University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Leadership for K-12 STEM integration: how superintendents champion the advancement of effective integrated STEM education within their districts

(USC Thesis Other)

Leadership for K-12 STEM integration: how superintendents champion the advancement of effective integrated STEM education within their districts

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 1

LEADERSHIP FOR K-12 STEM INTEGRATION: HOW SUPERINTENDENTS CHAMPION
THE ADVANCEMENT OF EFFECTIVE INTEGRATED STEM EDUCATION WITHIN
THEIR DISTRICTS

by

Shelly A. Yarbrough

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

May 2016

Copyright 2016 Shelly A. Yarbrough
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 2

Dedication
To Mom and Dad, my first and best teachers. Dad, thank you for being the epitome of
strength and integrity. Your love and support has been invaluable. Mom, you were an incredible
role model. You were brave in so many ways and you didn’t allow the world to define you. You
always will be in my heart.

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 3

Acknowledgements
I want to thank my family for the role they played in the great accomplishment of writing
a dissertation. Mom and Dad, you taught your children the value of education and of continually
bettering ourselves. Without the foundation and expectation you provided, I might never have
considered earning a doctorate. Dad, Allyson, Brian, Jason, Ceci, and John, during the
dissertation process, each of you helped me in some way. You read drafts of papers, you talked
out ideas with me, you understood when I didn’t call or visit as much, and you provided
encouragement when I needed it. We all were hurting when we lost Mom. Your love and
support kept me moving forward through the program, despite my sorrow. You all mean the
world to me. Thank you. A special thanks to you, Jason. You bore the brunt of my distress,
frustration, panic, and general craziness.
I also want to acknowledge the members of my 2012 Ed.D. cohort as well as my
dissertation cohort. Insights gained from your ideas and perspectives made me a better educator
and a better person. Joann and Chris, those rides to our dissertation meetings in LA were
interesting, to say the least. We laughed a lot, but we also shared ideas. Joann, we spent almost
every weekend together (including the long rides to and from class) for three years. The
experience would not have been the same without you.
I would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge the professors, instructors, and academic
advisors who helped me along the way. I especially want to thank the members of my
dissertation committee: Dr. Maddox (committee chair), Dr. Freking, and Dr. Sheehan. Your
insights, direction, patience, and flexibility positively impacted my ability to finish this
dissertation. Dr. Maddox, thank you for your pep talks. You gently pushed when I needed it.
And now here I am with a completed dissertation. My mother would be so proud!
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 4

Table of Contents
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 8
Abstract 9
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 10
Background of the Problem 11
Statement of the Problem 16
Purpose of the Study 17
Significance of the Study 18
Limitations and Delimitations 19
Definition of Terms 19
Chapter Two: Literature Review 23
K-12 STEM Education Initiatives 23
Teacher Quality 23
Standards for STEM Education 25
NCLB and STEM 26
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and Next 28
Generation Science Standards (NGSS)
School-Community Partnerships 29
School-business partnerships 31
School-university partnerships 33
STEM Schools and Programs 35
Overview of K-12 STEM Integration 37
History 37
Contemporary Context 39
Defining STEM integration 40
STEM integration in the curriculum 41
STEM ecosystems 44
Science, technology, engineering, art, and math (STEAM) 44
Effectiveness of K-12 STEM Integration 45
Leadership for STEM Education Reform 47
Education Reform and Innovation 49
K-12 STEM Integration as Disruptive Innovation 50
Descriptive Framework 52
Theoretical Framework 52
Chapter Three: Methodology 56
Research Methods 58
Descriptive Framework 59
Goals 60
Outcomes 60
Nature and Scope of Integration 61
Implementation 62
Theoretical Framework 62
Sample and Population 65
Instrumentation 67
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 5

Data Collection 69
Data Analysis 70
Validity and Reliability 71
Chapter Four: Results 73
Descriptive Framework 75
Theoretical Framework 75
Case Study: Superintendent A – 21
st
Century STEAM Academy 77
Overview 77
Integrated STEM at 21
st
Century STEAM Academy 79
Goals 79
Outcomes 82
Nature and scope of integration 84
Implementation 87
Superintendent A’s Decision to Support Implementation of 88
STEAM Education
The superintendent’s perception of integrated 92
STEAM education
Superintendent A Supports Implementation of Integrated STEAM 98
Case Study: Superintendent B – Bayview STEM Academy 101
Overview 101
Integrated STEM at Bayview STEM Academy 103
Goals 103
Outcomes 104
Nature and scope of integration 107
Implementation 109
Superintendent B’s Decision to Implement STEM Education 110
The superintendent’s perception of integrated STEM 113
education
Superintendent B Supports Implementation of Integrated STEM 118
Education
Case Study: Superintendent C – Mid-County Regional Occupational Center 119
Overview 119
Integrated STEM at Mid-County Regional Occupational Center 120
Goals 120
Outcomes 122
Nature and scope of integration 125
Implementation 127
The Superintendent’s Decision to Implement Integrated STEM 128
Education
The superintendent’s perception of integrated STEM 131
education
Superintendent C’s Support of STEM Education Implementation 136
Findings for Research Questions 137
Research Question #1 137
Understandings and Beliefs about K-12 STEM Integration 138
Factors that Impacted the Superintendents’ Visions 144
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 6

Research Question #2 149
Research Question #3 152
Chapter Five: Discussion 155
Introduction 156
Discussion of Findings 157
Superintendent Background 157
Superintendents’ Understandings and Perceptions of Integrated 157
STEM Education
Superintendents’ Actions and Behaviors in Support of Integrated 159
STEM Education
Limitations 161
Implications for Practice 162
Recommendations for Future Research 164
Conclusion 165
References 166
Appendix A: Superintendent Leadership for K-12 Stem Integration Interview 180
Protocol
Appendix B: K-12 STEM Integration Consent Form 183
Appendix C: Superintendent Leadership for K-12 STEM Integration Document 185
Review Protocol

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 7

List of Tables
Table 4-1: Integrated STEM at 21
st
Century STEAM Academy 80
Table 4-2: Integrated STEM at Bayview STEM Academy 105
Table 4-3: Integrated STEM at Mid-County Regional Occupational Center 121
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 8

List of Figures
Figure 3-1: Descriptive Framework for Integrated STEM Education 61

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 9

Abstract
This qualitative multicase study employed Rogers’ (2003) theory of diffusion of innovation,
specifically the innovation-decision process, to gain insight into how school superintendents’
understandings and beliefs about integrated STEM education impact implementation of
integrated STEM education initiatives within their districts. The following research questions
guided the study: 1) How do school superintendents who have supported the implementation of
STEM integration initiatives within their districts develop a vision for the program(s)? 2) How
do school superintendents’ understandings and perceptions of STEM integration evolve as a
result of implementing STEM integration initiatives in their districts? 3) What relationships
exist between superintendents’ understandings and beliefs about STEM integration and their
actions, behaviors, and decisions? Interviews with superintendents and document reviews
provided data to address the research questions. Each superintendent was treated as a separate
case during data analysis. A comparative analysis was completed to address the research
questions. Findings are in line with the literature that identifies the lack of a common definition
or understanding of integrated STEM education. Findings further suggest the need for clearly
articulated descriptions of the integration as well as specific plans for evaluation of the
initiatives. Furthermore, it appears that rather than a background in STEM, the perception that
an initiative is better than approaches already in use and is compatible with the experiences,
values, beliefs, and needs of the superintendent and the district he or she leads may influence a
superintendent to champion integrated STEM education initiatives. This study adds to the
literature on superintendent leadership, specifically superintendent leadership for implementation
of integrated STEM education.

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 10

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Policymakers, educators, and the business community agree that a workforce
skilled in the disciplines of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) is vital to the
economic prosperity and national security of the United States. In addition, literacy in the STEM
disciplines is considered imperative for the general well-being of individuals and society as a
whole because STEM literacy consists of the understandings, skills, and abilities that allow
individuals to address personal, social, and global STEM-related issues (Bybee, 2010; California
Department of Education [CDE], 2014b). There is widespread concern, however, that the goal
of a sufficient STEM workforce and a STEM-literate citizenry will go unmet because young
people in the United States are ill-prepared or unwilling to pursue study in the STEM disciplines
and careers in STEM fields. As a result, national efforts to increase the number of individuals
qualified and willing to enter the STEM workforce, as well as to improve the STEM literacy of
U. S. citizens, have been explored, including efforts focused on K-12 education. K-12 STEM
integration is one such effort that can facilitate student mastery of the content as well as develop
interest and identity in the STEM fields. Effective implementation of STEM integration at the
K-12 level presents several challenges, however, including: 1) defining STEM integration, 2)
determining how and where to incorporate STEM integration into the curriculum, 3) determining
how to evaluate the effectiveness of K-12 STEM integration initiatives, 4) securing resources
(human, financial, political, etc.) for implementation, and 5) ensuring that all student subgroups
(based on race, gender, socio-economic status, language proficiency, and learning ability) have
equal access to STEM initiatives provided by a school or district. The purpose of this study was
to provide insight into school superintendents’ understandings of K-12 STEM integration,
including the five challenges previously described, as well as the importance they place on it.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 11

Such information provides insight into the readiness or willingness of superintendents to support
the implementation and scaling-up of STEM integration initiatives, where scaling-up can mean
growing an existing program or implementing new initiatives, depending on the needs of the
district.
Background of the Problem
Although a workforce skilled in the STEM disciplines is considered vital to the economic
prosperity and national security of the United States, there is widespread concern that the country
will lack the workforce needed to maintain the leadership role in science and technology because
young people are ill-prepared for college-level study in the STEM disciplines (Atkinson, R. D. &
Mayo, M., 2010; Committee on STEM Education [CoSTEM], 2013; President’s Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology [PCAST], 2010; Tapping America’s Potential [TAP]
Coalition, 2005). The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is used to measure
student performance across the United States and its results are used in a variety of reports,
including the Nation's Report Card. Results of recent administrations of NAEP provide evidence
for the concern that students in the United States are underprepared to pursue STEM majors in
college. In 2009, 32 percent of 8th-grade students scored at or above Proficient in science, with
only 2 percent scoring Advanced (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2012). The
2011 administration showed some improvement with 34 percent of 8th-grade students scoring at
or above Proficient, but again only 2 percent scored Advanced (NCES, 2012).
Student performance on the NAEP in mathematics has been similar. In 2011, 34 percent
of 8th-grade students scored at or above Proficient, with 8 percent scoring Advanced (NCES,
2013). In 2013, 36 percent of 8th-grade students scored at or above Proficient, with 9 percent
scoring Advanced (NCES, 2013). Although the percentage of students achieving proficiency in
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 12

mathematics and science has increased, the data shows that considerably less than half of
students in the United States are able to achieve proficiency in mathematics and science as
measured by the NAEP.
In addition to concerns about U. S. students' level of college readiness in the STEM
disciplines are concerns that U.S. students, even those who exhibit proficiency in the STEM
disciplines, are not selecting and persisting in STEM majors in college (Atkinson, R. D. &
Mayo, M., 2010; CoSTEM, 2013; PCAST, 2010; TAP Coalition, 2005). The Committee on
STEM Education (CoSTEM) (2013) reports that of students in four-year public colleges or
universities who declared a STEM major upon entry, only 43 percent graduate with a STEM
degree. The persistence of community college students in STEM majors is even lower. Of the
students entering community college who declare a STEM major, only 15 percent persist
(CoSTEM, 2013). The figures on low persistence rates provide evidence for those concerned
about the inadequate STEM workforce in the United States.
The sustained underrepresentation of women, underrepresented minorities (URM),
students living in poverty, English learners, and students with disabilities in STEM fields is yet
another concern (Atkinson & Mayo, 2010; CoSTEM, 2013; Hurtado, Cabrera, Lin, Arellano, &
Espinosa, 2008; Palmer, Maramba, & Dancy II, 2011; Rhodes, Stevens, & Hemmings, 2011;
Wright, 2011). For example, in 2005, the same percentage of African American students as
White students, 44 percent each, indicated their intent to major in science or engineering.
However, further down the higher education pathway, 27 percent of URM and 46 percent of
majority students who initially intended to major in science or engineering actually obtained a
degree in a STEM-related field (Hurtado, Cabrera, Lin, Arellano, & Espinosa, 2008). The last
statistic not only speaks to the gap between URM students who earn degrees in STEM
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 13

disciplines and their majority peers, but also to the overall attrition rate of students from STEM
programs. Furthermore, women represent almost half of the U. S. workforce, yet they represent
only 24 percent of STEM workers (CoSTEM, 2013). Because of projected growth in STEM-
related jobs and because STEM graduates on average earn higher starting salaries than non-
STEM graduates (TAP Coalition, 2008), allowing the underrepresentation of specific groups to
continue not only excludes members of those groups from the benefits of STEM careers, but also
may limit their contributions to the economy and to society as a whole.
U. S. students’ low achievement and lack of interest in the STEM disciplines affect more
than the pipeline from K-12 schools to the STEM workforce. Development of a STEM-literate
citizenry is also affected. STEM literacy consists of the understandings, skills, and abilities in
the STEM disciplines that allow individuals to address personal, social, and global STEM-related
issues (Bybee, 2010). Literacy in the STEM disciplines is considered imperative for the general
well-being of individuals and society as a whole (CDE, 2014b; National Academy of
Engineering [NAE] & National Research Council [NRC], 2014; NRC 2011a; NRC, 2012).
Science and engineering occupations will grow 70 percent faster than the overall growth for all
occupations, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and on average, STEM graduates have
better employment prospects (TAP Coalition, 2008). Furthermore, of the 20 occupations with
the largest projected growth over the next decade, 16 are STEM-related (NRC, 2011a).
Additionally, the STEM disciplines increasingly affect personal choices such as health care, diet
and fitness, communication, technology use, and environmental issues (Bybee, 2010; CDE,
2014; Co-STEM, 2013; PCAST, 2010). Moreover, increasing the STEM literacy among U. S.
citizens also may partially address the disparities in income and other opportunities traditionally
experienced by women, people of color, and the poor (Aschbacher, Li, & Roth, 2009).
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 14

Concerns about the lack of students prepared or willing to earn STEM degrees, as well
as the persistent underrepresentation of certain groups in STEM fields, has resulted in national
efforts to improve the STEM literacy of U. S. citizens as well as increase the number of
individuals, including underrepresented groups, qualified and willing to enter the STEM
workforce (Atkinson & Mayo, 2010; CoSTEM, 2013; Gonzalez & Kuenzi; NAE & NRC, 2014;
PCAST, 2010). Atkinson and Mayo (2010) identify over 40 reports that address the importance
of one or more of the STEM disciplines to national well-being and to individual well-being, with
many providing recommendations for increasing the STEM workforce. Many of the
recommendations focus on K-12 education. In addition, government analysts have identified as
many as 252 STEM education programs or activities, with federal investment between $2.8
billion and $3.4 billion (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012). Of the programs dedicated to STEM
education, at least 25 percent are focused on elementary and secondary schools (Gonzalez &
Kuenzi, 2012). There seems to be agreement that K-12 STEM classes, programs, and activities
provide appropriate contexts for students not only to master the content, but also to develop
interest and identity in one or more of the STEM disciplines (Atkinson & Mayo, 2010;
CoSTEM, 2013; NAE & NRC, 2014; NRC, 2009; NRC, 2011a, 2011b; NRC, 2012).
Data provided by the NCES indicates that in 2010 there were 54.7 million students in
U.S. schools (U. S. DoE, 2012). In addition, the majority of students in the United States, 49.4
million in 2010, attend public schools (U. S. DoE, 2012). Addressing STEM education in K-12
public school classrooms has the potential to impact large numbers of diverse students because
the majority of elementary and secondary students in the United States, approximately 90
percent, attend public school. Furthermore, during the 2009-2010 school year, total expenditures
for public elementary and secondary schools in the United States totaled over $600 billion
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 15

(NCES, 2013). The significant sum of money spent on elementary and secondary education
makes improving educational outcomes, including outcomes in the STEM disciplines,
economically prudent.
Efforts focused on K-12 STEM education include efforts to improve teacher quality,
standards-based reforms, school-community partnerships, and the establishment of STEM
schools (CoSTEM, 2013; Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012; PCAST, 2010). An additional approach
that is gaining traction is K-12 STEM integration. STEM integration involves teaching two or
more of the STEM disciplines in a manner that explicitly makes the connections between and
among the STEM disciplines clear to students rather than teaching the disciplines as completely
separate subjects (Herschbach, 2011; NAE & NRC, 2014). This approach is thought to facilitate
student mastery of the content as well as develop interest and identity in the STEM fields
(Gloeckner, 1991; Herschbach, 2011; NAE & NRC, 2014). K-12 STEM integration has at least
two goals. One is to sufficiently supply the pipeline from K-12 schools to STEM careers with
individuals willing and prepared to enter the STEM workforce (Atkinson & Mayo, 2010; CDE,
2014b; Gloeckner, 1991; NAE & NRC, 2014; NRC, 2011a; Nugent, Kunz, Rilett, & Jones,
2010; Roehrig et al., 2012; Sanders, 2009). A second goal of K-12 STEM integration is to
cultivate a STEM-literate citizenry capable of effective participation in the 21st century on
behalf of themselves and society (Brown, 1989; CDE, 2014b; CoSTEM, 2013; NAE & NRC,
2014; NRC, 2009; NRC, 2011a; NRC, 2011b; NRC, 2012; Roehrig et al., 2012). However,
implementation of STEM integration at the K-12 level presents several challenges. First, there is
not a common understanding of STEM integration (Gloekner, 1991; Herschbach, 2011; NAE &
NRC, 2014; Sanders, 2009). Second, there is not consensus on how and where in the curriculum
to incorporate STEM integration (Gloekner, 1991; Herschbach, 2011; Kelly, 2012; NAE &
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 16

NRC, 2014; NRC, 2011b; Roehrig, Moore, Wang, & Park, 2012; Stohlmann, Moore,
McClelland, & Roehrig, 2013). Third, the lack of a common understanding and consensus about
curriculum makes evaluating the effectiveness of K-12 STEM integration initiatives difficult
(NAE & NRC, 2014; NRC, 2011a; NRC, 2011b). Fourth, financial, human, and other resources
needed to effectively implement STEM initiatives must be secured (CDE, 2014; CoSTEM, 2010;
Gloeckner, 1991; PCAST, 2010). Finally, without judicious implementation and evaluation of
K-12 STEM integration initiatives, disparities in achievement among student subgroups (based
on race, gender, socio-economic status, language proficiency, and learning ability) can persist
(Atkinson & Mayo, 2010; CoSTEM, 2013; Gloeckner, 1991; NAE & NRC, 2014; PCAST,
2010).
Addressing the five challenges listed above seems essential to the implementation of
integrated K-12 STEM education initiatives if the two goals are to be achieved. Achieving some
level of success with implementing STEM initiatives will require educational leaders to address
the challenges while maintaining focus on the goals.
Statement of the Problem
There is national consensus that a workforce skilled in the STEM disciplines is vital to
the economic prosperity and national security of the country. In addition, STEM literacy is
considered imperative for the general well being of individuals and society. Much of the focus
in preparing the future workforce and developing STEM literate citizens has focused on K-12
education (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012). However, there are concerns about the poor performance
of U. S. students on achievement tests in math and science and because students express
relatively little interest in pursuing postsecondary study in the STEM disciplines (CoSTEM,
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 17

2013; NAE & NRC, 2014; PCAST, 2010). As a result, national education reform efforts focused
on increasing K-12 students’ achievement and interest in STEM disciplines have been initiated.
The literature identifies strong leadership as a factor in the success of education reforms
(Education Writers Association [EWA], 2003; Ireh & Bailey, 1999; Petersen, 1999; Thomas,
2001; Togneri & Anderson, 2003). However, very little research exists on the implementation of
STEM initiatives, and there is even less research on leadership and K-12 STEM integration.
Missing from the literature is research on how school superintendents support the
implementation and scaling-up of K-12 STEM integration initiatives in their districts. The
support of superintendents may not be essential for small-scale implementations such as classes
or after school programs. However, if empirical studies begin to show K-12 STEM integration’s
effectiveness in improving student achievement and interest in STEM, superintendents’ support
for larger scale initiatives and bringing effective programs to scale will be essential.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to gain insight into how school superintendents'
understandings and beliefs about integrated STEM education impact implementation of STEM
initiatives within their districts. The following research questions guided the study:
1) How do school superintendents who have supported the implementation of STEM
integration initiatives within their districts develop a vision for the program(s)? (What
previous STEM-related experiences or exposures have impacted superintendents’
perceptions of K-12 STEM integration?)
2) How do school superintendents' understandings and perceptions of STEM integration
evolve as a result of implementing and sustaining STEM integration initiatives in
their districts?
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 18

3) What relationships exist between superintendents' understandings and beliefs about
STEM integration and their actions, behaviors, and decisions?
This study was qualitative in design and used multiple methods to collect data.
Interviews with superintendents and document reviews provided data to address the research
questions. Christensen’s (2008) theory of disruptive innovation was used to situate STEM
integration as a disruptive education reform. The Descriptive Framework for Integrated STEM
Education (NAE & NRC, 2014) provided a common perspective and vocabulary to discuss the
STEM programs in this study. Rogers’ (2003) theory of diffusion of innovations served as the
theoretical framework for the study.
Significance of the Study
Policymakers, educators, and the business community identify increasing the number of
individuals prepared and willing to enter the STEM workforce as a national priority. K-12
schools are considered appropriate settings to prepare the future STEM workforce. This study is
significant because it adds to the literature on STEM education in general and K-12 STEM
integration in particular. K-12 STEM integration has the potential to increase student
achievement and interest in the STEM disciplines, also increasing the number of individuals in
the STEM pipeline. In addition, this study seeks to provide insight into how school
superintendents develop perceptions about STEM integration and how those perceptions impact
their decisions related to supporting STEM integration initiatives.
Leaders in education have an interest in improving student achievement in math and
science. A national emphasis on college and career readiness also makes student engagement
with technology and engineering of interest to leaders in education. This study will be of interest
to them as they explore options for addressing student achievement in and engagement with
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 19

math, science, technology, and engineering—the STEM disciplines. Additionally, high-ranking
leaders in education such as superintendents, school board members, and state officials, will find
this study useful in identifying how they can support the diffusion of STEM integration
initiatives within districts and throughout states.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations of the study include the lack consensus on a definition of STEM and STEM
integration within K-12 education, as well as a paucity of initiatives identified as integrated
STEM. Delimitations include the small sample size and the potential bias of the researcher.
Both delimitations prevent the generalizability of the study.
Definitions of Terms
The following definitions reflect how the related terms are used throughout the current
study.
Accountability: A process or system by which schools and school districts are held
responsible by state and federal governments for ensuring that all students, regardless of race,
gender, socio-economic status, English language proficiency, and learning ability, achieve
proficiency of standards established by each state. Standardized tests typically are used to
measure proficiency.
Achievement Gap: The discrepancy in performance on tests used to measure mastery of
standards by student groups based on race, gender, socio-economic status, English language
proficiency, and learning ability. For example, White students typically outperform their
African-American and Hispanic/Latino peers on assessments designed to measure student
achievement.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 20

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Annual targets established under the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2002 that identified the percentage of students in schools and school districts
expected to achieve proficiency in math and English-language arts. The targets increased
annually such that 100 percent of students would achieve proficiency by 2014. The goal of 100
percent proficiency was not achieved.
A Nation at Risk: A report created by the National Commission on Excellence in
Education that examined the quality of education in the United States. Released in 1983, the
report sought to address concerns that the American education system, once recognized
worldwide as an example of excellence, had fallen into mediocrity. The report provided
recommendations for improving American education, including the establishment of standards
for core subjects. A Nation at Risk is thought by some to be the beginning of the standards-based
education reform (Gordon, 2003; Hunter, 2009; NAE, 2010; Tirozzi & Uro, 1997).
Common Core State Standards (CCSS): Developed by the Council of Chief State School
Officers and the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices that identify the
knowledge and skills students need to be prepared for college and careers after high school. The
CCSS include standards in English-language arts, math, and literacy in science, history/social
studies, and technical subjects for grades Kindergarten through twelve (CDE, 2013b).
Content Area: An academic subject (Edsource, 2015).
Content Standards: Description of what students should know and be able to do in each
academic subject (Edsource, 2015).
Core Subject: Math, science, English-language arts, and history-social studies.
Curriculum Integration: Delivery of content area material in ways that allow students to
explore connections between or among the subjects presented as well as connections to situations
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 21

or problems they may encounter in real-life settings (Johnson, Charner, & White, 2003; Kain,
1993; Lake, 1994)
Discipline: Knowledge about a phenomenon, including the rules, beliefs, and theories,
that is organized into a specific category or subject and labeled. Often used synonymously with
subject or content area. Science, for example, is considered a discipline.
Education Reform: Efforts to improve student achievement and the quality of teaching
and learning. Such efforts can be implemented by a variety of stakeholders including school
districts, state and federal governments, institutes of higher education, and private industry.
English Learners: Students whose first language is one other than English and who are
not identified as Initially Fluent English Proficient (IFEP) or Re-designated as Re-designated
Fluent English Proficient (RFEP).
Integrated STEM Education/STEM Integration: An approach to teaching science,
technology, engineering, and math (STEM) in a manner that helps students understand the
connection between or among two or more of the STEM disciplines (NAE & NRC, 2014).
Interdisciplinary: Describes lessons, projects, or activities that allow students to explore
two or more disciplines or academic subjects. A variety of approaches may be used to facilitate
the exploration. For example, teachers of different content areas may agree to study the same
topic. Or, an integrated approach may be employed which would facilitate student
understanding of the connections between or among subjects.
Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS): Identifies what K-12 students should know
and be able to do in science at each grade level. The NGSS are based on the National Research
Council’s Framework for K-12 Science Education.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 22

Socio-economically Disadvantaged (SED): Term used to identify students who are
eligible for free and reduced lunch or whose parents did not graduate from high school
(Edsource, 2015).
STEM: Acronym for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
STEM Pipeline: The population of students from Kindergarten through postsecondary
education who have the skills and interest to pursue careers in the STEM fields.
Students with Disabilities (SWD): Students identified as having learning, emotional, or
physical struggles such that they receive special education services under an individualized
education plan (IEP) (Edsource, 2015).
Teacher Quality: The perceived effectiveness of a teacher in delivering the curriculum
and supporting student learning.
Underrepresentation: The condition of members of demographically-defined groups
based on race, gender, socio-economic status, language proficiency, and learning ability who
constitute a disproportionately low population in postsecondary study, in a field of study, or in an
occupation.
Underrepresented Minorities (URM): Members of ethnic groups who traditionally
represent a relatively low percentage of postsecondary study, a field of study, or an occupation.
The ethnic groups typically considered URM are African American, Alaskan Native, Native
American, and Hispanic or Latino.
Underserved: Describes members of student subgroups based on race, socio-economic
status, language proficiency, and learning ability, who are not as successful as their peers when
traditional supports and instructional supports are used.

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 23

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Concerns that the United States will lack the workforce needed to fill future jobs
in STEM fields and maintain the leadership role in science and technology has resulted in
national efforts to increase the number of individuals in the STEM educational pipeline that
spans from Kindergarten through graduate school. Much of the discussion about increasing the
number of individuals in the STEM pipeline has focused on K-12 education. Despite consensus
that K-12 schools provide the appropriate environments for students to master the content and
develop interest in one or more of the STEM fields, there is not consensus on how best to
support students in achieving mastery and developing interest. In an attempt to identify best
practices for increasing student achievement and interest in the STEM subject areas, a variety of
initiatives have been explored. One such initiative is K-12 STEM integration (CDE, 2014;
Herschbach, 2011; NAE & NRC, 2014). Due to its relative newness, the literature on K-12
STEM integration is sparse. However, a variety of other STEM education initiatives have been
implemented that can inform and support K-12 STEM integration efforts. These initiatives
include efforts focused on teacher quality, standards-based reforms, school-community
partnerships, and the establishment of STEM schools (CoSTEM, 2013; Gonzalez & Kuenzi,
2012; PCAST, 2010).
K-12 STEM Education Initiatives
Teacher Quality
Recent emphasis on teacher quality is evident in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(NCLB), which mandated that all core academic subjects be taught by highly qualified teachers
(Boyd et al., 2008; U. S. Department of Education [ED], 2004). NCLB set minimum
requirements for a teacher to be considered highly qualified: possession of a bachelor’s degree;
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 24

full certification by the state in which he or she teaches; and demonstrated competency in the
core academic subject taught, with competency being defined by the state. An emphasis on
teacher quality seems important because research shows that excellent teachers can have a
positive impact on student achievement, including achievement in the STEM disciplines (Boyd
et al., 2008; CDE, 2014b; CoSTEM, 2013; Hill et al., 2005; NAE & NRC, 2014; PCAST, 2010;
Rivikin et al., 2005; Wilson, 2011). Furthermore, student achievement in low-performing, high-
poverty schools has been shown to increase as the number of highly qualified teachers in the
schools increase (Boyd et al., 2008).
A highly qualified teacher is considered to have the academic content knowledge for the
subject he or she teaches (ED, 2004). Typical measures used to determine teacher quality
include measures of teachers’ intellectual resources such as degrees earned and performance on
basis skills tests (Hill et al., 2005). Boyd et al. (2008) conducted a study of teachers in New
York City, which showed that narrowing the gap between the qualifications of teachers in high-
poverty schools and low-poverty schools also narrowed the achievement gap between the
students at those schools. Measurements of qualifications included years of experience, teacher
demographics, selectivity of undergraduate college attended, SAT scores, and performance on
the teacher certification exam (Boyd et al., 2008). Research suggests, however, it is not just
content knowledge that makes teachers effective, but also their ability to apply that knowledge to
teaching (Hill et al., 2005; NAE & NRC, 2014; PCAST, 2010). In a mixed-method study of
first- and third-grade teachers, Hill et al. (2005) found that the teachers’ ability to apply their
mathematical knowledge to teaching significantly impacted student achievement in math.
The general consensus among educators, researchers, and policymakers is that teacher
quality is important to student achievement, including achievement in the STEM disciplines
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 25

(Boyd et al., 2008; CDE, 2014; CoSTEM, 2013; ED, 2004; Hill et al., 2005; NAE & NRC, 2014;
PCAST, 2010). In fact, an effort by the federal government, 100Kin10, seeks to increase the
number of excellent K-12 STEM teachers by 100,000 over the ten-year period from 2010 to
2020 while supporting the existing STEM teachers (CoSTEM, 2013; PCAST, 2010). Yet, the
research on how to prepare and retain excellent teachers in the STEM disciplines is sparse
(PCAST, 2010). Furthermore, because STEM integration is relatively new, there is even less
research on preparing teachers for STEM integration (NAE & NRC, 2014). Due to the
importance of teachers to student achievement, it seems imperative to address issues of adequate
preparation for educators responsible for implementing STEM integration in K-12 classrooms
and programs. An NAE and NRC (2014) report recommends three areas of focus for integrated
STEM education: STEM content knowledge, self-efficacy, and expertise in teaching integrated
STEM.
Standards for STEM Education
A Nation at Risk’s bleak portrayal of the U.S. education system, along with its
recommendation to set standards for student achievement, is considered the beginning of the
current standards-based education reform movement (Hunter, 2009; NAE, 2010; Tirozzi & Uro,
1997). Among other things, A Nation at Risk recommended strengthening the core curriculum
and developing measurable standards (Bybee, 2011; NAE, 2010). After the report's publication
in 1983, efforts to develop voluntary national standards ensued (Bybee, 2011; NAE, 2010). In
1989, both the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) published standards in their respective
content areas (Bybee, 2011; NAE, 2010). Over the next two decades, a variety of STEM-related
standards and benchmarks were published for math, science, and technology, but standards for
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 26

engineering were not developed (NAE, 2010). The standards-based reform movement resulted
in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), which was in effect from 2002 through 2014
and which was awaiting reauthorization at the time of the present study. NCLB addressed
STEM education in that it required assessment of student proficiency in math and science.
NCLB and STEM. NCLB required states to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) in
math based on standards-based assessments of students in each state with the expectation that by
2014 all students would be Proficient or Advanced in mathematics as measured by assessments
adopted in each state (ED, 2004). By the 2007-2008 school year, states also were required to
administer periodic assessments in science—once in grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12 (ED, 2004). The
premise behind the NCLB accountability system was that establishment of high standards would
clarify what all students should know and be able to do (Darling-Hammond, 2004; ED, 2004;
Hunter, 2009; Tirozzi & Uro, 1997). Student achievement could then be measured by
assessments in math and science that identified the level of student mastery of those standards.
Unfortunately, too many students were not successful in mastering the standards developed as a
result of NCLB mandates. In California, for example, only 59.5 percent of students statewide
scored at or above Proficient on the 2013 administration of the California Standards Test (CST)
in math, the last year the CST in math was administered (CDE, 2014b). The AYP target for
2013 was 89.1 percent of students statewide scoring at Proficient or above (CDE, 2014b). On
the 2013 CST in science, 59.1 percent of students scored at Proficient or above (CDE, 2014c).
Performance of students in science and math nationwide also has been disappointing.
NAEP is used to measure student performance across the United States because there have not
been common standards and assessments across the country. In 2009, 32 percent of 8th-grade
students scored at or above Proficient in science, with only 2 percent scoring Advanced
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 27

(National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2012). The 2011 administration showed some
improvement with 34 percent of 8th-grade students scoring at or above Proficient, but again only
2 percent scored Advanced (NCES, 2012). Student performance on the NAEP in mathematics
was similar. In 2011, 34 percent of 8th-grade students scored at or above Proficient, with 8
percent scoring Advanced (NCES, 2013). In 2013, 36 percent of 8th-grade students scored at or
above Proficient, with 9 percent scoring Advanced (NCES, 2013). Although the percentage of
students achieving proficiency in mathematics and science has increased, the data shows a
significant number of students in the United States who have not achieved proficiency in
mathematics and science as measured by the NAEP (NCES, 2012, NCES, 2013).
In addition to exposing the low math and science proficiency rates of students in the
United States, NCLB also exposed achievement gaps between student subgroups—between
students of color and White students; between socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED) students
and their more advantaged peers; between English learners (EL) and students fluent in English;
and between students with disabilities (SWD) and non-disabled students. NCLB required each
state to assess students and report the performance of student subgroups based on ethnicity,
socioeconomic status, learning ability, and language proficiency. Results from the assessments
showed that many students were not able to attain proficiency in the standards, particularly
students of color, SED, SWD, and EL students. For example, on the 2013 administration of the
math standards test in California, 71.3 percent of White students and 85 percent of Asian
students scored at or above Proficient while 41.6 percent of African American students, 50.6
percent of Hispanic or Latino students, 50.3 percent of SED students, 49.2 percent of ELs, and
37.1 percent of SWD scored Proficient or above (CDE, 2014).
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 28

Disparities in performance between student subgroups also are evident in national
assessments. For instance, in 2011 the average NAEP score on the fourth grade mathematics
assessment for White students was 249, while for Black students the average score was 224 and
229 for Hispanic students (NCES, 2013). Scores on the NAEP fourth grade mathematics range
from 0 to 500, with a score from 214 through 248 representing Basic, 249 to 281 representing
Proficient, and a score of 282 or higher representing Advanced (NCES, 2014).
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and Next Generation Science Standards
(NGSS). The intention of NCLB was to establish high standards and support all students in
achieving those standards so that by 2014 all students would have achieved proficiency.
Unfortunately, the goals of NCLB were not realized, and the less than desirable performance
under NCLB accountability suggests that too many students are unprepared for post-secondary
study in the STEM fields (Atkinson & Mayo, 2010; CoSTEM, 2013; PCAST, 2010; TAP
Coalition, 2005). Furthermore, students have expressed relatively little interest in pursuing study
and careers in STEM fields (Atkinson & Mayo, 2010; CoSTEM, 2013; PCAST, 2010; TAP
Coalition, 2005). Concerns over these circumstances have led educators and policymakers to
assess the effectiveness of the standards-based accountability system under NCLB (NAE &
NRC, 2014; NRC, 2012). One area of improvement identified is the standards themselves.
Historically in the United States, STEM education has focused on math and science, and
the subjects have been taught and assessed in isolation, which may prevent students from making
connections between the subjects (NAE & NRC, 2014; NRC, 2012). Some suggest that an
integrated approach will support student mastery of and increase student interest in STEM
content (NAE & NRC, 2014; NRC, 2012). Implementation of the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) in math and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) provide vehicles
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 29

for implementing STEM integration in K-12 schools in the United States. The CCSS in math
and NGSS emphasize a more applied approach to teaching and learning math and science
concepts, as well as integration of the content by making explicit connections across the STEM
subjects (NAE & NRC, 2014).
In addition, to an integrated approach to the STEM disciplines, a goal of CCSS and
NGSS is for all states to implement the standards (EdSource, 2010; NRC, 2012; Porter et al.,
2011). There are a variety of benefits to implementing common standards nationwide including
the establishment of the same learning expectation for all students across the country (EdSource,
2010; NRC, 2012; Porter et al., 2011). Furthermore, common standards in math and science
would allow collaboration about and sharing of curriculum and assessments across states
(EdSource, 2010; Porter et al., 2011). As of the spring of 2014, 42 states and the District of
Columbia had adopted the CCSS in math (Academic Benchmarks, 2014). Twenty-six states had
adopted the NGSS as of the summer of 2014 (Next Generation Science Standards, 2014). That
the majority of states have adopted the CCSS in math and approximately half of the states have
adopted the NGSS suggests a nationwide interest in the type of integration incorporated into the
standards, which can be verified by an increase in K-12 STEM integration curricula and
programs (Brown et al., 2011; Herschbach, 2011; NAE & NRC, 2014). Increased research into
K-12 STEM integration to accompany the increased interest in the phenomenon seems
appropriate.
School-Community Partnerships
In a report on the practicality of implementing engineering standards in K-12 education,
NAE and NRC (2009) state that “when a school subject is taught for which there is a
professional counterpart, there should be a conceptual connection to post-secondary studies and
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 30

to the practice of the subject in the real world” (p. 4). School-university and school-business
partnerships can assist schools in providing the conceptual connections and even go beyond
concepts to actual experiences. Partnerships between schools and community entities such as
universities and businesses can have positive impact on students and teachers in the form of
increased knowledge and interest in the content, securing funding, and providing real-world
opportunities for students (Kane & Boverie, 1995; Moyer-Packenham et al., 2009; Reid &
Feldhaus, 2007; Watters & Carmel, 2013).
The substantial federal monies dedicated to developing and researching STEM-related
school-community partnerships highlight the perceived importance of such partnerships. For
example, the U. S. Department of Education’s (ED) Mathematics and Science Partnerships
(MSP) earmark federal dollars in the form of grants to enhance the content knowledge and
teaching skills of classroom teachers as a means to improve students' achievement in
mathematics and science (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012). The grants support the development of
partnerships between high-need school districts and institutions of higher education (IHEs). In
fiscal year 2012, MSP accounted for over half of ED's budget ($150 million of $284 million). In
addition, Congress, through the National Science Foundation Act of 2002, created a research and
development based program—the NSF Math and Science Partnership (NSF-MSP) that provides
grants to support innovative projects in K-12 STEM education that partner IHEs or non-profit
organizations with local school districts. In fiscal year 2012, the NSF-MSP program was funded
at $55 million (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012).
Unfortunately, school-community partnerships have been tenuous. Glockner (1992), for
example, suggests that a significant reason STEM integration has not been implemented on a
larger scale in K-12 contexts, despite reports of its potential to improve student achievement in
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 31

the STEM subjects, is the inability of universities and the state departments of education that
oversee K-12 public schools to effectively collaborate in support of K-12 STEM integration.
Timpane (1984) and Kane and Boverie (1995) describe the distrust that often exists between
business and schools, with business offering criticisms of schools’ failure to adequately prepare
students for employment and schools taking offense to such criticisms. Despite the tenuous
relationships, though, efforts to effectively implement school-community partnerships continue.
School-business partnerships. Levine (1986) advocates the importance of school-
business partnerships by drawing attention to the significant relationships between education and
business, suggesting that the economic system in the United States is only as good as the quality
of people working in the system, and the quality of the people depends, to great extent, on the
quality of education they receive. As a result, communication and collaboration between the
education and business communities is necessary. Levine contends that the business community
has adapted to employees entering the workforce without the skills to perform their jobs by
providing on-the-job training and adjusting manuals and other written material to make them
understandable to employees, and that schools should, in turn, adapt to support industry. Levine
advocates increased communication between schools and the business community about the
needs of each.
Kane and Boverie (1995) echo the ideas of Levine in their study of the implementation of
a partnership between a high school and businesses in one community. Contending that the
success of a collaborative relationship between schools and businesses is to build on areas of
agreement, the study sought to identify the areas of agreement between educators and the
business community in an urban area in the Pacific Northwest. Areas considered included
business donations of excess electronic equipment to the high school technology departments;
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 32

summer jobs for teachers to provide experience in private industry; a math conference co-hosted
by the school and a business partner; and yearlong mentors provided by the businesses.
Although the results indicated a lack of agreement on what was considered important for
increasing student achievement, the study did establish criteria that can be used to evaluate the
partnership being studied as well as other partnerships.
Although the study by Kane and Boverie (1995) was not focused on STEM education,
when the researchers chose businesses to participate in the study, they made sure to include the
"technology corridor" of the community. There are studies, though, that are STEM-focused. An
issue brief by the Committee for Economic Development (CED) (2013a) provides insight into a
promising program in Miami, Florida: the Business Partnership to Advance STEM Success (B-
Pass). B-Pass is funded by the CED with the goal of establishing school and business
collaboration that supports teachers, mentors students, provides classroom resources, and
provides experiences that allow students to apply their learning in real-world contexts. As with
other research on school-business partnerships, though, the issue brief focused on
implementation with no information about the impact on student achievement or if student
achievement would be measured. The newness of the program might be a reason for the lack of
information about student achievement. A subsequent issue brief focused on teachers provided
anecdotal evidence of changes in classroom instruction (CED, 2013b). After one year’s
implementation, the school achieved a 100 percent passing rate on Florida’s Algebra 1 and
Biology end-of-course exams (CED, 2013b).
Another example is research conducted by Watters and Diezmann (2013) in Queensland,
Australia in which the researchers presented case studies of four separate school-community
partnerships. One example of the partnerships studied is the Hi-Tech-Network Alliance that
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 33

involved a network of schools and the mining and energy industry in the community. Teachers
engaged in workshops with research scientists and educators, which enhanced the teachers'
understanding of contemporary science topics. The partnership supported students through
learning tasks collaboratively developed by industry mentors and primary and secondary
teachers. The learning tasks engaged students with real-world problem scenarios. An additional
example presented by Watters and Diezmann is the partnership between Thomas Falls High
School and businesses in the community. The partnership resulted in the creation of a worm
farm run by students with support from their teachers and local businesses. Although the
partnership was started as a project in a secondary school business class, the researchers chose to
study it because science was embedded across the curriculum used for the project.
School-university partnerships. A wealth of research exists on school-university
partnerships, including those focused on STEM education. Much of the research focuses on pre-
service and in-service teacher training. Moyer-Parkenham et al. (2009) conducted a study on
NSF-MSP providers of pre-service and in-service teacher development activities. Activities
included partnerships between scientists and K-12 teachers and mathematicians and K-12
teachers. Rather than simply providing descriptive information on IHE service providers,
Moyer-Parkenham et al. sought to identify the range of participants that provide pre-service and
in-service teacher development activities. Results indicated that IHE STEM faculty, IHE
education faculty, and K-12 teachers provided teacher development activities across a broad
scope of topics, school levels, and activity categories. Topics included science, mathematics
technology, engineering, content, pedagogy, and leadership. School levels included elementary,
middle, and high. Activity categories included in-service retention/enhancement for STEM
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 34

teachers, retention/enhancement for K-12 teachers, general pre-service recruitment activities, and
pre-service recruitment specifically targeting STEM students.
A study of a school-university partnership funded by NSF-MSP determined that although
collaboration might exist between schools and IHEs, care must be taken to ensure that all roles in
such partnerships are identified and legitimized. In their investigation of a school-university
partnership funded under NSF Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Education
(Collaborative), Davis et al. (2003) posit that political and social structures, such as hierarchies,
are inherent in partnerships. Hierarchies give some members of a partnership higher status than
others and cause some to feel connected and others disconnected. Davis et al. found such
hierarchies to be present in the Collaborative studied.
The focus of the Collaborative was prospective science teachers at IHEs participating in
the Collaborative. The educational philosophy of the Collaborative was aligned with approaches
to science teaching and learning associated with the NGSS. In addition, the IHE and K-12
participants studied shared the philosophy of the Collaborative. The role of the K-12 participants
was that of pedagogy experts. However, although K-12 teachers reported seeing the positive
impact they had on the teaching practices of college faculty and on the college students' views
about children's learning, they also reported sometimes feeling disconnected from the IHE
participants. The teachers cited the infrequency of the IHE participants' visits to the K-12
classrooms as a reason for the feeling of disconnectedness. In addition, Davis et al. suggest that
the Collaborative paid little attention to ensuring the connection between K-12 classrooms and
IHE participants happened. They further suggest that the feelings of being disconnected as well
as the lack of attention paid to ensuring connections between K-12 classrooms and IHE
participants was the result of hierarchical structures in which the K-12 participants were
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 35

perceived as having lower status than the IHE participants. The researchers suggest the success
of partnerships requires the examination of hierarchies and other structures and, when needed,
development of new structures that change status dynamics.
The literature suggests that school-community partnerships can support both teachers and
students at the K-12 level. In addition, industry and IHEs participating in such partnerships also
have been shown to reap benefits. Furthermore, it seems plausible that school-community
partnerships can play a supportive role in college and career readiness initiatives sponsored by
the state and federal governments and evident in the CCSS (CDE, 2013a; CDE, 2013b; ED,
2010). Importantly, such partnerships may prove essential for providing the hands-on and real-
world experiences considered necessary for successful K-12 STEM integration and increased
achievement and interest in STEM disciplines (Almarode et al., 2014).
STEM Schools and Programs
Concerns that the United States will lack the workforce needed to fill future jobs in
STEM fields and maintain the leadership role in science and technology has prompted national
efforts to increase the number of U. S. students that move through the STEM pipeline. One
approach being explored by policy makers and educators is the establishment of STEM-focused
schools and programs (Atkinson, 2012; PCAST, 2010; Pfeiffer et al., 2010; NRC, 2011a; NRC,
2011b; Scott, 2012; Thomas & Williams, 2010). The America Creating Opportunities to
Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology (America COMPETES) Act, which was signed
into law in 2007 and reauthorized in 2010 and 2013, includes a focus area of assisting states in
establishing or expanding specialized STEM schools (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2010; Thomas &
Williams, 2010). Estimates of federal dollars targeted at STEM education range from 2.8 to 3.4
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 36

billion, which includes funding for STEM-focused schools and programs (CoSTEM, 2013;
Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2010; PCAST, 2010; Scott, 2012).
Although there is agreement on the need to expand the number of STEM schools and
programs, there is not agreement on how this should be accomplished. Some have recommended
that states with a minimum of 300 annual National Merit semifinalists be required to establish
residential STEM high schools (Thomas & Williams, 2010). Atkinson (2012) suggests an
increase from the current 100 publicly funded STEM high schools to 500, with the requirement
that states establish at least one STEM high school as a condition for receiving federal education
funds. The PCAST (2010) report to President Obama recommends the creation of a minimum of
200 STEM-focused high schools and 800 STEM-focused elementary and middle schools within
10 years but provides no direction on how to accomplish the goal.
Despite a lack of consensus on how to expand the number of STEM schools and
programs in the United States, the establishment of STEM schools has gained momentum
(Hansen, 2013; Scott, 2012; Subotnik et al., 2010; Thomas & Williams, 2010). Over the past 20
years, membership in the National Consortium of Specialized Secondary Schools of
Mathematics Science, and Technology (NCSSSMST) has increased by 600%, from 15 schools in
1988 to over 90 schools (Subotnik et al., 2010). This number excludes STEM schools that are
not members of NCSSSMST. However, although there has been an increase in the number of
STEM schools, little is known about the effectiveness of these schools.
A variety of structures for STEM schools exist including residential, non-residential, full-
time enrollment, part-time enrollment, and schools within schools. In addition, some schools
may have a specific focus such as career and technical education (CTE), while others may have a
more generalized curriculum with a goal of providing a more challenging learning experience for
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 37

talented and gifted students. Furthermore, some schools are inclusive and seek to include a
diverse student population, while others are selective and targeted at those who demonstrate
interest and talent in the STEM subjects. However, there is little empirical evidence on which
type of school is most effective and for whom.
Overview of K-12 STEM Integration
History
The National Science Foundation (NSF) introduced the acronym STEM in the 1990s to
represent the disciplines of science, technology, engineering, and math (Bybee, 2010; Bybee,
2011; Sanders, 2009), which may lead some to believe that STEM integration is a relatively
recent phenomenon. As early as the 19th century, however, education reformers have made a
case for some form of integrated STEM education, although they did not describe their efforts as
such (Kelly, 2012). In 1835, for example, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute founded a department
of mathematical arts with the purpose of providing engineering and technology instruction
(Kelly, 2012).
By the early 20
th
century, efforts to integrate the STEM disciplines were emerging in K-
12 education (Foster, 1995; Kaluf & Rogers, 2011). For example, by 1909, Lois Coffey
Mossman, known as one of the founders of the industrial arts movement in K-12 education, had
established an elementary school program of industrial arts that integrated shop work, drawing,
and home economics, but also integrated industrial arts with other content areas (Foster, 1995;
Kelly, 2012). Industrial arts was defined as the study of essential technologies created and used
by societies, particularly those associated with the production of food, clothes, and shelter
(Foster, 1995). However, although Mossman wrote curriculum for her elementary school
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 38

program, it was often implemented as arts and crafts rather than the industrial arts program that
Mossman intended (Foster, 1995; Kelly, 2012).
Another effort aimed at K-12 education was the Gary Plan, created and implemented by
William Wirt, superintendent of schools in Gary, Indiana in 1907 (Kaluf & Rogers, 2011, Volk,
2005). The plan used a “work-study-play” format that engaged students in academic classes
such as math, science, history, and English for half of the day and what Wirt called the manual
arts for the other half of the day (Kaluf & Rogers, 2011, Volk, 2005). The manual arts, which
included student involvement in industrial shops such as print shops and woodworking shops, is
considered the forerunner of technology education (Kaluf & Rogers, 2011). The Gary Plan
gained in popularity and was implemented in New York City around 1915 (Volk, 2005). The
popularity of the Gary Plan was short-lived, however, due to political, teacher, and parental
opposition (Volk, 2005). In addition, Volk (2005) suggests that the plan was implemented
without taking the time to build trust among and provide training for stakeholders.
In 1926, Worcester Technical Institute used a donated machine shop as an opportunity for
practical application of the concepts students learned in their science, mathematics, and
engineering courses (Kelly, 2012). However, although postsecondary institutions began to
embrace what would later be called STEM integration, many were opposed to such practical
applications of the STEM disciplines in K-12 classrooms (Kelly, 2012). Foster (1997) suggests
that at the time, there was disagreement as to whether the practical application of what is now
referred to as the STEM disciplines should be considered general or vocational education. Some
felt strongly that vocational education should not be publicly funded (Foster, 1997).
Kelly (2012) identifies more recent approaches to STEM integration in K-12 classrooms.
For example, in the late 1990s a curriculum reform effort sought to integrate the subjects of
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 39

math, science, and technology (Kelly, 2012). Amidst concerns about poor student achievement
in mathematics and science, educators believed that the inclusion of technology in K-12
education provided a context for studying math and science that would improve student
achievement in these subjects. The American Association for the Advancement of Science
(1990) suggests that science education includes science, mathematics, and technology. The
National Science Education Standards, published in 1996, include "the coordination of the
science program with mathematics education" (National Research Council, 1996, p. 7).
Gloeckner (1991) discussed the integration of science, technology, and mathematics as a means
to improve achievement in these subjects. Gloeckner suggests that U. S. students' performance
on science achievement tests is due to insufficient time on task in science. He further suggests
that the manner in which science is taught in secondary school classrooms causes students to lose
interest in science. Gloeckner contends that integrating technology with science and
mathematics not only can increase time on task in these subjects, but also can develop student
interest in the subjects.
Contemporary Context
For more than a decade, many interested in improving the quality of instruction in the
STEM disciplines and increasing the quantity of students entering the STEM pipeline have
advocated for an integrated approach. An indication of the importance placed on K-12 STEM
education is the significant investment of federal dollars. For example, in fiscal year 2011, just
over $1 billion of federal STEM education investments were directed toward K-12 education
(CoSTEM, 2010). Recent reform efforts such as the development of the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) in math and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) are additional
evidence of the importance placed on STEM education (NAE & NRC, 2014). Both the CCSS
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 40

and the NGSS advocate for a more integrated approach to teaching the STEM subjects (NAE &
NRC, 2014).
K-12 STEM integration has gained popularity because it is thought to be an approach that
can increase student achievement and stimulate interest in the STEM disciplines (Brown et al.,
2011; NAE & NRC, 2014; Stohlmann et al., 2011). However, even as the popularity of STEM
integration in K-12 education has increased, the popularity has not come with a common
understanding of STEM education (Brown et al., 2011; Bybee, 2010; Herschbach, 2011; NAE &
NRC, 2014; Stohlmann et al., 2011). The lack of a common understanding of STEM affects,
among other things, defining STEM integration and determining how and where in the
curriculum to incorporate STEM integration.
Defining STEM integration. STEM integration has been conceptualized in various
ways. In addition, different terminology often is used interchangeably to represent similar
STEM-related concepts. Stohlmann et al. (2011), for example, use the term integrated STEM
education and defines it as an interdisciplinary educational approach that combines science,
technology, engineering, and math in one course. NAE and NRC (2014) use both STEM
integration and integrated STEM education to refer to the teaching and learning of two or more
of the STEM disciplines that makes the connections between the concepts and practices in each
discipline clear to students. Sanders (2009) advocates the use of the term integrative STEM
education. However, unlike the other definitions that focus on integrating only the STEM
disciplines, Sanders’ initial conception of integrative STEM education included the integration of
one or more STEM subjects with other school subjects. His definition was later revised to
require the intentional integration of technology and engineering concepts and practices with
science and/or math concepts and practices, as well as other content areas (Sanders, 2012). The
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 41

revised definition was meant to prevent the focus on science and math to the exclusion of
technology and engineering in STEM initiatives.
The acronym STEM used alone, without the descriptors integration, integrated, or
integrative, has come to be understood as some type of integrated approach. Brown et al. (2011)
describes STEM education as an integrated approach to teaching that connects all subjects, but
especially the STEM disciplines and CDE (2014b) contends that STEM education is more than
an integration of the STEM subjects, but is also an applied interdisciplinary approach.
STEM integration in the curriculum. As with other factors related to integrated STEM
education, agreement on its place in the curriculum has not been reached. The difficulty in
determining where integrated STEM belongs in the curriculum is due, in part, to competing
beliefs about the importance of certain disciplines to K-12 education, with math and science
being given priority. For instance, when addressing STEM education, the focus often has been
on math and science (Bybee, 2010; NAE & NRC, 2014; NRC, 2011a; NRC, 2011b). In a recent
report on effective STEM education, the NRC (2011a, 2011b) sought to outline criteria that can
be used to identify effective STEM schools and programs. The committee formed to complete
this task focused only on math and science because the bulk of research and data on K-12 STEM
education is related to math and science (NRC, 2011a; NRC, 2011b). The NAE and NRC (2014)
suggest, however, that although STEM has historically focused on math and science and on
teaching the subjects in isolation, the education community has moved to recognizing STEM as a
broader integrated approach because such an approach can strengthen student achievement in
math and science as well as expose students to technology and engineering (CDE, 2013b;
Herschbach, 2011; NAE & NRC, 2014).
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 42

Some policymakers and educators interested in improving STEM education have focused
on integrating technology and engineering into the traditional curriculum. NAE and NRC (2002)
suggest that as technology becomes increasingly important in the United States, its citizens are
increasingly ill equipped to make informed decisions and to think critically about technology.
The paradox, the report contends, is that U. S. citizens have relatively no engagement with
technology except as finished products such as computers, automobiles, and processed foods. In
addition, the report continues, although what U. S. citizens know about technology depends on
what they learn in classrooms, technology educators do not have significant voice in developing
standards and curricula that promote technological literacy. One effort to support technological
literacy is the publication of Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of
Technology, which identifies what K-12 students should know and be able to do in order to be
technologically literate (International Technology Education Association [ITEA], 2007; NAE &
NRC, 2002). The report by NAE and NRC (2002) also provides recommendations for
supporting STEM literacy in the United States, including strengthening the presence of
technology in K-12 education.
Efforts to increase the presence of engineering in K-12 education have also been
undertaken. NAE and NRC (2009) recognize that engineering curricula are relatively new in U.
S. K-12 education and point out the fact that engineering is the only STEM subject lacking
established standards at the K-12 level. However, a committee organized to assess the worth of
developing and implementing K-12 content standards for engineering determined that enacting
K-12 engineering standards is not feasible because of K-12 educators’ lack of experience with
engineering as well as the lack of teachers qualified to teach engineering at the K-12 level (NAE,
2010). In addition, introducing an additional set of stand-alone content standards, which would
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 43

place increased burdens on the education system, is not prudent, particularly when evidence
about the impact of the other standards is inconclusive (NAE, 2010). Instead of developing and
implementing engineering standards in K-12 education, integrating engineering goals and big
ideas in engineering into other standards is recommended (NAE & NRC, 2009; NAE, 2010).
The recognition that teaching the individual STEM subjects in isolation is problematic
has led to calls for integrated approaches to teaching STEM content for a variety of reasons.
Some see K-12 STEM integration as a way to highlight the importance of the under-recognized
subjects of engineering and technology (Bybee, 2010; Bybee, 2011; Gloeckner, 1992; NRC,
2002; NAE & NRC, 2009; Sanders, 2012). For example, the NAE & NRC (2009) suggest that
adding engineering education could be the catalyst for students recognizing the connections
among the STEM disciplines. Similarly, Gloeckner (1992) and Clark and Ernst (2007) contend
that technology education can and should be used as a vehicle to integrate the STEM disciplines.
The lack of agreement on how to define STEM integration and how and where it should
be incorporated into the curriculum is problematic in that it complicates evaluation of STEM
initiatives. The NAE and NRC (2014) published a report that attempts to bring some
cohesiveness to the discussion and study of integrated STEM education. In addressing the
definition of integrated STEM, the NAE and NRC contend that STEM education is not a single,
well-defined experience. Instead, it is a range of experiences that incorporate, among other
things, connections across the subjects and includes varied courses, school structures, planning
approaches, resource needs, and desired outcomes. Acknowledging the large number of possible
variables when implementing any STEM integration initiative, the NAE and NRC developed the
Descriptive Framework for Integrated STEM Education to provide common language for those
interested in implementing and researching integrated STEM initiatives.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 44

STEM ecosystems. Traphagen and Traill (2014) and the NRC (2014) recognize the
varied and numerous iterations possible with STEM initiatives in their discussion of STEM
learning ecosystems. The authors contend that STEM learning ecosystems include all entities
that support student engagement in STEM activities and STEM learning which, in turn, can
increase student achievement and interest in STEM. Entities involved in STEM learning
ecosystems include formal and informal learning experiences that occur in traditional schools, in
after school programs, at museums, in libraries, on the Internet, and even during interactions with
family and friends. Traphagen and Traill suggest that while the ecosystem metaphor is not
perfect, it captures a broader vision of “diverse individual actors interconnected in symbiotic
relationships that are adaptive and evolve over time” (p. 4). The authors further suggest that the
coordination of different actors and settings strengthen and expand opportunities for student
learning and achievement in STEM. The NRC adds to the discussion by identifying
infrastructural elements that could be included in STEM learning ecosystems. These elements
include policies, culture, and values that impact formal and informal learning experiences as well
as the individuals involved in the experiences.
Science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics (STEAM). The diversity
captured by the ecosystem metaphor allows for the inclusion of STEAM in the discussion of
STEM and STEM integration (NRC, 2014). Some suggest that STEAM initiatives share the
same concerns as STEM initiatives, including improving student interest and achievement in
STEM, maintaining the economic prosperity of the United States, and adding legitimacy to the
inclusion of technology, engineering, and the arts in the K-12 curriculum (Bequette & Bequette,
2012; Bybee, 2010; Bybee 2011; Daugherty, 2013; Glockner, 1992; NRC, 2002; NAE & NRC
2009, NAE & NRC, 2014; Sanders, 2012; Wynn & Harris, 2012).
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 45

Arguments for supporting STEAM initiatives include those who point out the number of
artists who become innovators, artists who incorporate one or more of the STEM disciplines in
their work, and the aesthetic considerations art brings to STEM-related products and services
(Bequette & Bequette, 2012; Daugherty, 2013; Wynn & Harris, 2012). Advocates of STEAM
also suggest that integrating the study of art with the study of one or more of the STEM
disciplines can improve interest and achievement in STEM (Bequette & Bequette, 2012;
Daugherty, 2013; Winner & Cooper, 2000; Wynn & Harris, 2012). However, a study by Winner
and Cooper (2000) found that while a correlation exists between studying the arts and improved
academic achievement in the United States, causal relationships could not be confirmed.
Advocates of STEAM and the arts in general caution against determining the educational value
of art based solely on result of standardized testing because the arts may have positive impacts
on student achievement that cannot be measured by tests (Bequette & Bequette, 2012; Winner &
Cooper, 2000).
Effectiveness of K-12 STEM Integration
As K-12 STEM integration gains in popularity, there is a need for increased empirical
study of its effect on student achievement in STEM subjects (Becker & Park, 2011; NAE &
NRC, 2014). The results of available empirical studies on STEM integration at the K-12 level
are mixed (Becker & Park, 2011; Prevost, Nathan, Stein, Tran, & Phelps, 2009; Tran & Nathan,
2010; Stohlmann et al., 2011, Stricker, 2011). In addition, the studies are either based on small
samples, are case studies with anecdotal evidence of effectiveness, or focus on a specific
program such as Project Lead the Way (PLTW), all of which makes their use in making
generalizations about the overall effectiveness of K-12 STEM integration problematic (Becker &
Park, 2011; Prevost et al., 2009; Tran & Nathan, 2010; Stohlmann et al., 2011, Stricker, 2011).
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 46

Becker and Park (2011) conducted a meta-analysis of twenty-eight studies of the effects
of integrated approaches to STEM education. The STEM programs studied ranged from
elementary school to the college level (Becker & Park, 2011). The results of the meta-analysis
suggest that integrated STEM education has a positive impact on student learning, particularly at
the elementary school level. The results also suggest that student interest in the STEM subjects
was increased by STEM integration. The researchers suggest, however, that results should be
considered with caution because they are based on very few empirical studies.
Although Becker and Park’s research provides preliminary evidence of the effectiveness
of K-12 STEM integration, a study conducted by Tran and Nathan (2010) suggests that while the
math and science achievement of students who were taught using integrated STEM curriculum
showed an increase from eighth grade to tenth grade, the increase was less than that of students
who were not taught using the integrated STEM curriculum. The results of the study, however,
were based on a relatively small sample. In addition, the researchers point out problems with the
explicitness of the integration—whether specific subject concepts were made explicit in the
curriculum, which was PLTW.
A study by Prevost et al. (2009) echoed Tran and Nathan’s concerns about the
explicitness of the integration in PLTW. The study analyzed three PLTW engineering courses for
explicit integration of math concepts. The results indicated that although integration was
evident, it was weak in that connections between math and engineering were not made clear to
students. The researchers suggest that more explicit integration would enhance the PLTW
curriculum as well as student achievement and interest in the STEM disciplines.

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 47

Leadership for STEM Education Reform
STEM integration in the context of K-12 education is an education reform with potential
for increasing student interest and achievement in the STEM disciplines (Glockner, 1991;
Herschbach, 2011; NAE & NAC, 2014). As with any education reform, K-12 STEM integration
presents a variety of challenges, including: 1) defining STEM integration, 2) determining how
and where to incorporate STEM integration into the curriculum, 3) determining how to evaluate
the effectiveness of K-12 STEM integration initiatives, 4) securing resources (human, financial,
political, etc.) for implementation, and 5) ensuring that all student subgroups (based on race,
gender, socio-economic status, language proficiency, and learning ability) have equal access to
STEM initiatives provided by a school or district.
The literature identifies strong leadership as a factor in the success of education reform
(Education Writers Association [EWA], 2003; Mac Iver & Farley, 2003). However, research on
the importance of the superintendent to education reform efforts provides mixed results
(Chingos, Whitehurst, & Lindquist, 2014; Petersen, 2002; Wright & Harris, 2010). Although the
studies focused on education reform other than K-12 STEM integration, insights and information
gleaned from the studies may be applicable to K-12 STEM integration or may provide a
foundation for identifying effective superintendent characteristics and behavior that support K-12
STEM integration.
Bredeson and Kose (2007) used questionnaire data to determine the tasks superintendents
consider important as opposed to the tasks to which their time is devoted. The study found that
superintendents’ actions are impacted by their personal preferences, the things they deem
important and by organization expectations. One of the tasks they have found important was the
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 48

focus on external accountability for student achievement. As a result, superintendents find it
necessary to take actions that support improved student learning.
Cannon, Kitchel, and Tenuto (2013) studied superintendents’ perceptions of the
professional development needs of Career and Technical Education (CTE) teachers in their
districts and concluded that superintendents’ leadership is influential on developing strong
learning communities which, in turn, leads to teachers’ professional growth and, thus, improved
student achievement. As a result, the researchers conclude that it is the superintendent’s
responsibility to support professional development opportunities for teachers and administrators.
Williams, Tabernik, and Krivak (2009) conducted a case study of the Science and
Mathematics Achievement Required for Tomorrow (SMART) Consortium that was formed in
Ohio with the belief that superintendents could have a strong impact on student learning,
particularly in math and science. The superintendents in the consortium created a sense of
urgency to improve math and science achievement within the district. The superintendents also
were directly involved in teaching and learning—of students and school personnel. The result
was improved achievement on state tests in math and science.
Contrary to studies indicating the importance of superintendent leadership to the success
of education reform and improved student achievement, Chingos, Whitehurst, and Lindquist
(2014) found that superintendents’ impact on student achievement is insignificant. Using
longitudinal data from state assessments in Florida and North Carolina, Florida’s Education Data
Warehouse, and the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction’s School Report Cards, the
researchers concluded that neither the length of a superintendent’s tenure nor hiring a
superintendent have a significant impact on student achievement. In addition, superintendents
only account for a small variance in student achievement compared to that of other components
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 49

of a school system, including student characteristics, the impact of teachers and schools, and the
culture of the district. However, the study did not fully discount the effect of superintendents on
student achievement by recognizing they may have an impact on factors not addressed in the
study. Such factors include relationships with stakeholders and management of monetary
resources.
Education Reform and Innovation
Few people dispute the need to increase the achievement and interest in math and science
of students at the K-12 level in the United States (Atkinson & Mayo, 2010; CoSTEM, 2013;
Gonzalez & Kuenzi; National NAC/NRC, 2014; PCAST, 2010). As was previously discussed,
education reforms focused on K-12 STEM education include efforts to improve teacher quality,
standards-based reforms, school-community partnerships, the establishment of STEM schools,
and K-12 STEM integration (CoSTEM, 2013; Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012; PCAST, 2010).
Education reforms that diverge from traditional educational methods to provide new, hopefully
more effective, practices, products, or delivery systems may be considered innovative reforms
(Albury, 2005; Malian & Nevin, 2005). K-12 STEM integration is one such education reform.
K-12 STEM integration can be considered an innovation in that it diverges from the
traditional method of delivering each STEM discipline as isolated subjects (Herschbach, 2011;
NAE & NRC, 2014; Roberts & Cantu, 2012). Instead, STEM integration attempts to remove the
boundaries between each subject and combine two or more of the subjects through a project or in
one course (Brown et al., 2011; Herschbach, 2011; NAE & NRC, 2014; Roberts & Cantu, 2012).
Some have suggested that STEM integration actually results in a new subject or new curriculum
(Morrison & Bartlett, 2009; Roberts & Cantu, 2012). Therefore, the result of STEM integration
can be new curricula, new forms of curriculum delivery, and even an entirely new subject, which
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 50

aligns with the definition of an innovation (Albury, 2005; Malian & Nevin, 2005). In addition,
STEM integration is an approach with the potential to increase student learning and interest in
the STEM subjects (CDE, 2014b; Herschbach, 2011; NAE & NRC, 2014), which would make it
a more effective approach than traditional approaches.
K-12 STEM Integration as Disruptive Innovation
Although K-12 STEM integration is thought to be an education innovation that will
improve student performance and interest in the STEM subjects, significant empirical evidence
supporting its effectiveness is not available (NAE & NRC, 2014). This is, in part, because in the
context of contemporary K-12 education STEM integration is a relatively new approach (NAE &
NRC, 2014). In addition, the lack of a common understanding of STEM integration and lack of
consensus about where to include it in the curriculum makes evaluating the effectiveness of K-12
STEM integration initiatives difficult (NAE & NRC, 2014; NRC, 2011a; NRC, 2011b).
Additional challenges such as securing qualified teachers, adequate funding, and other resources
further complicate STEM integration implementation (CDE, 2014; CoSTEM, 2010; Gloeckner,
1991; PCAST, 2010).
In defining innovation, Albury (2005) contends: “Successful innovation is the creation
and implementation of new processes, products, services and methods of delivery which result in
significant improvements in outcomes, efficiency, effectiveness or quality” (p. 51). The
challenges associated with implementing K-12 STEM integration as well as scant empirical
evidence of its effectiveness can diminish its acceptance as a viable solution to the perceived K-
12 STEM crisis in the United States. However, the challenges and limited evidence of
effectiveness can situate K-12 STEM integration as a disruptive innovation (Christensen,
Baumann, Ruggles, & Sadtler, 2006; Christensen, Horn, & Johnson, 2008).
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 51

Disruptive innovations are products or services that are considered inferior to products
and services already available (Christensen, Horn, & Johnson, 2008). Disruptive innovations are
also described as “good enough alternatives” (Christensen, Baumann, Ruggles, & Sadtler, 2006).
In addition, disruptive innovations generally appeal to consumers who have been unable to
access the existing products and services that are considered superior (Christensen et al., 2006;
Christensen et al., 2008). The acceptance of the good enough alternatives by a significant
number of consumers results in improvements to the products or services that, in turn, attract
new consumers (Christensen et al., 2008). Eventually, formally inferior innovations replace the
traditional products or services (Christensen et al., 2008).
The previously discussed challenges associated with STEM integration, as well as its
potential to increase student achievement and interest in the STEM subjects makes it a “good
enough alternative” to traditional approaches to STEM education. In addition, because STEM
integration is thought to increase interest in and engagement with the STEM subjects, it can
appeal to underserved populations—students who lack skill and interest in STEM, particularly
those who are traditionally underrepresented in the STEM fields. The focus on making
connections between the STEM disciplines is evident in the CCSS in math and the NGSS,
suggesting that STEM integration already has made inroads in K-12 STEM education. Empirical
studies and evaluations of integrated STEM education initiatives that begin to confirm increased
achievement and interest in STEM subjects, particularly by underserved populations, may result
in expanded use of the approach. Widespread implementation of integrated STEM education
initiatives, in place of traditional approaches to STEM education, would result in integrated
STEM education disrupting traditional STEM education curricula and pedagogy.

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 52

Descriptive Framework
The purpose of the present study, was to gain insight into how school superintendents'
understandings and beliefs about integrated science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM)
education impact implementation of integrated STEM initiatives within their districts. However,
one of the difficulties in studying integrated STEM programs, as well as in making comparisons
among them, is the lack of a common understanding or definition of STEM integration
(Gloekner, 1991; Herschbach, 2011; NAE & NRC, 2014; Sanders, 2009). As a result, the
Descriptive Framework for Integrated STEM Education developed by the National Academy of
Engineers and the National Research Council (2014) was used to provide a common vocabulary
to discuss each case as well as to make comparisons between and among the cases. The
Descriptive Framework for Integrated STEM Education identifies four broad features – goals,
outcomes, nature and scope, and implementation – common to integrated STEM programs.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework for this study was Roger’s (2003) diffusion of innovations.
Diffusion research studies the factors involved in the adoption or rejection of an innovation by a
targeted population of potential adopters (Borrego, Froyd, & Hall; 2010; Hutchinson &
Huberman, 1994; Kebritchi, 2010; Rogers, 2003). A tradition of diffusion of innovations
research has been established in education, with innovations in teaching and learning being the
typical innovations studied and school systems, teachers, and administrators being the typical
units of analysis (Rogers, 2003). K-12 STEM integration is an innovation in teaching and
learning and superintendents are administrators that lead school systems. Therefore, diffusion of
innovations seemed an appropriate framework for the present study, which was to gain insight
into superintendents’ understandings and beliefs about K-12 STEM integration as well as how
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 53

superintendents’ understandings and beliefs impact their actions and decisions. Such insight will
be of use in local and national efforts to improve STEM education.
Rogers (2003) defines diffusion as the process by which an innovation is communicated
over time among the members of a social system. This definition identifies the four main
elements of the framework: an innovation, communication, time, and a social system (Rogers,
2003). In the case of K-12 STEM integration diffusion in its simplest terms, a diffusion study
would investigate how knowledge of the innovation, K-12 STEM integration, is communicated
to members of a social system, the K-12 education community (Rogers, 2003). The element of
time would be included through an analysis the rate of adoption and factors that lead to adoption
of K-12 STEM integration (Rogers, 2003). However, several factors add complexity to a
diffusion study of K-12 STEM integration.
As already discussed, several challenges are associated with K-12 STEM integration
efforts. One challenge is the lack of a common definition of STEM integration and disagreement
on where to situate STEM integration in the curriculum (Brown et al., 2011; Bybee, 2010;
Herschbach, 2011; NAE & NRC, 2014; Stohlmann et al., 2011). A K-12 STEM integration
diffusion study would require a clear understanding of STEM integration or at least a clear
description of how STEM integration is conceptualized in the study (NAE & NRC, 2014;
Rogers, 2003). A growing body of literature describes STEM integration or integrated STEM
education as an approach to teaching the STEM disciplines that makes the connections between
or among two or more of the STEM disciplines clear to students (CDE, 2014b; Herschbach,
2011; NAE & NRC, 2014). It seems that illuminating connections between and among the
STEM disciplines, as well as other content areas such as art, is acceptable as a broad definition.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 54

In addition to the challenge of defining or conceptualizing STEM integration is the
challenge of identifying members of the social system for the diffusion study. Although the K-
12 education community is the desired social system at which K-12 STEM integration is
targeted, the community is very broad and members can include students, parents, teachers,
administrators, school board members, public schools, and private schools to name just a few
(EWA, 2003; NAE & NRC, 2014; Traphagen & Traill, 2014). Local businesses and universities
might also be considered part of the K-12 education community due to the financial support,
training, and other resources they provide (Kane & Boverie, 1995; Moyer-Packenham et al.,
2009; Reid & Feldhaus, 2007; Watters & Diezmann, 2013). Publishers of textbooks and
developers of K-12 curricula might also be considered members of the K-12 education
community (NAE & NRC, 2014). Clarity concerning through which part(s) of the K-12
education community the diffusion of STEM integration is being studied would be necessary
(NAE & NRC, 2014; Rogers, 2003).
Although the social system of K-12 education is broad and includes numerous groups,
some groups may have greater impact than others on the diffusion of STEM integration. The
literature identifies strong leadership as a factor in the success of education reform (Education
Writers Association [EWA], 2003; Mac Iver & Farley, 2003). Although research on the impact
of school superintendents on student achievement has not been fully confirmed, many contend
that as the chief executive officers (CEOs) of school districts, superintendents have the ability to
impact education reform efforts designed to increase the achievement of students in their districts
through their actions, behaviors, and decisions (Bjork, 1993, Bredeson & Kose, 2007; Cannon,
DeYoung, 1986; Kitchel, & Tenuto, 2013; Ireh & Bailey, 1999; Lasher, 1990; Petersen, 1999,
2002; Sofo, 2008; Thomas, 2001; Wright, 2010; Wright & Harris, 2010). Therefore,
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 55

superintendents were the members of the K-12 education social system that were the focus of
this study.
Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris, and Hopkins (2006) suggest that leaders’ actions are
impacted by what they think and feel. Therefore, analyzing relationships between
superintendents’ thoughts and feelings about K-12 STEM integration and their actions related to
supporting STEM integration initiatives can provide insight into the willingness of
superintendents to support the implementation and scaling-up of STEM integration initiatives,
where scaling-up can mean growing an existing program or implementing new initiatives,
depending on the needs of the district. Scaling-up effective STEM integration initiatives has the
potential to increase the number of students persisting in postsecondary study and pursuing
careers in STEM fields by increasing the interest and achievement of K-12 students. Use of the
diffusion of innovations framework can provide insight into the mechanisms by which
superintendents acquire information about K-12 STEM integration and make the decision to
implement and scale-up STEM integration initiatives.

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 56

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study is to gain insight into how school superintendents'
understanding and beliefs about integrated STEM education impact implementation of STEM
integration initiatives within their districts. The following research questions will guide the
study:
(1) How do school superintendents who have supported the implementation of STEM
integration initiatives within their districts develop a vision for the program(s)? (What
previous STEM-related experiences or exposures have impacted superintendents’
perceptions of K-12 STEM integration?)
(2) How do school superintendents' understandings and perceptions of STEM integration
evolve as a result of implementing and sustaining STEM integration initiatives in
their districts?
(3) What relationships exist between superintendents' understandings and beliefs about
STEM integration and their actions, behaviors, and decisions?
There is national consensus that a workforce skilled in the STEM disciplines is crucial to
the continued economic prosperity and national security of the United States (Atkinson & Mayo,
2010; CoSTEM, 2013; TAP Coalition, 2005). In addition, literacy in the STEM disciplines is
considered essential for the well being of individuals and society as a whole (Bybee, 2014; CDE,
2014b). However, because too many students in the United States are unprepared or unwilling to
persist in postsecondary study in the STEM disciplines, efforts to increase interest and
achievement in STEM have been directed towards K-12 public schools (Atkinson & Mayo,
2010; CoSTEM, 2013; Gonzales & Kuenzi, 2012; NAE & NRC, 2014; NRC, 2009; NRC,
2011a; NRC, 2011b; NRC, 2012).
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 57

K-12 STEM integration is an education reform with potential to increase student interest
and achievement in the STEM disciplines (Gloeckner, 1991; Herschbach, 2011; NAE & NRC,
2014). As discussed in Chapter 2, however, effective implementation of K-12 STEM integration
initiatives requires that several important considerations be taken into account including 1)
defining STEM integration, 2) determining how and where to incorporate STEM integration into
the curriculum, 3) determining how to evaluate the effectiveness of K-12 STEM integration
initiatives, 4) securing resources (human, financial, political, etc.) for implementation, and 5)
ensuring that all student subgroups (based on race, gender, socio-economic status, language
proficiency, and learning ability) have equal access to STEM initiatives provided by a school or
district. Addressing the challenges associated with implementing STEM integration at the K-12
level will require strong leadership and the superintendent can provide such leadership (EWA,
2003; Ireh & Bailey, 1999; Petersen, 1999; Thomas, 2001; Togneri & Anderson, 2003). School
superintendents, as the chief executive officers (CEOs) of the school district, have the ability to
impact education reform efforts through their influence on district and school culture; their
vision for the district; their role in policy implementation; and the personal characteristics, skills,
knowledge and beliefs they possess (Bjork, 1993, Bredeson & Kose, 2007; Cannon, DeYoung,
1986; Kitchel, & Tenuto, 2013; Ireh & Bailey, 1999; Lasher, 1990; Petersen, 1999; Sofo, 2008;
Thomas, 2001; Wright & Harris, 2010).
Leithwood et al. (2006) suggest that leaders’ actions are impacted by what they think and
feel. Therefore, analyzing relationships between superintendents’ thoughts and feelings about K-
12 STEM integration and their actions related to supporting STEM integration initiatives can
provide insight into the readiness or willingness of superintendents to support the
implementation and scaling-up of STEM integration initiatives, where scaling-up can mean
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 58

growing an existing program or implementing new initiatives, depending on the needs of the
district. Scaling-up effective STEM integration initiatives has the potential to increase the
number of students persisting in postsecondary study and pursuing careers in STEM fields by
increasing the interest and achievement of K-12 students.
Research Methods
A qualitative multicase study was used in the current research. Gaining insight into or an
understanding of people’s knowledge, beliefs, and experiences is the reason qualitative research
is conducted (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). The case study is one
type of qualitative research (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam, 2009). A case study focuses on a
bounded system, a single entity that is the case, or unit of study (Merriam, 2009). The bounded
system can be an institution, an event, a curriculum, or an individual such as a public school
superintendent (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam, 2009). In a case study, data on the bounded
system—unit of study—is collected and analyzed (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007, Merriam, 2009). In
a multicase study, as the name suggests, data from several cases are collected and analyzed in an
effort to increase the generalizability of the findings, to provide a comparative analysis of the
cases, or to highlight the diversity of cases related to a specific topic (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007,
Merriam, 2009).
Although a number of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies have
addressed the impact of the superintendent on school effectiveness and student achievement
specifically (Bjork, 1993, Bredeson & Kose, 2007; Cannon, DeYoung, 1986; Kitchel, & Tenuto,
2013; Ireh & Bailey, 1999; Lasher, 1990; Petersen, 1999; Sofo, 2008; Thomas, 2001; Wright &
Harris, 2010), no studies were found that address superintendent leadership and K-12 STEM
integration. The current study will add to the literature on K-12 STEM integration. Use of the
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 59

multicase study approach will provide insight into the connection between school
superintendents' understanding and beliefs about integrated STEM education and their actions
and decisions related to implementation of STEM integration initiatives within their districts.
Such insight will increase knowledge about superintendent leadership and K-12 STEM
integration, which can be the catalyst for further research on the topic (Merriam, 2009).
Descriptive Framework
The purpose of the present study, was to gain insight into how school superintendents'
understandings and beliefs about integrated science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM)
education impact implementation of integrated STEM initiatives within their districts. However,
one of the difficulties in studying integrated STEM programs, as well as in making comparisons
among them, is the lack of a common understanding or definition of STEM integration
(Gloekner, 1991; Herschbach, 2011; NAE & NRC, 2014; Sanders, 2009). The lack of a common
understanding or definition potentially results in integrated STEM programs with significantly
different characteristics and different perspectives from which to study the programs (NAE &
NRC, 2014). Recognizing the increased popularity of STEM integration despite the lack of a
common definition, the NAE and NRC (2014) commissioned a study to explore the topic. One
outcome of the study was the Descriptive Framework for Integrated STEM Education that can be
used to examine and compare integrated STEM programs (NAE & NRC, 2014). The framework
provided a common perspective and vocabulary to discuss each case as well as to make
comparisons between and among the cases. Identification of each element of the framework
resulted from analysis of data from superintendent interviews and document reviews.
In creating the descriptive framework, the NAE and NRC (2014) studied existing formal
and informal integrated STEM programs in K-12 schools in the United States. Evidence of
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 60

connections between two STEM subjects or among three or more of the STEM subjects were
emphasized when identifying the integrated STEM programs that were studied (NAE & NRC,
2014). The Descriptive Framework for Integrated STEM Education identifies four broad
features – goals, outcomes, nature and scope, and implementation – common to integrated STEM
programs as well as subcomponents for each of the four features. The framework is shown in
Figure 3-1.
Goals
The NAE and NRC (2014) descriptive framework defines goals as statements of what an
integrated STEM education program is expected to accomplish. The developers of the
framework emphasize the importance of goals, as they are fundamental to the design and
evaluation of integrated STEM education programs (NAE & NRC, 2014). The descriptive
framework identifies five major goals for students: STEM literacy; 21
st
century competencies;
STEM workforce readiness; interest and engagement; and the ability to make connections among
STEM disciplines. The framework also identifies two major goals for educators: increased
STEM content knowledge and increased pedagogical content knowledge (NAE & NRC, 2014).
Outcomes
The framework suggests that outcomes are closely tied to goals in that the outcomes
provide evidence of the level of achievement of the goals (NAE & NRC, 2014). As with goals,
there can be outcomes for students and for educators. The descriptive framework identifies
seven major outcomes for students and two for educators. The outcomes for students include
learning and achievement; 21
st
century competencies; STEM course-taking; STEM related
employment; STEM interest; and development of STEM identity (NAE & NRC, 2014).

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 61

FIGURE 3-1. Descriptive Framework for Integrated STEM Education (NAE & NRC, 2014, p.
32).

Outcomes for educators include increased pedagogical knowledge and changes in teaching
practices (NAE & NRC, 2014).
Nature and Scope of Integration
The nature of integrated STEM education programs include identifying which of the
STEM disciplines is the focus of the program and the way in which connections are made
between or among the STEM disciplines (NAE & NRC, 2014). The scope of an integrated
STEM program includes the length of the program, which may range from a one-day program to
a series of courses over multiple years; the size of the program, which may be a single course or
an entire school; and the complexity, which may involve components that are incorporated into
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 62

the established curriculum or attempts to develop and implement new curriculum (NAE & NRC,
2014).
Implementation
The descriptive framework identifies three elements related to the implementation of
integrated STEM programs. One element is instructional design, which includes teaching
strategies such as project-based learning (PBL) (NAE & NRC, 2014). Another element is
educator supports that may include efforts to improve STEM educators’ content knowledge and
teaching practice (NAE & NRC, 2014). A final element identified in the descriptive framework
is adjustments to the learning environment. Adjustments include extra time for teachers to plan,
extended class periods, and team teaching (NAE & NRC, 2014).
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework for this study is Roger’s (2003) diffusion of innovations.
Diffusion research studies the factors involved in the adoption or rejection of an innovation by a
targeted population of potential adopters (Borrego, Froyd, & Hall; 2010; Hutchinson &
Huberman, 1994; Kebritchi, 2010; Rogers, 2003). The framework is appropriate to the current
study, which seeks to gain insight into the understandings and beliefs of public school
superintendents about K-12 STEM integration and how those understandings and beliefs impact
superintendents’ decisions to support implementation and scaling-up of integration initiatives.
Rogers (2003) defines diffusion as the process by which an innovation is communicated
over time among a social system. The definition identifies the four elements of diffusion: an
innovation, communication, time, and a social system (Rogers, 2003). In the present study, the
innovation is K-12 STEM integration and the social system is the public education community,
which includes students, teachers, administrators, parents, school board members, community
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 63

members, and anyone that can influence a superintendent’s decision to adopt or reject STEM
integration initiatives (Rogers, 2003). The element of time, specifically the innovation-decision
process and the perceived attributes of K-12 STEM integration, is of particular importance to this
study (Rogers, 2003).
Much of the diffusion research focuses on innovations after they have diffused
completely within a social system (Rogers, 2003). Rogers suggests, however, that this need not
be the case and that diffusion of an innovation can be studied during the diffusion process. The
current study is an example of an in-process diffusion study in that diffusion of K-12 STEM
integration is in the early stages and has not completely disseminated within the education
community (NAE & NRC, 2014; Rogers, 2003). The current study is not concerned so much
with the rate of adoption as with insight into how the beliefs and understandings of the three
superintendents who are the focus of the current study impacted their decision to adopt STEM
integration relatively early in the diffusion process.
The innovation-decision process represents the period of time from an individual’s initial
knowledge of an innovation, to his or her decision to accept or reject the innovation, to
implementation, and to confirmation of the decision (Rogers, 2003). A number of factors, the
perceived attributes of the innovation, can impact an individual’s decision to adopt or reject the
innovation. Data collected for the current study utilized the steps of the innovation-decision
process to frame the progression of each of the three superintendents in this multicase study from
their initial knowledge of integrated STEM education through their decision to support
implementation of initiatives within their districts. The data for each superintendent was
compared to draw generalizations and interpretations (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007, Merriam, 2009).
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 64

The five main steps in the innovation-decision process operationalized for the current study are
as follows:
1. Knowledge—the superintendent learns of the existence of K-12 STEM integration
and gains understanding of how it functions.
2. Persuasion—the superintendent forms an attitude, either favorable or unfavorable,
towards K-12 STEM integration.
3. Decision—the superintendent is involved in activities that cause him or her to either
adopt or reject K-12 STEM integration.
4. Implementation—the superintendent implements or supports implementation of K-12
STEM integration. Re-invention, which represents how much an innovation is
modified during adoption and implementation, is likely to occur during this step.
5. Confirmation—the superintendent looks for reinforcement of the decision to adopt or
reject K-12 STEM integration. He or she may reverse the previous decision if
conflicting messages about STEM integration are encountered (Rogers, 2003).
The perceived attributes of K-12 STEM integration also had the potential to affect the
superintendents’ decision to adopt or reject the innovation (Rogers, 2003). Utilizing the
diffusion of innovations framework, the characteristics of K-12 STEM integration, as perceived
by the superintendents that could have impacted their decision to adopt the innovation are as
follows:
1. Relative advantage, or the degree to which STEM integration was perceived as better
than current practices used in STEM education.
2. Compatibility, or the degree to which the superintendent perceived STEM integration
to be consistent with his or hers and the district’s values, experiences, and needs.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 65

3. Complexity, or the degree of difficulty the superintendent perceived was needed to
understand and implement STEM integration.
4. Trialability, or the degree to which STEM integration could be experimented with on
a limited basis.
5. Observability, or the degree to which the superintendent was able to see the results of
other STEM integration initiatives (Rogers, 2003).
The data collected provided insight into each superintendent’s perceptions of the attributes of K-
12 STEM integration and the data will be compared to draw generalizations and interpretations
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007, Merriam, 2009).
Sample and Population
The current research is a qualitative multicase study. As such, data from three different
superintendents was collected and analyzed, with each superintendent representing a separate
bounded system or case (Merriam, 2009). Although two cases were sufficient for a multicase
study, including three cases provided more variation in the cases and more compelling
interpretations and generalizations (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009).
Each superintendent led a district in which he or she supported implementation of a
STEM integration initiative while superintendent. Grissom and Andersen (2012) suggest that
superintendent turnover is common. Indeed, two of the three superintendents interviewed for
this study no longer led the district in which they supported implementation of a STEM
integration program. One superintendent was retired and the other had moved to another school
district. The third superintendent’s district opened a STEM magnet school the same year as this
study.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 66

Purposeful sampling was used to identify the participants who were deliberately chosen
because of their potential to provide information that could answer the research questions
(Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). Each superintendent was directly involved with the
implementation of a STEM integration program while he or she was superintendent. Therefore,
each was able to discuss how he or she developed a vision, how his or her understandings and
perceptions of STEM integration evolved as a result of supporting implementation of STEM
integration initiatives, and how his or her understandings and beliefs impacted the actions and
decisions of each superintendent. In addition, the three cases reflected the diversity within
STEM integration initiatives (Maxwell, 2013, Merriam, 2009). Pseudonyms are used for the
superintendents, schools, and school districts to maintain the anonymity of the study participants.
The first case was Mr. A, superintendent of BCD Unified School District.
Superintendent A was instrumental in opening the 21
st
Century STEAM Academy. The second
case was Superintendent B, former superintendent of XYZ Unified School District (XYZUSD).
While superintendent of XYZUSD, Superintendent B was instrumental in opening the Bayview
STEM Academy. The third case was Superintendent C, superintendent of Mid-county Regional
Occupation Center (MROC). In its study of successful STEM education, The National Research
Council (2011a) identified STEM-focused career and technical education (CTE) schools and
programs, including regional centers that draw from several school districts, as potential sites for
effective STEM education. Although the entire center is not STEM-focused, the superintendent
deliberately incorporated STEM courses, including PLTW, a nationally recognized engineering
curriculum used by many integrated STEM programs (NAE & NRC, 2014; Tran & Nathan,
2010).

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 67

Instrumentation
The purpose of the current study was to gain insight into the relationship between school
superintendents’ understandings and beliefs about STEM integration and their decisions related
to implementation of STEM integration initiatives within their districts. A qualitative multicase
study was employed to gain such insight (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam,
2009; Weiss, 1994). Interviews and document reviews are two methods of data collection used
in qualitative research and were the methods of data collection used for this study (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2007; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009; Weiss, 1994).
Interviews with the superintendents studied allowed them to provide details about their
understandings, beliefs, and experiences in their own words (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam,
2009; Weiss, 1994). In qualitative research, a document is any written, visual, digital, or
physical material the provide information relevant to a study (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam,
2009; Weiss, 1994). Document review was used in the present study to supplement data
collected from the superintendents through interviews.
Three research questions were developed for this study, all of which lent themselves to
the use of interviews as a means of data collection. A semi-structured interview protocol was
developed for use with each of the three superintendents. Interview structures range in type from
highly structured to unstructured (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam, 2009). In highly structured
interviews, researchers are restricted to asking predetermined questions; such an interview
structure limits the researchers ability to elicit the participants’ understandings and perspectives
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam, 2009). An unstructured interview does not utilize
predetermined questions, but allows the person(s) being interviewed to establish the direction of
the interview with the interviewer probing specific topics more deeply when deemed necessary
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 68

(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam, 2009). A semi-structured interview allows the researcher to
gather specific information from interview respondents while still allowing their perspectives to
emerge (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam, 2009). The semi-structured interview protocol
elicited data to answer the research questions while allowing the understandings, beliefs, and
experiences of each superintendent to be explored in depth.
As previously mentioned, a semi-structured interview protocol was used to elicit data
from the three superintendent participants in the present study. The superintendents were the
only individuals being interviewed in this study because they were the only ones who could
discuss their personal understandings, perceptions, and beliefs (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007;
Merriam, 2009; Weiss, 1994). Information about the superintendents’ actions, behaviors, and
decisions could be gained by interviewing others involved with implementing the STEM
integration initiative—teachers or other administrators, for example. However, the intent of the
current study was to gain insight into the superintendents’ experience from their perspectives and
not filtered through the perspective of others.
Maxwell (2013) suggests that research questions express what the researcher is trying to
understand and the interview questions are asked in order to gain that understanding. Therefore,
the questions included in the interview protocol were designed to elicit data that answered the
research questions. Merriam (2009) identifies six types of qualitative interview questions:
1) experience and behavior, 2) opinion and values, 3) feeling, 4) knowledge, 5) sensory, and
6) background and demographic. Merriam’s description of the question types helped guide the
formulation of interview questions. For example, research questions sought insight into how the
superintendents in the present study developed a vision for their STEM integration program. An
experience and behavior question, described as a question that elicits information about “what a
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 69

person does or did” (Merriam, 2009, p. 96), would be appropriate In addition, the theoretical
framework was considered while developing research questions. However, care was taken to
formulate questions that allowed interview respondents to discuss aspects of the framework, if
relevant, without forcing the interview in that direction. Maxwell (2013) warns against allowing
existing theories to marginalize or dismiss interview participants’ understandings. The interview
protocol is included as Appendix A.
Document review also was used for collecting data, however, research question three was
the only question that lent itself to document review. Research question three asked about the
superintendents’ actions, behaviors, and decisions. Although the superintendent participants
were asked to discuss their actions, behaviors, and decisions, personal documents as well as
documents retrieved from their districts, their communities, and other sources provided
information that supplemented the perceptions of the superintendents (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007;
Merriam, 2009). The documents reviewed were not prepared to support the present study and
were not limited by the research questions, interview questions, theoretical framework, or effects
of the interviewer or those being interviewed (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). A protocol was
developed to guide the review of documents for each case and is included as Appendix C.
Data Collection
The semi-structured interview was one method of data collection that was used for the
present study. Three superintendents who supported implementation of a STEM integration
initiative as a superintendent were interviewed. An interview protocol was developed and used
with each superintendent. One consideration for the researcher during interviews was whether to
take notes or to use an audio recorder (Weiss, 1994). Writing down everything said during an
interview is virtually impossible, which leaves the potential that important information will not
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 70

be captured (Merriam, 2009). In addition, handwriting notes during interviews sacrifices
nonverbal data such as pauses and speech patterns (Weiss, 1994). As a result, an audio recorder
was used during the interviews for the present study. Permission to record was requested prior to
each interview. Participants also were assured that the recordings were for research purposes
only and would not be shared outside the scope of the study. In addition, the identity of the
participants will remain confidential (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam, 2009). Although the
interviews were recorded, reflections and insights illuminated during the interview were
documented on the interview protocol. In addition, the recordings were transcribed as soon as
possible after the interview (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam, 2009).
Document review was another method of data collection used in the current multicase
study. A document review was performed for each case. The literature identifies three types of
documents: 1) public records or official documents which document the activities of
organizations and society and are meant to be shared with the public, 2) personal records which
are produced for private purposes by individuals, and 3) popular culture documents which are
produced by members of society to entertain, inform, enlighten, or persuade (Bogdan & Biklen,
2007). Each type of document can be textual, visual, digital, audio, or physical artifacts (Bogdan
& Biklen, 2007; Merriam, 2009). Public records and popular culture documents were the
document types used for this study. A protocol was developed to guide the document review
process and to facilitate consistency in data collection across cases. Space to record information
for each type of data was included on the document review protocol.
Data Analysis
Data analysis began with open coding in which notes were made in the margins of the
interview transcripts and on the document review protocol (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, Maxwell,
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 71

2013; Merriam, 2009). Open coding illuminated patterns in the data that led to the construction
of categories (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). Maxwell (2013) distinguishes between
organizational, substantive, and theoretical categories. Organizational categories serve initially
to sort rather than make meaning from the data (Maxwell, 2013). Substantive categories are
developed based on the concepts and beliefs of the participants (Maxwell, 2013). Theoretical
categories are developed based on prior theory or are developed inductively from the data
(Maxwell, 2013). In the current study, category construction initially resulted in organizational
categories into which data was sorted. Further analysis led to theoretical categories based on
Rogers’ (2003) innovation-decision process and perceived attributes of the innovation.
Validity and Reliability
Two final issues that were considered during data analysis were validity and reliability.
In qualitative research, validity refers to the credibility (internal validity) and transferability or
generalizability (external validity) of conclusions drawn by analyzing the data (Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam, 2009). Threats to both validity and reliability are inherent in qualitative research and
steps to reduce these threats were necessary (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009).
Analyzing the study for internal validity focused on determining whether the conclusions
actually matched reality and that what the researcher thought was being studied was actually
being studied (Merriam, 2009). In the current study, threats to internal validity were addressed
through peer reviews (Merriam, 2009). In addition, care was taken to ensure that interview
questions were closely aligned to the research questions (Merriam, 2009).
External validity refers to whether the conclusions drawn from one study can be applied
to other situations (Merriam, 2009). The fact that the current study had a small sample size of
three superintendents who were not randomly selected precluded the findings from being
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 72

statistically generalizable (Merriam, 2009; Weiss, 1994). However, the goal of qualitative
research is “not to find out what is generally true of the many” (Merriam, 2009, p. 224), but to
gain an in depth understanding of the particular (Merriam, 2009). In addition, lessons can be
learned from specific events, and if a study provides sufficient data about an event, it is possible
to transfer lessons or findings to other situations (Merriam, 2009). Therefore, the current study
provided enough data to increase the possibility of transferability of the findings.
Reliability refers to the consistency of the conclusion drawn from the data (Maxwell,
2013; Merriam, 2009). When findings are consistent, others would draw the same conclusions
from the data as the researcher (Merriam, 2009). Bias is always a threat in qualitative research
and, thus, was present in the current study (Maxwell, 2013). For example, knowledge,
perceptions, and beliefs about STEM integration brought to the study by the researcher may have
affected various aspects of the study, including decisions made during data analysis. Peer
evaluation was used to address bias and other threats to reliability.

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 73

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to gain insight into how school superintendents'
understandings and beliefs about integrated science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM)
education impact implementation of integrated STEM initiatives within their districts. This
chapter presents findings that emerged from data collection and analysis of the data. The data
collected for the current qualitative multicase study sought to answer the following research
questions:
1) How do school superintendents that have supported the implementation of STEM
integration initiatives within their districts develop a vision for the program(s)? (What
previous STEM-related experiences or exposures have impacted superintendents’
perceptions of K-12 STEM integration?)
2) How do school superintendents' understandings and perceptions of STEM integration
evolve as a result of implementing and sustaining STEM integration initiatives in their
districts?
3) What relationships exist between superintendents' understandings and beliefs about
STEM integration and their actions, behaviors, and decisions?
Data for three superintendents was collected. Each superintendent was directly involved
with the implementation of a STEM program while he or she was superintendent. Interviews
and document reviews were the two methods of data collection used for the current study
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009; Weiss, 1994). The superintendents
were the only individuals interviewed because the intent of the study was to gain insight into the
superintendents’ experience from their perspective and not filtered through the perspective of
others. The documents reviewed include those found on the school’s website as well as relevant
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 74

information retrieved from the Internet. A volume of literature exists that addresses the
appropriateness of using the Internet in empirical research (Ahern, 2005; Edwards & Bruce,
2002). Although the interviews were the main sources of data used from which the
superintendents’ perceptions were gleaned, the document reviews provided information that
complemented the program descriptions provided by the superintendents. For example,
superintendent B advised that BSA provided students extended time to study math and science,
but did not elaborate on how providing extended time was accomplished. The daily schedule
provided on the school’s website revealed that history and language arts were combined into a
humanities course, which provided additional time for math and science.
Characteristic of a qualitative multicase study, each superintendent was treated as a
separate case in the data analysis (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007, Merriam, 2009). Each case was
analyzed separately using the Descriptive Framework for Integrated STEM Education (NAE &
NRC, 2014) as well as Rogers’ (2003) theory of diffusion of innovation. In the following
sections, a brief overview of the descriptive framework is presented first, followed by a brief
review of Rogers’ (2003) theory of diffusion of innovations. Findings for each case are
presented next. For each case, background information is presented first, including information
relevant to the descriptive framework, followed by analysis using Rogers’ (2003) diffusion of
innovations theory. In the final section, a comparative case analysis of the three superintendents
is presented. The comparative case analysis addresses the findings related to each research
question. Pseudonyms for each superintendent, school, and school district are used to protect the
anonymity of the participants.

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 75

Descriptive Framework
In the present study, a comparative analysis of three superintendents who supported the
implementation of STEM initiatives within their districts was performed using Rogers’ (2003)
diffusion of innovation as the theoretical framework. Prior to the comparative analysis, three
individual cases were analyzed using the Descriptive Framework for Integrated STEM
Education, which provided a common perspective and vocabulary to discuss each case as well as
to make comparisons between and among the cases (NAE & NRC, 2014). The framework
identifies four broad features – goals, outcomes, nature and scope, and implementation –
common to integrated STEM programs, as well as subcomponents for each of the four features.
Identification of each feature of the framework resulted from analysis of data from
superintendent interviews and document reviews. The framework is discussed in Chapter 3 and
shown in Figure 3-1.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework for this study was Roger’s (2003) diffusion of innovations.
Diffusion research studies the factors involved in the adoption or rejection of an innovation by a
targeted population of potential adopters (Borrego, Froyd, & Hall; 2010; Hutchinson, J. &
Huberman, M., 1994; Kebritchi, 2010; Rogers, 2003). Rogers (2003) defines diffusion as the
process by which an innovation is communicated over time among members of a social system.
In the current study, the targeted population of potential adopters was public school
superintendents, the innovation was K-12 STEM integration, and the social system was the
public education community, which included students, teachers, administrators, parents, school
board members, community members, and anyone that could have impacted the superintendents’
decision to adopt or reject STEM integration initiatives (Rogers, 2003). The innovation-
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 76

decision process, which represents the period of time from an individual’s initial knowledge of
an innovation through implementation or non-implementation of the innovation, was of
particular importance to this study. However, the study is concerned not so much with the rate
of adoption as with insight into how the beliefs and understandings of the three superintendents
impacted their decision to adopt or support adoption of integrated STEM initiatives relatively
early in the diffusion process.
The innovation-decision process consists of five main steps: knowledge, persuasion,
decision, implementation, and confirmation (Rogers, 2003). In addition, during the innovation-
decision process, the perceived attributes of an innovation provide a level of influence on a
potential adopter’s decision to adopt or reject an innovation. The perceived attributes—relative
advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability—represent the adopter’s
perceptions of an innovation (Rogers, 2003). The innovation-decision process and the perceived
attributes are operationalized in Chapter 3.
The current study is an example of an in-process diffusion study in that diffusion of K-12
STEM integration is in the early stages and has not completely disseminated within the education
community (NAE & NRC, 2014; Rogers, 2003). Rogers suggests the appropriateness of
studying diffusion of an innovation during the diffusion process, which addresses a pro-adoption
bias evident in much of the diffusion research. The bias occurs because diffusion studies usually
are undertaken after an innovation has diffused throughout a social system. In-process diffusion
studies provide insight into why some innovations are not adopted, among other things, which
could provide information about challenges not revealed in post-diffusion studies (Rogers,
2003).

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 77

Case Study: Superintendent A – 21
st
Century STEAM Academy
Overview
Superintendent A was involved in the planning and opening of 21
st
Century STEAM
Academy in BCD Unified School District (BCDUSD). STEAM is the acronym for science,
technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics. Superintendent A advised that the initial
concept for the school was STEM, but the A (art) was always part of his thinking. The literature
identifies STEM learning systems and STEM ecosystems, which include the many iterations and
representations of STEM programs (Traphagen & Traill, 2014; NRC, 2014). STEAM is
recognized as an important inclusion in STEM ecosystems (NRC, 2014). Therefore, including a
STEAM Academy in a study of STEM programs seemed appropriate. Discussions of integrated
STEM education in this section on the STEAM Academy include the concept of STEAM.
In addition to his support of the STEAM Academy, Superintendent A also supported
implementation of PLTW at the STEAM Academy as well as other middle and high schools in
the district. PLTW is a nationally recognized curriculum that supports integrated STEM
education (Tran & Nathan, 2010). When 21
st
Century STEAM Academy opened in August
2014, Superintendent A had been superintendent of the district for approximately one year.
Enrollment in BCDUSD during the 2014-2015 school year was less than 10,000 students
in grades Kindergarten through 12. Of the student enrollment over 80 percent were identified as
socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED). Almost one-fourth of the student population were
English learners (EL) and 98 percent were Hispanic or Latino. Thirteen schools made up
BCUSD. 21
st
Century STEAM Academy was one of three middle schools.
Superintendent A explained that 21
st
Century STEAM Academy transitioned from a
traditional middle school for the 2014-2015 school year. He described the school as a magnet
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 78

middle school. Magnet schools often have an application process and generally are designed to
attract students from across a school district rather than only serve those within their attendance
boundaries (CDE, 2014). Superintendent A explained, however, that students who lived within
the attendance boundary of 21
st
Century STEAM Academy were given priority and were
exempted from the application process. Those living outside the attendance boundary had to
apply and were accepted on a space available basis.
Student enrollment at 21
st
Century STEAM Academy was over 500 students in grades 6
through 8 with 83 percent identified as SED, 10 percent EL, 0.54 percent White, and 98 percent
Hispanic or Latino. As is evident, the demographics of 21st Century STEAM Academy mirrored
the demographics of the school district. In addition, the demographics of the school reflected
large numbers of students who typically achieve lower on assessments in science and math and
who traditionally are underrepresented in postsecondary study and careers in STEM (Atkinson &
Mayo, 2010; CoSTEM, 2013; Gloeckner, 1991; NAE & NRC, 2014; PCAST, 2010).
Implementing STEM integration school-wide rather than to a selective group of students made it
accessible to more students from underrepresented groups, which could positively impact their
achievement and interest in one or more of the STEM disciplines. Ensuring access to
underrepresented students is one of the challenges of integrated STEM education implementation
identified in Chapters 1 and 2 of the current study.
Following is an analysis of 21
st
Century STEAM Academy using the Descriptive
Framework for Integrated STEM Education (NAE & NRC, 2014), data from an interview with
the superintendent, and review of documents related to the school. The analysis also is reflected
in Table 4-1.

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 79

Integrated STEM at 21
st
Century STEAM Academy
Goals. Goals for 21
st
Century STEAM Academy were implied by Superintendent A,
rather than being specific, clear statements of what the school expected to accomplish (NAE &
NRC, 2014). The superintendent shared hopes that 21
st
Century STEAM Academy would
prepare students to become critical thinkers. He expressed a concern that past emphases on
reading, writing, and mathematics under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) resulted in missed
opportunities to use science as a vehicle for developing critical thinking skills in students. He
also acknowledged that this concern influenced his early thinking about the importance of
implementing a STEM program. His desire to promote critical thinking was echoed on 21
st

Century STEAM Academy’s website which stated the school offered students the opportunity to
engage in 21
st
century learning, including the four Cs of critical thinking, communication,
collaboration, and creativity. Developing 21
st
century competencies, which include critical
thinking, is one of the goals identified in the Descriptive Framework for Integrated STEM
Education (NAE & NRC, 2014; Partnership for 21
st
Century Learning, 2015; Rotherham &
Willingham, 2009).
Another goal revealed by Superintendent A during the discussion of his vision for 21
st

Century STEAM Academy was that the school would prepare students for jobs in STEAM. He
shared,
I’d done some work in relation to jobs and looking to see what were the jobs of
the future. Many of them are related to engineering. They’re related to
mathematics, science. I said, “Okay. That’s where the jobs are going to be, but
what are we preparing our students for?” And so for me that’s what it really
became about. I want our children to be successful readers and writers, but the
place where they’re going to get their jobs is going to be in STEAM. It’s really
STEAM. It’s not just STEM; it’s STEAM.

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 80

TABLE 4-1 Integrated STEM at 21
st
Century STEAM Academy
HIGH-LEVEL
FEATURE
SUBCOMPONENT RELEVANT DETAILS
Student goals

Educator goals
Development of 21
st

century competencies

STEAM/STEM
workforce readiness

Increased content and
pedagogical knowledge

Students engage in 21
st
century learning,
including the 4 Cs of critical thinking,
communication, collaboration and creativity.
Engineering concepts support creativity.

Prepare students for postsecondary education
in STEAM/STEM
Nature of
integration

Scope of
integration

Unclear

Size: Over 500 students
Duration: multiple
courses over multiple
years

Complexity: addition of
STEAM-related
activities and curriculum
into existing academic
program

School-wide initiative. STEAM-focused
magnet school with no application process for
students who live within its attendance
boundaries. Students living outside the
attendance boundaries must apply.

Implementation

Instructional Design:
PBL, PLTW, and
interdisciplinary lessons

Educator Supports:
PLTW training and
opportunities to learn
from other educators

Outcomes

Process and alignment Diffusion of integrated STEM or STEAM
throughout the district from elementary
through high school.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 81

Preparing students to successfully enter the STEM workforce is another goal included in the
Descriptive Framework for Integrated STEM Education (NAE & NRC, 2014). Although
Superintendent A emphasized STEAM rather than STEM workforce readiness, the literature
recognizes the similarities and connections between STEAM and STEM (NRC, 2014).
One way to prepare students to become competent members of the STEM workforce is to
increase the number of students who earn STEM-related degrees (NAE & NRC, 2014).
Superintendent A identified the purpose of the district as preparing students for post-secondary
education. He referred to the district mission, which included college and career readiness. The
superintendent acknowledged that STEM was not in the mission but stated, “But bottom line is,
when I think about that for me it's so easy to make the connection to STEM. Easy.” In addition,
the STEAM Academy’s website stated that the school prepared students for college and career.
Due to the superintendent’s statements about preparing students for post-secondary education, as
well as his statement about the connection between college and career readiness and STEM, the
assumption that Superintendent A expected 21
st
Century STEAM Academy to prepare students
for postsecondary study in STEM or STEAM seems appropriate. The literature on STEM
education suggests that middle school is an appropriate setting to nurture student interest in
pursuing postsecondary study in STEM (Maltese & Tai, 2010; NAE & NRC, 2014; Tai, Liu,
Maltese, & Fan, 2006).
An additional goal revealed through conversation with Superintendent A was an
educator-specific goal, which targeted teachers involved with 21
st
Century STEAM Academy
(NAE & NRC, 2014). The superintendent described the purpose of the program as providing as
many academic experiences for the students as possible. He recognized, however, that providing
a variety of STEM-related experiences would require support for teachers, particularly those who
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 82

had a minimal understanding of STEM. The superintendent communicated his reasoning
regarding the need to support the teachers by sharing, “But they have to have a deeper
understanding of this because they are the ones who are going to be ultimately teaching it or
creating the conditions for students in the class to be involved in it or learn about it.” Increased
content knowledge and improved teaching practice are goals for integrated STEM education
programs identified in the descriptive framework (NAE & NRC, 2014).
Outcomes. Understandably, outcomes should be closely tied to goals because outcomes
provide evidence of the level of achievement of the goals (NAE & NRC, 2014). However,
Superintendent A admitted to the lack of attention paid to outcomes, or at least plans for
measuring outcomes, when he shared, “I don’t think we’ve done enough with evaluation. In
fact, it’s something my CBO [Chief Business Officer] has asked about, which was a great
question to me about a month and a half ago. It was that concept of how we’re measuring that
things are working.” He further commented,
I’m good at doing things. I’m good at creating the conditions to enhance current
programs or bring in new programs into a district. . . . I believe I engender
leadership and out of that, when you do that, there’s amazing ideas that come out
of that. And so I am very good at that and I feel good about that. But what I’m
not good at enough is measuring okay how do we know that worked. And that’s
actually something that we’ve had some beginning conversations about. Based on
what we’re doing, what’s the criteria we’re going to have that says it’s working?
We’re not that, I personally am not that good at it and I am not pushing forward
enough, but it’s something we are looking for as a cabinet.

These statements not only reveal the lack of a plan for measuring outcomes for the program, but
also support the feelings of the developers of the descriptive framework who suggest that goals
for many integrated STEM programs merely seem to be statements of aspiration rather than
objectives to be achieved and measured (NAE & NRC, 2014).
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 83

Although Superintendent A admitted to the absence of a plan for measuring outcomes, he
identified process and alignment as two outcomes that were important to him. He provided his
perception of process and alignment by sharing,
What I know I did want to have happen was that alignment between elementary,
middle, and high school. That I did want. There was no doubt about that. This is
not going to be a concept where you have a STEM initiative with what we want
students to be able to do and think it’s just going to happen at the high school.
No, it really has to happen at elementary, middle, and high school.

The superintendent’s desire for alignment among elementary, middle, and high school is
supported by research that identifies a correlation between early interest in science, or expressing
an interest in science prior to high school, and a greater likelihood of earning a science degree
(Maltese & Tai, 2009; Tai, et al., 2006).
Superintendent A offered anecdotal evidence that process and alignment had begun by
sharing the development of relationships among two elementary schools and 21
st
Century
STEAM Academy. He did not provide specifics about the nature of the relationships, but
indicated his anticipation that process and alignment would continue:
And I can tell you already what’s going to begin happening because as
administrators talk with each other they’re seeing that [what’s happening at the
STEAM Academy]. So it’s going to be pretty cool. But what’s going to begin to
happen, and it’s already beginning to, is you have the elementary schools seeing
what’s going on over here in the STEAM Academy attendance area. They’re
beginning to have those conversations with the principal.

Superintendent A did not provide details about how many and which educators—teachers and
administrators—were involved in the conversations, how often the conversations were
happening, or the topics of the conversations. Neither was information provided about plans to
provide expectations or guidance for the conversations. Superintendent A felt the conversations
would happen on their own and he would step in if and when needed: “Little by little that will
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 84

begin to happen without forcing it. Now, do we need to help it? And again, that’s where the
superintendent comes in, because what I look at is okay, is it happening yet?”
Process and alignment are not outcomes identified in the Descriptive Framework for
Integrated STEM Education. However, the developers intended for the framework to provide a
general conceptualization of integrated STEM education rather than provide a comprehensive,
all-inclusive framework. Therefore, outcomes, such as process and alignment, not identified by
the framework developers are plausible. In addition, process and alignment also might be
considered a goal for the program, which would result in a clear connection between goals and
outcomes, providing a means by which the program could be evaluated.
Nature and scope of integration. One element that determines the nature and scope of
integration in an integrated STEM program is the type of STEM connections between and among
the STEM disciplines and the disciplinary focus (NAE & NRC, 2014). For example, a course or
program may have a disciplinary focus on engineering with the connections to math, science, and
technology being made clear to students. Or, the disciplinary foci of a program might be math
and science with the connection between the two subjects being made clear to students. As was
previously mentioned, Superintendent A felt strongly about integrating the arts with the STEM
disciplines. He shared a visit to a community college local to his school district that helped
shape his vision for the STEAM Academy. During the visit, data was shared regarding the
courses to which students wanted access. The data revealed a desire for more access to STEM
classes. However, students also expressed a desire for access to the arts, which prompted the
superintendent to support STEAM at the STEAM Academy. However, he was not specific about
the nature of the connection(s) between art and one or more of the STEM subjects, but he did
imply a connection between art and engineering by connecting engineering and creativity.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 85

Furthermore, the superintendent shared that he developed an understanding of the relationship
between science and math when he took a physics course in college and, thus, recognized how
helping students understand the relationship could develop their understanding of STEM
subjects. However, he did not indicate how the relationship between and among STEM subjects
was reflected in the academic program at 21
st
Century STEAM Academy. Instead, he admitted,
As far as the actual definition of it, I don’t know that I had a definition as far as
what exactly it would be in the classroom. I think more it’s about providing
students opportunities to dive further and develop deeper understanding of science
and math. Ultimately, you don’t necessarily teach engineering, but engineering
concepts when it comes to creativity. . . . Basically, you’re using technology as
the tool to help delve further into each of those areas.”

It seems clear the superintendent had an expectation for some type of integration of the STEAM
subjects. However, as he admitted, there was not a clear understanding of the connections that
would be made between and among the subjects. The case could be that this was not thought
out, or it could be that the details about the STEAM connections were the responsibility of
another educator within the district. In fact, the superintendent shared that he entrusted decisions
about curriculum to the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services.
Superintendent A did not explicitly describe integration nor did he provide an explicit
vision for the types of connections the 21
st
Century STEAM Academy would make between and
among the STEM or STEAM disciplines. However, he explained his understanding of the
connection between math and science. He further explained that although engineering was not
necessarily taught at the STEAM Academy, engineering concepts were used in connection to
creativity and high levels of math. Finally, he shared that technology was a tool that helped
students engage more deeply with each of the other disciplines. Therefore, as was previously
mentioned, it appeared the superintendent had an expectation for integration to occur. However,
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 86

the nature of the integration—the disciplinary focus and the type(s) of connections between or
among the STEAM subjects—were not identified.
The scope of an integrated STEM program includes considerations such as duration,
setting, size, and complexity (NAE & NRC, 2014). Regarding size, setting, and duration at 21
st

STEAM Academy, over 500 students engaged with integrated STEM in a whole school setting,
in multiple courses, over multiple years—grades 6, 7, and 8. Complexity at the STEAM
Academy was represented in a variety of ways. Firstly, STEAM-related activities and
curriculum were inserted into the existing curriculum (NAE & NRC, 2014). The school’s
website defined STEAM as “the broad umbrella” under which the curriculum was organized and
suggested that STEAM supported and supplemented the Common Core State Standards (CCSS).
The CCSS are state-mandated guidelines for what students should know and be able to do in
English-Language Arts and mathematics (CDE, 2015). Public schools, including 21
st
Century
STEAM Academy, are required to implement the CCSS and the state-adopted curriculum.
Therefore, any STEM or STEAM program implemented in a public school during the school day
is, to a greater or lesser extent, an insertion to or enhancement of the regular curriculum.
Inserting STEAM into the existing curriculum was accomplished by staffing the school
with single-subject teachers who were credentialed in the subjects they taught. Teachers
credentialed in the subjects they teach are considered specialists and better able to encourage
student learning than teachers with multiple-subject credentials (Boyd et al., 2008; Hill et al.,
2005). Sixth grade teachers at the school held multiple-subject credentials, however, which
meant transferring them to other schools. As Superintendent A explained, “That started with
some very minor conversations about taking students deeper in content and realizing they
couldn’t just do it with multiple subject teachers.”
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 87

Another element related to the complexity of integrated STEM education at 21
st
Century
STEAM Academy was the implementation of PLTW, a widely used pre-engineering program
available for middle and high schools (Tran & Nathan, 2010). Although PLTW is a ready-made
curriculum, Superintendent A explained the program’s requirement for teachers delivering the
curriculum to attend a one week training during the summer. Although development of the
curriculum was not a factor, professional development was required. However, the professional
development was provided only for the two teachers who taught the curriculum.
Implementation. At 21
st
Century STEAM Academy, implementation considerations
included instructional design and educator supports (NAE & NRC, 2014). Instructional design
involves approaches to teaching used by an integrated STEM program (NAE & NRC, 2014).
The 21
st
Century STEAM Academy website as well as a superintendent’s message on BCUSD
website identified project-based learning (PBL), an instructional approach that is popular in
integrated STEM programs (CDE, 2014b; NAE & NRC, 2014), as a teaching method used at the
school. In addition, as was previously mentioned, Superintendent A shared that PLTW
curriculum was implemented at 21
st
Century STEAM Academy. PLTW uses the PBL approach
(Tran & Nathan, 2010). Instructional approaches in addition to PBL and PLTW were used at the
school. For example, the school website indicated that students engaged in interdisciplinary
lessons, the Common Core State Standards, and STEAM-related electives. However, specific
details about the teaching approaches were not provided.
At 21
st
Century STEAM Academy an additional implementation consideration was
educator supports. Educator supports identified during data analysis included professional
development and opportunities for educators connected to the school to improve their content
knowledge and teaching practice (NAE & NRC, 2014). As was discussed earlier, 21
st
Century
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 88

STEAM Academy implemented PLTW at the school, which included a week-long training for
the two teachers delivering the PLTW curriculum. He also revealed the opportunities provided
for teachers to learn from others by sharing, “It’s about giving people experience to go
someplace else that might be cutting edge and then thinking how does this impact your school?
You can’t copy it, but you can learn from it.” He expanded on this thought by revealing, “We’re
going to different places to learn about things. Whether it’s Project Lead the Way, whether it’s a
Google summit. Whatever it is, people are going and from there they’re bringing learning back
that influences us. People are more apt to go to other schools. They want to visit other schools.
They want to learn from those schools and see how it impacts their own school.” He also shared
his belief about his role in providing opportunities for his teachers to learn from other educators,
“I just think it’s so important to create the conditions for people to talk with and learn from each
other. That to me is so critical. And it’s something we have been able to do across our district.”
Superintendent A’s Decision to Support Implementation of STEAM Education
The previous section presented an analysis of 21
st
Century STEAM Academy using the
NAE and NRC (2014) Descriptive Framework for Integrated STEM Education and data from the
superintendent interview and document reviews. The framework provided a perspective and
vocabulary for studying the STEAM Academy. Analysis of the data using the descriptive
framework revealed Superintendent A chose to support implementation of a STEAM initiative
rather than STEM. In addition, the superintendent recognized the importance of showing
students the connections among the STEAM disciplines, however, he had not considered how
integration would happen at the school. Nonetheless, it was clear he anticipated some type of
integration would occur. This section will address the factors that influenced the
superintendent’s decision to support implementation of STEAM integration.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 89

The purpose of the present study was to gain insight into how school superintendents'
understandings and beliefs about integrated STEM education impact implementation of
integrated STEM initiatives within their districts. Although Superintendent A was not involved
in every aspect of implementation, he was instrumental in establishing the 21
st
Century STEAM
Academy. Determining the factors affecting his decision to support implementation of
integrated STEAM education provided insight into the superintendent’s understandings and
beliefs about integrated STEM education. Rogers’ (2003) theory of diffusion of innovation was
the theoretical framework used for analyzing data to identify factors that led to Superintendent
A’s decision to support the establishment of 21
st
Century STEAM Academy.
Rogers’ (2003) theory of diffusion of innovation identifies four elements of diffusion: an
innovation, communication, time, and a social system. The decision to implement an innovation
is associated with the element of time, specifically the innovation-decision process (Rogers,
2003). The innovation-decision process begins with an individual gaining an awareness or
knowledge of the innovation followed by him or her forming an attitude, favorable or
unfavorable, towards the innovation (Rogers, 2003).
Superintendent A indicated that he gained awareness and developed a positive attitude
towards STEM integration before he became superintendent. In describing how he gained
awareness of STEM, Superintendent A shared,
The first recognition of STEM goes back to my early years of being a director, not
so much a principal, but more of a director and a superintendent. That’s when I
began having more of a bigger vision for it. But, I always got concerned that
what we were doing in schools was doing a lot of reading, math, writing—the
three R’s—but we weren’t really going deep into science and we really weren’t
going deep enough into social studies. . . . But because there was so much
emphasis on NCLB, it was tough to move from that. But that was the beginning
awareness for me.

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 90

Superintendent A also shared the beginnings of his recognition of the significance of technology
in education. He recounted an experience from the early 1990’s, when he was a principal, in
which he communicated to teachers his feelings about the importance of technology in
education:
I know technology is important. I know it’s going to play a big role for our
students and we want to prepare them for that. But I don’t have the technology
background. However, I do know two things about technology. One is that I
want it for every single kid in our school. Two, I do not want to have it where it’s
for rote learning. That’s not what the new technology is.

The superintendent revealed that his next level of awareness was the result of reading The
World is Flat by Thomas L. Friedman. Superintendent A divulged that he read the book within
six months of its release. He described how reading the book impacted his perspective on
education by sharing, “That really began to shape my understanding of what we need to do in
education. It wasn’t so much about education within the three R’s. It was who we were going to
have to compete with globally. So, that was another level of understanding for me.” Another
book, The Global Achievement Gap by Tony Wagner, further shaped the superintendent’s
perceptions of STEM education. “Ultimately, what it told me was that we really aren’t doing
enough in general in public schools, or schools in general in the United States. And part of it is
we’re not preparing students to be those critical thinkers.”
Superintendent A shared two relatively recent experiences that impacted his perception of
STEAM as well as his vision for 21
st
Century STEAM Academy. One involved the meeting
with representatives from a community college local to BCDUSD in which the superintendent
learned the students at the college wanted more access to STEM subjects and to the arts. The
experience caused Superintendent A to consider STEAM rather than STEM. The second
experience was a visit to a university campus that provided PLTW training. The superintendent
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 91

shared that the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services informed him of a PLTW
informational meeting at the university and that he, the assistant superintendent, and several
secondary school principals attended the meeting. The informational meeting convinced the
superintendent to support the adoption PLTW.
Superintendent A’s early awareness of STEM appears to have come from his experiences
as an educator and his perceptions of what was and was not happening in education. His
awareness was enhanced by information gained from two books as well as from meetings at two
postsecondary educational institutions. These experiences caused him to form a favorable
attitude towards STEM integration. The superintendent shared additional experiences that
caused him to form a favorable attitude toward implementing integrated STEM education. One
of these was the recognition that he had the leadership in place to make such an initiative
successful. He revealed, “I just don’t think you can do anything without the right leadership.
You need the awesome teachers in the classroom, but without that principal, forget it.” Diffusion
of innovation theory suggests that prior to the actual implementation of an innovation, the
process “has been a strictly mental exercise of thinking and deciding” (Rogers, 2014, p. 179).
Therefore, the superintendent’s recognition of having the needed leadership can be considered an
activity that led to his decision to adopt STEM integration. The superintendent shared other
experiences including conversations with the principal of the STEAM Academy at Burke “about
taking students deeper in content.”
The experiences previously described represent activities that caused Superintendent A to
form a favorable opinion towards STEM integration. However, although the experiences were
framed within a discussion of STEM, integrated STEM or integrated STEAM education may not
have been explicitly part of his early understanding nor his perception when he supported
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 92

establishing a STEAM academy in his district. In fact, he admitted that when he envisioned 21
st

Century STEAM Academy he did not have a sound definition of STEM or STEAM integration.
He revealed, “And so I’m not going to pretend I have a deep understanding of the sciences or
anything like that. No, I don’t. I just know what I want our students to be able to have access to.
And for me that’s what drives me versus some of the curriculum side.” Despite the fact that
Superintendent A did not have a definition of STEM or STEAM integration when he made the
decision to support its implementation within the district, as was previously discussed, he did
anticipate it would occur. Furthermore, he shared that he entrusted curricular and some
implementation decisions to the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services, the principal
of 21
st
Century STEAM Academy, and the teachers. He felt that his role was to create the
conditions for implementation to happen.
The superintendent’s perception of integrated STEAM education. Prior to making
the decision to support implementation of an innovation, an individual is involved in a mental
process that leads to him or her adopting the innovation (Rogers, 2003). Diffusion of innovation
theory suggests that several factors, the perceived attributes of the innovation, impact the
formation of the adopter’s attitude towards the innovation (Roger’, 2003). In the present study,
the attributes of the innovation represent the superintendent’s perceptions of the benefits and
challenges associated with STEAM integration.
One of the perceived attributes of STEAM integration was its relative advantage, or
Superintendent A’s feeling or belief that STEAM integration was better than approaches already
in use (Rogers, 2003). The literature suggests that integrated STEM education is a reform with
the potential to increase student interest and achievement in the STEM disciplines (Gloeckner,
1991; Herschbach, 2011; NAE & NRC, 2014). STEAM is considered an important inclusion in
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 93

STEM learning ecosystems and also is thought to be an approach that supports increased
achievement and interest in STEM (NRC, 2014). Superintendent A shared his belief that
STEAM integration might be a better alternative to what was currently happening in education,
particularly with respect to math, science, and technology. For example, he shared his concern
that while NCLB had placed significant focus on math, science and the critical thinking
associated with science were neglected. In addition, he shared his recognition of the importance
of technology in education. Furthermore, he expressed his concerns that students were not being
prepared for the jobs of the future. Each of these concerns was related to the traditional or
established approaches to STEM education. As a result, it seems clear Superintendent A felt
STEAM integration had advantages over the traditional approach to teaching the STEM
disciplines.
Another perceived attribute of STEAM integration was its compatibility, or the extent to
which the superintendent felt or understood it to be consistent with his values, experiences, and
needs (Rogers, 2003). The superintendent shared his desire to prepare students for
postsecondary education and for the jobs of the future. He also shared his belief in the
importance of the arts and his desire to provide students access to the arts. He revealed his belief
about the importance when he discussed the data regarding students at a local community
college: “Well, it makes sense. That’s what ultimately is the whole person. Arts are part of who
we are. Whether it’s music. Whether it’s drawing. Whether it’s poetry. . . . And so it does
relate to that well-rounded person.” He also suggested that participation in the arts may help
students get into college and then shared, “So, again it goes back to our overall vision [which] is
to try to get kids competitive and into the colleges and universities they choose to go to.”
Although the superintendent seemed passionate about supporting student access to the arts, he
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 94

was not specific about how access would be provided, particularly at 21
st
Century STEAM
Academy. However, each of the experiences just provided are evidence that STEAM integration
was compatible with the superintendent’s values, beliefs, needs, and experiences.
In addition to being compatible with the values, experiences, and needs of the
superintendent, the extent to which STEAM integration was compatible with the values,
experiences, and needs of the district also influenced the superintendent’s attitude towards the
innovation. He shared that as superintendent he recognized where the jobs were going to be and
believed he was responsible for building momentum for a vision he thought would prepare
students for those jobs. As he shared, “It was more where I think as a district and as a
superintendent I felt this is where we needed to go; and so let’s just go. Let’s get it done.” He
also recognized the importance of ensuring his vision aligned with the school board’s vision. He
referred to the district mission, which included preparing students to be college and career ready.
In addition, the superintendent shared concerns about the school district’s decline in enrollment.
He and other administrators within the district felt 21
st
Century STEAM Academy and PLTW
would attract students to the district. Therefore, it seemed that integrated STEAM was
compatible with the values and needs of the district as well as those of the superintendent.
Another factor that can impact an adopter’s attitude towards an innovation is his or her
perception of the complexity of the innovation, or the level of difficulty of understanding and
using the innovation (Rogers, 2003). Although complexity can have the effect of causing an
individual to form a negative opinion of an innovation and reject its adoption, in some cases,
complexity may not be as important as relative advantage or compatibility. This seemed to be
the case with Superintendent A because although challenges were associated with implementing
STEAM integration, the superintendent felt it was important to surmount the challenges.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 95

An example of the superintendent surmounting the complexity associated with
implementing STEAM integration at the STEAM Academy was related to implementing PLTW
(NAE & NRC, 2014; Rogers, 2003). Two teachers were given the assignment of delivering the
PLTW curriculum and had to receive professional development. Presumably, the professional
development supported the teachers in understanding how to implement PLTW and, to some
extent, STEAM integration. In addition to the professional development, there were other costs
and considerations involved with implementing PLTW. Superintendent A shared,
It is expensive to start off. You start off with that training, a week during the
summer, all the equipment that you have to have. You know these are the things
you kind of find out a little bit later. This is a decent amount of money. But on
the same token, it’s a commitment I think our district needed to make. We are
about preparing children for post-secondary education. That’s what we’re about.
Not everyone is going to go, and that’s okay. But we don’t want to be the ones to
have made that choice for them. So given that, we want to provide the best
opportunities for them.

An additional area related to the complexity of integrated STEAM at the STEAM
Academy was associated with staffing the school in order to implement PLTW and other
STEAM-related curriculum and pedagogy (NAE & NRC, 2014). Superintendent A explained
that conversations between him and the principal of the STEAM Academy resulted in the
decision to staff the school with single subject teachers. The principal had tried to achieve this in
the past, but had been stopped. The superintendent described the experience,
The place [the principal had] been stopped in the past is in the personnel area
because HR [human resources] said, no I don’t think you can do that. Well, yeah
we can do that. But also what HR is looking at is who is the superintendent,
because they were going on the past superintendent and that past superintendent
may not have wanted to deal with some of that flack they were going to get from
the union. Because what we were going to do is if you’re going to have all single
subject teachers, that means the multiple subject teachers of 6
th
grade have to go
someplace else. My feeling was well you know this is going to benefit our
district, let’s move forward. Another superintendent would have said, hmmm, I
don’t know if I want to take the hassle from the union.

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 96

In addition, the superintendent had to consider how staffing 21
st
Century STEAM Academy
affected the other schools. He shared, “It’s going to create issues now. If I’m at one school and
one or two or three teachers are coming from this school over to my school, this school is going
to feel it. So one of the things I had to then take into account also was so what is going to be the
impact to this school?”
Complexity also included issues associated with understanding what STEM or STEAM
integration is and how to effectively use it (NAE & NRC, 2014; Rogers, 2003). However, the
superintendent did not discuss professional development other than PLTW. Additionally,
although the school was staffed with teachers credentialed in the subjects they taught, there was
no mention of providing professional development for the teachers to improve their content and
pedagogical knowledge. As was discussed earlier, though, the superintendent provided
opportunities for teachers to learn from others. Although he provided teachers with opportunities
to visit other sites, however, he did not discuss how many teachers from the STEAM Academy
were involved in the visits nor did he discuss how the visits were meant to impact the content
knowledge and pedagogy of teachers.
Trialability, or the opportunity to experiment with STEAM integration on a limited basis,
was another factor with the potential to influence the superintendent’s perception (Rogers, 2003).
The 21
st
Century STEAM Academy seemed to represent trialability for Superintendent A.
Superintendent A could have implemented STEAM district-wide or at all middle schools in the
district. Instead, he supported implementation at the school where the principal was passionate
about STEAM and presented a compelling argument for proceeding. The superintendent shared
that he put his trust in strong leaders who advocate for reforms and innovations at their schools.
He shared, “You’re the principal of the school. I believe very strongly because that’s why you’re
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 97

the principal. Leaders do things that are right, the right things.” In addition, as was described
earlier, the superintendent believed that STEAM and STEM initiatives would diffuse throughout
the district as a result of communication among teachers and administrators. This, of course, is
the basic premise behind diffusion of innovation—the process by which an innovation is
communicated over time among a social system. Therefore, because Superintendent A
implemented integrated STEAM on a limited basis at 21
st
Century STEAM Academy, it seems
that implementation of the program represents trialability.
A final factor that had the potential to influence the superintendent’s perception of
STEAM integration was observability, or opportunities to observe the results of another STEM
or STEAM program or PLTW before establishing the school or implementing the courses.
Superintendent A’s description of opportunities to visit and learn from other sites was presented
earlier. However, he did not provide specific detail as to whether those sites included integrated
STEM or STEAM. In addition, if the sites visited did include integrated education initiatives,
the superintendent did not discuss if or how the visits influenced his perception of integrated
STEAM. The superintendent did have an opportunity to see a presentation on PLTW that caused
him to support implementation of the courses. PLTW can be considered integrated STEM,
though, because the courses attempt to make connections between and among STEM disciplines
(Tran & Nathan, 2010; Prevost et al., 2009). Although it was not clear how each visit the
superintendent described influenced his impression of STEAM integration, the STEAM
Academy could serve as a site to observe before implementing additional initiatives within the
district.
As has been shared, the superintendent recognized that he had the leadership within the
district to support implementation of a STEAM program. In addition, he had access to data from
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 98

a community college indicating the academic programming to which students wanted access. He
also attended a PLTW information meeting and participated in conversations with district
personnel about implementing PLTW and STEAM. Furthermore, the superintendent perceived
STEAM integration to be better to traditional approaches to teaching the STEM disciplines and
that it was compatible with his experiences, values, beliefs, and needs as well as those of the
district.
Each of the factors described above could have influenced the superintendent’s attitude
towards STEAM integration; or they could have influenced his decision to adopt STEAM
integration (Rogers, 2003). Decision is the phase in the innovation-decision process in which an
individual is involved in activities that cause him or her to adopt or reject an innovation (Rogers,
2003). Diffusion of innovation suggests there may not be a clear distinction between stages and
there may be difficulty distinguishing one stage from the next (Rogers, 2003). This was the case
with Superintendent A. For example, it was unclear which activities resulted in his final decision
to adopt integrated STEAM. He stated that the informational session at the university resulted in
a decision to implement PLTW, but it was not obvious whether the information session was the
deciding factor for supporting the establishment of 21
st
Century STEAM Academy or whether
another previously discussed factor influenced his decision. What is obvious, though, is that a
decision was made to implement integrated STEAM.
Superintendent A Supports Implementation of Integrated STEAM
Diffusion of innovation theory suggests that implementation of an innovation goes
beyond mental activity to overt actions involved in putting the innovation into use (Rogers,
2003). Identifying the actions and behaviors of Superintendent A in support of STEAM
integration at 21
st
Century STEAM Academy provided insight into the relationship between his
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 99

understandings of and beliefs about STEAM integration and his actions, behaviors, and
decisions.
Implementation of integrated STEAM at the STEAM Academy included the instructional
approaches used at the school and educator supports provided to teachers and administrators
(NAE & NRC, 2014; Rogers, 2003). As has already been discussed, PBL was an instructional
approach identified on the school’s website. In addition, PLTW, which also utilizes PBL as its
instructional approach, was implemented at the school. The school’s website also identified
interdisciplinary lessons as an additional instructional approach. The findings did not indicate
the exact nature of integration at the school. However, it seemed apparent that Superintendent A
anticipated some type of integration although he admitted he was not directly involved in
curricular decisions. He admitted, “You have to have [curriculum], but I don’t spend a lot of
time there, to be honest with you. It’s more about let’s make sure we . . . create the conditions
for it.”
Instead of being involved with curricular decisions, Superintendent A entrusted such
decisions to an assistant superintendent and to the educators at the school. However, as he
shared, he strongly felt his responsibility was to create the supportive conditions that allowed
those entrusted with implementation to move forward as successfully as possible. One way in
which the superintendent created supportive conditions was to ensure that needed resources,
including money and people, were available. For instance, he shared that implementing PLTW
was an expensive endeavor. However, he felt it was important and he found a way to provide
funding. He shared his beliefs by explaining,
For me, when I think about anything in relation to STEAM in our district, it’s
always a zero sum game. We have to spend money there, but it doesn’t mean that
there’s something else maybe that we stop spending money on. I’m a big believer
in re-purposing money. And so, in many ways, that’s what we’ve had to do,
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 100

which is okay with me because this is a priority for our district. So, therefore,
we’re going to make sure we have the funds to support it.

In addition, the superintendent shared that the reason two teachers received PLTW
training was to provide a safeguard in the event one of the teachers left the school. He shared a
discussion with his assistant superintendent who suggested they needed to train more than one
teacher. The superintendent responded, “Well okay, you know what? That makes sense. You
know, for whatever reason. Let’s pretend the person gets a job someplace else or becomes an
administrator or who knows what. You can’t just rely on the one. But that takes funds. It’s
being able to say to her, great idea. Let’s do it. Versus, oh, I don’t know if we can do this.”
As well as ensuring the needed resources were available, Superintendent A felt it was
important to support the leaders in maintaining momentum towards fulfillment of the district’s
vision. He shared,
In relation to STEM as a superintendent, that’s where the jobs are going to be.
So, that’s when we began having conversation here about leadership. . . . And it
was really, I don’t want to say my vision as much as conversation. But also,
when you’re in a place of influence, you’re able to influence the conversation.
And so I think for a superintendent, that’s what a superintendent does. You’re
really trying to build momentum for a vision that you think will move students
forward, but realizing you have to have the adults to implement it.

The superintendent built momentum by making information available to the leaders. As he said,
“. . . you’re trying to give them tidbits. You’re trying to give them information. You want it to
come from them. The most powerful thing that happens is when someone says I want to do this
versus I have to do this. . . . I think that’s, as a superintendent, one of the most powerful things
that we help make happen within our district is when people say I want to do this.”
Momentum also was built and sustained among the leadership in the district by his
actions that conveyed his support. He described how and why he was supportive: “Realizing
that when someone is going forward with something new, it’s going to be those beginnings
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 101

where they have not done it before that if you give them approval for it, then it encourages them
now to do the next level and the next level. And then pretty soon they’re not really asking
anymore.” He also shared that sometimes his job was “to help people relax a little about what
we’re trying to do. Or also to say, you know what, this is what we’re doing. Get over it.”
As was discussed above, Superintendent A identified his important actions and behavior
as those related to creating supportive conditions for implementing STEM or STEAM. Creating
supportive conditions included providing access to information, ensuring that financial and
human resources were available, helping staff navigate hurdles, and providing motivation and
other emotional support. In addition, the superintendent used influence where needed.
Case Study: Superintendent B – Bayview STEM Academy
Overview
Superintendent B was involved in the planning and opening of Bayview STEM Academy
(BSA) in XYZ Unified School District (XYZUSD). He explained that BSA opened in 2011 as a
separate school with grades 5 through 8 on the campus of an existing middle school. The school
moved to its own campus for the 2012-2013 school year, which is the first school year for which
demographic information was available. During the 2012-2013 school year, enrollment in
XYZUSD was over 40,000 students in grades Kindergarten through 12. Of the student
enrollment, almost two-thirds were identified as SED and just over one-third were Hispanic or
Latino. Approximately 17 percent were EL. Fifty schools made up XYZUSD. BSA was
identified as one of the middle schools.
During the 2014-2015 school year, BSA served students in grades 5 through 10.
Superintendent B explained that BSA opened as a middle school serving grades 5 through 8 with
the intention of expanding to high school. He identified the school as a magnet school designed
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 102

to support students with specific “interests and assets” in STEM. Students were required to
apply and gain acceptance to BSA. Student enrollment in 2012-2013, the first year for which
demographic data was available, was just over 400 students in grades 5 through 8, with less than
one-third identified as SED. Approximately 38 percent were Hispanic/Latino or African
American.
The demographics of BSA did not reflect some of the diversity within the district. For
example, White students represented approximately one-fourth of the district’s student
population but almost one-half of the student population at BSA. Conversely, close to 60
percent of the students within the district were identified as Hispanic or Latino while 30 percent
of students at BSA were Hispanic or Latino. In addition, nearly two-thirds of the students in the
district were identified as SED but just over one-third of students at BSA were identified as SED.
Furthermore, 17 percent of students in XYZUSD were classified as EL while less than 1 percent
of students at BSA were EL. The comparisons presented above are significant because of BSA’s
potential to increase student interest and achievement in the STEM disciplines. Members of
student groups that typically achieve lower on assessments in science and math and who are also
traditionally underrepresented in postsecondary study and careers in STEM seemed to be
underrepresented at BSA (Atkinson & Mayo, 2010; CoSTEM, 2013; Hurtado, Cabrera, Lin,
Arellano, & Espinosa, 2008; Palmer, Maramba, & Dancy II, 2011; Rhodes, Stevens, &
Hemmings, 2011; Wright, 2011). Ensuring equity of access to all student groups is one of the
challenges of implementing STEM education initiatives identified in Chapters 1 and 2.
Following is an analysis of Bayview STEM Academy using the Descriptive Framework
for Integrated STEM Education, the interview with the superintendent, and the reviews of
documents. The analysis is also reflected in Table 4-2.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 103

Integrated STEM at Bayview STEM Academy
Goals. STEM workforce readiness is a goal for integrated STEM education identified in
the descriptive framework and that was inferred from analysis of the data collected during the
present study (NAE & NRC, 2014). The framework suggests that increasing the number of
students who earn STEM-related degrees is an approach that can develop a capable STEM
workforce (NAE & NRC, 2014). Increasing the number of students who earn STEM-related
degrees will require students with both interest and proficiency in one or more of the STEM
disciplines (Atkinson & Mayo, 2010; CoSTEM, 2013; PCAST, 2010; TAP Coalition, 2005).
According to Superintendent B, BSA targeted students who already had interest and talent in
STEM. He stated that BSA sought to develop both of these attributes by creating a specialized
school focused on math and science. Superintendent B’s contention is supported by the literature
which defines a specialized school as a school that provides an educational program for students
with interest and talent in specific academic domains, such as one or more of the STEM
disciplines (Thomas & Williams, 2010).
In addition to creating a specialized school focused on math and science that would
support high levels of student achievement, Superintendent B shared that the school developed a
partnership with the math and science departments of a university located in the same city as
BSA. The intentions behind developing the partnership were two-fold. One was to use the
university as a resource to provide enriching and rigorous experiences, such as mentorships with
graduate students at the university, which could motivate students to select and persist in STEM-
related study beyond secondary school (Almarode et al., 2014). Besides being a resource for
BSA, another intention of the partnership was to encourage students to earn STEM degrees at the
university. Superintendent B explained,
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 104

And part of the promise for [the university] and my contention was if we really
engage students strongly with your staff and with your faculty, when it comes
time for them, and these are going to be our National Merit Scholars. I mean
these are going to be kids that are going to be high flyers and there will be lots of
people that will offer them opportunities, whether it’s Cal Tech or MIT or
Carnegie Mellon, or wherever. I mean they’re going to be offered those kinds of
opportunities and then you’re going to go why didn’t they go to [our university]?
This way I think they stay with [the university] because they go I’m already
[there]. I’m already engaged in legitimate research there with those professors,
with those graduate students. Why would I go there, wherever the there is? And
so it was to create a strong connection locally that enhances both of us. So it
enhances the K-12 experience. But it also enhances, on the other end, the higher
ed. experience.

Outcomes. Student learning and achievement is an outcome identified in the Descriptive
Framework for Integrated STEM Education and one that was evident in Superintendent B’s
discussions of his expectations for BSA (NAE & NRC, 2014). As he shared,
This has to be the real deal. This is not doing it light. . . . So typically there was
an expectation that Algebra would be a 7
th
grade issue. They [BSA students]
would be on to geometry in 8
th
grade. And it’s not like well, I did my high school
requirements, I’m done. No. Because you just set yourself up. In other words,
that progression will be a four-year progression in high school as well. And the
other thing it’s not like I just survived the class. No. You need to be highly
competent because this is the language of the work you’re going to do as you go
forward.

It seemed clear that the superintendent’s vision was to provide a program that caused students
not only to persist in STEM, but also to be highly proficient. However, when asked how high
levels of proficiency would be measured, Superintendent B admitted the difficulty of such
measurement.
CCSS had not yet been implemented when BSA opened and the assessments based on
standards used prior to CCSS were being used to measure learning and achievement. Although
state testing is considered an appropriate means of determining learning and achievement,
Superintendent B recognized the need for a different method because the students at BSA had
“particular skills” in math and science and were expected to do well on state testing.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 105

TABLE 4-2 Integrated STEM at Bayview STEM Academy
HIGH-LEVEL
FEATURE
SUBCOMPONENT RELEVANT DETAILS
Student goals

STEM workforce
readiness
School-university partnership to support
development and maintenance of student
interest and ability in STEM as well as to
facilitate the transition from secondary school
to STEM-related study at the university.
Nature of
integration

Scope of
integration

Disciplinary focus:
science and math

Size: 415 students in
grades 5-8 when school
opened in 2012.

Duration: multiple
courses over multiple
years

Complexity: addition of
STEM activities to the
existing curriculum;
acceleration of learning
in math and science

Specialized STEM school
Implementation

Adjustment to the
learning environment:
extended class periods
for math and science;
school-university
partnership

Student outcomes

Learning and
achievement

STEM course-taking
and persistence

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 106

Superintendent B speculated about ways in which the evaluation system could be
changed to assess high levels of achievement in STEM, suggesting that, perhaps, the National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), the National Council of Science Teachers
(NCST), and other organizations should create assessments. As he shared, “In other words, we
need a different way to look at this thing than just the customary way because obviously we’ve
got different kinds of kids.”
Superintendent B also described an alternative to traditional standardized tests by sharing
the experience of two BSA students who worked with graduate students at the university:
We tried to look at more of what I’ll call science fair, but like longitudinal science
fair, which gets back to the two kids I was talking about [who worked with
mentors]. They’re science fair, if you will, is not a one time deal of I was
working with this graduate student in this area and I’m done and I did my 3 poster
boards and we’re done. No, this is a longer-term project of 3, 4, 5 years that I’ll
be engaged in with them.

Despite Superintendent B’s description of the longitudinal science fair used by BSA, the
description did not indicate specifically how the science fair measured learning and achievement.
Another outcome identified in the descriptive framework and evident in the data captured
from Superintendent B was STEM course-taking and persistence (NAE & NRC, 2014). When
providing a rationale for having students enter BSA in middle school, Superintendent B
explained, “You can’t have kids show up at high school and start STEM. The reality is that if
they haven’t built the onramp skills, you can’t get where you want to go. . . . And so let’s
develop those so that when we actually get to high school we can do the kind of work that we’re
talking about and do a seamless transition into [the local university], frankly.” As was
previously mentioned, BSA was involved in a partnership with the local university. One
expectation of the partnership was that student’s would continue STEM course-taking at the
university level. Therefore, it seemed clear that STEM course-taking and persistence was an
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 107

expected outcome for students at BSA. However, although Superintendent B indicated the
expectation that students at BSA would persist in STEM course-taking at the local university,
there was no indication of how this would be measured.
Nature and scope of integration. The nature and scope of integration in an integrated
STEM program includes the type of STEM connections between and among the STEM
disciplines and the disciplinary focus of the program (NAE & NRC, 2014). Superintendent B
was explicit in identifying science and math as the disciplinary focus of the school. He shared,
“The focus there is going to have to be on science and math because there is not enough math
background yet for kids to really integrate well with the engineering side or with the technology
side, either one.” Superintendent B elaborated on his reasoning for the focus on math and
science at BSA by sharing,
At best the latter part of high school you probably have sufficient math that you
can begin to talk about those issues, but before that you can fiddle with it and you
can do some Project Lead the Way things and so forth, but that’s different than
true engineering because until you’ve gone through calculus, you’re not likely to
really be able to do that. And even physics, there is physics lite, and you can
understand, see, the phenomenon, but you can’t really engage in the conversation
of what physics is about unless you have a calculus background.

The superintendent’s vision of a disciplinary focus on math and science and his explanation of
the connection between calculus and physics was consistent with the literature on STEM
education which indicates that STEM integration includes approaches that support students in
understanding the connections between or among two or more of the STEM disciplines as well
as a focus on one or more of the disciplines (NAE & NRC, 2014). Therefore, it seemed apparent
that the superintendent had an expectation for STEM integration to occur at the school, although
it appeared he anticipated the integration would not begin until high school. Additionally, the
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 108

focus on math and science was consistent with the literature that points to the focus on math and
science in STEM initiatives (Bybee, 2010; NAE & NRC, 2014; NRC, 2011a; NRC, 2011b).
It was evident that Superintendent B had a clear vision about the experience in which he
wanted to engage students at BSA. The superintendent explained that his background caused
him to have strong feelings about the types of experiences BSA should offer students. He
shared, “My undergraduate degree on the wall up there is in chemistry. So, I come from that
world of math and science and so forth. . . . And so, I guess my bias and my background and all
those things influenced the conversation as we went forward and there were some kind of deal
breakers.”
The scope of an integrated STEM program would include considerations such as
duration, setting, size, and complexity (NAE & NRC, 2014). In the case of BSA, Superintendent
B intended for the students to experience STEM in a progression from 5
th
through 12
th
grades.
The setting was a school site in which students were enrolled on a full-time basis. Regarding the
size, the school opened with approximately 200 students in grades 5 through 8 and had grown to
just over 500 students in grades 5 through 10 at the time of the current study. The superintendent
stated that the intention was for the school to continue adding grades until it serviced students
through grade 12. The program represented a small fraction of the school district, something that
is not uncommon with integrated STEM programs (NAE & NRC, 2014).
The complexity of integrated STEM education at BSA was not fully revealed by the data.
The complexity of integrated STEM at BSA included the manner in which efforts to make
connections between and among STEM subjects were managed in relation to the existing
curriculum of the school. Although Superintendent B indicated that the program at BSA was
accelerated by doubling up on math and science, details about the curriculum itself was not
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 109

provided. Public schools are required to deliver the content standards adopted by the state,
including the standards for math and science. Therefore, the assumption that integration efforts
were inserted into the regular curriculum seemed safe. However, the doubling up of math and
science seemingly would require some flexibility with or manipulation of the rest of the
curriculum. Superintendent B indicated this might be true. He shared, “I mean we still had
English and language arts and social studies. Didn’t spend nearly as much time on it.” In
addition, the school website indicated that language arts and social studies were combined into a
course titled Humanities and that the course also integrated STEM which was a further indication
of some type of manipulation of the curriculum.
Providing an accelerated curriculum in math and science while ensuring that students are
highly proficient in those subjects requires not only students with interest and talent in these
areas, but also teachers who can facilitate the learning (NRC, 2011b). Superintendent B shared
his understanding of the importance of ensuring effective teachers were in the classrooms and
also his recognition that not all teachers that taught STEM were effective. However, the
superintendent was not directly involved in the hiring of the teachers. Instead, he gave the
responsibility to the principal of the school. The superintendent admitted, though, that he gave
firm instructions to the principal telling him that he (the principal) was “going to live or die
based on [acquiring effective teachers].”
Implementation. The Descriptive Framework for Integrated STEM Education focuses
on three considerations for implementing integrated STEM programs: instructional design,
educator supports, and adjustments to the learning environment (NAE & NRC, 2014). The
superintendent did not discuss specific details about instructional design and educator supports,
nor does the school’s website address these issues. However, Superintendent B provided details
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 110

about adjustments to the learning environment. Adjustments can include extended class periods
and partnerships with higher-education institutions (NAE & NRC, 2014). Both of these
adjustments were present at BSA.
As was previously discussed, the superintendent indicated that students doubled up on
math and science in order to accelerate learning. According to the school’s website, the doubling
up was accomplished through the daily schedule in which students attended three academic
blocks, with each block being approximately 85 minutes in length. The blocks included math,
science, and humanities. Students also had a daily enrichment class for 30 minutes and 50
minutes of physical education per day. This schedule allowed students to have extended time in
math and science while still accommodating the other mandated curriculum.
The partnership with the local university represented another adjustment to the learning
environment. Although it was unclear whether the university faculty and graduate students
supported educators at BSA, it was clear they provided support to the students by engaging them
in projects and research representative of the types of experiences they would have in
postsecondary study as well as future careers.
Superintendent B’s Decision to Implement STEM Education
The previous section presented an analysis of Bayview STEM Academy using the NAE
and NRC (2014) Descriptive Framework for Integrated STEM Education and data from the
superintendent interview and document reviews. Findings from analysis of the data indicated
that Superintendent B had a clear vision for the experiences in which he wanted students at BSA
to be engaged. The experiences included rigorous coursework in math and science as well as
mentorships with graduate students at a local university. The superintendent was adamant about
a disciplinary focus on math and science for students with talents and interests in those content
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 111

areas. In addition, the superintendent’s vision included the goals of STEM learning and
achievement as well as STEM course-taking and persistence. However, specific plans for
measuring outcomes or evaluating the program did not seem to be part of the superintendent’s
vision. Although the data did not confirm that integration occurred at the school, a focus on
math and science was clear. Superintendent B indicated the focus on math and science would
prepare students for engineering and technology in the latter part of high school and college, but
he did not indicate what supports were provided to assist students in understanding the
connections between math and science and among the STEM disciplines.
Although it was unclear whether integration actually occurred, the superintendent did
support implementation of an initiative he referred to as STEM. Currently in education, use of
the acronym STEM implies some form of integration of or an interdisciplinary approach to
teaching the STEM disciplines (Herschbach, 2011; CDE, 2014b). The superintendent implied an
interdisciplinary approach by discussing a language arts teacher with a strong math and science
background who desired to be in the school because of the environment of the school with the
focus on math and science. Furthermore, the developers of the Descriptive Framework for
Integrated STEM Education suggest that some STEM programs have some form of integration
even if they don’t identify themselves as such. As a result, it seemed appropriate to use
Superintendent B’s perspective in a study of how superintendents’ understandings and beliefs
about integrated STEM education influence implementation of integrated STEM initiatives in
their districts. Superintendent B indicated he was more involved in the design of BSA than what
was normal and maybe more than he should have been. Analyzing the factors affecting his
decision to be involved in the design of BSA, through the diffusion of innovation innovation-
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 112

decision process, provided insight into the superintendent’s understandings and beliefs about
integrated STEM education (Rogers, 2003).
The initial stage of the innovation-decision process is the knowledge stage in which an
individual gains an awareness of an innovaion (Rogers, 2003). Factors leading to Superintendent
B’s initial awareness of integrated STEM were unclear. However, he appeared to have heard
about the approach through his social system of education (Rogers, 2003). When sharing one of
the reasons he was so involved in the design of BSA he stated, “I’d heard too much crazy stuff
about, you know, well we like science and we ought to do STEM. And so it’s kind of a touchy-
feely thing but without the real substance to it. And I was interested in creating something that
had legitimate substance.” He also had an awareness of STEAM, but indicated that he did not
feel it was part of STEM. As he shared, “Is [art] a complement? Often times do STEM people
have arts capacity and interest and so forth? Absolutely. But when you ask me about a STEM
magnet, I think that’s different.” He identified his undergraduate degree in chemistry, which
provided him a background in math, science, and technology, as another reason for his level of
involvement in designing the school, suggesting that his background resulted in a bias that
influenced conversations about the design of the school.
It seemed Superintendent B’s background impacted his perception of what STEM
education should be. For example, his background influenced his desire to establish a selective,
rather than inclusive, specialized STEM academy that focused on math and science. As was
previously mentioned, the superintendent believed that students needed a strong foundation in
math and science before they could engage with engineering and technology. In addition, his
background resulted in a bias against STEAM. The superintendent’s development of a bias in
favor of STEM and against STEAM represents the persuasion stage of the innovation-decision
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 113

process, the stage in which an individual develops a favorable or unfavorable attitude towards an
innovation (Rogers, 2003).
The superintendent’s perception of integrated STEM education. In addition to his
background in STEM, several additional factors, the perceived attributes, appeared to impact
Superintendent B’s attitude towards STEM integration (Rogers, 2003). One perceived attribute
of an innovation is its compatibility with an individual’s values, beliefs, experiences, and needs
(Rogers, 2003). Superintendent B confirmed that STEM integration was compatible with his
background in STEM. In addition, Superintendent B revealed his belief in providing
personalized learning for students. He shared his belief that education should meet the needs of
students who have specific interests and assets. At one point, he suggested the importance of
visual and performing arts (VAPA) programs that target the needs of students who are talented
musicians or dancers, for example. He contended that STEM programs are necessary because
they target the needs of students with talents in the STEM subjects, particularly math and
science.
In addition to compatibility with his own values, beliefs, experiences, and needs, the
superintendent suggested that STEM was compatible with those of the community. He revealed
that parents in the community, particularly those with connections to a local university, wanted
some type of STEM program for their children. In addition, the university was interested in
partnering with a STEM program but wanted to ensure that it was a quality program.
Superintendent B shared, “We wanted to partnership with [a local university] and with their
science and math people, which they agreed to. But again, the notion was that this has to be the
real deal. This is not doing it lite.” The superintendent shared his interest in creating something
with legitimate substance and that his colleagues at the local university “were in much the same
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 114

mode.” Superintendent B explained, “They said we don’t want to mess around with a half-baked
thing and you hang STEM on the door and everybody feels better but you actually don’t
accomplish anything.” As can be seen, Superintendent B felt strongly about developing a
program with “legitimate substance” that met the needs of students with interest and ability in
STEM. Parents and the university partner had the same desire. The superintendent felt that
integrated STEM, with a disciplinary focus on math and science, was compatible with this need,
as did parents and the university partner.
Another perceived attribute of an innovation is its relative advantage, or the extent to
which an individual feels an innovation is better than an approach already in use (Rogers, 2003).
As has been discussed, Superintendent B identified BSA as a specialized school focused on math
and science. He further elaborated by sharing,
. . . we don’t have a football team. We don’t have a band program, etc. And the
reason is because your focus is so singular in nature that you’re probably not all
that interested in the sports and so forth. If you want a sports, comprehensive
high school view where you’re part of the ASB and, you know, you go to the
band and you play soccer and all those kinds of things, you really need the
comprehensive high school. I mean that’s what that’s all about. But if you have a
very singular focus, then this is probably the thing for you.

He also shared that some comprehensive high schools in the district wanted to be identified as
STEM schools because they offered science and math courses and from his perspective what
were claimed to be engineering courses. He shared,
Clearly you’re going to offer science courses, math courses, even engineering
courses, and I put that in quotes. . . . There was that kind of push of like well we
do that too and we don’t want to lose students over that. Well, no. They have
particular skills and assets and they probably belong at [BSA]. Absolutely you
ought to be offering great science classes. You’ve got great science teachers. I
mean I’m not diminishing that. All I’m saying is there’s probably a place for
both.

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 115

The superintendent’s juxtaposition of BSA and the comprehensive high school indicates his
perception of a distinct difference between the two approaches. The distinction made between
math and science at the comprehensive high schools and BSA seemed to indicate the
superintendent’s belief that the approach used at BSA had an advantage over traditional
approaches, at least for students with interests and talents in STEM. As was previously
mentioned, however, the nature of the integration at BSA, if any, was not confirmed. Although
it was not clear whether integration actually occurred, the assumption that some form of
integration or interdisciplinary teaching happened at the school seemed plausible. Therefore, the
assumption that the superintendent perceived relative advantage in his understanding of
integrated STEM seemed appropriate.
Another factor that had the potential to influence the superintendent’s attitude towards
integrated STEM was his perception of its complexity, or the level of difficulty of understanding
and using STEM integration (Rogers, 2003). The Descriptive Framework for Integrated STEM
Education suggests that the complexity of STEM integration involves factors related to the
curriculum and curriculum delivery or pedagogy (NAE &NRC, 2014). As was previously
discussed, Superintendent B’s background in STEM influenced his vision for and involvement in
the design of BSA. He admitted that his content expertise gave him an advantage in influencing
curricular decisions at the school. Superintendent B did not seem to perceive a high level of
complexity associated with implementing an integrated STEM program. However, it was
unclear whether the curricular decisions he influenced were related to content only or whether
they also included the nature of connections between and among STEM disciplines to which
students would be exposed. In other words, did the superintendent only influence the focus on
math and science or did he also influence integration of the subjects?
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 116

An additional area of complexity related to curriculum delivery involved ensuring
effective teachers were assigned to the school. Superintendent B admitted to challenges
associated with staffing the school by describing an encounter with one of the community
partners who was concerned about who would be chosen to teach at the school. In response to
her concerns he shared, “I said look. I have to work with the system. I can’t just pick and
choose teachers without their concurrence, without taking care of the collective bargaining
agreement, and so forth. On the other hand, trust me and believe that actually I know something
about this.” He also shared his understanding of the importance of ensuring the right teachers
were in the classrooms: “So, if you want to come teach math here and you’re here on a
supplemental. You used to be a coach and now you’ve got a math credential. You’re not going
to be comfortable with this.” He suggested that teachers who were interested in STEM would
volunteer to go to the school and others who knew they would not be comfortable in the
environment would not. However, he admitted that he gave the principal of the school the
responsibility of hiring effective teachers.
The superintendent did not seem to perceive a high level of complexity with staffing the
school. He commented, “Well, first of all, I think we have to relax and let the process be the
process.” In addition, he shared, “The contract, the CBA, the collective bargaining agreement
doesn’t scare me if I understand where I’m trying to go. Now, if I’m just sitting back going okay
good luck. Just tell me what’s happening then I can get there. But that’s not a barrier as long as
we understand where we’re going and how to use that to our collective benefit to help us arrive
there.”
Trialability, or the extent to which Superintendent B could experiment with STEM
integration on a limited basis, was represented in the implementation of BSA (Rogers, 2003).
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 117

BSA was opened as a small middle school on the campus of an existing middle school. The
superintendent admitted that members of the community questioned this decision feeling that the
school should have its own campus. The superintendent’s response was that he wanted to start
small because of uncertainty as to whether there would be sufficient interest in BSA. The
following year, BSA moved to its own campus, which suggested the superintendent perceived a
level of success during the first year. However, whether integrated STEM education was
perceived to be part of the success was not specifically discussed. Nonetheless, BSA represented
trialability because the superintendent was able to implement STEM integration on a limited
basis rather than as a large scale or district-wide initiative.
Opportunities for observability, or the extent to which the superintendent was able to
observe the results of another integrated STEM initiative before establishing BSA or
implementing courses was unclear. Superintendent B stated the he heard about programs
claiming to have implemented STEM but which did not seem to have legitimate substance. He
also shared that STEM “has become kind of the program du jour.” However, it was unclear
whether these opinions were formed based on observations of the STEM programs or on
anecdotal information. Although observability was not evident during the superintendent’s
decision-making process in the establishment of BSA, the school can serve as a site to observe
before implementing additional initiatives within the district or in other districts.
As was discussed, it was unclear how Superintendent B developed an awareness of
integrated STEM. In addition, it was unclear which experiences caused him to form a favorable
attitude towards STEM integration and which experiences influenced his decision to adopt
STEM integration. Diffusion of innovation suggests there may not be a clear distinction between
stages and there may be difficulty distinguishing one state from the next (Rogers, 2003). This
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 118

appeared to be the case with Superintendent B because it was unclear which activities resulted in
his final decision to adopt integrated STEM. However, it was obvious a decision was made to
implement integrated STEM.
Superintendent B Supports Implementation of Integrated STEM Education
Once Superintendent B made the decision to adopt integrated STEM education, he
exhibited overt actions that supported its implementation at BSA (Rogers, 2003). The
superintendent revealed that his background in STEM strongly impacted his vision for BSA. His
vision included a disciplinary focus on math and science with integration in the periphery. He
emphasized his belief that students needed a strong foundation in math and science before they
would be ready to integrate engineering and technology. Furthermore, he believed that students
needed to have mastered calculus before they would be ready for engineering. These beliefs
caused him to become highly involved in the design of BSA. His involvement included actions
and decisions involved in maintaining a focus on math and science and high levels of student
competence in those subjects.
One example of the superintendent’s actions to maintain his vision for the school was in
his interactions with community members, including the university partner. He described his
experience:
And the other thing is there’s all these people that want to put their hand in the pot
and stir. . . . You know and it’s like again let’s go back to STEAM, lets add arts
because that sounds like a good idea. Well, you know, what are we going to do
with engineering? And the engineering school wanted to get involved. . . . I said
I’m with you. I want to get you great engineering students, but I can’t get them to
you in the middle school.

The superintendent described his interactions as a dance. He shared, “That’s the best way I can
explain it metaphorically, because there’s going to be times when you sense, in a dance sense,
your partner and you have to move back and not resist and don’t get too engaged. . . . And again,
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 119

you have to kind of have a grand design. When I’m all done we’ve got to end up over here.”
The grand design represented the vision and the dance represented the actions and interactions
that maintained focus on the vision. Superintendent B summarized his feelings on the
importance of the leader having a strong vision:
We have to, I think, keep defining the parameters because there was a set of kind
of criteria I kept coming back to. . . . So when somebody else says well it would
be better if we have STEAM. Okay. It would be better if we have engineering in
7
th
grade. . . . And you know those kids really do deserve a music program. . . .
I’m not disagreeing with that but if we’re really going to get to where we need to
go, we’ve got to have some clear criteria that somebody keeps pounding on the
table saying yeah, but.

Case Study: Superintendent C – Mid-County Regional Occupational Center
Overview
Superintendent C was instrumental in the implementation of several engineering courses
for high school students at Mid-County Regional Occupational Center (MROC). The literature
identifies STEM-focused career and technical education (CTE) as a type of STEM program
(NRC, 2011a; NRC, 2011b). Regional centers that serve many schools are included in the CTE
category (NRC, 2011a; NRC, 2011b). Therefore, it was appropriate to study if and how
integration occurred in the STEM-focused programs at MROC.
MROC served adults and high school students from six school districts. The six districts
included 13 comprehensive high schools and 4 continuation high schools with diverse student
populations. For example, in one school district with an enrollment of approximately 3,500
students, 11% were identified as SED, 5% were EL students, and 15% were students of color. In
another school district with an enrollment of approximately 13,000 students, 82% were identified
as SED, 27% were EL, and 99% were underrepresented minorities.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 120

Courses at MROC were available to high school students and adults. High school
students at the Center registered through their home schools and were given priority for courses
through pre-registration that happened before courses were opened to adults. High school
students were bussed to the Center from their home schools. A variety of STEM-related courses
were available to the high school students, including a number of PLTW courses such as
Aerospace Engineering, Biomedical Innovation, Principles of Engineering, Civil
Engineering/Architecture, and Introduction to Engineering Design. According to
Superintendent C, MROC was the first regional occupational center or program in the state and
the first high school local to MROC to implement PLTW courses. She shared that after the
center implemented PLTW, other districts began adding the curriculum at their high schools.
Following is an analysis of MROC using the Descriptive Framework for Integrated STEM
Education, the interview with the superintendent, and document reviews. The analysis is also
reflected in Table 4-3.
Integrated STEM at Mid-County Regional Occupational Center
Goals. STEM workforce readiness is a goal for integrated STEM education identified in
the descriptive framework (NAE & NRC, 2014). STEM workforce readiness also was a goal of
MROC. The Center’s 2013-2014 Annual Report to the Board of Education identified seven
goals. One of the goals was to provide career pathways that prepare students for postsecondary
work that led to careers of interest to them. The annual report stated that “all courses offered by
MROC were part of one or more career pathways,” which meant the PLTW courses identified by
Superintendent C and included in the MROC annual report were part of pathways that led to
postsecondary study in the STEM disciplines. Furthermore, Superintendent C shared that the

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 121

TABLE 4-3 Integrated STEM at Mid-County Regional Occupational Center
HIGH-LEVEL
FEATURE
SUBCOMPONENT RELEVANT DETAILS
Student goals

STEM workforce
readiness

Developing and
sustaining interest in
STEM
PLTW and The Exciting World of Engineering
target high school students with an interest in
university study and careers in engineering.
Nature of
integration

Scope of
integration

Disciplinary focus:
engineering

Duration and size:
Varied depending on
number of courses taken
and length of each
course

Complexity: depended
on curriculum used;
hiring and training
instructors from industry

PLTW is a ready-made curriculum used for
some engineering classes. The Exciting
World of Engineering class was developed by
an instructor for MROC.
Implementation

Instructional design:
PLTW and PBL

Educator supports:
professional
development for
instructors

Adjustments to the
learning environment:
extended day for by
bussing students to and
from the Center

MROC pays for the busses, which is part of
their operating costs.

Student outcomes

STEM course-taking
and persistence

Development of STEM
interest and identity

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 122

districts MROC served had a large number of students who planned to attend four-year colleges
and universities and to pursue careers in engineering.
In addition to the goal of STEM career readiness, the MROC STEM courses also had the
goal of developing and sustaining interest in STEM, particularly in engineering. Superintendent
C suggested that, in general, the center introduced “various career options to students.” She
further suggested that the PLTW and other engineering courses helped solidify the career choices
of students who already were interested in engineering. Superintendent C acknowledged,
however, that for some students the result of taking engineering courses might be a decision not
to pursue further study related to engineering. However, some students who did have an interest
may be inspired to continue their pursuits in engineering. For these students, the result of the
MROC engineering courses was increased interest and engagement. Superintendent C
explained,
Well, one of the goals of the STEM opportunities that we had at the center was to,
as I said, identify those students who are coming to the center and who are
interested in engineering to not only give them a one shot, if you will,
opportunity, but to really explore with them their career interests. And if it was
engineering, we wanted to be able to give them not only one opportunity, say, for
example, aerospace engineering. We wanted them to also get opportunities in like
the architectural design, civil engineering, electrical engineering, and give them
those opportunities so that they could more clearly define what area of
engineering they wanted to go into.

This statement speaks to the goal of sustaining students’ interest and engagement in STEM. In
addition, it speaks to the goal of engaging students in a way that not only impacts high school
choices, but that also could impact their career choices in the future.
Outcomes. STEM course-taking and educational persistence are outcomes identified in
the Descriptive Framework for Integrated STEM Education and were evident at MROC (NAE &
NRC, 2014). One of the seven goals identified in the annual report was partnerships and
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 123

articulation with stakeholders, including school districts and post-secondary institutions. The
report further indicated that this goal was developed, in part, to “assist students in identifying
postsecondary career pathways.”
Although some of the career pathways may not have necessitated postsecondary study,
the center took steps to make PLTW classes support postsecondary study in a number of ways.
For example, students were able to receive college credit for two of the PLTW engineering
courses due to an articulation agreement with a community college local to MROC. The annual
report also indicated that a number of PLTW courses had received certification to meet A-G
requirements for entrance to state university systems. A-G requirements are courses high school
students must successfully complete to be accepted into either of the two state university
systems. Coordination between universities and school districts to facilitate the acceptance of
STEM courses, such as those developed by PLTW, as fulfillment of college entrance
requirements is considered a positive step towards expanded use of STEM integration in
secondary and postsecondary schools (Gloekner, 1992). Fulfilling university entrance
requirements or earning college credit, combined with the interest and engagement associated
with STEM integration, can result in students at MROC selecting and persisting in STEM
courses. However, there was no evidence of a plan to measure this outcome.
In addition to promoting STEM course-taking and educational persistence, analysis of the
data suggested that STEM interest and development of STEM identity were two additional
desired outcomes of the MROC engineering courses. Interest is developed over time and begins
with an experience, such as an engineering course, that spark students’ interest, causing them to
voluntarily seek additional related engagement (NAE & NRC, 2014). In the current study, the
interest sparking experience was enrollment in one of the engineering courses offered at MROC.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 124

Identity, which refers to how individuals perceive themselves as well as how individuals are
perceived by others, can develop as a result of pursuing one’s interests (NAE & NRC, 2014). In
the case of MROC, as students develop and sustain interest as the result of enrollment in
engineering courses, they can come to identify with engineers which may cause them to pursue
engineering as a career (NAE & NRC, 2014). As with the outcome of STEM course-taking and
persistence, no plan for measuring this outcome was evident. The Descriptive Framework for
Integrated STEM Education acknowledges the difficulty in measuring interest and identity (NAE
& NRC, 2014).
As has been previously discussed, Superintendent C spoke of the PLTW courses as a
means for sustaining interest for those students already expressing interest in becoming
engineers. In addition, she informed that The Exciting World of Engineering course was created
to develop interest and engage students in engineering at an earlier age, with the hopes that
students would continue their study of engineering during their high school careers and beyond.
The course proposal revealed the purpose as providing a practical overview of engineering as a
profession by exposing students to electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, and chemical
engineering. The superintendent explained,
The whole premise behind that was to have that be for ninth graders and get these
younger kids over to the center. It was an exploratory engineering course. It
covered many different areas of engineering through projects and opportunities.
And then from there the kids would say yeah that’s something I want to continue
to do. I’m interested in the civil engineering; I’m interested in the aerospace; I’m
interested in the electrical; or whatever. And then they would go from there in
subsequent grade levels to do their work either at their home schools if they
offered those other programs or at the Center.

As seems evident, the goal of the course was to ignite interest, which could be maintained
through coordination between MROC and the students’ home high schools. Superintendent C
also noted that courses such as those offered at MROC might show students the relevance of the
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 125

math and science they take in high school. The sustained engagement with the engineering
courses, as well as related courses that may be offered at their home schools, can result in the
students developing the identity of engineer.
Nature and scope of integration. The nature of an integrated STEM education program
includes the type of STEM connections between and among the STEM disciplines and the
disciplinary focus of the program (NAE & NRC, 2014). The disciplinary emphasis in the STEM
program at MROC was clearly identified as engineering by Superintendent C. She defined the
program as giving students hands-on experiences in various areas of engineering to help inform
their future career choices.
Although the focus of the program was clear, the type of STEM connections was unclear.
The superintendent spoke of STEM in two contexts:
I define STEM for MROC as a career tech ed. center as exposing students to the
various aspects and areas of engineering and giving them direct hands-on
experiences so that they can make those decisions regarding their future career
interests. That’s how I define STEM for the Center. When I define STEM as a
high school principal or as a superintendent of a K-12 [district] . . . it was more of
a relevance for kids to make those connections back to their math and science.

Earlier in the conversation, Superintendent C expressed a concern that too many students were
not completing high school because they “do not see the relevance of the high school
experience.” She shared her belief about the impact PLTW courses had on students in the
traditional K-12 context:
So from the traditional K-12 standpoint, those courses, I think, serve a couple of
purposes. One, they help emphasize and, I think, make relevant the math and
science that the kids are taking in the high school. . . . And so career tech ed.
courses like the STEM courses that we can implement in the traditional high
schools help kids make that connection as to why they’re taking the math and
science. It also gives those kids that experience to know that they want to pursue
a career in engineering.

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 126

Although the superintendent described integrated STEM education in the traditional high school
setting, integration did not appear to be a priority for her at MROC. Instead, she emphasized
providing students opportunities to explore and prepare for careers in engineering.
Superintendent C spoke several times of STEM integration showing students the connection
between and relevance of math and science, but not in relation to MROC specifically. Therefore,
although it was unclear whether explicit STEM connections were an element of the STEM
program at MROC, it was clear that Superintendent C had knowledge of STEM integration.
The scope of an integrated STEM program includes considerations such as duration,
setting, size, and complexity (NAE & NRC, 2014). In the case of MROC, the duration was
flexible, depending upon the number of courses taken and the length of each course. The setting
was the MROC facility. Students were bussed to and from the facility at the end of their regular
school day at their home schools. Size varied by the number of courses offered. The complexity
of STEM integration, if present, also varied by course. For example, the curriculum for the
PLTW courses was already developed. The Exciting World of Engineering, on the other hand,
was a course that was developed for MROC by an instructor hired to teach at the center.
Another element that affected the complexity of integrated STEM at MROC was the
hiring and training of effective instructors. Superintendent C shared that MROC solicited
instructors from the industries associated with the courses offered by the Center. Instructors
hired from industry were required to enroll in a program to earn a designated subjects credential.
As the superintendent shared,
There is a tier one and a tier two. And so the teacher can start with us and then
they have to enroll and complete so many hours in an approved credentialing
program. And then, I believe, it’s two years they have to complete and get a clear
designated subject [credential]. So within those programs are some obviously
basic fundamental classes on classroom management, dealing with English
language learners, those kinds of things, those general topics.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 127

In addition, the PLTW courses offered at the center required that those teaching the classes be
trained in using the curriculum. MROC facilitated the completion of the training for PLTW.
Ensuring the appropriate instructors were hired and that the instructors attained the appropriate
certification and training impacted the complexity of the program. One final factor that impacted
complexity was that the courses, although parts of career pathways, were not part of a school-
wide, grade level, or state-mandated curriculum.
Implementation. The Descriptive Framework for Integrated STEM Education focuses
on three considerations for implementing integrated STEM programs: instructional design,
educator supports, and adjustments to the learning environment (NAE & NRC, 2014).
Superintendent C suggested, and the Annual Report to the Board of Education supported, that
many of the engineering courses at MROC were PLTW courses. PLTW utilizes PBL as the
instructional approach (Tran & Nathan, 2010). In addition, the course proposal for The Exciting
World of Engineering also identified PBL as the instructional approach used in the course.
Educator supports refer to professional development and any opportunities that improve
STEM content knowledge and teaching practices (NAE & NRC, 2014). As was mentioned,
instructors at MROC were required to earn a designated subjects credential in a state-approved
credentialing program, to receive the training needed to deliver the PLTW curriculum, or
possibly both. However, instructors also benefited from ongoing support (NAE & NRC, 2014;
NRC, 2011b), which MROC addressed in a variety of ways.
Superintendent C shared that staff development opportunities were available throughout
the year and all instructors, particularly the new instructors, were strongly encouraged to
participate. In addition, instructors were invited to participate in book review sessions. Topics
for the book review sessions included assessing student work and developing appropriate hands-
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 128

on lessons. Teachers submitted portfolios based on the book review readings and discussions.
MROC also provided new teachers with $2,500 grants to assist them in developing a notebook of
basic instructional materials. MROC administrators provided feedback on the notebooks.
Superintendent C felt the ongoing support was important, particularly because many of the
instructors had no previous teaching experience. In addition, she felt the notebooks met the
teachers’ needs by giving them something they produced that could be used in their classrooms
on an ongoing basis.
A final consideration related to implementation of an integrated STEM program is
adjustments to the learning environment. The adjustments may include changes in time available
for students to engage in learning activities or time available for teachers to plan and collaborate
(NAE & NRC, 2014). At MROC, no significant adjustments to the learning environment were
needed because the nature of the learning environment was flexible in order to accommodate the
numerous courses and pathways available at the center. However, one adjustment was
necessary, which was transporting students to and from the facility. As has been mentioned,
MROC served high school students from six different school districts. The engineering classes
were offered at the end of the students’ regular school day. MROC provided transportation by
bussing the students to and from their home schools. Superintendent C described this as a
challenge but acknowledged it as a necessary part of ensuring that interested students had the
opportunity to take the courses.
The Superintendent’s Decision to Implement Integrated STEM Education
The previous section presented an analysis of MROC using the NAE and NRC (2014)
Descriptive Framework for Integrated STEM Education and data from the superintendent
interview and document reviews. The school did not appear to have an integrated STEM
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 129

program. Instead, the superintendent supported implementation of a variety of engineering
courses. Therefore, the focus of the superintendent’s STEM initiative was engineering.
Superintendent C indicated the focus on engineering introduced “various career options to
students.” She further suggested that the courses helped solidify the career choices of students
who already were interested in engineering. The findings from analysis of the data did not
confirm that strategies were used to support student understanding of the connections between
engineering and any of the other STEM disciplines. However, although it was unclear whether
explicit STEM connections were an element of the STEM program at MROC, it was clear that
Superintendent C had knowledge of STEM integration.
Although it was unclear whether integration actually occurred, the superintendent did
support implementation of courses she referred to as STEM. In addition, she had knowledge of
STEM integration. Currently in education, use of the acronym STEM implies some form of
integration of or an interdisciplinary approach to teaching the STEM disciplines (Herschbach,
2011; CDE, 2014b). In addition, the literature identifies STEM-focused career and technical
education (CTE) as a type of STEM program (NRC, 2011a; NRC, 2011b). Regional centers that
serve many schools in their areas are included in the CTE category (NRC, 2011a; NRC, 2011b).
Furthermore, the developers of the Descriptive Framework for Integrated STEM Education
suggest that some STEM programs have some form of integration even if they don’t identify
themselves as such. Finally, although Superintendent C focused on engineering when speaking
of STEM, she supported implementation of PLTW, which is a nationally recognized curriculum
that supports integrated STEM education (Tran & Nathan, 2010). As a result, it seemed
appropriate to include Superintendent C’s perspective in a study of how superintendents’
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 130

understandings and beliefs about integrated STEM education impacted implementation of
integrated STEM initiatives in their districts.
The initial stage of the innovation-decision process is the knowledge stage, in which an
individual gains an awareness of an innovation followed by the formation of a favorable or
unfavorable attitude towards the innovation (Rogers, 2003). Factors leading to Superintendent
C’s initial awareness of integrated STEM were unclear. The superintendent indicated that she
did not have a background in STEM: “I don’t have a background in STEM education, but
obviously I do have a background in curriculum development and I do have a background in
developing career pathways.” However, it appeared that her background led to her awareness of
integrated STEM as an innovation to be implemented at MROC. The superintendent advised she
had been a principal and a superintendent in K-12 school districts that implemented PLTW
courses, which meant the superintendent had knowledge of STEM integration prior to her tenure
at MROC. She shared, “So, I had those programs in my school district . . . and when I came to
MROC we wanted to add those types of STEM courses to what we offered at the Center.”
Even though PLTW was not new to the superintendent, the STEM initiative she supported
can be considered an innovation at MROC. Diffusion of innovation theory contends that an idea
or practice may be considered an innovation although the adopter had prior knowledge of it
because the newness associated with innovation persists through her decision to adopt or reject
the innovation (Rogers, 2003). In addition, diffusion of an innovation is contextual because its
adoption may not necessarily be desirable in all situations (Rogers, 2003). So, because PLTW
was appropriate in a K-12 school district did not guarantee its appropriateness for MROC.
Therefore, although awareness and persuasion, during which time the superintendent developed
a positive attitude towards PLTW, occurred prior to her tenure at MROC, contextual factors at
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 131

the Center and the superintendent’s perception about the interaction between STEM and the
contextual factors could have resulted in a decision to reject adoption at MROC even though she
had supported implementation elsewhere.
The superintendent’s perception of integrated STEM education. That Superintendent
C had developed a favorable attitude towards integrated STEM was clear based on her desire to
implement PLTW at MROC. A number of factors that contributed to her formation of a
favorable attitude were identified in the data. One factor was STEM’s compatibility with her
values, beliefs, experiences, and needs (Rogers, 2003). For example the superintendent
expressed a concern about the low high school graduation rate in the United States. She
explained the low graduation rate via her belief that “kids don’t see the relevance of the high
school experience.” From her perspective, integrated STEM programs such as PLTW helped
students see the relevance of the math and science courses they took in high school.
Furthermore, when asked what insights she gained as a result of her experiences with STEM at
MROC she indicated she would have made STEM opportunities available for younger students.
She shared, “I probably would have looked at making those opportunities like The Exciting
World available to middle school students and doing summer kinds of experiences for the
younger kids.” She shared her belief that students become disenfranchised from school during
the transition from middle to high school and that providing younger students with opportunities
to explore their interests and talents might make it possible “to do a better job overall in
educating and raising our high school graduation rate and also impacting our college completion
rate.” She believed STEM courses and programs provided such opportunities.
In addition, to compatibility with the values, beliefs, experiences, and needs of the
superintendent, compatibility with those of MROC was also identified as a factor that influenced
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 132

her attitude towards STEM. Superintendent C contended that for over a decade, MROC had
worked on developing career pathways for students, including pathways in STEM. In fact, the
center’s 2013-2014 Annual Report to the Board of Education identified seven goals, one of
which was to provide career pathways for MROC students. She shared that many of the districts
served by MROC had a high percentage of students who would pursue careers in engineering.
The PLTW engineering courses were part of pathways that lead to postsecondary study in the
STEM disciplines. In addition, the superintendent felt that the PLTW engineering classes
provided students with “that experience to know that they want to pursue a career in engineering
. . . not only give them a one shot, if you will, opportunity, but to really explore with them their
career interests.” Interestingly, although MROC offered a variety of PLTW and other classes that
were STEM related, the superintendent most often referred to engineering when she spoke of
STEM.
Another perceived attribute of an innovation is its relative advantage, or the extent to
which an individual feels an innovation is better than an approach already in use (Rogers, 2003).
Superintendent C shared her concern that too many students were disenfranchised by traditional
approaches used in schools. She contended that CTE courses, like PLTW courses, helped make
science and math relevant to students, which could result in increased high school graduation and
college completion rates. She also contended that students should be provided opportunities to
engage in STEM earlier than high school. Furthermore, she believed that the instructors at
MROC gave the program an advantage over programs at traditional high schools. In addressing
her belief that the instructors at MROC, Superintendent C shared,
But the thing that sets the Center apart from a traditional high school is who is
teaching the STEM classes. And at MROC who we hire to teach any of our
career tech classes are people who work in the industry . . . we actually have
working engineers teaching the classes. And most high schools, who are teaching
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 133

the classes? These are teachers with science degrees, chemistry degrees, you
know, mathematics degrees, but not necessarily working engineers. So, you
know, that’s very different in terms of what goes on in a traditional high school
and that’s a real plus for the Center and for our students.

She elaborated on the reason she felt the program at MROC had an advantage over traditional
high schools by sharing, “And I’ve been a high school principal and I’ve been a superintendent
of K-12 traditional school districts. . . . There’s career tech. ed. out in the high schools and then
there’s the career tech. ed. that a place like the Center provides. And that really is the
comprehensive, hands on [experiences].” Her comments provided evidence of her perception of
STEM education’s relative advantage over traditional approaches. However, it was not evident
that her perception included integration.
Another factor that will impact an adopter’s attitude towards an innovation is his or her
perception of the complexity of the innovation, or the level of difficulty associated with
understanding and using the innovation (Rogers, 2003). Complexity at MROC involved factors
related to the level of difficulty of understanding and using integrated STEM education,
including curriculum and pedagogy (NAE &NRC, 2014). For example, the PLTW courses
offered at the Center required those teaching the courses be trained in using the curriculum.
However, as was previously discussed, Superintendent C had previous experience implementing
integrated STEM in the form of PLTW courses. Therefore, she had familiarity with
implementation considerations including needed professional development, curriculum, and
materials as well as the associated monetary costs. Such familiarity might have lessened the
perceived complexity of an initiative. However, she also supported the development of a course,
The Exciting World of Engineering, for MROC, which required development of the curriculum
for the course. Development of a course and the associated curriculum increased the perceived
complexity of the initiative.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 134

An additional area of complexity related to curriculum and pedagogy was ensuring
effective instructors were hired to teach the courses. Superintendent C explained that MROC
solicited instructors from the industries associated with the courses they taught. Instructors hired
from industry were required to enroll in a program to earn a designated subjects credential. The
superintendent acknowledged the challenge associated with ensuring the instructors’
effectiveness: “Well, I think the biggest challenge probably would be making sure that the folks
that we hired to teach could actually teach. . . . When you’re bringing somebody into a whole
new area called education, what does that mean?”
Although complexity might have had the effect of negatively impacting the
superintendent’s opinion about the appropriateness of STEM education at MROC, the positive
impact of compatibility and relative advantage appeared to have greater influence (Rogers,
2003). In addition, the superintendent did not speak of the difficulties associated with
understanding and using STEM in terms of challenges that could not be surmounted. Instead,
she spoke of them as expected activities needed to implement STEM education. For example,
when speaking of the instructors at MROC, she shared, “That’s really an integral part of the
center and its operation is that, you know, who we have teach are the industry people.”
Additionally, she shared her belief that use of instructors from industry gave the Center an
advantage over programs, including CTE programs, at traditional high schools. Due to the
superintendent’s belief that hiring instructors from industry was an integral part of the program
that gave it an advantage over programs at traditional high schools, it appeared that the impact of
the relative advantage and compatibility of STEM education was greater than the perceived
complexity.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 135

Trialability, or the extent to which Superintendent C could experiment with STEM
integration on a limited basis before widespread implementation, had the potential to positively
or negatively impact her attitude towards the innovation (Rogers, 2003). Trialability was
represented with each STEM course at MROC (Rogers, 2003). Courses were implemented
individually as part of career pathways rather than as a school-wide initiative. Additionally, each
career pathway was maintained at the center based on its value to the MROC community.
Superintendent C shared, “So, if we find that a particular program is either no longer valid for
the industry, then we can change it out for what industry needs are, what students’ interests are.”
In addition, as has been shown, individual courses, such as The Exciting World of Engineering
were implemented as needed and could be removed if necessary.
Observability, or the extent to which the superintendent was able to observe the results of
another STEM initiative before establishing the program or implementing the courses, was an
additional factor that could have impacted the superintendent’s attitude towards STEM
education. Observability was evident to some extent. Superintendent C’s prior experiences with
implementation of PLTW courses provided her the opportunity to observe the results before
implementation at MROC. One might assume the superintendent observed positive results
because she formed a favorable attitude towards the innovation. However, information about
results, other than anecdotal results or statement of belief or opinion, was not mentioned.
As was discussed, Superintendent C developed an awareness of integrated STEM and
formed a favorable attitude prior to her arrival at MROC. However, because a favorable attitude
towards an innovation was formed did guarantee that the superintendent would decide to adopt it
at MROC. The attributes of an innovation are thought to impact the formation of an attitude
towards an innovation. However it also appeared the attributes were related to the
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 136

superintendent’s decision to adopt STEM integration. For example, she believed that too many
students did not finish high school because they did not see the relevance of their studies. She
felt one way to address the concern was to provide students with opportunities to take STEM
courses which could show them the relevance of math and science classes as well as to explore
STEM careers. As a result, she made the decision to adopt STEM courses at MROC. This
aligns with diffusion of innovation theory, which suggests there may not be a clear distinction
between stages, and there may be difficulty distinguishing one stage from the next (Rogers,
2003). This appears to be the case with Superintendent C because it is unclear which activities
resulted in her final decision to adopt integrated STEM. However, it is obvious that a decision
was made to implement integrated STEM.
Superintendent C’s Support of STEM Education Implementation
Once Superintendent C made the decision to adopt integrated STEM, implementation
occurred. Implementation included overt actions by the superintendent that allowed integrated
STEM curricula and pedagogy to be put into use (Rogers, 2003). The superintendent spoke of
the importance of having effective instructors in the classroom and spoke of the challenges
associated with this element. Ensuring that effective instructors were in the classroom was an
area where the superintendent’s involvement was evident. For example, although instructors
were required to obtain their designated subject credential, which taught the industry
professionals teaching philosophies and strategies, she believed in the importance of providing
ongoing professional development for the instructors. She shared,
And so, providing appropriate staff development to recognize the needs of our
industry teachers is very important. And I think that is one thing that you have to
expect that you need to do with industry people coming in. . . . And a staff
development program is very, very important. And recognizing what things need
to be covered and how you develop teaching skills in people is something you
have to do.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 137

The superintendent explained that staff development opportunities were available throughout the
year and all instructors were strongly encouraged to participate. In addition, instructors were
invited to participate in book review sessions. Topics for these sessions included assessing
student work and developing effective hands-on lessons. MROC also provided new teachers
with $2,500 grants to assist them in developing notebooks of basic instructional materials.
MROC administrators provided feedback on the notebooks.
An additional area in which the superintendent’s involvement was evident was ensuring
that high school students from the six districts served by MROC were provided transportation to
the facility. The engineering classes were offered at the end of the students’ regular school day.
MROC provided transportation by bussing the students to and from their home schools.
Superintendent C described this as a challenge for two reasons. She explained that students
come to the Center after 6 ½ hours on their high school campuses and were choosing to spend an
additional 3 hours at MROC. The concern was whether students had the time or the energy to
attend courses at MROC. In addition, the transportation was an additional cost from an already
tight budget. However, the superintendent felt providing transportation was important and
explained, “That’s all part of the Center’s operation.”
Findings for Research Questions
Research Question #1: How do school superintendents who have supported implementation of
STEM integration initiatives within their districts develop a vision for the program(s)? (What
previous STEM-related experiences or exposures have impacted superintendents’ perceptions of
K-12 STEM integration?)

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 138

Understandings and Beliefs about K-12 STEM Integration
The literature on leadership in education contends that a vision consists of beliefs,
aspirations, and goals regarding student learning and achievement (Petersen, 1999; Southwest
Educational Development Laboratory [SEDL], 1993). An initial step in determining how each
superintendent in the present study developed a vision for an integrated STEM education
initiative was to determine each superintendent’s beliefs and understandings of integrated STEM
education because their beliefs and understandings could have influenced the type of STEM
program he or she implemented (Herschbach, 2011; NAE & NRC, 2014; Sanders, 2012).
Identifying a program as integrated STEM assumes that some effort has been made to support
student understanding of the connections or relationships between or among two or more of the
STEM subjects. However, the literature on STEM and STEM integration recognizes the variety
of understandings and definitions of STEM integration. The superintendents in the present study
reflected this lack of consensus surrounding the definition of STEM integration in that each of
them had differing understandings and perceptions of STEM integration.
Superintendent A’s understanding of STEM integration included recognition that helping
students comprehend the relationships between and among the STEM disciplines could support
STEM learning for students. Important to note, though, is that Superintendent A supported the
establishment of a STEAM academy within his district. However, although he felt strongly
about integrating arts with the STEM disciplines, contending that the jobs of the future will be in
STEAM rather than STEM, he did not indicate how the relationship between and among the
STEAM subjects was reflected in the academic program at the school. In fact, he admitted, “As
far as the actual definition of it, I don’t know that I had a definition as far as what exactly it
would be in the classroom.” He elaborated later in the interview:
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 139

So, I think for me, again going back to your question about the curriculum side or
even the definition of it, I don’t know that I had a sound definition, to be honest
with you. I don’t have a science background. When I first went to [college] I
wanted to become a dentist. But I realized the sciences were not my thing. And
so I’m not going to pretend I have a deep understanding of the sciences or
anything like that. No I don’t. I just know what I want our students to be able to
have access to. And for me that’s what drives me versus some of the curriculum
side.

Superintendent A seemed to have a fairly broad conception of STEM or STEAM. This was
evident when he shared, “To me it was providing experiences for our kids, and as many as we
could. . . . My belief is you gotta start somewhere and you never know where it’s going to go.”
In addition, as part of providing learning experiences for students, the superintendent supported
implementation of PLTW not only at 21
st
Century STEAM academy but also other secondary
schools within the district.
The superintendent’s broad perspective also was evident in his understanding or belief
about who should have access to the program at 21
st
Century STEAM Academy. The
superintendent identified the school as a magnet school. Reasons for establishing magnet
schools include providing educational choice and specialized instruction for students (CDE,
2014a). Magnet schools often have an application process and are generally designed to attract
students with particular interests from across a school district rather than serve those within the
attendance boundaries. Superintendent A explained, however, that students who lived within the
attendance boundary of 21
st
Century STEAM Academy were given priority and were exempted
from the application process. Those living outside the attendance boundary had to apply and
were accepted on a space available basis. This is significant because as was discussed earlier,
the school had a significant number of students identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged or
Hispanic/Latino, two student groups who typically achieve lower on assessments in science and
math and who are also traditionally underrepresented in postsecondary study and careers in
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 140

STEM (Atkinson & Mayo, 2010; CoSTEM, 2013; Gloeckner, 1991; NAE & NRC, 2014;
PCAST, 2010). The literature on STEM-focused schools contends that inclusive schools, those
that do not have admission requirements, can help traditionally underrepresented students
prepare for college study and careers in STEM-related fields (NRC, 2011a; NRC, 2011b). The
superintendent echoed the contention when he shared, “We are about preparing children for post-
secondary education. That’s what we’re about. Not everyone is going to go and that’s okay.
But we don’t want to be the ones to have made that choice for them.”
Unlike Superintendent A, Superintendent B had a more focused understanding or belief
about STEM integration. As with Superintendent A, Superintendent B described BSA, the
school he was involved in designing, as a magnet school. However, his perspective about who
should attend the school and the learning experiences students would be exposed to was more
narrow. Regarding curriculum, he was very specific. He was adamant, for instance, that art
should not be part of the integration when he shared,
And there were some kind of probably deal-breakers when I said, hmm, I don’t
think we’re going to go there, at least if I’m going to have anything to do with it.
And there’s the whole issue of even STEAM, which you know I like arts well
enough. I just don’t know that that ultimately is part of STEM. Is it a
complement? Often times do STEM people have arts capacity and interest and so
forth? Absolutely. But when you ask me about a STEM magnet, I think that’s
different.

As adamant as Superintendent B was about the disciplines that should not be part of
integrated STEM at BSA, he was just as adamant about which ones should be the disciplinary
foci: math and science. He believed that until students had a solid foundation in math and
science, integration would not be successful. He also questioned the use of PLTW, suggesting
that it was not true engineering and reiterating the need for a firm foundation in math and
science. Superintendent B believed that students were not ready for engineering until they were
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 141

proficient in calculus and physics. He shared a conversation with a representative from BSA’s
university partner that showed his conviction toward a focus on math and science:
I said I’m with you. I want to get you great engineering students, but I can’t get
them to you in the middle school. They can’t even do Algebra yet. And you and
I both know that this is a calculus-based engagement and if they don’t have
calculus, we can’t really go there. I mean we can fiddle with stuff and we can do
Tinker Toys or Legos or stuff like that, but you’re not really getting to the essence
of what engineering is all about. And he goes, yeah that’s right. And I said,
okay, then let me work with this and then I can get you to there.”

Superintendent B also expressed strong feelings about the students who should attend
BSA. He explained that the school was designed to support students with specific “interests and
assets” in STEM and who had such a singular focus on STEM they would not be concerned that
the school did not have typical secondary school activities such as band and sports. The
superintendent also explained that students who were a good match for BSA were those who
were excited about the curriculum. He shared that some students ended up transferring from the
school because they enrolled for the wrong reasons. He commented,
You know, mom wanted them in because it was a special school and all that stuff.
But the reality is the kids going there are doing math everyday and these people
are all excited about math and I’m not sure I even like math. . . . And so it was a
mismatch and it was from the first day because they were in there probably for the
wrong reasons. We didn’t say it was for the wrong reasons. That’s up to the
family to determine.

When asked about STEM for all, Superintendent B shared that he thought all students
should be math competent and explained, “And if I could rule the world I’d say what that means
is by the time you finish the 8
th
grade you should be Algebra competent.” Furthermore, he
shared his thoughts of the math competencies students should have upon completing high school:
I think you need to minimally be through Algebra II and frankly if it were up to me
I’d say even pre-calculus because many, many, if not most college majors, actually
require, when you get right down to it, some pre-calculus notion of what goes on if
you’re going to be successful in that discipline at the university level. . . . So yeah,
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 142

in that sense, math for all. However, that math looks way different than the STEM
math that we were doing because, again, it was on steroids, if you will.

He also shared his belief that our society should be literate in science. He used physics as an
example, contending that students should understand Newton’s laws and conservation of energy.
He commented, “Our society is going to be better off to have that, but again, does that describe
what’s going on with our STEM kids, meaning the ones that they’re saying I want to do this and
I want to do it in a big way? No, no, no. They’re level, they’ve got to get to the math side of it
because it becomes much more.”
In describing the type of student that would be successful at BSA and in sharing his
beliefs about STEM for all, Superintendent B described a selective STEM-focused school (NRC,
2011a, NRC, 2011b). Selective STEM-focused schools “serve only highly motivated and able
students and focus on preparing them for ambitious postsecondary study and STEM careers”
(NRC, 2011a, p.7). An area of concern with STEM-focused schools that are more selective is
that they will serve fewer students from underrepresented groups than inclusive STEM-focused
schools (NRC, 2011b). In fact, the demographics of BSA reflected less demographic diversity
than that of the school district. For example, as was previously discussed, district-wide, 65
percent of students were identified as SED, 68 percent as URM, and 17 percent as EL. However
at BSA 29 percent of students were identified as SED, 40 percent as URM, and less than
1percent as EL. Of course, these demographics represent one school year, which is not enough
time to identify trends in enrollment.
As has been discussed, Superintendent A had a somewhat broad perspective about the
curricular focus at 21
st
Century STEAM Academy as well as the students the school served. On
the other hand, Superintendent B had a more focused view regarding disciplinary focus and
student enrollment. Superintendent C, the third interviewee, represented yet another perspective
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 143

on STEM integration, a perspective that seemed to depend on the context in which STEM
integration was implemented. Superintendent C shared that she was superintendent in a K-12
school district prior to her tenure at MROC and that her previous school district had
implemented PLTW courses at the high school level. She also implemented PLTW courses at
MROC but provided two different definitions of STEM for the two contexts. For the traditional
K-12 setting, she described STEM as making math and science relevant and making connections
between and among the STEM subjects. She defined STEM at MROC as providing students
with hands-on experiences in engineering to support them in making career choices. Although
her comments about STEM helping students make connections to math and science implies some
level of integration, Superintendent C seemed to have a more singular focus on engineering at
MROC, which calls into question whether integration occurred. However, engineering is
thought to be a natural vehicle for supporting STEM integration because of it’s use of the other
STEM disciplines in the design thinking and problem solving associated with engineering (NAE,
2010; NAE & NRC, 2009; Roehrig et al., 2012). Still, the superintendent did not discuss efforts
at MROC to help students understand the relationships between engineering and one or more of
the other STEM disciplines. Interestingly, although MROC offered a variety of PLTW courses
such as Human Body Systems, Medical Interventions, Biomedical Innovation, and Digital
Electronics, the superintendent most often referred to engineering when she spoke of STEM.
Although Superintendent C seemed to be more singular, with a focus on engineering, in
her understanding of STEM, she was inclusive about providing students access to STEM courses
at MROC. She described the student population the Center serves: “We have a very interesting
demographics of students that we serve. And I don’t know if you’re aware, but we serve
students from [six school districts] and it’s a very diverse student population.” She also shared
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 144

the effort the Center made to ensure that interested students have access to the STEM courses:
“Yes, we do pay for the transportation. We bus our kids who are part of our joint powers
authority from the six districts over to the Center to take the classes and then we bus them back
to their home schools when they’re done.”
As has been presented, analysis of data from interviews with the three superintendents
reveals three seemingly very different understandings of integrated STEM education as reflected
in their vision for each of their integrated STEM initiatives. Superintendent A had a broad
perspective of STEM integration which included providing as many learning experiences for
students as possible. In addition, the initiative he supported was inclusive in nature, serving a
broad variety of students. Superintendent B, on the other hand, had a more narrow view of
STEM integration, focusing on math and science and targeting students with interest and talent
in STEM. Superintendent C’s perspective was more singular, focusing more on engineering
with the presence of integration being unclear. The differing understandings of and perspectives
about STEM integration match the literature about STEM integration, which identifies the lack
of a common definition or understanding. However, despite the differing points of view, it was
possible to analyze the data in an attempt to find common themes relating to how each
superintendent developed his or her vision for each integrated STEM initiative.
Factors that Impacted the Superintendents’ Visions
As was presented in the preceding section, each superintendent had different
understandings and beliefs about STEM and integrated STEM education. The differing
understandings and beliefs were responsible, at least in part, for differences in the STEM
initiatives the superintendents supported. The superintendent’s also had different backgrounds
and experiences. For instance, Superintendent B was the only respondent that identified himself
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 145

as having a background in STEM, having earned an undergraduate degree in chemistry. He
indicated that his background in STEM strongly impacted his involvement in the design of BSA.
Interestingly, Superintendent A indicated he did not have a background in STEM although he
revealed that when he first entered college, he wanted to become a dentist before he realized, as
he stated, “Sciences were not my thing.” He also shared that taking physics in college helped
him recognize the relationship between math and science. Although Superintendent A did have
STEM-related experiences in his background, he did not seem to perceive these experiences as
such.
An additional area in which differences among the superintendents’ backgrounds and
experiences was evident was in the implementation of PLTW. The data revealed that each
superintendent was familiar with the PLTW curriculum. In fact, Superintendents A and C both
supported implementation of PLTW courses. However, only Superintendent C indicated prior
experience with PLTW. The data revealed a variety of other differences among the
superintendents’ backgrounds and experiences, including educational background, tenure as
superintendent, and characteristics of the district each led. However, despite the differing
backgrounds and experiences, the data also revealed similarities in factors that seemed to impact
the development of each superintendent’s vision.
Rogers’ (2003) theory of diffusion of innovation identifies several factors that potentially
may impact an individual’s adoption of an innovation. One factor, the perceived compatibility of
the innovation with the beliefs, needs, values, and experiences of the adopter, seemed to
significantly impact the visions developed by the superintendents. In the present study, the
superintendents’ perceived that integrated STEM education was compatible with their beliefs,
needs, values, and experiences as well as those of the districts they led. Not surprisingly,
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 146

differences in beliefs, needs, values, and experiences were evident in the data, as has already
been discussed. However, a number of common themes related to perceived compatibility were
evident among the superintendents: addressing the interests of students, preparing students for
postsecondary study and careers in STEM, or STEAM in the case of Superintendent A, and
providing STEM or STEAM opportunities to younger students.
In relation to supporting student interest in STEM or STEAM, Superintendent A shared
an experience in which he learned that college students expressed a desire for access to art
classes as well as STEM classes, which prompted him to support implementation of STEAM,
rather than STEM, at 21
st
Century STEAM Academy. Implementation was based on what he
perceived would interest the students. Superintendent B expressed a strong belief in supporting
students who not only had talent in STEM, particularly math and science, but who also had
strong interest. In fact, he suggested that BSA might not be a good fit for students who lacked
interest in math and science. Superintendent C shared that the engineering courses at MROC
were intended to support students who already were interested in pursuing careers in
engineering.
Regarding preparing students to pursue postsecondary study and careers in STEM,
Superintendent A expressed a belief that future employment opportunities will be in STEAM-
related fields. He also revealed that prior to becoming superintendent he developed a concern
over the lack of attention paid to science due to NCLB’s focus on math and science. In addition,
he indicated that two books, The World is Flat and The Global Achievement Gap, also impacted
his beliefs about the educational experiences schools should provide students. His beliefs about
what students would need to be competitive globally seemed to have the most significant impact
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 147

on the vision he developed for 21
st
Century STEAM Academy, which was to prepare students for
postsecondary study in STEAM and allow them to pursue STEAM-related careers.
Although Superintendent B’s vision was more narrow and focused than Superintendent
A’s, with an emphasis on math and science for students with ability and interest in STEM,
Superintendent B also envisioned a program that prepared students for postsecondary study in
STEM. He indicated that his background in STEM strongly impacted his involvement in the
design of BSA and shared his belief that a disciplinary focus on math and science gave students
the foundation they would need for postsecondary study in STEM. Although he did not
explicitly discuss career preparation, postsecondary study in STEM is directly related to
preparing students for careers in STEM (NAE & NRC, 2014).
Superintendent C’s vision included a focus on providing engineering courses that helped
students develop the interest and identity that may support them in successfully pursuing
postsecondary study and careers in engineering. She indicated that many of the students served
by MROC had an interest in pursuing careers in engineering. The CTE classes taught by
working engineers, as well as the externship opportunities with industry partners, provided hand-
on experiences that were more like real world experiences and could prepare them for
postsecondary study and careers in engineering as well as help them develop identities as
engineers.
A final theme related to perceived compatibility and evident among the superintendents’
visions was the belief in providing STEM or STEAM opportunities to younger students.
Superintendent A supported implementation of STEAM at the middle school level. However, he
also shared his desire for alignment with the elementary schools. Superintendent B also
supported implementation of STEM at the middle school level and was particularly explicit
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 148

about the need to begin at younger ages. Students began at BSA in the 5
th
grade. Superintendent
B contended this was necessary in order for students to build “onramp skills” and a strong math
and science foundation before high school. Superintendent C indicated that The Exciting World
of Engineering was implemented to reach younger students. At MROC, 9
th
graders were
considered younger students. However, Superintendent C indicated that if she had not retired,
she would have made opportunities for middle school students available at MROC.
The superintendents’ belief in the need to make STEM opportunities available to students
as young as 5
th
grade is supported by the literature which indicates that student interest in STEM
disciplines, particularly science, begins as early as elementary school (Maltese & Tai, 2010; Tai
et al., 2006). In addition, STEM integration has been found to be particularly effective for
positively impacting student achievement in elementary school (Becker & Park, 2011).
An additional factor, relative advantage, or the superintendents’ belief that the integrated
STEM initiatives they supported were better than approaches to teaching STEM already in use,
also seemed to have significant influence on the superintendents’ decision to support
implementation of their initiatives. Superintendent A, for example, expressed concerns that
public education was not preparing students for the jobs of the future, which he believed would
be STEAM-related. Superintendent B believed that BSA, a specialized school that focused on
math and science, was better able to support students with talents and interests in STEM than
traditional schools. Finally, Superintendent C perceived that the engineering courses at MROC,
taught by industry professionals, provided better engineering experiences than similar
experiences available at comprehensive high schools.
The data collected for the current study revealed the diverse backgrounds of the three
superintendents who were the focus of the study as well as the diverse programs they supported.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 149

In addition, a difference in their understandings of and beliefs about integrated STEM education
also was evident. However, it appeared that despite the diversity, common factors impacted the
vision each superintendent developed for the program he or she supported: the perception that
integrated STEM was compatible with his or her beliefs, values, and needs as well as those of the
district and that integrated STEM had advantages over traditional approaches to STEM
education.
Research Question #2: How do school superintendents’ understandings and perceptions of
STEM integration evolve as a result of implementing and sustaining STEM integration initiatives
in their districts?
This qualitative multicase study sought to gain insight into how school superintendents’
understanding of and beliefs about integrated STEM education impacted implementation of
integrated STEM initiatives within their districts. The data suggests that the superintendents’
understandings and beliefs about integrated STEM impacted their decision to support
implementation of STEM initiatives as well as their visions for the initiatives they supported.
Diffusion of innovation theory suggests that once implementation of an innovation occurs, an
adopter may re-invent, or modify, the innovation (Rogers, 2003). In addition, after
implementation, confirmation occurs which is when an individual’s decision to adopt an
innovation may be reinforced by experiences during implementation that are perceived as
support for the original decision or reversed if experiences during implementation conflict with
the original perception of the innovation (Rogers, 2003). As an individual engages in the process
of confirmation, their attitude towards an innovation may evolve, either positively or negatively
(Rogers, 2003). Therefore, it can be expected that the superintendents’ attitudes towards
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 150

integrated STEM education, including their understanding of and beliefs about the innovation,
may have evolved as a result of implementing an integrated STEM initiative.
The data did not indicate changes in the superintendents’ understandings and perceptions
of STEM integration. A number of factors may have contributed to this circumstance. First,
none of the superintendents seemed to place significant importance on integration.
Superintendent A, for example, indicated his recognition that assisting students in understanding
the connections between and among the STEM disciplines could positively impact their
achievement in STEM. He also expressed his belief that art was an important part of the
integration. However, he admitted that he did not have a clear definition of STEM or STEAM
integration, nor did he have a vision for what it would look like at the school. Superintendent B
emphasized a disciplinary focus on math and science. Although he acknowledged that a strong
foundation in these two disciplines would support students in integrating engineering and
technology later in their educational careers, his focus appeared to be on the foundation in math
and science rather than integration of the STEM disciplines. Superintendent C also understood
that STEM integration could positively impact student achievement in the STEM disciplines,
however, she applied her definition of STEM integration to the traditional high school. Her
definition of STEM at MROC included a singular focus on engineering with seemingly no
expectation for integration.
The lack of a common definition of STEM or integrated STEM among the
superintendents’ was consistent with the literature on STEM and integrated STEM education
(Gloekner, 1991; Herschbach, 2011; NAE & NRC, 2014; Sanders, 2009). Some suggest,
though, that a common definition may not be as important as each integrated STEM initiative
having its own definition that includes an explicit description of the STEM connections and
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 151

goals tied to measurable outcomes (NAE & NRC, 2014). Such definitions were not evident in
the data, however. Nor was there evidence of efforts by the superintendents to develop or
embrace such definitions. Rather, the superintendents spoke of changes to the logistics of
implementing STEM integration programs. For instance, Superintendent B indicated that based
on his experience, he might have listened to the concerns of those who thought BSA should have
been opened on its own site during the first year rather than on the site of another middle school.
However, he also suggested that he might not have done anything differently because he still
would not have known whether there would be enough interest in BSA.
Another factor that might have contributed to a lack of data indicating the evolution of
the superintendents’ understandings and perceptions of integrated STEM education was the lack
of plans and strategies to evaluate the programs they supported. For instance, Superintendent A
admitted he had not given sufficient attention to the evaluation of the program at 21
st
Century
STEAM Academy. In addition, Superintendent B admitted to the difficulty of finding an
effective method, beyond state testing, for evaluating a program developed for students who
already were highly proficient on state tests in math and science. Evaluation of integrated
STEM programs is important because it provides evidence whether or not the goals of the
programs are being achieved (NAE & NRC, 2014). In addition, evaluation of the programs
would provide information to reinforce each superintendent’s decision to continue the program
as implemented, to make adjustments to the original implementation, or to reverse the decision to
adopt (Rogers, 2003). Such information also could impact the evolution of their understandings
and beliefs about STEM integration. However, rather than identifying specific outcomes by
which each program could be measured, each superintendent seemed to measure success based
on anecdotal evidence.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 152

In an effort to gain insight into how superintendents’ understandings of and beliefs about
integrated STEM education impacted implementation of integrated STEM initiatives within their
districts, changes in the superintendents understandings and beliefs as a result of implementation
were analyzed. Rogers’ (2003) theory of diffusion of innovation suggests that implementation of
STEM integration initiatives had the potential to impact the superintendents’ understandings and
beliefs about STEM integration. In the current study, however, the data did not indicate any
change in the superintendents’ understandings and beliefs.

Research Question #3: What relationships exist between superintendents’ understandings and
beliefs about STEM integration and their actions, behaviors, and decisions?
The data suggests that the superintendents’ perceptions, their understandings and beliefs,
influenced their decision to support implementation of integrated STEM education initiatives
(Rogers, 2003). Once a favorable attitude was formed and the decision to support
implementation was made, actually supporting implementation required overt actions and
behaviors on the part of the superintendents (Rogers, 2003). Therefore, analyzing the actions
and behaviors that supported implementation provided insight into the relationships between the
superintendents’ understandings and beliefs and their actions, behaviors, and decisions.
As was evident from the data, although the superintendents’ understandings and beliefs
about integrated STEM integration possessed similarities including the recognition that helping
students understand the connections between and among the STEM disciplines can increase
student interest in STEM, each superintendent had differing visions for implementation of
integrated STEM. Not surprisingly, the differing visions for implementation, influenced by the
superintendents’ differing understandings and beliefs, resulted in differing actions, behaviors,
and decisions related to integrated STEM education implementation.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 153

Superintendent A expressed a somewhat broad vision for integrated STEM, wanting to
provide as many opportunities for students as possible. However, he indicated that he lacked a
background in STEM and did not consider himself an expert in STEM. As a result, decisions
regarding curriculum and instruction were assigned to an assistant superintendent and the
principal of the school. Rather than being involved in the curriculum aspect, Superintendent A
believed his responsibilities were creating the supportive conditions and providing the resources
needed by the assistant superintendent and principal to successfully move forward with
implementation. Resources included ensuring that 21
st
Century STEAM Academy was staffed
with single subject teachers and securing the monetary resources to purchase materials and
curriculum to implement PLTW and to train the teachers who delivered PLTW instruction.
Superintendent B, on the other hand, expressed a more narrow vision for the integrated
STEM education initiative he supported. Although some responsibilities were assigned to the
principal of BSA, Superintendent B admitted that his background in STEM caused him to play a
larger role in the design of BSA than would be customary for most superintendents. The role he
played included maintaining a focus on high levels of student competence in math and science.
Maintaining the focus on math and science also included managing relationships with the
community. For example, representatives involved in the university partnership as well as
parents in the community attempted to incorporate aspects such as engineering or STEAM that
he felt would “water down” the program. He described the management of the community as a
dance, suggesting that sometimes he had to take the lead and sometimes he had to let the
community lead. In the long run, however, he had to maintain a focus on the big picture, which
was to provide the BSA students with a strong foundation in math and science.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 154

Superintendent C’s vision for the STEM education initiative she supported was the most
narrow, with a singular focus on engineering. Due to the organizational structure of MROC,
with very few administrators, she also was very involved in the design and implementation of the
STEM program. Superintendent C identified one of her responsibilities as ensuring the
effectiveness of the instructors at the school. This not only included hiring instructors, but also
providing appropriate professional development. An additional responsibility included ensuring
that students from the six school districts served by MROC had access to the engineering courses
offered by the center. This meant arranging and paying for transportation between MROC and
each school district.
The data from the present study suggests that the actions, behaviors, and decisions of the
superintendents depended on the needs of the initiatives and of the people charged with the
responsibility of implementing the initiatives.

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 155

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Introduction
Concerns about U. S. students’ lackluster performance on state, national, and
international assessments in math and science, as well as the students’ apparent disinterest in
pursuing postsecondary study and careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) have resulted in national reform efforts focused on K-12 STEM education. One such
effort is integrated STEM education, an approach that seeks to assist students in understanding
the connections between and among the STEM disciplines (NAE & NRC, 2014). This approach
is thought to facilitate student mastery of the content and develop interest and identity in the
STEM disciplines. However, effective implementation of integrated STEM education at the K-
12 level presents several challenges: 1) defining STEM integration, 2) determining how and
where to incorporate STEM integration into the curriculum, 3) determining how to evaluate the
effectiveness of K-12 STEM integration initiatives, 4) securing resources (human, financial,
political, etc.) for implementation, and 5) ensuring that all student subgroups (based on race,
gender, socio-economic status, language proficiency, and learning ability) have equal access to
STEM initiatives provided by a school or district.
Addressing the challenges and successfully implementing K-12 STEM integration
requires strong education leaders. Superintendents can be such leaders. Although the literature
identifies strong leadership as a factor in the success of education reform, little research exists on
leadership and K-12 STEM integration. Missing from the literature is research on superintendent
support for implementation of STEM integration initiatives within their districts. Superintendent
support may not be necessary for implementation of classes or after school programs at
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 156

individual sites. However, larger scale, more comprehensive programs that address the
challenges mentioned above might require support from superintendents.
The purpose of this study was to gain insight into how school superintendents'
understandings and beliefs about integrated STEM education impact implementation of
integrated STEM initiatives within their districts. The study was guided by the following
research questions:
1) How did school superintendents that have supported implementation of STEM
integration initiatives within their districts develop a vision for the program(s)? (What
previous STEM-related experiences or exposures have impacted superintendents’
perceptions of K-12 STEM integration?)
2) How did school superintendents' understandings and perceptions of STEM integration
evolve as a result of implementing and sustaining STEM integration initiatives in their
districts?
3) What relationships exist between superintendents' understandings and beliefs about
STEM integration and their actions, behaviors, and decisions?
A qualitative multicase study was used to collect data on three superintendents who
supported implementation of STEM integration initiatives within their districts while they were
superintendents. Interviews with the superintendents and document reviews were used to collect
data. Each superintendent was treated as a separate case in the data analysis. A comparative
analysis of the three superintendents was performed to identify themes that answered the
research questions. The following section will discuss the findings that emerged from the data
analysis.

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 157

Discussion of Findings
Superintendent Background
The data suggests that a background in STEM is not necessary to support implementation
of integrated STEM education initiatives. In the current study, only one of the three
superintendents interviewed indicated having a background in STEM. A desire to provide
students with the foundation needed to pursue postsecondary study and careers in STEM and the
perception that integrated STEM education is a better approach than traditional approaches
seemed to provide the impetus for supporting integrated STEM education initiatives. Johnson,
Charner, and White (2003) suggest that the background of those supporting implementation of
integrated curriculum is not as important as strong leadership focused on consistency in ensuring
integration and achievement of curriculum goals. Therefore, the backgrounds of superintendents
who choose to support integrated STEM education initiatives may not be as important as their
leadership in ensuring the curriculum includes efforts to make connections between and among
the STEM disciplines clear to students and to ensure established goals are being met.
Superintendents’ Understandings and Perceptions of Integrated STEM Education
Analysis of the data revealed a lack of clarity regarding superintendents’ understanding
of and perceptions about integrated STEM education. Superintendent A shared his
understanding that helping students make connections between math and science would have a
positive impact on learning, but he admitted he did not have a definition for integration and how
it would be implemented in the classroom. Superintendent B insisted on a focus on math and
science, but he spoke more about students building strong foundations in the two subjects rather
than integration. In fact, he felt that students would not be ready for integration until they had
the foundation in math and science. Superintendent C focused on engineering at MROC.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 158

Although she suggested that integration at traditional high schools helped make the math and
science relevant to the students, making connections between and among the STEM disciplines
was not part of her definition for STEM at MROC.
The finding that the superintendents lacked a clear understanding or perception of STEM
and integrated STEM education aligns with the literature, which identifies the lack of a common
definition of STEM integration as well as a lack of consensus on how and where in the
curriculum to incorporate STEM integration (Gloekner, 1991; Herschbach, 2011; Kelly, 2012;
NAE & NRC, 2014; NRC, 2011b; Roehrig et al., 2012; Sanders, 2009; Stohlmann et al., 2011).
Under NCLB, math was given priority in the curriculum via the requirement for annual
assessments and evidence of yearly progress by students at schools in the United States. In
addition, many STEM programs in the U. S. have focused on math and science (Bybee, 2010;
NAE & NRC, 2014; NRC, 2011a; NRC, 2011b). Furthermore, even when a course identified as
STEM focuses on technology or engineering, the connections to other STEM disciplines are not
made clear to students (Axelson, 2010). Of course, superintendents are not responsible for
teaching the curriculum or even choosing the curriculum. However, their understanding of
STEM integration, along with their leadership, can be instrumental in ensuring that integration
happens (Fredrich et al., 2010; Ireh & Bailey, 1999; Johnson et al., 2003).
Although it appeared the superintendents lacked a clear definition or understanding of
integrated STEM education, each superintendent’s perception of what he or she called STEM or
STEAM impacted the development of a positive attitude towards STEM as represented in the
initiative he or she supported. The data revealed that the superintendents perceived the STEM
initiatives they supported to have an advantage over approaches to STEM education already in
use. In addition, the superintendents perceived the STEM initiatives they supported to be
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 159

compatible with their needs, experiences, beliefs, and values, as well as those of the school
systems they led. The superintendents’ decision to provide support based on their perceptions of
the initiatives is in line with the theory of diffusion of innovation, which contends a potential
adopter’s perceptions of an innovation impacts his or her decision to adopt or reject the
innovation (Rogers, 2003).
Diffusion of innovation theory also contends that after an innovation has been
implemented, adopters make a decision to continue with implementation or they may choose to
reject the initial decision based on new information (Rogers, 2003). Evaluation of the programs
supported by the superintendents would have provided new information the superintendents
could have used to determine whether to continue with implementation, make adjustments, or
reverse the decision to implement. However, the initiatives did not have specific plans for
evaluation. Instead, the superintendents provided anecdotal evidence of success. The NAE and
NRC (2014) contend that many integrated STEM programs lack a process for evaluating the
level of success in achieving established goals. Without identifiable outcomes tied to goals, it is
difficult to determine whether the positive attitudes towards the programs were justified.
Superintendents’ Actions and Behaviors in Support of Integrated STEM Education
As was previously discussed, it was unclear whether integration occurred in the STEM
education programs the superintendents supported because although each superintendent
expressed an understanding that helping students make connections between and among the
STEM disciplines could increase interest and achievement in those disciplines, exactly how the
programs assisted students in understanding those connections was not discussed. However,
although integration was not confirmed, the superintendents perceived the programs to have
advantages over STEM education strategies already in use and to be compatible with their needs,
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 160

beliefs, values, and experiences. As a result, each superintendent was actively involved in
supporting the program in his or her district. The data indicated that each superintendent
developed and communicated a vision for the initiative he or she supported. The data further
indicated that superintendents adjusted their actions and behaviors in support of the initiatives
based on the needs of the programs and the needs of those responsible for implementation,
sometimes providing specific expectations for aspects of the program, such as a focus on math
and science, and sometimes being less directive but offering emotional support, removing
obstacles, or facilitating access to resources needed for implementation. In addition, each
superintendent entrusted significant elements of implementation to others within the school
community. The superintendents considered those entrusted with implementation to have the
skills and abilities needed to successfully implement the vision.
Ireh and Bailey (1999) found that when implementing education reforms, superintendents
exhibit situational leadership in which they adjust their style to the needs of their subordinates.
Specifically, Ireh and Bailey noted that when supporting education reforms, superintendents
were highly directive (high task orientation or “telling” behavior), highly supportive (high
relationship orientation or “participating” behavior), or both (high task/high relationship or
“selling” behavior). One leadership style not observed in superintendents was the low
relationship/low task orientation or “delegating” behavior. Such an orientation implies a lack of
superintendent involvement. Ireh and Bailey concluded that superintendents did not exhibit
delegating behavior because they found importance in maintaining some level of involvement in
education reform implementation. The actions and behaviors of the superintendents in the
current study aligned with those in the study by Ireh and Bailey (1999).

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 161

Limitations
Limitations identified in Chapter 3 include the small sample size of three superintendents.
In addition, the superintendents were chosen using purposeful sampling rather than random
selection. The small sample size and use of purposeful sampling prevent the findings from being
statistically generalizable. In addition, the biases of the researcher and the participants are
limitations of the current study. Additional limitations of the study include the relative newness
of integrated STEM education, which made finding data with which to compare findings
difficult.
An important limitation of the study was the lack of clarity surrounding the
superintendents’ definitions of integrated STEM education and their expectations for integration
in the initiatives they supported. Such lack of clarity calls internal validity into question. In
other words, the purpose of the study was to gain insight into superintendents’ understanding of
and perceptions about integrated STEM education; however, it is unclear whether the
superintendents studied actually supported integrated STEM education. The lack of clarity about
the superintendents’ support of integrated STEM is, to a great extent, because while it was clear
they supported initiatives they referred to as STEM, or STEAM in the case of Superintendent A,
it was not confirmed that integration actually happened in any of the programs. In fact, as has
been mentioned several times, one superintendent admitted he did not know how integration
looked in the classroom, another superintendent believed integration could not be effectively
implemented until students were proficient in physics and calculus, and the third superintendent
had a singular focus on engineering with no discussion of integration in the STEM courses.
Although STEM initiatives, including integrated STEM education programs, may look
different from district to district or school to school, tools such as the Descriptive Framework for
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 162

Integrated STEM Education provide the means to identify, characterize and compare integrated
STEM programs. Had explicit information about the nature of the STEM connections been
provided by the superintendents, there might have been better assurance that STEM integration
was being supported.
Implications for Practice
The findings of the present study have implications for superintendents and leaders in
private education interested in supporting integrated STEM education. The findings suggest the
need for educational leaders to be more diligent in requiring clearly articulated definitions of
STEM integration or descriptions of programs, including the disciplinary focus and the types of
connections between or among STEM subjects the program will help students understand. The
findings further suggest the need for leaders in education who support integrated STEM
education to require plans for evaluating the programs. The plans would include clearly
articulated goals tied to outcomes that provide evidence of the level of success in achieving the
goals. The goals might be tied to some of the challenges associated with STEM integration,
particularly ensuring that all student subgroups (based on race, gender, socio-economic status,
language proficiency, and learning ability) have equal access to integrated STEM initiatives.
The plans also would include a method for ensuring the instructors receive the training,
curriculum, and support needed to effectively meet learning goals. Finally, superintendents and
leaders in private education might recognize the importance of clearly articulating a vision for
the integrated STEM initiative they support and assessing the skills and abilities, in relation to
the vision, of those charged with implementation. Situational leadership could then be used as
superintendents and private education leaders adjust their actions and behaviors to the needs of
the initiative and the implementers.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 163

Although situational leadership may be useful in supporting superintendents and other
leaders in determining the types of relationships needed when working with implementers of
integrated STEM initiatives, a strategy for assessing the needs, skills, and abilities of
implementers is necessary. The gap analysis model developed by Clark and Estes (2008) is one
such strategy. The Clark and Estes model describes a process for identifying goals and
determining the performance gap between the goals and current performance. In addition, the
model requires diagnosing the performance gap for knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational causes. Once possible knowledge and skills gaps, motivation gaps, and
organizational gaps have been identified, a fully integrated performance improvement plan can
be developed and implemented (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The findings for the present study also have implications for policymakers, curriculum
developers, and assessment developers who might seek alternatives or supplements to
standardized tests that assess the STEM disciplines, specifically science and math, in isolation.
Curriculum developers might take care to identify the disciplinary foci of the lessons and make
the intended connections between or among the STEM subjects explicit in the lessons.
Assessments included with the curriculum would provide information about student mastery of
the focus subjects, which also would provide superintendents with information that could
influence their decision to continue supporting implementation of integrated STEM education or
to reverse the decision. Finally, in order to ensure effective use of financial resources, those who
fund STEM integration initiatives, both government agencies and private organizations, also may
require clear articulation of visions, goals, outcomes, and plans for staff training and professional
development as well as clearly articulated plans for evaluating the initiatives.

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 164

Recommendations for Future Research
Integrated STEM education has gained traction within K-12 education as a means to
increase interest and achievement in the STEM disciplines, which could increase the number of
students who pursue postsecondary education and careers in the STEM fields. However, little is
known about the effectiveness of integrated STEM education and the impact of leadership,
particularly superintendent leadership, on successful implementation. To add to the literature on
integrated STEM education, a number of areas for future research are recommended. One such
area is to expand the current study to include a larger number of superintendents, as well as
private education leaders, who have supported integrated STEM education initiatives. Care
should be taken to clarify the leaders’ understandings of and expectations for integration.
In addition to expanding the current study, future research could include more in-process
diffusion of innovation studies. Such studies could explore more fully the elements that impact
superintendents’ decisions to support integrated STEM education. Furthermore, in-process
studies would illuminate the considerations and challenges superintendents face as they support
STEM integration initiatives and, possibly, the actions they take to overcome the challenges.
Such studies also might focus on one or more of the five challenges introduced in Chapter 1.
Research that explores the effectiveness of integrated STEM initiatives also is
recommended. Such research could include studies to determine whether particular strategies
are more effective than others or whether particular strategies, or even integrated STEM
education, are more effective with certain student groups than with others. Research on the
effectiveness of integrated STEM initiatives also could explore what types of pre-service training
and in-service professional development positively impacts educators’ ability to deliver effective
integrated instruction. Such research would provide information for superintendents to use as
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 165

they form their attitudes towards integrated STEM education and make the decision to adopt or
reject the innovation.
Conclusion
This study adds to the literature on superintendent leadership, specifically superintendent
leadership for implementation of integrated STEM education. Improving the performance of
U.S. students on state, national, and international assessments of math and science has become a
national priority. In addition, increasing the number of students, interested and able to
successfully pursue postsecondary study and careers in STEM fields, particularly students who
traditionally are underrepresented, also is a priority. Integrated STEM education is thought to
have potential to effectively address these priorities. As a result, K-12 education has seen a
significant increase in the number of integrated STEM initiatives and curricula (Herschbach,
2011; NAE & NRC, 2014). However, although there is an increase in initiatives and curricula,
little is known about their effectiveness. What is known is that superintendents, as the chief
educational officer of school districts, significantly impact what happens in school districts,
including implementation of education reforms. As superintendents gain understanding of and
develop perceptions about integrated STEM education, including their perceptions of its
advantage over strategies already in use as well as its potential as a disruptive education reform,
more may decide to support implementation of such initiatives. It is important, therefore, for
superintendents to be aware of how their actions and behaviors influence successful
implementation. The current study attempted to provide insight into superintendents’ actions
and behaviors and their influence on the implementation of integrated STEM initiatives.

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 166

References
Academic Benchmarks (2014). Retrieved from www.academicbenchmarks.com/common-core-
state-adoption-map/.
Ahern, N. R. (2005). Using the internet to conduct research. Nurse Researcher, 13(2), 55-70.
Albury, D (2005). Fostering innovation in public services. Public Money & Management 25(1),
51-56.
Almarode, J. T., Subotnik, R. F., Crowe, E., Tai, R. H., Geesoo, M. L., & Nowlin, F. (2014).
Specialized high schools and talent search programs: Incubators for adolescents with
high ability in STEM disciplines. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(3), 307-331.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1994). Science for all Americans. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Atkinson, R. D. (2012). Why the current education reform strategy won’t work. Issues in
Science and Technology, 28(3), 29-36.
Atkinson, R. D. & Mayo, M. (2010). Refueling the U. S. Innovation Economy: Fresh
Approaches to Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education.
Washington, D.C.: The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation. Retrieved
from http://itiff.org/publications/refueling-us-innovation-economy-fresh-approaches-
stem-education.
Axelson, B. (2010). The state of STEM. Tech & Learning, 30(6), 26-33.
Becker, K. & Park, K. (2011). Effectives of integrative approaches among science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A preliminary
meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education, 12(5&6), 23-38.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 167

Bequette, J. & Bequette, M. (2012). A place for art and design education in the STEM
conversation. Art Education, 65(2), 40-47.
Bjork, L. (1993). Effective schools – effective superintendents: The emerging instructional
leadership role. Journal of School Leadership, 3(3), 246-259.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Borrego, M., Froyd, J., & Hall, T. (2010). Diffusion of engineering education innovations: A
survey of awareness and adoption rates in U.S. engineering departments. Journal of
Engineering Education, 99(3), 185-207.
Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Rockoff, J. & Wyckoff, J. (2008). The narrowing gap in New
York City teacher qualifications and its implication for student achievement in high-
poverty schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(4), 793-818.
Bredeson, P. and Kose, B. (2007). Responding to the education reform agenda: A study of
school superintendents’ instructional leadership. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
15(5). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v15n5/.
Brown, G. (1989). Project 2061: A congressional view. Science, 245(4916), 340.
Brown, R., Brown, J., Reardon, K., & Merrill, C. (2011). Understanding STEM: Current
perceptions. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(6), 5-9.
Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and
Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30-35.
Bybee, T. W. (2011). K-12 engineering education standards: Opportunities and barriers.
Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(5), 21-29.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 168

California Department of Education (2013). California Common Core State Standards:
Mathematics. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/ccssmathstandardaug2013.pdf
California Department of Education, 2012-2013 Adequately Progress Report (2014a). Retrieved
from http://www.ayp.cde.ca.gov/reports/Acnt2013/2013APRStAYPReport.aspx
California Department of Education (2014b). Innovate: A Blueprint for Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics in California Public Education. Dublin, California:
Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation.
California Department of Education (2014c). Magnets. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/eo/mt/ on May 16, 2015.
California Department of Education (2015). What are the common core standards? Retrieved
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/tl/whatareccss.asp on June 16, 2015.
Cannon, J., Kitchel, A., & Tenuto, P. (2013). District superintendent perceptions of Idaho
secondary CTE teachers’ professional development needs. Journal of Career and
Technical Education, 28(1), 39-55.
Chingos, M., Whitehurst, G., & Lindquist, K. (2014). School superintendents: Vital or
irrelevant? Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute
Christensen, C., Baumann, H., Ruggles, R., & Sadtler, T. (2006). Disruptive innovation for
social change. Harvard Business Review, December.
Christensen, C., Horn, M., & Johnson, C. (2008). Disrupting class. How disruptive innovation
will change the way the world learns. New York: McGraw Hill.
Clark, A. & Ernst, J. (2007). A model for the integration of science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics. The Technology Teacher, 66(4), 24-26.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 169

Committee for Economic Development (2013a). Business partnerships to advance STEM
education: A model of success for the nation.
Committee for Economic Development (2013b). Business partnerships to advance STEM
education: Building a bridge to homegrown STEM Talent. Focus on teachers.
Committee on STEM Education (2013). Federal science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education: 5-Year strategic plan. Washington, D.C.: National
Science and Technology Council.
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3
rd
ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards accountability and school reform. Teachers College
Record, 106(6), 1047-1085.
Daugherty, M. (2013). The prospect of an “A” in STEM education. Journal of STEM
Education, 14(2), 10-15.
Davis, K., Feldman, A., Irwin, C, Pedevillano, E., Capobianco, B., Weiss, T., & Bray, P. (2003).
Wearing the letter jacket: Legitimate participation in a collaborative science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology education reform project. School Science and
Mathematics, 103(3), 121-134.
De Young, A. J. (1986). Excellence in education: The opportunity for school superintendents to
become ambitious? Educational Administration Quarterly, 22(2), 91-113.
EdSource (2010). California and the “Common Core”: Will there be a new debate about K-12
standards? Mountain View, CA: EdSource, Inc.
EdSource (2015). Glossary of education terms. Retrieved from
http://edsource.org/publications/education-glossary.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 170

Education Writers Association (2003). Effective superintendents, effective boards. Washington,
D.C.
Edwards, S. L. & Bruce, C. (2002). Reflective internet searching: an action research model.
The Learning Organization, 9(4), 180-188.
Foster, P. (1995). The founders of industrial arts in the U.S. Journal of Technology Education,
7(1), 7-21.
Friedrich, T. L., Mumford, M. D., Vessey, B., Beeler, C. K., & Eubanks, D. L. (2010). Leading
for innovation: Reevaluating leader influences on innovation with regard to innovation
type and complexity. International Studies of Management & Organization, 40(2), 6-29.
Gloeckner, G. W. (1991). The integration of science, technology, and mathematics: Myth or
dream? Journal of Technology Education, 2(2), 107
Gonzalez, H. B. & Kuenzi, J. J. (2012). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) education: A primer. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Gordon, D., ed. (2003). A nation reformed? American education 20 years after A Nation at
Risk. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Grissom, J. A. & Andersen, S. (2012). Why superintendents turn over. American Educational
Research Journal, 49(6), 1146-1180.
Hansen, N. (2013). Characteristics of schools successful in STEM: Evidence from two states'
longitudinal data. Working Paper National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in
Education Research (CALDER). Washington D.C.: American Research Institute.
Hill, H., Brian, R. & Ball, D. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching
on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371-406.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 171

Herschbach, D. (2011). The STEM initiative: Constraints and challenges. Journal of STEM
Teacher Education, 48(1), 96-122.
Hunter, R. (2009). Public school administration and Brown v. Board of Education. Education
and Urban Society, 41(5), 575-594.
Hurtado, S., Cabrera, N., Lin, M., Arellano, L., & Espinosa, L. (2008). Diversifying science:
Underrepresented student experiences in structured research programs. Research in
Higher Education, 50, 189-214.
Hutchinson, J. & Huberman, M. (1994). Knowledge dissemination and use in science and
mathematics education: A literature review. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 3(1), 27-47.
International Technology Education Association (2007). Standards for technological literacy:
Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: International Technology Education
Association.
Ireh, M. & Bailey, J. (1999). A superintendents’ change leadership styles using the Situational
Leadership Model. American Secondary Education, 27(4), 22-32.
Johnson, A., Charner, L., & White, R. (2003). Curriculum integration in context: An
exploration of how structures and circumstances affect design and implementation. Ohio
State University: National Dissemination Center for Career and Technical Education.
Kain, D. (1993). Cabbages—and kings: Research directions in integrated/interdisciplinary
curriculum. The Journal of Educational Thought, 27(3), 312-331.
Kane, D. S. & Boverie, P. E. (1995). Business-Education Partnerships: Establishing Criteria for
a High School Partnership Program. The High School Journal, 78(3), 151-158.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 172

Kaluf, K. J. & Rogers, G. E. (2011). The Gary plan: A model for today’s education? Journal of
STEM Teacher Education, 48(1), 13-21.
Kelly, T. R. (2012). Voices from the past: Messages for a STEM future. The Journal of
Technology Studies, 38(1), 34-42.
Kebritchi, M. (2010). Factors affecting teachers’ adoption of educational computer games: A
case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 256-270.
Lake, K. (1984). Integrated Curriculum. Retrieved from
http://educationnorthwest.org/sites/default/files/integrated-curriculum.pdf.
Lasher, G. C. (1990). Judgment analysis of school superintendent decision making. The Journal
of Experimental Education, 39(1), 87-96.
Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Successful school
leadership: What it is and how it influences pupil learning. Nottingham, United
Kingdom: University of Knottingham.
Levine, M. (1986). Business and the public schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 63(2), 4-
16.
Mac Iver, M. A. & Farley, E. (2003). Bringing the district back in: The role of the central office
in improving instruction and student achievement. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University.
Malian, I. & Nevin, A. (2005). A framework for understanding assessment of innovation in
teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(3), 7-17.
Maltese, A. V. & Tai, R. H. (2010). Eyeballs in the fridge: Sources of early interest in science.
International Journal of Science Education, 32(5), 669-685.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 173

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Los Angeles:
Sage Publications
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Morrison, J. & Bartlett, R. (2009). STEM as a curriculum: An experiential approach.
Education Week, 28(23), 28-29, 31.
Moyer-Packenham, P., Kitsantas, A., Bolyard, J., Huie, F., & Irby, N. (2009). Participation by
STEM faculty in mathematics and science partnership activities for teachers. Journal of
STEM Education, 10(3 & 4), 17-36.
National Academy of Engineering (2010). Standards for K-12 engineering education?
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Academy of Engineering & National Research Council (2002). Technically speaking:
Why all Americans need to know more about technology. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press.
National Academy of Engineering & National Research Council (2009). Engineering in K-12
education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press.
National Academy of Engineering & National Research Council (2014). STEM integration in K-
12 Education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press.
National Center for Education Statistics (2014). A first look: 2013 mathematics and reading.
National Center for Education Statistics (2013). The condition of education 2013.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 174

National Research Council (2011a). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective
approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press.
National Research Council (2011b). Successful STEM education: A workshop summary.
Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices,
crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press
National Research Council (2014). STEM learning is everywhere: Summary of a convocation
on building learning systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Next Generation Science Standards (2014). Retrieved from www.nextgenscience.org/lead-state-
partners.
Nugent, G., Kunz, G., Rilett, L., & Jones, E. (2010). Extending engineering education to K-12.
The Technology Teacher, 69(7), 14-19.
Palmer, R., Maramba, D., & Dancy II, T. (2011). A qualitative investigation of factors
promoting the retention and persistence of students of color in STEM. The Journal of
Negro Education, 80(4), 491-504.
Partnership for 21
st
Century Learning (2015). P21 framework definitions. Retrieved from
http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/docs/P21_Framework_Definitions_New_Logo_2
015.pdf
Petersen, G. J. (1999). Demonstrated actions of instructional leaders: An examination of five
California superintendents. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(18), 1-23.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 175

Petersen, G. J. (2002). Singing the same tune: Principals’ and school board members’
perceptions of the superintendent’s role as instructional leader. Educational
Administration, 40(2 & 3), 159-171
Pfeiffer, S. I., Overstreet, J. M., & Park, A. (2010). The state of science and mathematics
education in state-supported residential academies: A nationwide survey. Roper Review,
32, 25-31.
Porter, E. M. & van Opstal, D. (2001). U.S. competitiveness 2001: Strengths, vulnerabilities and
long-term priorities. Washington, DC: Council on Competitiveness.
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2010). Prepare and inspire: K-12
education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) for America’s future.
Retrieved from: www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/pcast/docsreports
Prevost, A., Nathan, M., Stein, B., Tran, N., & Phelps, A. (2009). Integration of Mathematics in
Pre-College Engineering: The search for explicit connections. Proceedings of the
American Society for Engineering Education. (Paper no. AC 2009-1790: pp. 1-19).
Austin, TX:ASEE Publications.
Reid, K. & Feldhaus, C. (2007). Issues for universities working with K-12 institutions
implementing prepackaged pre-engineering curricula such as Project Lead the Way.
Journal of STEM Education, 8(3 & 4), 5-14.
Rhodes, V., Stevens, D., & Hemmings, A. (2011). Creating positive culture in a new urban high
school. The High School Journal, 94(3), 82-94.
Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., & Kain, J. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement.
Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 176

Roberts, A. & Cantu, D. (2012). Applying STEM instructional strategies to design and
technology curriculum. Technology Education in the 21
st
Century, 111-118. Retrieved
from http://www.iteea.org/Conference/PATT/PATT26/ecp12073.pdf.
Roehrig, G., Moore, T., Wang, H., & Park, M. (2012). Is adding the E enough? Investigating
the impact of standards on the implementation of STEM. School Science and
Mathematics, 112(1), 31-44.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5
th
ed.). New York: Free Press.
Rotherham, A. J. & Willingham, D. (2009). 21
st
century skills: The challenges ahead.
Educational Leadership 67(1), 16-21.
Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEM mania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4),
20-26.
Sanders, M. (2012). Integrative STEM education as “best practice.” Explorations of best
practice in technology, design & engineering education, volume two: Proceedings of the
7
th
Biennial International Conference on Technology Education Research. Australia:
Griffith Institute for Education Research.
Scott, C. (2012). An investigation of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)
focused high schools in the U. S. Journal of STEM Education, 13(5), 30-39.
Sofo, R. (2008). Beyond NCLB and AYP: One superintendent’s experience of school district
reform. Harvard Educational Review, 78(2), 391-430.
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (1993). Vision, leadership, and change. Issues
about Change, 2(3), 1-3. Retrieved from
http://www.sedl.org/change/issues/issues23.html
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 177

Stohlmann, M., Moore, T., McClelland, J., & Roehrig, G. (2011). Impressions of a middle
grades STEM integration program: Educators share lessons learned from the
implementation of a middle grades STEM curriculum model. Middle School Journal,
43(1), 32-40.
Stricker, D. R. (2011). A case study: Teaching engineering concepts in science. Journal of
STEM Teacher Education, 48(2), 63-102.
Strobel, J. & Mendoza Diaz, N. (2012). Exploration of NSF-ATE projects approaches in the
integration of technology and engineering education at the K-12 levels. Advances in
Engineering Education, 3(2), 1-23. Retrieved from
http://advances.asee.org/vol03/issue02/papers/aee-vol03-issue02-p14.pdf
Subotnik, R. F., Tai, R. H., Rickoff, R., & Almarode, J. (2010). Specialized public high schools
of science, mathematics, and technology and the STEM pipeline: What do we know now
and what will we know in 5 years? Roeper Review, 32, 7-16.
Tai, R. H., Liu, C. Q, Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. (2006). Planning early for careers in science.
Science, 312, 1143-1144.
Tapping America’s Potential Coalition (2005). The education for innovation initiative.
Retrieved from: www.tapcoalition.org/resource/pdf/TAP_report2.pdf
Tapping America’s Potential Coalition (2008). Gaining momentum, losing ground. Retrieved
from: www.tapcoalition.org/resource/pdf/tap_2008progress.pdf
Thomas, J. (2001). The quest to define effective leadership. Washington, D. C.: Office of
Educational Research and Improvement.
Thomas, J. & Williams, C. (2010). The history of specialized STEM schools and the formation
and role of the NCSSSMST. Roeper Review, 32, 17-24.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 178

Timpane, M. (1984). Business has rediscovered the public schools. The Phi Delta Kappan,
65(6), 389-392.
Tirozzi, G. & Uro, G. (1997). Education reform in the United States: National policy in support
of local efforts for school improvement. American Psychologist, 52(3), 241-249.
Togneri, W. & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to
improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, D. C.: Learning First
Alliance.
Tran, N. & Nathan, M. (2010). Pre-college engineering studies: An investigation of the
relationship between pre-college engineering studies and student achievement in science
and mathematics. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(2), 143-157.
Traphagen, K. & Traill, S. (2014). How Cross-Sector Collaborations are Advancing STEM
Learning. Noyce Foundation. Retrieved from
http://www.noycefdn.org/documents/STEM_ECOSYSTEMS_REPORT_140128.pdf
U. S. Department of Education (2012). Fast facts: Enrollment trends. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=65
U. S. Department of Education (2004). No child left behind: A toolkit for teachers.
Washington, D. C.: Office of the Deputy Secretary.
Volk, K. S. (2005). The Gary plan and technology education: What might have been? Journal
of Technology Studies, 31(1), 39-48.
Watters, J. J. & Diezmann, C. M. (2013). Community partnerships for fostering student interest
and engagement in STEM. Journal of STEM Education, 14(2), 47-55.
Weiss, R. (1994). Learning from strangers: the art and method of qualitative interview studies.
New York: The Free Press.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 179

Williams, P., Tabernik, A. M., Krivak, T. (2009). The power of leadership, collaboration, and
professional development: The story of the SMART consortium. Education and Urban
Society, 41(4), 437-456.
Wilson, S. (2011). How can we improve teacher quality? The Phi Delta Kappan, 93(2), 64-67.
Winner, E. & Cooper, M. (2000). Mute those claims: No evidence (yet) for a causal link
between arts study and academic achievement. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3/4),
11-75.
Wright, B. (2011). Valuing the “everyday” practices of African American students K-12 and
their engagement in STEM learning: A position. The Journal of Negro Education,
80(1), 5-11.
Wright, H. & Harris, S. (2010). The role of the superintendent in closing the achievement gap in
diverse small school districts. Planning and Changing, 41(3/4), 220-233.
Wynn, T. & Harris, J. (2012). Toward a STEM + Arts Curriculum. Art Education, 65(5), 42-47.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 180

Appendix A: Superintendent Leadership for K-12 STEM Integration Interview Protocol

Date of Interview:
Interviewee:
Interviewee Job Title:
Interviewee Phone Number:
Interviewee Email Address
School District:
Authorizer’s Phone:
Authorizer’s Email Address:
Interview start time:
Interview end time:

My name is Shelly Yarbrough and I am a graduate student at the University of Southern
California’s Rossier School of Education. I am conducting a study about K-12 STEM (science,
technology, engineering, and math) integration.

I am interested in learning how school superintendents’ understandings about and experiences
with STEM integration impact their support of its implementation within their districts.

The information you provide will serve to inform future research on the implementation of K-12
STEM integration in school in the United States.

Any information you provide will be kept confidential. I will not identify you or your
organization by name. I would like to tape record this interview in order to have an accurate
record of our conversation. Would that be okay?

The interview should take about an hour. I will ask you to reflect on and provide information
about your experience with the implementation of the STEM integration program you supported
as well as personal and professional experiences that may have impacted your decisions made in
support of the program. Do you have any questions before we begin?

Interview Questions

1. What is your educational background, including undergraduate major(s), graduate degrees,
credentials, certificates, professional development, etc.?
2. What formal and informal professional organizations and networks do you belong to or
participate in?
3. In what types of activities do you participate, including professional development,
collaboration, meetings, advice seeking, idea sharing, decision making, general
communication, etc., as a member of the formal and informal professional organizations and
networks to which you belong?
4. How often do you participate in these activities?
5. What is your definition of STEM integration?
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 181

6. How appropriate is your definition to your district’s setting/context (and the setting/context
of the district in which you supported implementation of a STEM integration program, if
applicable)?
7. Please describe what you know about the potential impact of STEM integration on STEM
education? (teacher preparation, professional development, and practice; student interest and
achievement; STEM pipeline; curriculum; etc.)
8. How did you come to know about STEM integration?
9. Some suggest that STEM integration is an approach to STEM education that removes
boundaries between the STEM subjects resulting in interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary
projects, courses, or even a new subject. What are your thoughts about this definition?
10. How appropriate is your definition to your district’s setting/context (and the setting/context
of the district in which you supported implementation of a STEM integration program, if
applicable)?
11. Describe what successful STEM integration would look like in the public school
setting/context? In your district’s setting/context?
12. Describe your feelings about the importance of more widely implementing STEM integration
in your district’s setting/context. More widely in the public school system.
13. Describe how close public schools are to implementing STEM integration? What, if
anything, is needed for successful STEM integration in public schools. In your school
district?
14. How confident are you in public education’s ability to more widely implement STEM
integration? Explain.
15. How confident are you in your school district’s ability to implement (or more widely
implement) STEM integration? Explain.
16. How confident are you in your ability to support implementation of) STEM integration?
Explain.
17. If efforts were started to more widely implement STEM integration in the public school
system, what would teachers to do? (Actions, behaviors, structures, education, etc.)
Administrators? Superintendents?
18. How confident are you in the public school system’s ability to adopt these actions and
behaviors?
19. How confident are you in your ability to adopt these actions and behaviors?
20. Is STEM integration appropriate for all students? (Consider gender, socio-economic status,
language proficiency, and learning ability.)
21. How do you feel the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the Next Generation
Science Standards (NGSS) have impacted or will impact STEM integration efforts in your
district? In the United States?
22. How should STEM integration/STEM education programs be evaluated?
23. Think back to when you made the decision to support implementation of a STEM integration
program. Please describe the reasons/factors that impacted your decision.
24. Please describe the reason/factors that impacted your decision about the purpose, primary
objectives, and long-term goals of the STEM integration program you supported?
25. Specifically, how were you involved in the process of implementing the STEM integration
program?
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 182

26. Please describe how your understanding of STEM integration, STEM education changed or
any other insights you gained as a result of your involvement in implementation of a STEM
integration initiative.
27. What advice would do you have for superintendents who are considering or in the process of
implementing STEM integration initiatives within their districts?
28. Think about your practice as superintendent. What are the most important things you do on a
regular basis? (Involvement in professional organizations and networks, professional
development, building/maintaining relationships with the school board, building/maintaining
relationships with the community, instructional leadership, keeping abreast of education
reform and education innovations, etc.)
29. What impact, if any, do these have on STEM integration?
30. How often do you talk with various stakeholders (students, teachers, administrators, school
board members, community members) about the district’s STEM integration program or
about STEM education in general?
31. Do you seek out information related to STEM integration (or STEM education) and for what
reasons do you seek this information? From whom or from where do you seek this
information?
32. What else would you like to share about your knowledge about and experiences with STEM
integration?

Okay, we’re finished. The information you’ve provided will be very helpful in researching how
to implement K-12 STEM integration on a larger scale in U. S. public schools. If I need more
information, may I contact you again? Thank you very much for your time.

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 183

Appendix B: K-12 STEM Integration Consent Form

You are being asked to take part in a research study about STEM integration. I am asking you to
take part because you are a superintendent who has implemented a STEM integration initiative
within a district while your were superintendent. Please read this form carefully and ask any
questions you may have before agreeing to take part in the study.

What the study is about: The purpose of this study is to gain an insight into superintendents’
understandings and beliefs about STEM integration and how those understandings and beliefs
impact their support of STEM integration initiative within their districts.

What I will ask you to do: If you agree to be in this study, I will conduct an interview with you.
The interview will include questions about your current position, your educational and
professional background, your participation in professional organizations and networks, your
knowledge of and feelings about STEM integration, and your practices as a superintendent.

Risks and benefits: I do not anticipate any risks to you participating in this study other than those
encountered in day-to-day life.

There are no benefits to you. The information you provide will serve to inform future research
on the implementation of STEM integration in K-12 public schools.

Compensation: There is no compensation for your participation.

Your answers will be confidential. The records of this study will be kept private. In any sort of
report I make public I will not include any information that will make it possible to identify you.
Research records will be kept in a locked file; only the researcher will have access to the records.
If I tape-record the interview, I will destroy the tape after it has been transcribed, which I
anticipate will be within two months of its taping.

Taking part is voluntary: Taking part in this study is completely voluntary. You may skip any
questions that you do not want to answer. If you decide to take part, you are free to withdraw at
any time.

If you have questions: The researcher conducting this study is Shelly Yarbrough. Please ask any
questions you have now. If you have questions later, you may contact Shelly Yarbrough at
shelly@blabmail.com or at 1-800-555-4365. If you have any questions or concerns regarding
your rights as a subject in this study, you may contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at
888-255-5138 or access their website at http://oprs.usc.edu/review/forms/.

You will be given a copy of this form to keep for your records.

Statement of Consent: I have read the above information, and have received answers to any
questions I asked. I consent to take part in the study.

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 184

Your Signature ___________________________________ Date ____________

Your Name (printed) _______________________________________________

In addition to agreeing to participate, I also consent to having the interview tape-recorded.

Your Signature ___________________________________ Date ____________

Signature of person obtaining consent ______________________________ Date
_____________________

Printed name of person obtaining consent ______________________________ Date
_____________________

This consent form will be kept by the researcher for at least three years beyond the end of the
study and was approved by the IRB on [date].

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 185

Appendix C: Superintendent Leadership for K-12 STEM Integration Document Review Protocol

Case:

Document Title:

During an interview with a public school superintendent who has supported implementation of a
STEM integration program within his or her district while superintendent, the superintendent
discussed personal understandings about and definitions of STEM integration. How the vision
for the program was developed and how perceptions and understandings of STEM integration
changed as a result of implementing a STEM integration initiative.
The purpose of this document review is to supplement the superintendents’ account of his or
actions and decisions related to the integration implementation in order to understand whether
their perceptions and beliefs about STEM integration relate to their actions and decisions in
support of K-12 STEM integration efforts within their school districts.
During the document review consider/focus on the following:
• What is the document type—personal, public record, popular culture?
• What is the document format—written (memo, letter, newsletter, diary, etc.), visual
(video, photograph, etc.), audio, digital, physical artifact?
• What is the source of the document—superintendent, other district personnel, Internet,
community sources, etc.?
• Who created the document?
• When was the document created?
• Why was the document created?
• Who is the intended audience for the document?
• How was the document disseminated (if applicable)?
• How was the document obtained?
• How does the document reflect K-12 STEM integration within the district?
• How does the document reflect the actions or decisions of the superintendent?
• What biases might be reflected in the document?
• Is the document complete as it was originally created, or has it been edited or altered? If
so, how does this affect the credibility of the document?
• What were the sources of information used by the creator of the document?

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 186

Brief Description of the Document
Document Type:

Document Format:

Source of the Document:

Document Details

Reviewer Reactions and Reflections

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 187

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This qualitative multicase study employed Rogers’ (2003) theory of diffusion of innovation, specifically the innovation-decision process, to gain insight into how school superintendents’ understandings and beliefs about integrated STEM education impact implementation of integrated STEM education initiatives within their districts. The following research questions guided the study: 1) How do school superintendents who have supported the implementation of STEM integration initiatives within their districts develop a vision for the program(s)? 2) How do school superintendents’ understandings and perceptions of STEM integration evolve as a result of implementing STEM integration initiatives in their districts? 3) What relationships exist between superintendents’ understandings and beliefs about STEM integration and their actions, behaviors, and decisions? Interviews with superintendents and document reviews provided data to address the research questions. Each superintendent was treated as a separate case during data analysis. A comparative analysis was completed to address the research questions. Findings are in line with the literature that identifies the lack of a common definition or understanding of integrated STEM education. Findings further suggest the need for clearly articulated descriptions of the integration as well as specific plans for evaluation of the initiatives. Furthermore, it appears that rather than a background in STEM, the perception that an initiative is better than approaches already in use and is compatible with the experiences, values, beliefs, and needs of the superintendent and the district he or she leads may influence a superintendent to champion integrated STEM education initiatives. This study adds to the literature on superintendent leadership, specifically superintendent leadership for implementation of integrated STEM education.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The principal's perspective: essential factors when implementing integrative STEM in middle school

PDF

Preservice teacher preparation for engineering integration in K-5

PDF

The effects of math anxiety and low self-efficacy on students’ attitudes and interest in STEM

PDF

An examination of K-12 STEM integration by combining science inquiry with engineering design

PDF

Promoting STEM integration, interest and identity among elementary school students

PDF

Integration of STEM and gardening for urban elementary youth

PDF

A knowledge, motivation and organizational gap analysis for integrating the arts with a STEM curriculum

PDF

High-performing school district superintendents: preparation, recruitment, and retention

PDF

STEM integration: a case study of a 21st century skills professional development program for math and science teachers in an urban school

PDF

Teachers' perceptions of the epistemic interface between indigeneity and technology in the Cook Islands

PDF

Perception of the preparation, recruitment, and retention of California school district superintendents

PDF

Common Core implementation: decisions made by Southern California superintendents of unified school districts

PDF

Educational leadership: a comprehensive analysis of the preparation, recruitment, and retention of school district superintendents

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

Elementary STEM policies, practices and implementation in California

PDF

The superintendency in a California school district: preparation, recruitment, and career longevity

PDF

Principal leadership for diffusing innovation across an established, high-performing K-12 school system

PDF

Examining the factors leading to the continued underrepresentation of Latinas in STEM

PDF

A needs assessment for Hillview Middle School's STEM education program

PDF

Integrating STEM instruction through identifying interest and identity in STEM professionals

Asset Metadata

Creator Yarbrough, Shelly A. (author)

Core Title Leadership for K-12 STEM integration: how superintendents champion the advancement of effective integrated STEM education within their districts

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/20/2016

Defense Date 11/30/2015

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

Tag curriculum integration,diffusion of innovation,education innovation,OAI-PMH Harvest,STEM,superintendent leadership

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Maddox, Anthony (committee chair), Freking, Frederick (committee member), Sheehan, Richard (committee member)

Creator Email shellyyarbrough@sbcglobal.net,syarbrou@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-234254

Unique identifier UC11278347

Identifier etd-YarbroughS-4300.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-234254 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-YarbroughS-4300.pdf

Dmrecord 234254

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Yarbrough, Shelly A.

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