implementing STEM education in the
elementary grades?

ELEMENTARY STEM 110
Appendix B (Continued): Research Questions and Protocol Grid

Research Question #3
What are the site administrator perceptions of STEM implementation?

Survey Questions
1. How positively or negatively you think or feel about STEM/STEAM implementation in grades
Kindergarten through 6?
3. How strongly do you feel about STEM implementation at the elementary grades?
5. How well prepared do you think your classroom teachers are to implement STEM in the classroom?

Interview Questions
3. From your point of view, what are the potential challenges, if any to implementing STEM/STEAM in the
elementary grades? What are your concerns or worries?
4. Generally speaking, how do you think your teachers would react to implementing STEM at your school?
10. What are your concerns or worries about STEM implementation, if any?
11. From your point of view, what are the reasons, if any, to implementing STEM education in the
elementary grades?

Research Question #4
How do teachers and site leaders know that the STEM strategies utilized are effective?

Survey Questions
3.a. On a scale list the level of concern regarding teaching STEM and Common Core Standards alignment
3.c. On a scale list the level of concern regarding teaching STEM with student achievement

Interview Questions
4. How are your teachers implementing STEM/STEAM in their classroom instruction? What specific
strategies are they using? How is their instruction different? (Administrator Interviews)
5. How are you implementing STEM in your classroom instruction? (Teacher Interviews)
5. How do you know that the STEM/STEAM strategies your teachers are using are effective?
(Administrator Interviews)
6. How do you know that the STEM strategies you are using are effective? (Teacher Interviews)

ELEMENTARY STEM 111
Appendix C: Survey Protocol

ELEMENTARY STEM 112
Appendix C (Continued): Survey Protocol

ELEMENTARY STEM 113
Appendix C (Continued): Survey Protocol

ELEMENTARY STEM 114
Appendix D: Consent Form

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education 1150 S. Olive, Los Angeles, CA 90015

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

STEM in the Elementary Grades Study
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Rebeca Witt, principal investigator and Pedro Garcia,
Ph.D., faculty advisor at the University of Southern California, because you are an elementary school teacher in a multiple
subject classroom at a school emphasizing science and the arts. Your participation is voluntary. You should read the
information below, and ask questions about anything you do not understand, before deciding whether to participate. Please
take as much time as you need to read the consent form. You may also decide to discuss participation with your family or
friends. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this form. You will be given a copy of this form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to explore classroom teacher perceptions on the need of STEM at their elementary school.

STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to be interviewed as well and be observed presenting a lesson
in your classroom. You will be asked a series of six open-ended interview questions on your perception of STEM, your
perceived challenges, potential benefits, along with other reactions you may have. The interview will be audio recorded but
the classroom observation will not be video/audio recorded. You may still participate in this study if you opt to not have
the interview audio recorded.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no potential risks and/or discomforts associated with this study.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
There are no direct benefits to participant. Benefits to society include potential applications to the educational setting of K-
6 grades for instructional delivery that may lead to higher student achievement. There is also an associated economic
benefit to society from workforce in the STEM subjects.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be paid for participating in this research study.
Appendix C Continued

CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However, if we are required to do so by
law, we will disclose confidential information about you. The members of the research team, the funding agency and the
University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews
and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

The data will be stored in the principal investigator’s laptop. The audio recordings of interviews will be stored in the
principal investigator’s mobile device and will be used to transcribe the interview. The records will be erased on May
2016. No information will be related to any other party for any reason. To prevent access by unauthorized personnel, your
personal information, such as your name, research data, and related records of your interview and observations, will be
coded using a combination of pseudonyms and numbers.

ELEMENTARY STEM 115
Appendix D (Continued): Consent Form

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which you are
otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You are not
waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in this research study.

INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact:
Rebeca Witt Pedro Garcia, Ph.D.
Principal Investigator Faculty Advisor
(818) 248-7766 (213) 740-0224
rebecawi@usc.edu pgarcia@rossier.usc.edumailto:samkian@rossier.usc.edu
2307 Mountain Avenue 1150 S. Olive Street
La Crescenta, CA 91214 Los Angeles, CA 90015

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the research in general and are
unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone independent of the research team, please contact the
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702,
(213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edumailto:upirb@usc.edu

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT

I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My questions have been
answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this form.

AUDIO/VIDEO/PHOTOGRAPHS
□ I agree to be audio-recorded

□ I do not want to be audio-recorded

Name of Participant

Signature of Participant Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I believe that he/she understands the
information described in this document and freely consents to participate.

Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to explore the organizational frameworks used for STEM implementation by administrators as well as elementary teachers’ perceptions of STEM implementation in California’s schools. This study examined: (a) organizational frameworks used when steering school staff into STEM implementation, (b) teachers’ perceptions on the need to implement STEM in their classroom, (c) administrators’ perceptions of STEM implementation, and (d) how teachers and site leaders assess effectiveness of STEM strategies utilized. This study used surveys and semi-structured interviews using a sequential-explanatory mixed-methods approach with a sample of 52 California administrators and teachers. Moreover, document review analyses were conducted of school and district websites and documents (Creswell, 2009

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Effective STEM initiatives in high-poverty elementary schools

PDF

Use of Kotter’s change model by elementary school principals in the successful implementation of inclusive education programs for students with disabilities in K-6 elementary schools in Southern ...

PDF

Leadership and implementation of 1:1 technology: considering teacher self-efficacy in the implementation process

PDF

Mathematics Engineering Science Achievement and persistence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors: the influence of MESA on the retention of first generation females in STEM...

PDF

Mathematics Engineering Science Achievement (MESA) and student persistence in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) activities and courses: the perceptions of MESA teacher advis...

PDF

Best practices charter school CEOs are implementing to recruit and retain teachers

PDF

The successful implementation of STEM initiatives in lower income schools

PDF

Mathematics, Engineering, Science, Achievement (MESA) and student persistence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) activities and courses: the perceptions of MESA teacher a...

PDF

Response to intervention: factors that facilitate and impede the process of implementation for administrators of Head Start preschools

PDF

Elements of a 1:1 computer laptop program in a Los Angeles County high school and implications for education leaders

PDF

Initiatives implemented by urban high school principals that increase and sustain achievement in algebra for African American students

PDF

An evaluation of project based learning implementation in STEM

PDF

The challenges teachers face effectively implementing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) curricula: an evaluation study

PDF

A comparative analysis of teacher evaluation systems utilized by public and charter schools in Southern California

PDF

An examination of teachers’ perceived value and knowledge of mathematical development in early childhood settings

PDF

Common Core implementation decisions made by principals in elementary schools

PDF

Common Core State Standards: implementation decisions made by middle school English language arts teachers

PDF

English language learners meeting the Common Core: do principals make a difference?

PDF

Teacher perception of the implementation of the educator effectiveness system

PDF

Leadership characteristics, practices and board perceptions that support superintendent longevity in suburban school districts: a case study

Asset Metadata

Creator Andrade, Rebeca Judith (author)

Core Title Elementary STEM policies, practices and implementation in California

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/26/2016

Defense Date 04/27/2016

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag administrator and teacher perspectives,elementary STEM,implementation,OAI-PMH Harvest,STEM policies

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Garcia, Pedro E. (committee chair), Castruita, Rudy (committee member), Onoye, Kathy (committee member)

Creator Email rebecajudithandrade@gmail.com,rebecawi@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-278838

Unique identifier UC11281185

Identifier etd-AndradeReb-4622.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-278838 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-AndradeReb-4622-1.pdf

Dmrecord 278838

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Andrade, Rebeca Judith

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA