University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Integrating STEM instruction through identifying interest and identity in STEM professionals

(USC Thesis Other)

Integrating STEM instruction through identifying interest and identity in STEM professionals

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION

Integrating STEM Instruction through
Identifying Interest and Identity in STEM Professionals
by
Christine Ullerich

____________________________________________________________________________

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

August 2015

Copyright 2015 Christine Ullerich

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
ii

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my entire family who gave me the support and love
to complete this study. Specifically, this dissertation is dedicated to my father, John
Stallard, who always told me that I can accomplish whatever I put my mind to-thank you
for believing in me.

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the members of my dissertation committee: Dr. Frederick Freking
(dissertation chair), Dr. Anthony Maddox, and Dr. Paolo DeGuzman; their guidance and
mentoring throughout the dissertation process have been invaluable. My colleagues Joann
Ferrara-Genao and Shelly Yarbrough who inspired me and helped to refine my thought process
on our many long drives to the main campus.
To the STEM professionals who were willing to share their stories and endure hard
questions on defining cognitive processes; I am grateful for your thoughtful reflection and
sincere answers.
And finally, to my husband Marc and sons, John, Elijah, and Ian, to whom I will forever
be thankful for your understanding and encouragement.

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication........................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements............................................................................................................ iii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures.................................................................................................................... ix
Chapter One: Overview of the Study...............................................................................1
Background of the Problem ....................................................................................3
Federal Agencies and STEM .......................................................................4
Call for Research..........................................................................................5
Statement of the Problem........................................................................................6
Purpose of the Study ...............................................................................................7
Importance of the Study..........................................................................................8
Assumptions, Delimitations, Limitations ................................................................9
Assumptions.................................................................................................9
Supply and Demand.............................................................................10
Assumptions Related to Incentives/Agency Theory............................10
Delimitations and Limitations..............................................................11
Definition of Terms....................................................................................12
Organization of the Study ..........................................................................13

Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................15
The Structure behind STEM Education.................................................................15
Supply and Demand...................................................................................17
Incentives .............................................................................................18
Agency Theory and Incentives .............................................................18
Economic Incentives..................................................................................19
Economic Incentives to STEM Education.................................................19
Social and Moral Incentives.......................................................................20
Social and Moral Incentives in STEM.......................................................21
Neurological Evidence: Incentives, Rewards, and Interest .......................21
Theoretical Framework..........................................................................................22
Social Cognitive Theory ............................................................................22
Self-Efficacy Theory..................................................................................23
STEM Experience, Interest, Identity, and Self-Efficacy .......................................23
Interest Development.................................................................................23
Identity .......................................................................................................26
Integrated STEM Education and Self-Efficacy .........................................26
STEM Interest/Identity Stories and Diversity............................................27
Expert Blind Spot.......................................................................................28
Expert Blind Spot and STEM Integration.............................................28
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
v

Expert Blind Spot and STEM Interest/Identity Stories.........................29
Teachers as Innovators...............................................................................29
Conclusion .............................................................................................................31

Chapter Three: Methodology.........................................................................................32
Restatement of Problem, Purpose, and Research Questions..................................32
Design Summary....................................................................................................35
Research Design.........................................................................................35
Qualitative Method ....................................................................................35
Participants and Setting..........................................................................................36
Site, Program, and Teacher Selection........................................................37
Instrumentation and Protocols ...............................................................................38
Data Collection Protocols ..........................................................................38
Process of Gaining Entry ....................................................................38
Introductory Survey ............................................................................39
Interview Data.....................................................................................39
Data Analysis.........................................................................................................39
Approach to Analysis.................................................................................40
Approach to Coding...................................................................................40
Ethical Considerations ...........................................................................................41
Validity and Reliability..............................................................................42
Summary................................................................................................................43

Chapter Four: The Findings...........................................................................................44
Participants.............................................................................................................46
Participant Demographics......................................................................................47
Participants’ Value of STEM Education................................................................49
Value and Confidence in STEM Integration .........................................................50
Economic, Social, and Moral Incentives ...............................................................53
Individual Participant Results................................................................................55
Participant #1 .........................................................................................................56
Summary of Demographic and Survey Data ...........................................56
STEM Interest and Identity......................................................................56
Subject-Specific Content Knowledge, Ability, and Self-Efficacy...........57
STEM Integration and School Structure.............................................58
Mindsets or Attributes Used to Integrate STEM Subject Matter.............59
Participant #2 .........................................................................................................60
Summary of Demographic and Survey Data ...........................................60
STEM Interest and Identity......................................................................61
Subject-Specific Content Knowledge, Ability, and Self-Efficacy...........62
STEM Interest Development and School Structure............................63
STEM Integration and School Structure............................................64
Mindsets or Attributes Used to Integrate STEM Subject Matter.............59
Participant #3 .........................................................................................................65
Summary of Demographic and Survey Data ...........................................65
STEM Interest and Identity......................................................................67
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
vi

STEM Interest Development and School Structure............................68
Subject-Specific Content Knowledge, Ability, and Self-Efficacy...........68
Mindsets or Attributes Used to Integrate STEM Subject Matter.............69
Divergent Data...................................................................................70
Participant #4 .........................................................................................................72
Summary of Demographic and Survey Data ...........................................72
STEM Interest and Identity......................................................................73
STEM Interest Development/STEM Integration and School
Structure..............................................................................................75
Subject-Specific Content Knowledge, Ability, and Self-Efficacy...........76
Mindsets or Attributes Used to Integrate STEM Subject Matter.............76
Participant #5 .........................................................................................................77
Summary of Demographic and Survey Data ...........................................77
STEM Interest and Identity......................................................................78
STEM Interest Development and School Structure............................79
Subject-Specific Content Knowledge, Ability, and Self-Efficacy...........82
STEM Integration and School Structure.............................................82
Mindsets or Attributes Used to Integrate STEM Subject Matter.............84
Additional Participants...........................................................................................86
Participant #6 .........................................................................................................86
Summary of Demographic and Survey Data ...........................................86
STEM Interest and Identity......................................................................87
STEM Interest Development and School Structure............................88
Subject-Specific Content Knowledge, Ability, and Self-Efficacy...........89
STEM Integration and School Structure.............................................89
Mindsets or Attributes Used to Integrate STEM Subject Matter.............90
Participant #7 .........................................................................................................92
Summary of Demographic and Survey Data ...........................................92
STEM Interest and Identity......................................................................93
STEM Interest Development and School Structure............................94
Subject-Specific Content Knowledge, Ability, and Self-Efficacy...........95
STEM Integration and School Structure.............................................96
Mindsets or Attributes Used to Integrate STEM Subject Matter.............97
Storytelling, Analogies, and STEM Integration ....................................................98
The Five Whys: Storytelling, Analogies, and STEM Integration.............99
Self-Reported Use of Storytelling...........................................................103
Teacher Preparation Programs and STEM Integration...........................105
Conclusion ...........................................................................................................106

Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusions, Implications ...................................................108
Key Findings........................................................................................................108
Interest and Identity in STEM Education ................................................109
Incentives ............................................................................................109
Agency Theory and Interest Development .........................................109
Identity in STEM Education ...............................................................110
Experience, Subject-Specific Content Knowledge, Ability, and
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
vii

Self-Efficacy ............................................................................................110
Storytelling, Analogies, and STEM Integration ......................................112
Analogies and STEM Integration .......................................................112
Analogies, STEM Interest, and Diversity...........................................114
Teacher Preparation Programs and Strategies for Innovation .................115
STEM Professionals Effect on Interest, Identity, and Self-Efficacy in
STEM.......................................................................................................115
STEM Professionals and STEM Experience ...........................................116
Implications..........................................................................................................116
Theory.......................................................................................................116
Practice......................................................................................................118
Limitations ...........................................................................................................119
Recommendations for Future Research...............................................................119
Conclusion ...........................................................................................................121

References........................................................................................................................124

Appendices
Appendix A: General Recruitment Email Cover Letter ......................................131
Appendix B: Introductory Survey Instrument .....................................................132
Appendix C: Consent to Participate.....................................................................135
Appendix D: Interview Protocol/Teachers ..........................................................138
Appendix E: Interview Protocol/Administrators .................................................140
Appendix F: Alignment of Instrument and Protocol to Research Questions.......142

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Age of STEM professionals........................................................................48
Table 2: Race/Ethnicity of participants.....................................................................49
Table 3: Value of STEM education: STEM education is important in creating a
career and college ready student:...............................................................50
Table 4: Importance of integrating all STEM content areas.....................................50
Table 5: Confidence in ability to integrate at least two STEM content areas...........51
Table 6: Confidence in ability to integrate instruction in more than two STEM
content areas................................................................................................52
Table 7: Confidence in ability to integrate all STEM content areas.........................52
Table 8: Ability to integrate STEM content areas affected by environmental
barriers .......................................................................................................53
Table 9: Economic, social, or moral incentive’s affect in decision to enter the
STEM field .................................................................................................54
Table 10: Willingness to be interviewed ....................................................................55

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Single Analogy Used to Show Commonalities between Separate STEM
Concepts...........................................................................................................................113

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
1

CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
This study is predicated upon research suggestions set forth in the report STEM
Integration in K-12 Education: Status, Prospects, and an Agenda for Research by the Committee
on Integrated STEM Education (Honey, Pearson & Schweingruber, 2014). In this report the
authors call for further research, within the context of STEM education, on whether teacher
interest and identity can affect students’ interest and identity development. According to Honey
et al. (2014), limited research indicates student interest/identity in STEM education leads to an
ability to make connections to content across the independent subject areas of STEM,
consequently increasing students’ problem solving abilities (Honey et al., 2014). This point begs
the question of how best then to utilize teacher STEM interest and identity to affect the
development of student STEM interest and identity? One possible means to achieve this end is
for teachers, using social cognitive theory based modeling (Bandura, 1986), to explicitly define
and explain their STEM interest and identity development through narrative discourse with
students during daily instruction. However, initiating these discussions with students first
requires identifying to what teachers attribute their interest and identity in STEM education.
It must be noted that even though the effect of teachers’ interest/identity and self-efficacy
on students’ development of STEM interest /identity is a small component of the Honey et al.
(2014) research agenda, its exploration possibly exposes an important piece to the STEM
integration puzzle for the following reasons: (1) exploration of teacher STEM interest/identity
has the potential to uncover common philosophical mindsets or attributes that teachers utilize to
integrate STEM subject matter; (2) identifying common underlying cognitive processes or
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
2

procedures used by teachers in integrating STEM content; and (3) determining if there are
possible connections between STEM teachers’ ability to teach across subjects and students’
ability to solve problems across subjects. Moreover, based upon the claim by Honey et al. (2014)
that student development of interest and identity potentially leads to an ability to make
connections across STEM content areas, it stands to reason that dissecting already developed
STEM interest and identity in teachers might possibly be a method to explore the thought
process behind connecting the separate STEM subjects (Barton, 2012; Mechanism design, 2009).
Therefore, to establish the pathway teachers traveled to reach STEM interest and identity, it is
necessary to determine what prior experiences provided STEM teachers the prerequisite subject-
specific content knowledge, ability, and self-efficacy to teach across STEM subjects in K–12
education.
Finally, it is important to place the STEM interest/identity and STEM integration
discussion within the larger framework of STEM education and the U.S. education system as a
whole; specifically, the national call for education reform due to the reported failure of the
United States’ education system to prepare students with 21
st
century competencies required to
compete within a global economy (Arrison & Olson, 2012; Beatty, 2011; Honey et al. 2014).
STEM education is the purported solution to the problem of an undereducated workforce;
however, in its current state, many components of STEM education have yet to be defined or
best practices empirically studied (Honey et al. 2014). This point has led to ambiguity in STEM
program descriptions and difficulty in program assessment and accountability. Nonetheless,
before the smaller components of STEM education (STEM interest, identity, and integration) can
be discussed, the larger historical and political context of STEM education needs to be examined.

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
3

Background of the Problem
To identify and define the problem of an undereducated workforce (i.e. the low number
of career and college ready students) the U.S. government initiated a series of fact finding reports
(Teitelbaum, 2008). Of these reports, Rising above the Gathering Storm: Developing Regional
Innovation Environments (Arrison & Olson, 2012) created a dramatic effect on federal-backed
education reform (Teitelbaum, 2008) due to its recommendation to investment federal dollars “to
support basic research; improve STEM education; and foster innovation” (U.S. Congress renews
America COMPETES Act, 2011, p.1). Additionally, Arroson and Olson’s (2012) report later
became the prototype for federal legislation, America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully
Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science (America COMPETES) Act in 2007.
This act set in motion a series of resource allocations and program implementation criterion
which in turn began to define current STEM education policy and budgeting practices (America
COMPETES Act, 2007). However, even though program resources and outcomes were well
defined through government policy, neither an agreed upon definition of STEM education, nor
the method to integrate the STEM content areas were specified within government reports or
literature (Honey et. al., 2014). To add to the confusion of not having an official STEM
definition is the “inconsistent use of language, failure to define terms, and lack of a theoretical
framework for understanding integrated STEM education” (Honey et. al., 2014, p.152). Also
problematic is that STEM programs do not necessarily exist within the same educational
environment; STEM programs range from whole-school restricted access to afterschool-only
STEM programs (National Research Council [NRC], 2011). Regardless of the ambiguity in what
constitutes a STEM program, it is agreed upon throughout literature that STEM education’s
purpose is to affect student achievement through the integrated study of STEM disciplines
(Honey et. al., 2014; NRC, 2011). One possible explanation for the inconsistency in STEM
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
4

definitions and implementation is that according to President Obama’s STEM: 5-Year Strategic
Plan (2013), oversight and funding for 110 STEM educational programs are spread over three
different government agencies.
Federal agencies and STEM. In 2013 the White House released a 5-year strategic plan
outlining STEM education’s implementation and oversight. This plan charged three government
agencies with primary responsibility to oversee other agencies and ensure that federal funds were
spent efficiently. These three predominant agencies, with their function and coordinating
agencies include (STEM, 5-Year Strategic Plan, 2013):
• The Department of Education (ED)
o Focuses on aligning federal STEM policy to state and local policy;
o allocating federal resources to improve STEM instruction through teacher
preparation/professional development; and
o initiating partnerships with other agencies with the purpose of evaluating
program outputs.
• The National Science Foundation (NSF)
o Operates in conjunction with:
The National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
The National Science and Technology Council’s (NSTC)
Committee on STEM Education (CoSTEM)
• Discusses STEM educational workforce requirements and
college level STEM educational needs.

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
5

• The Smithsonian Institution
o Aligned with the NSF and ED
o The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
o The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
o USDA and NIH
o The Department of the Interior (DOI)
Engages youth in science education
Improve infrastructure and access (STEM, 5-Year Strategic Plan,
2013).
All of the above mentioned agencies are responsible for allocating resources, overseeing
program implementation, and monitoring program effectiveness (STEM, 5-Year Strategic Plan,
2013).
Call for research. According to Honey et al. (2014), the continuity of STEM education
is in its infancy due to the many different frameworks of STEM program design,
implementation, and varying degrees of STEM subject integration. All of these factors, including
the previously mentioned multitude of government agencies involved, creates a call for early-
stage or exploratory research which by definition examines the “relationships among important
constructs in education and learning to establish logical connections that may form the basis for
future interventions or strategies to improve education outcomes” (Honey et al., 2014, p.154).
One such educational construct, with the potential to improve future educational
outcomes, is to determine if the demarcation of interest and identity in STEM teachers results in
an improved strategy to affect student interest and identity development based upon social
cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986); specifically, that by teachers modeling their own development
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
6

of STEM interest/identity, students will in turn develop their STEM identity/interest, thus
improving matriculation and retention in STEM programs. Consequently, this study will address
prerequisite questions needed to identify possible catalysts for affecting student interest and
identity formation, thus setting the stage for the Honey et al. (2014) suggested research question
“What effect does access to/engagement with STEM professionals as role models and mentors
have on student interest, identity and self-efficacy in STEM?”
Additionally, according to Honey et al. (2014) a byproduct of STEM interest and identity
formation is teacher STEM self-efficacy which leads to an ability to make connections across
STEM content areas. It is asserted that STEM self-efficacy is developed over time and is the
result of first developing an interest in STEM education, then forming a STEM identity, which
potentially leads to self-efficacy to integrate STEM content (Honey et al., 2014). It cannot be
assumed that the previously stated sequence, STEM interest/identity/self-efficacy, is an absolute
formula to create teacher effectiveness in STEM integration; however, it is a starting point to
determine if exploring teacher STEM interest/identity has the potential to uncover common
philosophical perspectives, attributes, or cognitive processes and procedures used by teachers in
integrating STEM content; therefore, determining if there are possible connections between
STEM teachers’ ability to teach across subjects and students’ ability to solve problems across
subjects. Consequently, as part of teacher interest/identity exploration, a second call for research
to identify if a relationship exists between teachers’ development of STEM interest and identity,
and teachers’ self-reported self-efficacy to integrate STEM subjects is necessary.
Statement of the Problem
It is a given that the purpose of education is to prepare students to be career and college
ready upon graduation from high school (Kuenzi, 2008); STEM education is professed to be the
mechanism to achieve that goal. However, Assefa and Rorissa (2013) state that, “despite the
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
7

tremendous amount of attention given to STEM education as a key lever for a nation’s
competitiveness or innovation capacity, there is not yet a clear understanding of what STEM
education entails and how to support and/or implement programs and activities in the field”
(Assefa & Rorissa, 2013, p.2). Due to the ambiguity in research describing how-to-do- STEM
education, especially the integration of all four STEM content areas, it can be asserted that there
exists a deficit in researched-based information on STEM integration and best practices available
to STEM education practitioners, pre-service teachers, and current researchers. Additionally, due
to previous research which ties student learning to self-efficacy and identity development (Honey
et al., 2014) it is imperative to uncover the potential role that teachers’ interest and identity plays
in student identity formation, especially in underrepresented populations. The aim in this study is
to explore teachers’ stories, specifically the interest/identity/self-efficacy and incentives that led
to the decision to enter STEM education, and to uncover common philosophical perspectives,
attributes, or cognitive processes and procedures used by these teachers in integrating STEM
content areas with the goal of defining best practices for the before stated stakeholders.
Purpose of the Study
The overall purpose of this study is to add to the body of knowledge on STEM education
integration in K-12 education. This purpose requires both a primary question, that focuses on
identifying commonalities or differences in teachers’ interest and identity development, with the
final goal of determining the effect access to/engagement with STEM professionals as role
models and mentors have on student interest, identity, and self-efficacy in STEM, and a
secondary question centered on identifying the components of self-efficacy in teaching across
STEM content subjects (Honey et al., 2014). To achieve this purpose, the following research
questions were utilized:
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
8

• To what do teachers at the middle school level attribute their interest and identity in
STEM education?
• What prior experience provided middle-school STEM teachers the subject-specific
content knowledge, ability, and self-efficacy to integrate subjects in K–12 STEM
education?
• How do teachers that self-report storytelling implement this strategy in their STEM
teaching?
• What effect does access to/engagement with STEM professionals as role models and
mentors have on student interest, identity and self-efficacy in STEM (Honey et al.,
2014)?
The specific purpose of this study to determine if teacher reflection on the process of developing
STEM interest and identity, including recognizing the incentives that spurred initial STEM
interest, identifies interconnected relationships or pathways between the STEM content areas that
later can be referenced to explain their cognitive method of STEM integration to students,
therefore, based on social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), potentially affecting students’
STEM interest/identity formation.
Importance of the Study
It is evident that a major paradigm shift in education is currently underway; education in
the United States is presently evolving to supply the highly skilled workforce required to meet the
demand of a 21
st
century global economy (NRC, 2011). To achieve this end, education must be
approached in a new and innovative way highlighting critical thinking, problem solving,
communication, collaboration and creativity (P21 Common Core, 2011). This integration of
instruction, to actuate higher-level thinking skills and student achievement, is the foundation for
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
9

the incorporation of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) into a single integrated
field of study (Arrison & Olson, 2012; Beatty, 2011; Honey et al. 2014; NRC, 2011).
However, according to Honey et al. (2014), within the universe of STEM education, there
appears to be inequity in the integration of the four separate domains of STEM; most self-
identified STEM programs focus on the science and mathematical domains of STEM with little
attention given to the technology domain, and even less to the engineering (Lederman J. &
Lederman N., 2013). This fact has led to ambiguity in the definition of what constitutes a STEM
program, but more importantly, has led to questions of accountability, student achievement, and
best use of resources (Honey et. al., 2014). To counter this problem, factors that lead to
successful STEM integration within K-12 grade classrooms need to be identified and replicated.
Research indicates that STEM interest and identity is needed to develop the STEM self-efficacy
that leads to teachers’ ability to teach across STEM content areas, and students’ ability to
incorporate information from the separate STEM fields during instruction. The final implication
of this study is that it sets the foundation for further research to determine if there is a correlation
between teachers’ interest/identity, self-efficacy, and STEM content integration ability, and
students’ STEM interest/identity formation, and ability to process information and make
connections across STEM content areas.
Assumptions, Delimitations, Limitations
Assumptions
The basic assumption, and the underlying foundation for this paper, is that the economic
principles of supply and demand and incentives apply within an educational context and are the
cornerstone for the development of teacher interest/identity in integrated STEM instruction. The
validity of this assumption is addressed in detail by Brewer, Hentchke, and Eide (2010) through
both education as an economic production function (inputs and outputs), and as organizational
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
10

transaction cost economics (principal-agent theory). The specific assumption detailed is that
government incentives to implement STEM programs are based on the need to affect the supply
and demand curve within education. The principal critique of economic theory, applied to
education, is whether STEM programs are the result of supply and demand and an attempt to
correct market failure within the U.S. educational system.
Supply and Demand. According to Adams (2010), the current state of U.S. education
has created a deficit in adequately prepared young people (supply) to compete in a global
workforce (demand). The basic assumption of this proposal is that improving education will in
turn improve the capacity of the U.S. workforce and therefore increase the supply of qualified
workers. An additional assumption of the underlying theory is put forth by Brewer and McEwan
(2010). Brewer and McEwan (2010) assert that incentives can be used to correct for “market
failure” within a monopoly. These authors further state that the U.S. education system is an
example of an economic monopoly; therefore the U.S. government implemented incentives to
education to correct “market failure” within the monopoly of public education (Brewer &
McEwan, 2010). The underlying assumption of this action is that government regulation,
financing, and incentives will counter the lack of competitive pressure within the educational
“market” (Brewer & McEwan, 2010).
Assumptions related to incentives/agency theory. Agency theory explains how
government incentives are used to promote STEM education reform. Within the above
description, the U.S. government would be acting as the principal and the U.S. education system
would be the contracted agent or firm. It is through contracts, and the economic incentives
contained in them, that the federal government, acting as principal, intends to actuate the
educational reforms necessary to increase student achievement. However, within these grants
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
11

(contracts) are requirements that are outside the scope of the immediate proposed purpose of the
grant (such as making STEM funding contingent on accepting federal guidelines for teacher
evaluations), and therefore create barriers to implementation due to conflicts with pervious
contracts and agents.
Assumptions related to interest and identity. A basic premise of this study is that
STEM identity is developed through a combination of an individual’s reaction to STEM
experiences coupled with varying degrees of response to economic, social, and moral incentives.
Likewise, it is an assumption that the path of STEM identity development can be deconstructed
to analyze for commonalities in teachers’ identity formation. Finally, it is assumed that
identifying STEM teachers’ identity formation will lead to the isolation of common strategies,
used to integrate STEM content areas, which could be used to better explain STEM integration to
students thus actuating student STEM interest and identity formation.
Delimitations and Limitations
Delimitations of this study include the number of STEM education professionals within
the Los Angeles, San Diego, and Riverside counties available to participate in this study.
Limitations are the time constraints for this study’s completion which necessitates a limited
number of STEM education professionals to be interviewed. It is both the size of the sample
interviewed participants and the dynamics of self-reporting as the primary means of data
collection which could reduce the generalizability of the findings for this study.

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
12

Definition of Terms
The terms below are used throughout this study:
• Expert blind spot: Expert blind spot (EBS) occurs in education when expertise in a
subject area results in being unable to identify prerequisite concepts or skills required
for novice learners to understand content being taught (Nathan & Petrosino, 2003)
• Identity: “Refers to who one is or wants to be, as well as to how one is recognized by
others—as a particular kind of person, with particular interests” (Honey et al., 2014).
• Incentives: A means, usually connected to a reward, of influencing individual and
group behavior (Levitt, Dubner & Stephen, 2005).
• Innovator: A person who synthesizes opposing ideas through associating, questioning,
observing, networking, and experimenting to produce novel insights, processes,
and/or products (Dyer, Gregersen & Christensen, 2011).
• Integrated STEM experiences: Instructional design that supports “students’
development of knowledge and practices in individual disciplines and their ability to
recognize and make connections across disciplines” (Honey et al., 2014, p. 112).
• Interest: A mental state that is activated, or triggered, by creating “uncertainty,
surprise, novelty, complexity, or incongruity” in the learner as a response to a
previously unknown experience or information (Hidi &Renninger, 2006, p. 4).
• Interest/identity story: A STEM professional’s personal narrative that begins with
incentives and STEM interest, and continues through STEM identity/self-efficacy
development.
• Pedagogy: The strategies and methods of instruction utilized by educators.
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
13

• Self-efficacy theory: Self-efficacy theory is based on social cognitive theory and
centers on a person’s belief that are capable of performing a given task (Pintrich,
2003; Rueda, 2011).
• Social cognitive theory: A “psychological model of behavior” developed by Albert
Bandura (1986) which proposes that learning occurs within a social context through
observation.
• STEM education: The integration of science, technology, engineering, and math
(STEM) into a single integrated field of study (Arrison & Olson, 2012; Beatty, 2011;
Honey et al., 2014; NRC, 2011).
• STEM professional: An educator, administrator, curriculum coordinator, industry
professional, and/or researcher whose areas of expertise centers on at least two of the
STEM content fields.
• Supply and demand theory: The result of competitive markets; supply and demand
curves indicate production rates by business, and demand rates indicate consumption
rate by consumers, with price acting as the catalyst for change. (Pindyck &
Rubinfeld, 1992).
• Transfer: Students’ ability “to take the knowledge and skills learned in one context
and apply them in another” (Honey et al., 2014, p. 95).
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters, beginning with Chapter One’s overview of the
study that includes the study’s background, problem, purpose, and importance. The second
chapter continues with a survey of current literature on STEM education, interest/identity and
self-efficacy development, including the effect of economic theory and incentives in
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
14

interest/identity development. Chapter Three describes the study’s methodology for
surveying and interviewing current STEM professionals, and Chapter Four discusses the data
attained through the interview and survey process. Finally, Chapter Five concludes with a
discussion of findings, implications, and recommendations concerning STEM education.

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
15

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
The universal benefits of STEM education to society, education, and individuals are
espoused throughout literature and government reports. According to Beatty (2011) these
benefits include: (1) an increase in students choosing occupations in science and engineering; (2)
incentives (economic, social and moral) to teachers in STEM programs; and (3) preparing a
career and college ready workforce to meet the needs of a globally competitive economy.
Therefore, this literature review will first focus on exploring the economic and psychological
incentives that predicate STEM education interest/ identity development. It can be asserted that
these incentives motivate teachers to enter STEM education with the goal of affecting student
achievement in the separate STEM subjects, but also as an integrated field of study (Honey et al.,
2014). To better understand the context and structure of STEM education, an introductory
discussion on the current state of education and how it relates to the economic theories of supply
and demand, incentives, and market failure, is necessary. Discussions on interest/identity in
STEM education will be examined through the lens of social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986),
with the discussion on STEM integration, and self-efficacy additionally relying on self-efficacy
theory (Rueda, 2011). However, before interest/identity and self-efficacy in teaching across
STEM subjects can be discussed, the before mentioned structure behind STEM education should
be examined.
The Structure behind STEM Education
Tayler (1999) emphatically states that economic theory and empirical data support the
necessity of government’s role in education. This role is largely based on the monetary input
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
16

supplied by federal, state, and local levels of government. According to U.S. Department of
Education figures, the total cost for public education in 2009-10 came to $638 billion, which
amounts to approximately $12,743 per student (NCES, 2013). This significant monetary input is
based upon the assumption that increased resources to education will affect student achievement,
and will therefore be defensible on a cost/benefit criterion (Bohaty, 2009).
It is this same cost/benefit criterion that currently drives U.S. governmental expenditures
on STEM education (Bohaty, 2009). Americans have a cultural expectation to be “first at
everything” (Beatty, 2011, p.14). Historically, this point was evidenced by President Kennedy’s
response to the Soviet launch of Sputnik, which resulted in a U.S. fixation to be the first on the
moon (Tapping America’s Potential, 2005). President Kennedy declared that the lunar-landing
goal required the U.S. to commit monetary resources to retool science, engineering and math
programs (Bohaty, 2009). It was President Kennedy’s successful retooling of education, and the
resulting successful outcome, which later became the prototype for President Obama’s call for
reform through STEM education (Bohaty, 2009).
In the decades that followed the push to the moon, the U.S. experienced a steady decline
in educational output demonstrated by the decrease in the number of students who were
academically prepared to compete in a global market (Arrison & Olson, 2012). Beatty (2011)
states, “The United States ranks sixth among developed nations in innovation-based
competitiveness, eleventh in percentage of young adults who have graduated from high school,
fifteenth in science literacy among top students, and 28th in mathematics literacy among top
students” (p.14). Furthermore, research indicates that student achievement in science,
technology, engineering and math, the components of STEM, have long-range trajectory
implications for students’ cognitive development, schooling/career paths, and ability to
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
17

participate as an informed citizen in the democratic process (Beatty, 2011). For these reasons, it
is imperative the United States improve educational programs to increase the supply of prepared
students to meet the personnel demands of an innovation-based world economy (NRC, 2011).
This need for innovation in education leads to the following discussions: (1) how the
economic theory of supply and demand relates to STEM education; (2) how supply and demand
incentives set the foundation for STEM interest and identity development in teachers; (3) the
importance of developing STEM interest and identity in students, especially students from
underrepresented populations; (4) how connecting STEM identity to proven business-based
innovative practices could provide the key to identifying effective STEM integration strategies;
and (5), how social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), potentially allows for the transfer of
STEM identity development and innovative thought processes from teacher to student.
Supply and Demand
Pindyck and Rubinfeld (1992) define supply and demand theory as a result of the
competitive market; supply and demand curves indicate production rates by business, and
demand rates indicate consumption rates by consumers, with price acting as the catalyst for
change. According to supply and demand theory, markets that drive supply and demand are
defined as operating with “a collection of buyers who purchase and sellers who sell goods and
services; the interaction of buyers and sellers result in the possibility of exchange and, hence, in
the allocation of goods or services” (Brewer & McEwan, 2010, p.5). Market failure occurs when
ineffective production and/or distribution of goods or services to consumers occur (Brewer &
McEwan, 2010). Based upon the previous discussion of government tax dollars spent on
education, it could be asserted that students attending U.S. schools would be considered
consumers of education, and the U.S. government would be the producer. With this analogy in
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
18

mind, one can propose based on the current state of student achievement, that the U.S. education
system is currently experiencing a form of market failure.
Incentives. The above proposal leads to an interesting observation; according to Brewer
and McEwan (2010), one way to counter and/or correct market failure, therefore affecting the
supply and demand curve, is through the use of incentives. Incentives are defined by Levitt,
Dubner, and Stephen (2005) as a means of influencing individual and group behavior. Levitt,
Dubner, and Stephen (2005) continue that these incentives to change behavior are divided into
three categories: (1) Economic incentives, individuals and groups responding to market
influences; (2) social incentives, response to group and individual pressures to act in a way
agreeable to the group; and (3) moral incentives, applying behavior decisions based upon a
perception of doing right versus doing wrong. All three of these incentive categories, operate on
the federal, state and local level; with economic incentives being the most often discussed,
though least effective, and social and moral incentives being more effective yet usually cast as a
secondary response to the economic incentives (Bénabou & Tirole, 2006). Before the discussion
of economic, social and moral incentives’ effect on STEM education can begin, a brief
exploration of agency theory and how it relates to incentives is necessary.
Agency theory and incentives. According to Eisenhardt (1989), agency theory seeks to
explain the relationship between two parties, the principal and the agent. In this dyad the
principal has a set goal or task that the principal wants the agent to perform; however, it is
assumed within this theory that the agent will have different goals or beliefs about the task than
the principal (Eisenhardt, 1989). Agency theory is grounded upon the relationship between these
principals and respective agents and the contracts that are designed to incentivize the agents’
behavior to achieve the principal’s goal (Jensen & Meckling, 1976). It should be noted that
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
19

research speaks to problems within agency theory and economic incentives. Specifically, if
principals use monetary gain as the primary incentive, they have created an incentive contract
that has only a short-term effect on the targeted behavior due to extrinsic motivation by the
agent; the converse action being intrinsic motivation which can be elicited through social and
moral incentives (Barros & Lazzarini, 2012). It is this intrinsic motivation which appears to be
the basis for teachers’ development of interest and identity in any chosen educational field of
study (Burnsa & Bellb, 2011) including STEM education.
Economic incentives. Economic incentives relates to receiving some benefit, usually
financial resources, in exchange for acting in a certain way or changing a behavior (Bénabou &
Tirole, 2006). Economics is based upon determining how incentives affect behavior and
consequently how a change in incentives can affect markets (Fehr & Falk, 2002). Economic
incentives propose that money is the catalyst to actuate that market change. Many government
grants are philosophically based on social/moral incentives (i.e. improve education to create an
informed citizenry and actuate students’ career and college readiness), but in actuality focus on
the economic incentive (money) provided to the agent if they enter into the contract with the
principal (Teitelbaum, 2008). Principal/agent theory explains school districts’ historical
willingness to accept economic incentives by entering into government contracts (e.g. Reading
First Grant) which requires the districts to relinquish local control when accepting monetary
resources (ED, n.d.; No Child Left Behind [NCLB], 2002).
Economic incentives to STEM education. Most economic incentives to STEM
education begin on the federal level and are designed to trickle- down to the state and local levels
through lead and collaborating agencies (STEM, 5-Year Strategic Plan, 2013). One example of a
federal to state incentive, and an excellent example of principal/agency theory in incentives, is
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
20

the competition based Race to the Top (RTTT) from Department of Education. This $4.3 billion
competition is based on states accumulating points by aligning educational policy with federal
goals thus “winning” funding for a wide range of STEM educational programs to increase
student achievement and equity (STEM, 5-Year Strategic Plan, 2013). However, it must be noted
that even though RTTT was widely embraced by many states, California did not follow suit
partly due to the federal requirement that teacher evaluations be tied to student achievement.
RTTT applies to principal/agency theory in that the agent, California (with the exception of a
handful of waiver seeking districts), did not share the same goals as the principal (the Federal
Government), and therefore did not accept the change in policy required to gain the federal
funding. Regardless of California’s position on teacher evaluation, federal funds to incentivize
STEM programs is available through the previously mentioned three lead federal government
agencies, along with money supplied though numerous foundations and nonprofit organizations
(Kuenzi, 2008). The California Department of Education (CDE, n.d.) lists four predominate
STEM funding sources and their programs as follows:
• Bechtel and Noyce Foundations
o California After School Network STEM in Out-of-School Time Initiative
• Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation
o California STEM Learning
Additionally, even though not an actual revenue source, the Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics (STEM) Education Coalition lobbies Congress, the president, and other
organizations to raise awareness, and money, for STEM education (CDE, n.d.).
Social and moral incentives. As previously mentioned, social incentives are considered
as more effective at changing behavior than economic incentives. (Bénabou & Tirole, 2006).
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
21

Social incentives function on the agents’ belief that their actions will be viewed by others in a
positive manner. Agents act in this positive manner to either attain accolades from others, or to
avoid social stigma evidenced by dishonor or shame (Bénabou & Tirole, 2006). Similarly to
social incentives, moral incentives constitute actions that improve the agents’ self-esteem
through making choices that others in the community will view as admirable or noble; failure to
act on moral incentives creates guilt and feelings of condemnation (Bénabou & Tirole, 2006).
Social and moral incentives in STEM. McMahon (2010) describes education as both a
public and private good; society reaps the benefit of education by developing an informed
citizenry, and the individual reaps the economic reward of increased access to high-salaried
careers (McMahon, 2010). The social incentives behind STEM education appear obvious based
on the repeated assertions throughout literature and government reports that STEM education
will catapult both society and individual achievement to meet the demand of a 21
st
century
economy; moral incentives are not that obvious. Grounded upon Levitt, Dubner, and Stephen’s
(2005) previously stated definition of moral incentives, a perception of doing right versus doing
wrong, it would be difficult to identify a circumstance where the perception of increasing student
achievement through STEM education was a harmful or wrong action. Consequently, moral
incentives could be viewed as foundational, even if only through inference, to the greater good of
increased student career and college readiness touted throughout government reports on STEM
education. Finally, despite the overall appearance that STEM education incentives are mostly
economic in nature, it can be asserted that they are actually driven by social/moral incentives but
funded through economic incentives (Teitelbaum, 2008).
Neurological evidence: incentives, rewards, and interest. Incentives trigger an
individual’s action based on the possibility of an economic, social, or moral reward with
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
22

compliance of the action that the incentive is attempting to initiate (Bénabou & Tirole, 2006);
likewise, research studies suggest that the development of interest is also based on rewards
(Renninger & Hidi, 2011). Renninger and Hidi (2011), citing evidence from research studies,
state that “using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) measures while individuals were
reading trivia questions, Kang et al. (2009) found that participants’ level of curiosity correlated
with activity in a brain region (caudate) previously associated with anticipated rewards,
suggesting that the presence of interest is associated with the activation of brain reward systems”
(p.11). Interest development (curiosity) appears to act in much the same manner as incentives
and is centered on the same triggering mechanism within the brain as the response to incentives
(Kang et al., 2009). It is thought-provoking that both the response to incentives and the
development of interest appear to be predicated upon activation of the brain reward system
(Renninger & Hidi, 2011; Kang et al., 2009), which potentially provides neurological evidence
for the connection between incentives, and the next to be discussed interest activation,
development, and transfer through social cognitive theory.
Theoretical Framework
Social Cognitive Theory
Economic theory and incentives frame the discussion of teacher interest and identity;
however, to further explain interest and identity development, and how teachers’ interest and
identity could transfer to students, requires a shift to social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986).
According to the principles of social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), modeling to-be-learned
strategies or behaviors improves student learning. This modeling is conveyed either as cognitive
modeling, verbalizing internal dialogue while demonstrating a cognitive process, or abstract
modeling, which entails an indirect connection to the skill or knowledge being learned. In both
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
23

cases, observational learning is centered on four dependent processes involving attention,
retention, production, and motivation (Bandura, 1986). Honey et al. (2014) adds an additional
layer to social cognitive theory by stating the importance of both the physical setting in learning,
and the social psychological processes that occur in the settings. It is the combination of the
physical setting and the psychological process that forms the bases for social learning through
what Honey et al. (2014) describes as a STEM experience.
Self-Efficacy Theory
Self-efficacy theory is based on social cognitive theory and centers on a person’s belief
that are capable of performing a given task (Pintrich, 2003; Rueda, 2011). According to Rueda
(2011), people who possess a belief that they can perform and complete a task, are more likely to
engage in, and complete that task. Social cognitive theory indicates that self-efficacy, and
therefore confidence in instructional ability, is increased by repeated successes such as solving
challenging problems (Rueda, 2011). In addition, Rueda (2011) describes as part of social
cognitive theory the self-efficacy spiral which states that as teachers and/or students experience
either success or difficulty they will continue on that respective trajectory. This point highlights
the importance of providing positive STEM experiences to foster positive STEM interest and
identity formation in underserved populations (Brown & Lent 1996; Honey et al., 2014), and
further reflects the personal nature of interest and identity formation, for teachers and students
alike, due to each individual’s relative reaction to any given STEM experience.
STEM Experience, Interest, Identity, and Self-Efficacy
Interest Development
According to the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology’s
(PCAST) 2010 report to President Obama, the idea of STEM interest is mostly based on
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
24

experience, the situational aspect of educational development. This point begs the question of the
definition of experience; is the definition predicated on the students’ completion of a task during
a lesson or project, or can the word experience be expanded to describe an encounter or
interaction with a teacher? It appears, based on the context of the text and additional examples
given throughout the PCAST (2010) report that the authors hold to the strictest meaning of
experience indicating a classroom activity with teachers’ affect being limited to pedagogical
delivery and the varying number of STEM activities afforded the student.
Hidi and Renninger (2006) bring a more cognitive element into the definition of interest;
interest is activated, or triggered, by creating “uncertainty, surprise, novelty, complexity, or
incongruity” (p.4) in the learner as a response to a previously unknown experience or
information. Additionally, Hidi and Renninger (2006) state that interest is either situational or
individual and is “based on the physical, social, psychological, and biological characteristics of
the learner and develops through four phases: triggered situational interest, maintained
situational interest, emerging individual interest, and well-developed individual interest” (p.4). It
must be stated that literature indicates that measuring the growth of interest development within
an individual is difficult at best (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). Especially in the early phases, the
progression of interest development through participation in a series of educational experiences,
may, or may not, be evident to the participant due to the highly personal nature of interest
development (Renninger, 2009).
Likewise, Honey et al. (2014) states a somewhat broader, however still limited, definition
of experience and interest development. They list four factors that lead to interest development in
students: (1) “a general feeling of competence; (2) the features of activities, including whether
they allow the students to express their competence; (3) enough time both to complete activities
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
25

and to initiate activities that students come up with themselves; and (4) the flexibility of the
learning environment” (p. 94). The literature is in agreement that student interest in STEM is the
result of STEM experiences; however, as previously mentioned the definition of what constitutes
STEM education, and specifically STEM experiences, are still in question. Regardless, of the
ambiguity in the definition of STEM experience, it agreed upon throughout the surveyed
literature that STEM interest is the catalyst for STEM identity development (Hidi & Renninger,
2006; Honey et al., 2014; Renninger, 2009).
Identity
Honey et al. (2014) states that, “identity generally refers to who one is or wants to be, as
well as to how one is recognized by others—as a particular kind of person, with particular
interests” (p.79). Furthermore Honey et al. (2014) attribute students’ STEM identity as being an
important factor in determining the degree to which students are willing to enroll and participate
in STEM classes as well as apply STEM concepts to real world problems. However, it should not
be assumed that student identity is static, but instead that it changes with each STEM experience
(Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Honey et al., 2014; Renninger, 2009). All these factors can lead to
either positive or negative self-efficacy toward STEM content, and is especially important in
developing positive STEM identity in historically marginalized populations (Brown & Lent
1996; Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Honey et al., 2014; Renninger, 2009). Due to previous research
that ties student self-efficacy to student learning and identity development (Honey et al., 2014) it
is imperative that the potential role that teacher interest and identity could play in student identity
formation, especially in underrepresented populations, be studied to determine its effectiveness.
This study asserts that interest and identity begins with the incentives, discussed in relation to
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
26

supply and demand theory, and comes to fruition with the transfer of interest and identity
building components to students.
Integrated STEM Education and Self-Efficacy
As previously indicated, STEM programs exist within many different delivery models
and environments (Honey et al., 2014). It is stated that even though a generic definition of
integration is available, the mechanical or implemented definition of integration varies (Honey et
al., 2014). This point infers that the definition of integration depends upon the personal context
of the person purported to be enacting the integration, and explains the vast difference in STEM
program implementation and program outcomes. Likewise, teacher self-efficacy development
also requires an examination of its personal context. It must be noted that self-reported high
teacher self-efficacy does not automatically indicate an ability to integrate subject matter across
STEM content areas. In effect, there are at least three different possibilities for comparison
between teacher self-reported self-efficacy and STEM integration: (1) Teachers who report high
self-efficacy in STEM integration who by definition are not integrating all STEM content areas,
but believe that they are; (2) teachers who are able to integrate STEM content areas, but either do
not develop through the STEM interest/identity/self-efficacy continuum, or do not value STEM
integration; and (3) the teacher who has developed STEM self-efficacy, values integrated STEM
instruction, and can identify their personal STEM interest/identity/self-efficacy development or
STEM interest/identity story. It is the highly personal nature of the STEM interest/identity story
component, shared with students, which may potentially answer the Honey et.al (2014) research
question of the effect of teacher modeling on student interest and identity formation. However,
within the Honey et.al (2014) research question mentioned above, there remains an additional
underlying consideration of student diversity that must be addressed.
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
27

STEM Interest/Identity Stories and Diversity
The focus of this study is the identification of teacher STEM interest/identity stories and
their potential effect on student interest and identity formation; however within this discussion,
diversity of both teachers and students needs to be taken into account. According to Dhamoon
(2011) everyone has multiple, intersecting identities that are continually being redefined and
reprioritized. To put this concept simply, no one has only one identity but a compilation of many
identities based on ethnic, socioeconomic, and/or life experiences (Barton, 2012). This point
leads to the importance of teacher awareness of their students’ already developed identities.
According to Stanton-Salazar (1997) teachers are described as institutional agents, individuals
within a system that possess a position of power over all students, but especially over students
from underrepresented minority groups. Due to this position of power, teachers need to be
cognizant of their students’ demographic background when modeling their personal interest and
identity formation. This method relates back to social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977) which
explains the social/observational nature of learning, but also highlights the necessity of a
connection between the teacher’s STEM identity and the multiple developing identities of their
students (Ginorio & Huston, 2002). Sensitivity to multiple identities is especially important to
students within underserved populations who may not envision their ability to be successful in
STEM content areas or careers without direct, targeted input from their teachers (Honey et al.,
2014; Brown & Lent, 1996). For this reason it is of the utmost importance that teachers from
diverse backgrounds with high STEM self-efficacy and who value STEM integration are
considered for inclusion in this study. However, diversity is not the only additional factor that
needs to be considered in this study; unfortunately, all teachers regardless of their demographic
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
28

background potentially face the psychological barrier of Expert Blind Spot in identifying their
STEM story.
Expert Blind Spot
According to Nathan and Petrosino (2003), expert blind spot (EBS) occurs in education
when expertise in a subject area results in being unable to identify prerequisite concepts or skills
required for novice learners to understand the content being taught. Nathan and Petrosino (2003)
continue that teachers who experience EBS do not readily leave out these prerequisite skills
and/or concepts, and are often entirely unaware of having omitted important information or steps
to a procedure in their instruction. Ambrose et al. (2010) add that expertise is developed through
four phases. These phases are described as: (1) Unconscious incompetence, where the learner is
being introduced to the content; (2) conscious incompetence, reflects beginning understanding
with the need for structured practice; (3) conscious competence, beginning mastery of the subject
matter; and (4) unconscious competence, where expert’s unconsciously use shortcuts in
explanations of content, skip steps in a processes, and are blind to the lack of understanding in
novice students (Ambrose et al., 2010). This unconscious blind spot is due to cognitive
automaticity of knowledge retrieval which develops with mastery of a subject, and explains why
students do not understand a concept or procedure even after the expert teacher has gone over the
information multiple times (Honey et al., 2014).
Expert blind spot and STEM integration. Expert blind spot not only applies to
expertise in a single content area, but also the teachers’ expert knowledge of how to think across
the content areas in STEM (Honey et al., 2014). This point suggests the necessity of teachers to
use metacognitive strategies to be able to break down their thinking processes used to integrate
STEM content areas. If teachers define through metacognition their own thought processes that
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
29

enable them to see the connections across STEM subjects, will then students learn to replicate
that same ability? The key to effective STEM integration may not be tied to curriculum or
traditional pedagogical methods but with the ability of STEM teachers to effectively
communicate their path to STEM identity.
Expert blind spot and STEM interest/identity stories. Likewise, a teacher’s ability to
communicate their STEM interest/identity story could also experience this same EBS. By
definition, teachers’ STEM interest/identity stories are personal and explain each teacher’s path
to STEM interest/identity formation. Due to interest/identity formation being a slow process that
occurs over many years, teachers may not be conscious of their development, much less their
importance (Renninger, 2009). A possible method to help teachers identify their identity
formation is by examining the construction and deconstruction of their STEM identity (Barton,
2012; Mechanism design, 2009). The purpose behind dissecting teacher identity is twofold: (1)
to identify the incentives and experiences, that led to the teacher deciding to pursue a career in
STEM education, for the purpose of sharing those incentives and experiences with students; (2)
determine through teachers’ STEM interest/identity stories if an ability to deliver instruction
across content areas contains a world view or paradigm that teachers utilize to make these
connections. The goal is to have teachers overcome EBS by becoming consciously aware of their
STEM interest/identity stories, and then utilizing those stories to negate the effect of expert blind
spot in content delivery as to be able to break down their thought process for the purpose of
modeling for students.
Teachers as Innovators
All of surveyed literature calls for preparing students academically to meet demands of
an innovation-based economy (Arrison & Olson, 2012; Beatty, 2011; Honey et al., 2014; NRC,
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
30

2011; PCAST, 2010); however, nowhere does this literature call for teachers to be innovators
themselves. It stands to reason that innovators create innovations; therefore, one would assume
that the attributes consistent with proven innovation skills (input) would be identified and
utilized within an educational context to improve STEM education (output). This is not the case.
The literature limits the discussion of teacher effectiveness in STEM education to a call for
deeper content knowledge in STEM subjects and pedagogical improvement in the delivery of
STEM instruction (Arrison & Olson, 2012; Beatty, 2011; Honey et al., 2014; NRC, 2011;
PCAST, 2010). With this point in mind, it can be proposed that current recommendations on
STEM education are the result of expert blind spot due to reporting agencies (i.e. Honey et al.
2014) not looking outside of current educational practices (i.e. improving teacher content
knowledge and pedagogical skill) to solve the problem of an underachieving education system.
Therefore, this study will shift back to the world of business and economics to identify attributes
consistent with successful innovators and apply those attributes to describe STEM teachers’
interest/identity and self-efficacy formation. These attributes are detailed in Dyer, Gregersen and
Christensen’s (2011) book, Innovator’s DNA: Mastering the Five Skills of Disruptive Innovators
and consist of: (1) associating-to use information that at first glance appears unrelated to create
innovative ideas; (2) questioning- asking a series of why questions to elicit foundational causes;
(2) observing- the ability to note how constructs relate, then applying those observations to
improve a different system; (3) networking- looking outside your industry to identify innovative
people and ideas; and (4), experimenting- a continual process of trying new ideas, evaluating
their success, and revising.

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
31

Conclusion
One can suggest that STEM education, even in its earliest pre-moon landing form, played
a critical role in enabling the U.S. to become a technological leader in the global marketplace.
Beatty (2011) emphatically states that innovations in science and engineering over the past 50
years accounts for 50 to 85 percent of growth in the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). In the
world of today, the federal government strategizes through incentives, monetary grants, and fund
regulations (principal/agent theory) to influence the supply and demand curve by increasing the
number of students with advanced degrees ready for STEM careers, thus equipping tomorrow’s
workforce to prosper individually, and enabling the U.S. economy to compete globally (Beatty,
2011). To actuate this goal, teachers need to define and explain their STEM interest and identity
through narrative discourse (STEM interest/identity stories) with students through social-
cognitive based modeling. It can be asserted that reflection on the process of developing a STEM
interest and identity, including identifying the incentives that spurred that initial interest, creates
the interconnected relationship, or pathways, between the STEM content areas that later can be
referenced by the reflecting teacher to explain their cognitive method of STEM integration to
students. This method allows for transfer between the different environments and contexts of
STEM education due to the personal nature of each narrative and the teachers’ successful
connection of STEM. It is in the area of interest/identity that there appears to be a gap in the
STEM integration literature. Honey et al. (2014) clearly states that there is a teacher affect to
teachers designing instruction that relates to student interest and identity; however it does not
speak to the effect of teachers’ interest and identity on their students. This gap is the basis for the
following research design.

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
32

CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this chapter is to set forth the research design in a clear sequential
manner. First, presented is a reiteration of the problem, purpose, and research questions from
Chapter One. Next, the methodological design, participants and setting, data collection, data
analysis, and ethical considerations are discussed. Finally, this chapter closes with a summary
and introduction to Chapters Four and Five.
Restatement of Problem, Purpose, and Research Questions
STEM education is the purported solution to the problem of an undereducated workforce;
specifically, the national call for education reform due to the reported failure of the United
States’ education system to prepare students with 21
st
century competencies required to compete
within a global economy (Arrison & Olson, 2012; Beatty, 2011; Honey et al., 2014). To identify
and define the problem of an undereducated workforce (i.e. the low number of career and college
ready students) the U.S. government continues to fund fact-finding reports; this study is
predicated upon one such report.
As previously detailed, this study was founded on research suggestions outlined in the
report STEM Integration in K-12 Education: Status, Prospects, and an Agenda for Research by
the Committee on Integrated STEM Education (Honey et al., 2014). In this report the authors call
for early-stage or exploratory research which by definition examines the “relationships among
important constructs in education and learning to establish logical connections that may form the
basis for future interventions or strategies to improve education outcomes” (Honey et al., 2014,
p. 154). One such possible research connection is whether teacher STEM interest and identity
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
33

can affect students’ interest and identity development. Furthermore, according to Honey et al.
(2014), limited research indicates student interest/identity in STEM education leads to an ability
to make connections to content across the independent subject areas of STEM, consequently
increasing students’ problem solving abilities. This point begs the question of how best then to
utilize teacher STEM interest and identity to affect the development of student STEM interest
and identity? One possible means to achieve this end is for teachers, using social cognitive
theory based modeling (Bandura, 1986), to explicitly define and explain their STEM interest and
identity development through narrative discourse with students during daily instruction.
However, initiating these discussions with students first requires identifying to what teachers
attribute their interest and identity in STEM education.
It must be noted that even though the effect of teachers’ interest/identity and self-efficacy
on students’ development of STEM interest /identity is a small component of the Honey et al.
(2014) research agenda, its exploration possibly exposes an important piece to the STEM
integration puzzle for the following reasons: (1) exploration of teacher STEM interest/identity
has the potential to uncover common philosophical mindsets or attributes that teachers utilize to
integrate STEM subject matter; (2) identifying common underlying cognitive processes or
procedures used by teachers in integrating STEM content; and (3) determining if there are
possible connections between STEM teachers’ ability to teach across subjects and students’
ability to solve problems across subjects. Moreover, based upon the claim by Honey et al. (2014)
that student development of interest and identity potentially leads to an ability to make
connections across STEM content areas, it stands to reason that dissecting already developed
STEM interest and identity in teachers might possibly be a method to explore the thought
process behind connecting the separate STEM subjects (Barton, 2012; Mechanism design, 2009).
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
34

Therefore, to establish the pathway teachers traveled to reach STEM interest and identity, it is
necessary to determine what prior experiences provided STEM teachers the prerequisite subject-
specific content knowledge, ability, and self-efficacy to integrate STEM subjects in K–12
education.
The overall purpose of this study is to add to the body of knowledge on STEM education
integration in K-12 education. This purpose requires sequential questions, which focus on
determining the economic, social and/or moral incentives that led to the teachers’ STEM career,
identifying commonalities and/or differences in teachers’ STEM interest and identity
development, with the goal of identifying the components of self-efficacy in teaching across
STEM content subjects, and a student centered question on determining the effect access
to/engagement with STEM professionals, as role models and mentors, have on student interest,
identity, and self-efficacy in STEM (Honey et al., 2014). To achieve this purpose, the following
research questions were utilized:
• To what do teachers attribute their interest and identity in STEM education?
• What prior experience provided STEM teachers the subject-specific content
knowledge, ability, and self-efficacy to integrate subjects in K–12 STEM education?
• How do teachers that self-report storytelling implement this strategy in their STEM
teaching?
• What effect does access to/engagement with STEM professionals as role models and
mentors have on student interest, identity and self-efficacy in STEM (Honey et al.,
2014)?
The specific purpose of this study is to begin preliminary exploration of teachers’ STEM interest
identity stories to determine if teacher reflection on the process of developing STEM interest and
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
35

identity, including recognizing the incentives that spurred initial STEM interest, identifies
interconnected relationships or pathways between the STEM content areas that later can be
referenced to explain their cognitive method of STEM integration to students, therefore, based
on social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), potentially affecting students’ STEM
interest/identity formation. The specific implication of this study affects teacher preparation
programs in that if teachers’ interest/identity stories are found to have an effect on students’
interest identity formation, and consequently effecting students’ ability to integrate STEM
content areas, then inclusion of these strategies/connections in pre-service teacher education
would represent the Honey et al.’s (2014) call for “interventions or strategies to improve
education outcomes” (p. 154). However, as previously stated, the scope of this inquiry centers on
Honey et al.’s (2014) call for preliminary early-stage or exploratory research, and therefore only
hints toward the additional research needed to prove a causal relationship between teachers’
interest/identity stories and student interest/identity formation.
Design Summary
Research Design
Qualitative method. To answer the above research questions, it was necessary develop a
qualitative research design that explores teachers’ interest/identity formation and STEM
education content integration ability. A qualitative design was chosen over a quantitative design
due to the need to understand the studied phenomena in its natural setting (Merriam, 2009) as
opposed to a quantitative study’s focus on statistics and variables (Maxwell, 2013). It was the
intent of the researcher to identify each teacher’s personal interest/identity story; therefore,
understanding the how and why of each teacher’s STEM interest and identity development.
To achieve this purpose, a semi-structured interview format was chosen due to the need to
attain specific information, while still allowing flexibility in the questioning of teachers about
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
36

personal beliefs and attitudes (Merriam, 2009). Using this semi-structured format, an interview
protocol was developed utilizing open-ended questions as suggested by Merriam (2009). These
questions were designed to not only to validate the teachers’ demographic information obtained
through the introductory survey, but also to allow the participant to self-reflect on their
interest/identity story (see Appendix D: Interview Protocol/Teachers). Specifically, the first
section of the interview protocol was designed to determine teachers’ background knowledge of
STEM content areas and whether or not they valued the integration of all STEM content areas
within the classroom. The intent behind this line of questioning speaks back to Bauer and
Kenton’s (2005) discussion on the barriers to technology utilization, and the importance of
determining if those barriers fall within the categories of environmental causes, meaning causes
within the classroom or school site, (Bauer & Kenton, 2005) and/or teachers’ beliefs and
behaviors (Ertmer, 1999). It was postulated that environmental barriers to STEM integration
needed to be excluded before the teachers’ beliefs, or philosophy, about STEM integration could
be determined (Merriam, 2009). The second part of the interview protocol was designed to
specifically gain information about the teacher’s beginning interest in STEM education and
resulting identity as a STEM teacher, therefore, directly answering the study’s research
questions.
Participants and Setting
The respondents were chosen using purposeful selection to represent a maximum
variation sampling of teachers (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). This maximum variation
sampling included all teachers at STEM specific middle schools who taught integrated STEM
courses. The rationale behind this choice was to elicit information on STEM interest and identity
formation and subsequent STEM stories from the broadest range of possible participants
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
37

(Merriam, 2009) within a dedicated STEM middle school environment, thus potentially
representing different demographic backgrounds and views on STEM integration in the
classroom. To a lesser degree, participants chosen for this study were also part of a convenience
sampling (Merriam, 2009) due to their proximity to the researcher’s location and availability to
participate in the study.
Site, program, and STEM professional selection. Appropriate locations and settings
for this study were selected through purposeful selection (Maxwell, 2013) of middle school sites
and teachers. Specifically, sites were chosen based upon the knowledge that: (1) the school
identifies itself as having a STEM focus in its mission statement; and (2), the school’s
program/course description indicates that teachers employ integrated STEM instruction. The
teachers, who were asked to participate in this study by virtue of receiving a recruitment email
(see Appendix A: General Recruitment Email Cover Letter) and introductory survey (see
Appendix B: Introductory Survey Instrument), were identified within the before mentioned
STEM schools and integrated STEM courses; therefore, data attained from these teachers would
be specific to STEM content integration. Additionally, teachers were identified for this study
based upon their response to scaled questions in the introductory survey (see Appendix B:
Introductory Survey Instrument) designed to identify their self-efficacy in integrating STEM
content areas. This method was utilized due to self-efficacy theory which indicates that
individuals who report a high degree of self-efficacy, grounded on the premise that interest and
identity formation are stepping stones to self-efficacy development, are therefore more likely to
have interest/identity development stories (Pajares, 1996).

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
38

Instrumentation and Protocols
Survey questions to determine teacher self-efficacy were developed utilizing strategies
described by Pajares (1996). Pajares (1996) states that “researchers assess self-efficacy beliefs by
asking individuals to report the level, generality, and strength of their confidence to accomplish a
task or succeed in a certain situation (Pajares, 1996, p.5). Therefore, the introductory survey was
designed to specifically determine the teachers’ level of self-efficacy on the task of integrating
STEM content areas; however, survey questions were also included to identify environmental
causes that could hinder STEM integration within the classroom regardless of self-efficacy
beliefs. Pajares (1996) also speaks to self-efficacy theory, especially within underserved
populations, and the role that incentives play; therefore, survey questions were included to
determine if economic, social, and/or moral incentives were acted upon in the decision to enter
the STEM education field. In addition to high STEM integration self-efficacy, teachers were
required to express their willingness, indicated by an affirmative response to the last question of
the survey, to participate in the interview process of this study. Finally, teachers who were willing
to be interviewed were asked if they would also be willing to participate in the student self-
efficacy phase of this study which questions what affect access to/engagement with STEM
professionals as role models and mentors have on student interest, identity and self-efficacy in
STEM.
Data Collection Protocols
Process of gaining entry. Consent for the interviews was attained through the use of a
interview consent form (see Appendix C: Consent to Participate). This form was developed using
the criterion set forth in Fink (2013) and included a description of the purpose of the interview,
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
39

potential risks, potential benefits, right to withdraw from research study, and person to contact
with questions or concerns.
Introductory Survey. The purpose of the introductory survey (see Appendix B:
Introductory Survey Instrument) was to identify participants who met the identified criterion for
the study, and were willing to participate in the interview phase of this study. This method of
identifying participants through purposeful sampling is detailed by Patton (2002) as an effective
means to provide information-rich participants who are likely to help the researcher “discover,
understand, and gain insight” into the phenomena being studied (Merriam, 200, p. 77); therefore,
introductory survey forms were distributed to all middle-school STEM teachers at the studied
school site with the intent of identifying participants based upon matching the teachers’ survey
responses to the given parameters of the study.
Interview data. Interview data were collected using a digital audio recording device and
notes taken by the interviewer. This approach is consistent with best interview strategies
described by Weiss (1994). In addition, all interviews were held in the teachers’ classroom. This
approach is described by Weiss (1994) as being an effective strategy to put your responder at
ease and to hopefully elicit thoughtful responses.
Data Analysis
Program descriptions, surveys, and open-ended interview data were initially examined by
writing memos documenting details from the different data sources (Maxwell, 2009). These
details were then compared with each other, and the findings in literature, through the process of
triangulation in order to identify areas of agreement and disagreement. Self-efficacy theory
includes the individual’s response to their environment, therefore observation notes of the
interviewee’s behaviors were recorded when possible during the interview and immediately after
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
40

the interview in the form of an interview memo. This action is in agreement with Merriam (2009)
which states that data analysis should occur concurrently with data collection. Specifically,
Merriam (2009) states that taking notes of the participant’s physical behavior is an appropriate
way to gather additional data during an interview. Merriam (2009) continues that: (1) the
physical setting; (2) activities and interactions; (3) subtle factors; and (4) your own behavior
should also be recorded; therefore, all of the above strategies to collect additional data were
utilized in the interview protocol.
Approach to Analysis
According to Bogdan and Biklen (2007), analysis is a process of working with data to
identify categories that can then be coded for syntheses, and organized into patterns of meaning
to answer a research question or questions. To achieve this process, Merriam (2009) suggests
that analysis should be both inductive and comparative; utilizing grounded theory (Corbin &
Strauss, 2008) to consolidate, reduce, and interpret the data. With the comparative process of
grounded theory in mind, the survey and interview data were analyzed looking for similar
themes and categories for coding.
Approach to Coding
To actuate the comparative process of grounded theory, Corbin and Strauss (2008)
suggest using three stages of coding. These stages of coding include: (1) open coding; (2) axial
coding: and (3) selective coding. Therefore, coding for this study began with open coding by
identifying units of data related to each specific research question (Merriam, 2009). To achieve
this, each interview was read multiple times and transcribed to produce a hard-copy for notation.
The transcripts were noted with a RQ1, RQ2, RQ3, or RQ4 which represents research questions
one through four respectively, for ease of categorizing later. Additionally, thoughts and reactions
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
41

of the interviewer were noted on the transcripts during analysis (Merriam, 2009). Next, each
research question was written on a separate sheet of paper; then direct quotes taken from the
transcripts were recorded under the research question that they addressed. To differentiate
between the different participant responses, they were each given a code:

Interview 1: P1
Interview 2: P2
Interview 3: P3
Interview 4: P4
Interview 5: P5
Interview 6: P6
Interview 7: P7
The purpose behind placing the research questions on separate sheets of paper, and then placing
coded respondents answers under the categories of research questions, was to allow for a very
rudimentary axial coding where comparisons between teachers’ statements could be analyzed.
After comparing the different statements, areas of commonality were identified and noted as
themes for analysis. Individual interest and identity stories were then reconstructed with
significant findings noted and presented as distinct stories in Chapter Four.
Ethical Considerations
To assure that the research standards required for studies utilizing human subjects were
met, the researcher participated in CITI training offered through the University of Southern
California’s (USC’s) Institutional Review Board (IRB). Participants were assured that inclusion in
this study was voluntary and permission for that inclusion could be withdrawn at any time.
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
42

Additionally, all parties were informed that the names of districts, schools, and teachers were
changed and that no information was published without their respective approval. Artifacts from
surveys and interviews were securely stored and will be destroyed in 2017.
Validity and Reliability
According to Merriam (2009), due to the researcher being the primary instrument in a
qualitative study, validity and reliability of the study hinges on the ethics of the researcher.
Maxwell (2013) states that qualitative research establishes validly through its “trustworthiness,
authenticity, and quality” (p. 122); without ethics, a study loses its credibility and ability to add
to the body of knowledge of the subject under investigation (Merriam, 2009). Additionally,
foundational to establishing a study’s validity the researcher must establish that the study’s
findings and conclusions “make sense” (Merriam 2009); or, in other words, if another researcher
were given the same data they would arrive at the same conclusion. Merriam (2009) further
states that validity and reliability are established through a process of examining the study to
determine if: (1) the data and findings are consistent and dependable; (2) the data has gone
through a process of triangulation; (3) the study has come under peer review; (4) the
investigator’s position and biases have been accounted for; and (5), there is an audit trail or log
to authenticate data collection.
In regards to this study, a possible treat to validity occurred when the participants were
chosen using convenience sampling (Merriam 2009); however, using maximum variation within
that sample improved the study’s transferability and therefore increased the study’s validity
(Merriam 2009). Another threat to validity is researcher bias, which is described by Merriam
(2009) as the influence of the researcher on the validly of the study. To address this potential
problem, this study was conducted at sites that the researcher had no previous experience with.
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
43

Additionally, as stated by Merriam (2009), potential biases were recorded at the time of data
analysis through the use of research memos.
Summary
A possible method to help teachers identify their identity formation is by examining the
construction and deconstruction of their STEM identity. The purpose behind dissecting teacher
identity is twofold: (1) to identify the incentives and experiences that led to the teacher deciding
to pursue a career in STEM education; and (2), determine through teachers’ STEM
interest/identity stories if an ability to deliver instruction across content areas contains a world
view or paradigm that teachers utilize to make these connections. Findings will be presented in
Chapter Four, and recommendations for further research gleaned from the data will follow in
Chapter Five.

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
44

CHAPTER FOUR
THE FINDINGS
The overall purpose of this study is to add to the body of knowledge on STEM education
integration in K-12 education by conducting research suggestions outlined in the report STEM
Integration in K-12 Education: Status, Prospects, and an Agenda for Research by the Committee
on Integrated STEM Education (Honey et al., 2014). In this report the authors call for early-stage
or exploratory research which examines how STEM experiences affect students’ interest and
identity development. According to Honey et al. (2014),
Despite the rise in interest in providing students with learning experiences that foster
connection making across the STEM disciplines, there is little research on how best to do
so or on what factors make integration more likely to increase student learning, interest,
retention, achievement, or other valued outcomes (p.2).

Furthermore, limited research indicates student interest/identity in STEM education leads to an
ability to make connections to content across the independent subject areas of STEM,
consequently increasing students’ problem solving abilities (Honey et al., 2014). The preliminary
findings of this study is that the definition of STEM experience should be expanded past the
Honey et al. (2014) definition to include the STEM teacher as part of the before mentioned
STEM experience, and that his/her method of integrating STEM instruction could possibly be a
mechanism to increase student STEM integration understanding and subsequent STEM
interest/identity development. Moreover, based upon the claim by Honey et al. (2014) that
student development of interest and identity potentially leads to an ability to make connections
across STEM content areas, it stands to reason that dissecting already developed STEM interest
and identity in STEM professionals might possibly be a method to explore the thought process
behind connecting the separate STEM subjects (Barton, 2012; Mechanism design, 2009).
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
45

Therefore, to determine the pathway STEM professionals traveled to reach STEM interest/
identity, including the previous teachers who had affected their interest/identity development, it
was necessary to identify what prior experiences provided them the prerequisite subject-specific
content knowledge, ability, and self-efficacy to teach across STEM subjects in K–12 education.
Consequently, research findings for the above stated research topics have been reported within
the context of each participant’s individual interest/identity story; the discussion on how (and if)
teachers utilize stories during STEM content instruction will occur after each participants
individual story is dissected. To achieve this end, the following research questions were utilized:
• To what do STEM professionals at the middle school level attribute their interest
and identity in STEM education?
• What prior experience provided middle-school STEM professionals the subject-
specific content knowledge, ability, and self-efficacy to integrate subjects in K–12
STEM education?
• How do teachers that self-report storytelling implement this strategy in their
STEM teaching?
• What effect does access to/engagement with STEM professionals as role models
and mentors have on student interest, identity and self-efficacy in STEM (Honey
et al., 2014)?
As with any early stage or exploratory research, many times the data leads the researcher
in a different direction than originally postulated and therefore to findings which, even though
connected to the original research questions, are somewhat distinct. This study began with the
intent of identifying teachers’ interest/identity stories (the series of incentives and experiences
which led to the teachers’ decision to enter the STEM education field) but through the process of
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
46

discovery grew to include the interest/identity stories of a previous county-level science/STEM
coordinator (currently serving as an Assistant Principal at a STEM charter school) and other site
administrators. This expansion of the survey and interview process to site administration was
necessary to better understand the structure behind STEM education on the site-level and the
context for STEM identity/interest development in STEM teachers. Even though the population
of participants expanded beyond only teachers, all protocols outlined in Chapter Three were
followed as stated; this explanation was only included to highlight the evolution this study
underwent as research questions were answered and unexpected findings became evident.
Additionally, at the onset of this study it was not apparent if the secondary questions
outlined in Chapter One as possible implications for this study could in fact be answered. These
secondary questions included: (1) if the exploration of teacher STEM interest/identity has the
potential to uncover common philosophical mindsets or attributes that teachers utilize to
integrate STEM subject matter; (2) identifying common underlying cognitive processes or
procedures used by teachers in integrating STEM content; and (3) determining if there are
possible connections between STEM teachers’ ability to teach across subjects and students’
ability to solve problems across subjects. Upon analysis of data, it became evident that even
though these questions were not empirically answered, interesting findings did surface which
might provide new questions for future research studies. These secondary finding will be
discussed after a full discussion of the participants’ survey and interview data in relation to the
study’s primary research questions.
Participants
Participants for this study were identified using purposeful selection to represent a
maximum variation sampling of STEM professionals (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). This
variation ranged from a first year STEM teacher to an experienced STEM charter school
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
47

principal. A total of 14 individual STEM professionals were contacted through email invitation
with eight completing the electronic introductory survey. One participant completed the
introductory survey but declined the interview phase of the study. The participants who agreed to
a recorded interview were presented with a series of sequential questions which were intended
to: (1) determine the economic, social and/or moral incentives that led to their STEM career; (2)
identify commonalities and/or differences in STEM interest and identity development, with the
goal of identifying the components of self-efficacy in teaching across STEM content subjects;
and (3) a reflective question to determine the effect access to/engagement with STEM teachers,
as role models and mentors, have on student interest, identity, and self-efficacy in STEM (Honey
et al., 2014).
Participant Demographics
Participants for this study completed an electronic introductory survey to determine age,
ethnicity, belief in the value of STEM education in creating career and college ready students,
and self-efficacy in integrating STEM content areas. Survey data indicated that the largest
percentage (50%) of participants fell within the 35 to 44 age range (see Table 1).

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
48

Table 1

Age of STEM professionals
Answer Choices – Responses –
–
18 to 24
0.00%
0
–
25 to 34
25.00%
2
–
35 to 44
50.00%
4
–
45 to 54
25.00%
2
–
55 to 64
0.00%
0
–
65 to 74
0.00%
0
–
75 or older
0.00%
0
Total 8

Additionally, two participants reported being 25 to 34 years old, with an additional two
indicating their age as between 45 to 54. Participants were also asked to identify which
race/ethnicity best described them (see Figure 2). The majority of participants (62.5%) reported
being White/Caucasian; however, both Hispanic and American Indian or Alaskan Native
participants were also represented. It must be noted that the one survey participant who declined
to be interviewed was American Indian or Alaskan Native; however, that race/ethnicity is still
represented due to the second participant in that demographic group.

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
49

Table 2

Race/Ethnicity of participants

Answer Choices – Responses –
–
American Indian or Alaskan Native
25.00%
2
–
Asian / Pacific Islander
0.00%
0
–
Black or African American
0.00%
0
–
Hispanic American
12.50%
1
–
White / Caucasian
62.50%
5
Multiple ethnicity / Other (please specify)
0.00%
0
Total 8

Participants’ Value of STEM Education

As stated in Chapter One and Chapter Two, STEM education is the purported catalyst to
actuate the national call for education reform due to the reported failure of the United States’
education system to prepare students with 21
st
century competencies (Arrison & Olson, 2012;
Beatty, 2011; Honey et al., 2014). However, it cannot be assumed that all STEM professionals
value STEM education equally. Therefore, it was necessary to determine to what extent STEM
professionals believe that STEM education is important in creating a career and college ready
student (see Table 3). All participants except one strongly agreed with the importance of STEM
education; the one outlier who chose agree provided the first hint toward exploring if teacher
STEM interest/identity has the potential to uncover common philosophical mindsets or attributes
that teachers utilize to integrate STEM subject matter.

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
50

Table 3

Value of STEM education: STEM education is important in creating a career and college ready
student

–
Strongly
Disagree –
Disagree
–
Neither Disagree
Nor Agree –
Agree
–
Strongly
Agree –
Total
–
Weighted
Average –
–

0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
12.50%
1
87.50%
7

8

4.88

Value of and Confidence in STEM Integration

Likewise, it was foundational to explicitly determine if STEM professionals believe that
it is important to integrate all STEM content areas in STEM education (see Table 4). As
previously stated in Chapter Two, even though a general definition of integration is available, the
mechanical or implemented definition of integration varies (Honey et al., 2014). This point infers
that the definition of integration depends upon the personal context of the person enacting the
integration. In the data collected for this study, 62.5% of participants indicated Strongly Agree to
the question “Is it important to integrate all STEM content areas?” with 25% choosing Agree and
12.5 % choosing Neither Disagree Nor Agree. Once again, the outlier data of 12.5% for Neither
Disagree Nor Agree indicated a potential difference in paradigm or identity in the STEM
professional.

Table 4

Importance of integrating all STEM content areas

–
Strongly
Disagree –
Disagree
–
Neither Disagree
Nor Agree –
Agree
–
Strongly
Agree –
Total
–
Weighted
Average –
–

0.00%
0
0.00%
0
12.50%
1
25.00%
2
62.50%
5

8

4.50

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
51

Similarly, teacher self-efficacy development also requires an examination of its personal
context. As detailed in Chapter Two, self-reported high teacher self-efficacy does not
automatically indicate an ability to integrate subject matter across STEM content areas. In effect,
there are at least three different possibilities for comparison between teacher self-reported self-
efficacy and STEM integration: (1) Teachers who report high self-efficacy in STEM integration
who by definition are not integrating all STEM content areas, but believe that they are; (2)
teachers who are able to integrate STEM content areas, but either do not develop through the
STEM interest/identity/self-efficacy continuum, or do not value STEM integration; and (3) the
teacher who has developed STEM self-efficacy, values integrated STEM instruction, and can
identify their personal STEM interest/identity/self-efficacy development. As a baseline question,
participants were asked “To what extent are you confident in your ability to integrate STEM
instruction in at least two STEM content areas?” The majority (50 %) indicated that they are
Very Confident, 25% Extremely Confident, 12.5% Confident, and 12.5% Somewhat Confident
(see Table 5). It must be noted that as indicated in Chapter Three a response of Somewhat
Confident on this question was the minimal benchmark for participation in this study.

Table 5

Confidence in ability to integrate at least two STEM content areas

–
Not
Confident –
Somewhat
Confident –
Confident
–
Very
Confident –
Extremely
Confident –
Total
–
Weighted
Average –
–

0.00%
0
12.50%
1
12.50%
1
50.00%
4
25.00%
2

8

3.88

The next question, “To what extent are you confident in your ability to integrate instruction in
more than two STEM content areas?” produced consistent results (see Table 6) with one less
participant indicating Extremely Confident and one participant Not Confident.
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
52

Table 6

Confidence in ability to integrate instruction in more than two STEM content areas

–
Not
Confident –
Somewhat
Confident –
Confident
–
Very
Confident –
Extremely
Confident –
Total
–
Weighted
Average –
–

12.50%
1
0.00%
0
37.50%
3
37.50%
3
12.50%
1

8

3.38

And finally on the STEM self-efficacy continuum, the question, “To what extent are you
confident in your ability to integrate all STEM content areas?” produced results which indicated
that as the number of STEM content areas for integration increased, the confidence in ability
decreased (see Table 7).

Table 7

Confidence in ability to integrate all STEM content areas

–
Not
Confident –
Somewhat
Confident –
Confident
–
Very
Confident –
Extremely
Confident –
Total
–
Weighted
Average –
–

12.50%
1
25.00%
2
37.50%
3
25.00%
2
0.00%
0

8

2.75

It was also necessary to determine if, or to what degree, the ability to integrate STEM content
areas was due to environmental barriers. These barriers, such as available technology and/or
causes outside of the teachers’ control, could affect the teachers’ ability (Bakia et al., 2009) and
resulting confidence in integrating content areas (Ertmer,1999). Therefore, participants were
given the option to answer yes or no (see Table 8) and then explain their response in an
electronic comment field.

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
53

Table 8

Ability to integrate STEM content areas affected by environmental barriers

Answer Choices – Responses –
–
Yes
37.50%
3
–
No
62.50%
5
Total 8

Individual participant responses in the electronic comment field will be detailed and analyzed
later in this chapter.
Economic, Social, and Moral Incentives

In determining the STEM professionals’ reasons for entering STEM education, the
method of triangulation was utilized; specifically, the literature was compared to data attained
through both the survey and interview processes. As detailed extensively in Chapter Two,
incentives trigger an individual’s action based on the possibility of an economic, social, or moral
reward with compliance of the action that the incentive is attempting to initiate (Bénabou &
Tirole, 2006). Additionally, incentives explain (1) how the economic theory of supply and
demand relates to STEM education; and (2) how supply and demand incentives set the
foundation for the discussion on STEM interest and identity development in teachers. Therefore,
it was imperative that participants were given the definition for each category of incentives and
that they were allowed to choose all the incentive categories which applied to their individual
circumstance. The survey question posed to the participants read as follows:
Q9: For this question, incentives are defined as a means, usually connected to a reward,
of influencing individual and/or group behavior. Incentives are divided into three
categories: (1) Economic incentives, usually monetary (i.e. grants or loan forgiveness);
(2) social incentives, perceived need to help society or a specific group; and (3), moral
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
54

incentives, applying behavior to doing right versus doing wrong. Did economic, social, or
moral incentives affect your decision to enter the STEM field? Check all that apply:

Results for this survey question are detailed in Table 9. One participant chose to skip this
question; a second participant chose only to explain their response in the electronic comment
field (to be discussed later) and did not indicate separate incentive categories.

Table 9

Economic, social, or moral incentive’s affect in decision to enter the STEM field

Answer Choices – Responses –
–
Economic incentives
33.33%
2
–
Social incentives
100.00%
6
–
Moral incentives
66.67%
4
Total Respondents 6

As a point of reference, all finding discussed thus far will be broken down and attached to
specific participants for further analysis later in this chapter and are only presented in this
aggregate format as an overview.
The final survey question was used to determine if the survey participant was willing to
continue in the study. Of the eight STEM professionals who completed the introductory survey,
seven were interviewed (see Table 10). It must be noted that all of the administrators included in
this study completed the introductory survey after their interviews due to the need for additional
demographic information not attained during the interview process.

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
55

Table 10

Willingness to be interviewed

Answer Choices – Responses –
–
Yes
87.5%
7
–
No
12.5%
1
Total 8

In summary, of the 14 STEM professionals who were contacted through email, eight
completed the introductory survey. A total of seven STEM professionals, four teachers and three
site administrators, agreed to be interviewed. Additionally, as a minimal requirement,
participants were required to profess Somewhat Confident in integrating at least two STEM
content areas. Middle schools for this study were selected through purposeful selection
(Maxwell, 2013); specifically, sites were chosen based upon the criteria: (1) the school identifies
a STEM focus in its mission statement; and (2), the school’s program/course description
indicates that teachers employ integrated STEM instruction. Specific teachers who might be
willing to participate were identified by their respective site administrators; email invitations
were then sent to those teachers. These same site administrators, who were crucial in identifying
teacher participants, were later asked to join the study to better understand the structure behind
STEM education on the site-level and the context for STEM identity/interest development in
STEM teachers.
Individual Participants’ Results

Each participant’s survey and interview data will be examined individually due to the
highly personal nature of this study and the importance of the findings being understood within
the context of each participant’s deconstructed story. Additionally, to better understand the
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
56

exploratory nature and evolution of this study, interview data and findings are presented in the
same order as they were obtained. Next, areas of convergence and divergence will be analyzed
and findings reported within the context of each participant’s interest/identity story. Finally,
secondary questions based on initial findings will be examined and placed within the context of
the original research questions and data.
Participant #1
Summary of Demographic and Survey Data
Participant #1(P1) self-identified as a female Hispanic American between 25-34 years
old. She is currently in her first year of teaching and holds a Bachelor of Science in Geology, a
Masters of Arts in Education, and a single-subject teaching credential in both science and
geoscience. She indicated Strongly Agree on the importance of STEM education in creating a
career and college ready student and Agreed that it is important to integrate all STEM content
areas in STEM education. Additionally, P1 indicated that she feels Confident in her ability to
integrate STEM content in more than two STEM content areas and Somewhat Confident to
integrate all STEM content areas. The survey question on incentives was not answered. These
data, which were obtained through the introductory survey questions, were validated during the
following interview process.
STEM Interest and Identity
When asked, “What do you attribute your interest and identity in STEM education?” P1
begin with her remembrance of the first time she enjoyed learning,
I graduated high school in 2004, and it was right before No Child Left Behind, kind of
right on that edge, and I don’t really know if I ever really learned anything in high school,
or I mean, I didn’t know to study, I could read and write pretty well, my math skills were
the pits. I did spend a year abroad, so that, I think, helped in terms of learning other
cultures, but as a single person, I think the biggest factor in the equation was me. I had to
actually figure out how to learn.
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
57

I guess go way back to 2005 when I took my first science class. Okay. Before that -- --
like I told you, it took me eight years, and I went to two universities. I initially wanted to
get a degree in political science. And I kind of just took -- I had like, 220 undergraduate
credits. Yeah. I mean, I went full-time the whole eight years… I remember taking my
first science class, and it was the first class where I actually enjoyed learning. And so
maybe that was my trigger that I actually -- it made sense to me.

The dialogue continued with a more focused response to interest and identity in STEM
education:
I really like STEM because I feel it’s more applicable, and we need more engineers, and I
think in STEM, you can get more ah-ha moments from the students than you could in
other disciplines. Like, ah-ha, we won World War II, no. But ah-ha, I understand how
this works, and now I can see how this applies to this, and just having this greater
understanding of the world around you, I think I’d like to share that with people. And
getting them to have those -- I like the ah-ha moment, that’s really why I became a
teacher.

Even though P1 is a first year teacher, she communicated a well-developed STEM identity
throughout the interview process.
Subject-Specific Content Knowledge, Ability, and Self-Efficacy
P1 was asked a series of questions designed to determine what prior experience provided
the subject-specific content knowledge, ability, and self-efficacy to integrate subjects in K–12
STEM education. During the interview P1 stated that she was “always in the sciences.” She
expressed interest in environmental science and atmospheric chemistry, but geology was her
content area of expertise.
Next, P1 was asked to tell her story; specifically, “What life experiences led you into a
career in STEM education?” P1stated,
Yeah, I worked three jobs, and I coached, and I really liked coaching. And I kind of
didn’t know why I was going to school, and then one of the other coaches who is a
biology teacher was like, you know, you should really think about teaching. I was like,
okay, maybe. And then I settled in geology and then realized okay, maybe this is
something I want to do. And one of my professors was also a STEM education professor
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
58

and a geology professor. So he was split between two departments, and he really
encouraged me to become a teacher.

P1 continued that “the whole idea of STEM came naturally” and that she “saw them [the separate
STEM content areas] completely integrated. I couldn’t imagine them not being together,” P1
added. As an explanation to her ability and high self-efficacy in integrating STEM, P1 reflected:
I think we all have like, different experiences in life that kind of shape who we are. And
some people have more experiences than others. And we all definitely have different
experiences, and it’s really how you deal with the experiences are how you're defined.
It’s not what happened to you but how you deal with it --- and I think because I have that
outlook and I don’t think of it as something that’s fixed, I am more open to making
abstract connections than others who may have this finite idea of what something is.

P1 was then given a follow-up question on whether STEM integration had been addressed in any
of her credentialing classes. To this she replied:
Right because in my pedagogy classes, I mean, so I’m going for geosciences, and yes,
there were other single subject science people. They weren’t necessarily like oh, you
could use what they’re learning in math to help support the idea of the layers of the earth,
which would be like, you know, amplitude, and the waves. And they didn’t really make
that connection. No, I think they kind of left it up to us. However, I feel like it was
expected that we made the connections, if that makes sense… I mean, there were classes
that were geared for technology in media literacies, and things like that. The part I find
most confusing as a first year teacher is that people would never have imagined them
[STEM content areas] as being separate entities to begin with because I feel like they
definitely go hand-in-hand. I mean, without math, you can’t really explain science. And
you need technology to help explain it, and you have to engineer ways to explain the
science. So I think they are all tools to help explain the science.
P1 indicated through her response that the integration of STEM content areas was “natural” to
her; she had not been taught or exposed to these strategies and/or procedures to integrate STEM
content in her credentialing program.
STEM integration and school structure. P1’s survey results showed that the ability to
integrate STEM content areas was not affected due to environmental barriers; however,
interview data indicated that,
we have attempted at our school to have some kind of cross-curricular things. So the
science department will do an experiment. We’ll have a bunch of data points, and then
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
59

the students take the data points to the math class. And then the math class is where they
do the data analysis… It’s [STEM integration is] challenging because we don’t have
pods, so there are two science teachers, and two math teachers, and it’s just this
hodgepodge of students. And so I think that’s the most challenging part is the students
may or may not be getting the same thing in all of their classes.

P1 was describing her frustration with trying to coordinate integrated instruction across non-
connected classrooms with teachers of varying degrees of STEM proficiency. P1 added, “I think
it’s challenging… I think it’s challenging to integrate STEM when the individuals [other
teachers] haven’t integrated technology into their lifestyle.” This point demonstrates the
transition her site is experiencing as it changes from a regular middle school to a magnet school.
Mindsets or Attributes Used to Integrate STEM Subject Matter
Finally, P1 was asked “Is there a cognitive ability or a way of thinking which helps you
see the connection between the separate STEM content areas? I am basically asking you to
define your ah-ha.” P1 answered:
Well, I think I have more ah-ha moments throughout the day than the students. I don’t
know. Well, I’m not quite sure if I’m going to answer this correctly. But what I’ve
realized is the less I plan, the more organic the lesson is, and the more I can move
forward with it on this level where -- so I can see the big picture

P1 continued with examples of student-centered learning:

I had like an ah-ha moment when I’m doing a lesson and I realize that one of their
abstract questions, I can use as the driving question for the lesson. So it’s like I’m
answering one of their questions, one of their needs, while also addressing the content
that I need to access. And so it’s this accessibility point where they can enter the lesson
by their own inquiry. So it’s like, they’re driving the lesson. And most recently, that’s
when I’ve had the most ah-ha moments is when I’m like oh wait, but this is really similar
to that question, you know, that one the class had.

It is clear based on P1’s interview that she has high self-efficacy in integrating STEM content
areas and possesses a strong identity attached to STEM education. Even though she professed to
not becoming successful in school until college, her natural ability and quest for challenging
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
60

experiences provided her the subject-specific content knowledge, ability, and self-efficacy to
integrate subjects in K–12 STEM education.
Participant #2
Summary of Demographic and Survey Data
In contrast to P1’s beginning, yet very successful experience in STEM education,
Participant #2(P2) has been a teacher for over 15 years and is an expert in STEM education. Her
accomplishments include:
• Scribes Grant recipient for STEM integration training
• Spoke at 27 conferences on STEM education
• Published in NSTA STEM exemplars
• MAVEN Ambassador through NASA
• With her students presented at the 2014 STEM conference in San Diego
• Created a STEM outreach which focuses on taking STEM programming
(rockets, basic robot design, coding, space science) to disadvantaged and
underrepresented students
She self-identified as a female American Indian or Alaskan Native between 45 to 54 years old.
She has a Master of Arts degree in Education and holds both a multiple subject teaching
credential and a single subject credential in Science. She indicated Strongly Agree on the
importance of STEM education in creating a career and college ready student and Strongly
Agreed that it is important to integrate all STEM content areas in STEM education. Additionally,
P2 indicated that she feels Very Confident in her ability to integrate STEM content in at least two
STEM content areas and confident to integrate all STEM content areas.
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
61

On the survey question, “Did economic, social, or moral incentives affect your decision
to enter the STEM field?” both social incentives and moral incentives were indicated.
Additionally, included in the electronic comment field was the example:
I teach about recycling and the importance of our carbon footprint and what is means for
the future of Earth. We produce a recycled fashion show and the proceeds support and
school in Uganda through the Suntree Foundation. This teaches all areas of STEM while
tying in social and moral incentives.

When questioned if the ability to integrate STEM content areas was affected due to
environmental barriers (such as available technology and/or causes outside of the teachers’
control), P2 indicated “Yes” and explained in the electronic comment field that “Funding and
lack of technological advances is what makes teaching cutting edge STEM difficult.”
These data, which were obtained through the introductory survey questions, were validated
during the following interview process.
STEM Interest and Identity
To determine to what P2 attributed her interest and identity in STEM education, she was
asked to tell her story. Specifically, “What life experiences led you into a career in STEM
education? Do you remember a trigger experience that sparked your interest in STEM or one of
the STEM fields?” To this question P2 answered:
Yes. I always have my kids [students] think about this too, because me as a little girl, I
grew up in a very poor family and I grew up in the south. The idea of me going to college
was never something we talked about, but I was extremely inquisitive. I was that little
girl that lay out in the backyard and look at the clouds and make shapes out of them. I
always dreamed about going to the moon, those kinds of things. My dad was a
construction worker, so he was always bringing lumber and junk home, just scraps. My
favorite thing to do is just start to build. I built go carts, I built club houses. Probably at
my time this wasn't the most typical thing for a girl to do, but I loved it… In my 20s, I
started to skydive and I was on the sky diving team. What I begin to realize is all the
science in sky diving, because I just thought it was fun. That's why I started it. Then you
start to learn the science. At that time, I was also going to school and starting to become a
science teacher. All of these amazing things just fell into place when someone that I
worked with at the XXXX Skydiving wanted me to speak to the kids. We started to tie in
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
62

all the physical science, the physics of sky diving, the math of sky diving, how you have
to figure out trajectory. It was that aha moment that I was teaching STEM way before
even STEM existed.

It is evident that P2 has a strong identity as a STEM professional, and based on the statement that
she has her students reflect on their interest formation, values the reflective interaction between
teacher and student. Additionally, it appears that both P2 and P1 perceive the integration of
STEM content areas as “naturally” occurring.
When asked if there was a teacher, role model, or a mentor to who had played a part in
her STEM interest or identity development, P2 elaborated:
No, unfortunately not. We moved constantly into 17 different schools. I was one of those
turbulent children. I grew up in that kind way. Unfortunately for me, school wasn't a
place that I exactly enjoyed, so it took me awhile before I wanted to go to college.
Elementary through high school, I never had a teacher once ever say anything remotely
inspiring to me. It was when I was in my 20s and I was a waitress…everybody I worked
with was going to college and I started to say, "I want more for myself, and I want more
for my kids." That's when I started to put myself through school. It was there that I had
that aha moment that I was pretty good in knowing it. I never realized that or that I could
do it. I was just always drawn to science. That just seemed to be the fit. The more I dug,
the more I'm like, "I love this." That's how it all started.

Based upon P2’s account of her early experiences in school, it is evident that she neither enjoyed
school, nor were her teachers responsible for creating a beginning interest in STEM education. It
was not until after she had her own children and experienced science within a real-world context,
that P2 developed the necessary interest to begin her upward self-efficacy spiral (Rueda, 2011)
and subsequent STEM interest/identity formation.
Subject-Specific Content Knowledge, Ability, and Self-Efficacy
P2 was asked a series of questions designed to determine what prior experience provided
the subject-specific content knowledge, ability, and self-efficacy to integrate subjects in K–12
STEM education. P2 began:
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
63

I have an interesting story with STEM, my credentialing program; I did get my science
credential in science. However, it was just more of the later day pedagogy and those
kinds of ways of teaching. It was probably about 6 years ago ... I was working with a
group of teachers. We were very frustrated with the standardized testing and how things
were rolling out and how science classes were being taught… we started to talk about
STEM, and you have to think this is 5, 6 years ago. We're like, "What is STEM?" We
started to do a lot of research. There wasn't a lot of things out there that really explained,
other than science, technology, engineering, mathematics, but what does that mean? We
took a really interesting approach to it. We took on and began to educate ourselves, and
began to speak at many, many, many different NST conferences around the country, and
really started to dig, because we could see that the East Coast was definitely ahead of the
West Coast, as far as what they were doing in programs. We wanted that for our kids ...
We started to see this big huge gap. As far as trainings, it wasn't district provided. We
had that motivation to go out and to do that. We would sign up for the workshops and we
started to share our experiences starting STEM electives at our middle school. Then just
about the time we got that rolling, a really amazing thing happened where we got a
Scribes Grant. That Scribes Grant, the amazing uniqueness of it, I don't know why there's
not more grants like this, is it gave the team the opportunity to spend the money on any
type of training that they would like. Of course we decided to take that money and used it
for STEM integration, and trainings.

It can be asserted that due to P2’s vast experience, and personal drive to attain the necessary
training to implement STEM integration for her students, she developed the subject-specific
content knowledge, ability, and self-efficacy to integrate STEM content areas.
STEM interest development and school structure. The school structure of the site
where P2 teaches is unique in that it requires each teacher to determine the content and focus for
a STEM lab. This lab consists of one period a day, occurs during regular school hours, and must
be based on a STEM content area which interests the teacher. P2 describes her STEM lab
experience:
I have a very, very fortunate and unique experience here, and that my lab class is a STEM
integrated class, and I have the freedom to do whatever it is I choose to do with the kids. I
was lucky enough this last summer to be selected as a MAVEN Ambassador through
NASA, and that's the MAVEN Orbiter from Mars. My kids from that experience, we've
had a complete STEM experience with that where they've learned the science behind
Mars, when you look at the sun, all of the things that MAVEN is measuring on Mars
when you talk about solar flares, spectroscopy, magnetism, they've been able to learn all
that.

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
64

The above described lab occurred during this research study and was observed and included as
part of this study’s observational research data. It must be noted that the format of allowing
teachers to develop classroom curriculum and determine course content is different from STEM
school structures described in the literature and is closer to matching afterschool programs or
science clubs. Additionally, this teacher-centered format is different from P1’s site where lab
curriculum is determined based on student interest (teachers are, however, given the opportunity
to volunteer to teach the lab of their choice).
STEM integration and school structure. As previously mentioned, P2’s school
structure appears to be distinct. P2 stated:
I think there's a lot of confusion. I think that there's not a real clear cut identity as
to what STEM is. The state of California just recently released the STEM
blueprint because there was just this open area of what STEM is, everyone took
and made it what they thought it was. Whereas, at our school, our ideology of it
was a high rigor, lots of opportunities for the kids to explore and make mistakes.
We like the idea of integrating science and technology, engineering, mathematics
every single day in all modalities of whatever it is that they're building. Ideally, if
you could make a circular modular and have the kids go from science to math and
have it all connect, and that's what our research was on. Their scores skyrocketed.
It's because that integration was amazing. It started to connect. The kids were able
to make those connections, and why reading matters, and why math matters, and
how you tie it all in together. I think that's my fear with STEM is that I do see a
lot of compartmentalization of it, and it needs to be integrated.

P2 was speaking to the structure of some STEM schools which teach the separate STEM content
fields independently without significant integration. This structure appears to be quite prevalent
as described in both literature and this studies observational research.
Mindsets or Attributes Used to Integrate STEM Subject Matter
Finally, P2 was asked “Is there a cognitive ability or a way of thinking which helps you
see the connection between the separate STEM content areas? I am basically asking you to
define your ah-ha.” To this P2 answered:
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
65

I think for myself, I've always been that kind of thinker ... I always want everything to
connect. If it doesn't connect, then why do it? I don't understand when you take a class
and you just are going thought the motions and it doesn't really mean anything. For me,
those aha moments come when it means something, and I can see that it's making an
impact. It's like when MAVEN reach Mars's atmosphere on September 21st and the kids
were all here, and were live streamed with NASA. It wasn't school hours. It was Sunday
night. It was late. Just that excitement that they had… I think in the beginning of my
teaching that's why I found it difficult, because the whole standardized testing ideas didn't
mesh with me very well. I've always been more hands-on project based as opposed to text
book. I don't actually like textbooks.

In contrast to P1’s single year of STEM education experience, P2’s participation in this study
carried an expert STEM professional’s perspective, therefore, creating the maximum variation
sampling called for by Maxwell (2013) and Merriam (2009). It is also obvious that P2’s vast
experience in STEM education demonstrates her high self-efficacy in integrating STEM content
areas and that she possesses a strong identity in STEM education. Finally, even though P2
professed to not having been inspired in her early education, her drive to bring STEM content
alive for her students through real-life experiences provided her the subject-specific content
knowledge, ability, and self-efficacy to integrate subjects in K–12 STEM education.
Participant #3
Summary of Demographic and Survey Data
Participant 3 (P3) teaches at the same site as P2 and has also been in education for 15
years. She self-identified as a female White / Caucasian between 35 to 44 years old and holds a
Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology, multiple subject credential, and supplemental
credential to teach Algebra in 8th grade. She indicated Strongly Agree on the importance of
STEM education in creating a career and college ready student and Neither Disagree Nor Agree
that it is important to integrate all STEM content areas in STEM education. Additionally, P3
indicated that she feels Somewhat Confident in her ability to integrate STEM content in at least
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
66

two STEM content areas and Not Confident to integrate STEM content in more than two STEM
content areas.
On the survey question, “Did economic, social, or moral incentives affect your decision
to enter the STEM field?” both social incentives and moral incentives were listed. Additionally,
included in the electronic comment field was this explanation:
I love math and Algebra is my favorite. I believe every student deserves to have at least
one great math teacher who can inspire them to see the beauty in math. Algebra is the
foundation for all math in high school and beyond, so it is important for students to have
a successful year in Algebra. I find that students, who struggle in Algebra, tend to stop
taking math after Geometry and give up. I try to make a difference and create a safe and
fun environment in my class. My dad used to tell me that Math was the most important
concept for me to learn in school and my sisters and I have always been successful in
math and so are all of our children.

P3 clearly states in this response that she has high self-efficacy in math in both her professional
and private life. Additionally, she implies that her incentive to enter education was to be the “one
great math teacher who can inspire them [her students] to see the beauty in math.”
When questioned if the ability to integrate STEM content areas was affected due to
environmental barriers (such as available technology and/or causes outside of the teachers’
control), P3 indicated, “Yes” and explained in the electronic comment field:
I teach high school level Algebra 1 and have been willing to work with our 8th grade
science teacher to create integrated units, but she is not comfortable with the idea and is
not strong in physical sciences. We offer both robotics and computer programming on
our campus, but another teacher is in charge of this and due to the content that I teach, I
am spending much of my time after school offering math help and tutoring.

Having reached out to the 8
th
grade science teacher, P3 demonstrated that she values the
integration of STEM content areas; however, she notes that her ability to participate in her
school’s integrated programs is limited due the time constraint of providing math intervention.

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
67

STEM Interest and Identity
Throughout the survey and interview process P3 repeatedly expressed that her interest in
math began at a very early age inspired by her father. Later, that inspiration came from her
children and their experiences at school. P3 explained:
Math was always important growing up. As the youngest of our girls, my dad always
emphasized math. Nothing else is more important than math. Math would get us through
life. I didn't realize how important it was until I became a teacher and I found myself
putting more effort and trying new things in my math lessons more than anything else.
The thing that inspired me to become a math teacher again was my son, was in 6th grade
and had a math teacher who was brand new, in my opinion, had no idea what she was
doing. It was frustrating him because he was, at the time, I don't want to say more
intelligent than her. He understood the math higher than the teacher did. She didn't last
long as a teacher for whatever reason it was. That was the year I was like, "That's it. I'm
doing it. I need to go up and teach this correctly to kids like my son." I got back into
middle school and became the math teacher. At 6th grade, I was math and science
combined. The next thing you know, I'm teaching algebra to 8th graders and doing it in a
way that I want them to understand and love the math.

In this excerpt P3 states that she taught both math and science; this point becomes important later
when compared with subsequent data and is an additional hint toward answering if the
exploration of teacher STEM interest/identity has the potential to uncover common philosophical
mindsets or attributes that teachers utilize to integrate STEM subject matter.
When asked to elaborate on the introductory survey question on whether economic,
social or moral incentives played a role in her decision to enter education, P3 stated:
Obviously, I didn't become a teacher to make money and I didn't become a math teacher
because they're highly needed. I just love math. I guess it will go under morals because I
do, I absolutely believe with my own children that if they have a strong math, core math,
and math mind and logic and problem solving, they can be successful in other areas of
life including science. Writing is always important, but when you get to a certain level of
writing, you can still be successful in the world. When you are gifted in math, you
actually now go pass the people who can write a letter and a beautiful story. Now you can
solve the problems for people who don't know how to solve them. You can help them see
why their machine's not working, where this stopped working, where they didn't plan this
and program it.

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
68

It is clear from this statement that P3 believes that math is the key to success in life and that her
motivation for entering education was due to her “love of math.”
STEM interest development and school structure. P3 gave the following response
when asked, “What would the ideal STEM program look like to you?”
I feel like a school would be strong in math and have the support systems. After school
tutoring, lunch tutoring, anything that you can, extra resources. Inspire those kids who are
advanced in math to see how it connects to technology and science. I feel like science
needs to be hands on. I feel like they need to not just understand vertical motion model,
but maybe build a catapult and launch it and use it in process.

In this statement P3 clearly shows her commitment to math, but also the importance of
developing an interest in the other STEM fields. However, when asked about STEM integration
within the context of a single classroom, P3 had a different philosophy. P3 stated:
I don't know how you could just have a perfectly STEM classroom where it's science,
math, technology and engineering all day, every day. I don't see it happening because I
feel like the students have to learn different levels of each. I feel like a school could be a
STEM school, but I don't feel a classroom could…I feel like that's what we're trying to do
in our campus, is offer the levels of math, the exposure to engineering and the levels of
science and then integrate technology all throughout. I feel like that would be more
effective than to try put all in one classroom. That's just my opinion.

It is interesting that P2 and P3, who are both at the same site, have different perceptions of their
school’s structure. P2 sees integration within the classroom as vital for student success; whereas
P3 believes that the compartmentalization of the STEM content areas is best for student learning.
This point was another hint to whether the exploration of teacher STEM interest/identity has the
potential to uncover common philosophical mindsets or attributes that teachers utilize to
integrate STEM subject matter.
Subject-Specific Content Knowledge, Ability, and Self-Efficacy
As the interview continued P3 was asked, “Did you have any STEM integration training
in your credentialing program? The purpose of this question was to initiate a dialogue on prior
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
69

experiences which may have provided the subject-specific content knowledge, ability, and self-
efficacy to integrate subjects in K–12 STEM education. P3 replied:
No. Not back at the time I went to XXXX. I felt like they were more focused on the no
child left behind stigma than anything else and more about social economic status and
diversity and differentiation. ..Then after I got my credential, they still had GATE
education and GATE certification. I went through that because my own children were
gifted and I was bound to that.

P3 was then asked as a follow-up question if there was any STEM integration training in the
GATE credentialing program. P3 explained, “during my GATE education, yes.” P3 then
immediately added:
I became really good friends with my kids' 1st grade teacher at the elementary school, so
it's interesting. She is now a professor at XXXX up in North Dakota. She inspired me to
look more at the integration of science and math and the technology and how to integrate
more things.

It appears that P3 included the previous statement not as an answer to the GATE credentialing
question, but to detail the person responsible for “inspiring” her to integrate science, math, and
technology. This statement is important for the following reasons: (1) it describes the social
context for learning as defined by Bandura (1977); (2) provides an example of how interaction
with STEM professionals can initiate interest development in STEM integration; (3) notes that
even though P3 believes strongly in the compartmentalization of math instruction, with the
guidance of a STEM professional she felt “inspired” to integrate STEM content areas; and (4)
sets the stage for the following discussion mindsets or attributes used to integrate STEM subject
matter.
Mindsets or Attributes Used to Integrate STEM Subject Matter
The secondary purpose of this study was to explore the interest/identity/self-efficacy and
incentives which led to the educator’s decision to enter STEM education with the hope of
uncovering common philosophical perspectives, attributes, or cognitive processes and
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
70

procedures used in integrating STEM content areas. Before examining P3’s discussion on
philosophical mindset, attributes of cognition, and/or ability to integrate STEM content areas, it
must be stated that as divergent data began to surface in this study no value judgment or
inference of superiority has been attached to participants who “naturally” see STEM integration,
versus participants who focus on their STEM content area of expertise; it was the explicit
purpose of this study to dissect each participant’s story looking for these commonalities and
differences.
Divergent data. At this point in the study both P1 and P2 had responded positivity to the
question “Is there a cognitive ability or a way of thinking which helps you see the connection
between the separate STEM content areas? Additionally, both P1 and P2 had used the term “aha”
to describe the moment of personal or student understanding before being asked the question on
cognition; however, P3 had not used “aha” thus far in the interview, and therefore when the
question on cognition was posed it did not include the additional instruction of, “I am basically
asking you to define your ah-ha.” This difference in how the cognition question was asked is
documented due to P3’s difficulty in understanding the question and the later importance of the
resulting verbal exchange to this study’s secondary findings.
To assist P3 in understanding the cognition question, she was given a mathematical
analogy likening each STEM content area to a moving layer within the brain one on top of the
other, with multiple single-STEM-facts within each layer being represented by a mathematical
factor. A connection between the STEM content areas was then described as occurring when a
common factor (representing a common STEM content fact) is identified across the layers
(representing at least two connected STEM content areas). P3 was then asked if she could
describe her cognitive process when a connection is made between STEM concepts. To this P3
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
71

stated, “That's what I'm saying. I don't see that happen a lot because I'm not ... When I'm thinking
math, I'm not thinking science. I don't have a science background.” P3 continued,
When I lesson plan, I don't just show up in a day and be like, "What am I teaching
today?" I plan my lessons out, a whole semester in advance, a whole year in advance.
Even though I'm teaching the same thing every year, I'm like, "Okay how can I do this
better?" I write notes for myself every year, what went wrong, what went good, this
lesson went good, they didn't understand this, teach this after this, teach this before this,
connect this with this, show them these connections so it flows better. I'm always writing
myself notes to try to improve as a teacher.
During this part of the interview stark differences between the previous interview participants
and P3 began to become apparent. Whereas P1 reveled in planning less to create organic lessons,
P3 meticulously planned and refined lessons. Additionally, both P1 and P2 saw the separate
STEM content fields as being naturally connected, while P3 states that her focus remains on
math. P3 concluded:
That's what I'm saying. I don't see that happen a lot because I'm not ... When I'm thinking
math, I'm not thinking science. I don't have a science background. I don't always think
like, "Oh how could I show them how it connects in science?" Because I don't have a
science mind. I just have a math mind.

It was apparent based on P3’s word choice that there was a certain degree of agitation in this
response. P3 had stated during an earlier section of the interview that she had taught 6
th
grade
Science and had sought out the advice of both professional colleagues and friends to assist her in
integrating STEM content areas. While still maintaining a strong identity in Mathematics, both
of these observations would lead to the conclusion that P3 possesses interest in STEM
integration and has the content knowledge to actuate integrated STEM instruction.
What caused P3’s discomfort was the request to describe the cognitive process which
occurs when a lesson is changed due to a spontaneous connection to other STEM content. In
effect, P3 was asked to describe something she does not experience. It should be noted that
similar to P3’s math lessons, STEM integrated lessons can also be carefully planned in advance
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
72

and are, in fact, one type of STEM experience detailed in great length by Honey et al. (2014).
The significance of P3’s response to having been given a math analogy to help understand the
cognitive process of STEM integration was not fully understood until the analysis phase of this
study, and will be further discussed in this chapter and fully detailed in Chapter Five.
Participant #4
Summary of Demographic and Survey Data
Participant 4 (P4) self-identified as a female White / Caucasian between 25 to 34 years
old. She is currently in her ninth year of teaching and has taught 7th grade pre-algebra, and 8th
grade algebra. Currently P4 is teaching at the same site as P2 and P3, but has also taught at other
schools. Her degrees and credentials include:
• Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Studies with a concentration in Mathematics
• Multiple Subject Credential with a middle school emphasis
• Subject matter authorization in Mathematics (7th-9th)
• Master of Arts in Teaching with an emphasis in Educational Technology
Additionally, P4 indicated Strongly Agree on the importance of STEM education in creating a
career and college ready student and Strongly Agreed that it is important to integrate all STEM
content areas in STEM education. Furthermore, P4 indicated that she feels Extremely Confident
in her ability to integrate STEM content in at least two STEM content areas and Very Confident
to integrate all STEM content areas.
On the survey question, “Did economic, social, or moral incentives affect your decision
to enter the STEM field?” Economic and social incentives were indicated. Additionally, included
in the electronic comment field was the following explanation:
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
73

I decided to become a mathematics teacher because I knew that math teachers were in a
high demand and I would never be out of a job. There was also loan forgiveness for this
field. I tutored middle/high school students while I was in college and thought that
teaching this level would be valuable since I related well with the students and was able
to explain the higher level math to students in a way they could understand. I decided to
get my masters in Teaching with an emphasis in Educational Technology, because there
are so many great tools out there that can inspire students to learn and I wanted to learn
how to incorporate them into my classroom. Technology is a major component of today's
society and the educational field should be a part of that. I chose to work at XXXX (a
STEM charter), so that I could also explore my other interest. I have a passion for
technology (videos, gaming, access to information) and a love for science and
engineering. I currently teach 7th grade Accelerated Math (pre-algebra), Civil
Engineering and City Management for an 8th grade elective (modeled after the Future
City National Competition), and will soon be teaching Computer Programming to 8th
grade students.

This answer is in direct contrast to P3’s detailed response on how economic incentives did not
play a role in her decision to enter one of the STEM fields, and highlights how the exploration of
incentives exposes basic philosophical differences between participants. However, as a
commonality, both P4 and P3 stated that social incentives were important in their decision to
enter into teaching.
Finally, P4’s survey response indicated that her ability to integrate STEM content areas
was not affected due to environmental barriers (such as available technology and/or causes
outside of the teachers’ control). This answer was, however, not validated through the next to be
discussed interview process. It is not meant to suggest that P4 was not truthful in her answer,
only to point out how the process of reflection during the interview process brought forth
additional information as to the participant’s STEM interest/identity formation, and self-efficacy
in integrating STEM content areas.
STEM Interest and Identity
At the onset of the interview P4 was asked, “Tell me your story. What life experiences
led you to a career in STEM education and do you remember a trigger experience that sparked
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
74

your interest in STEM or one of the STEM fields?” To that question P4 describe how she
originally had wanted to be an architect. She explained, “When I was growing up, I was very
much into architecture and sat in my room and did drawings a lot.” When asked, “Why then did
you decide to become a teacher?” P4 stated:
When I got to college and I was changing my mind a lot as college students do, then it
became the familiarity of like, "Well, my sister's a teacher. My best friend over there is a
teacher. A family friend is a teacher." I just kind of followed that field.

As a follow-up question P4 was asked if there was a math teacher who had inspired her. To this
she answered:
There's a lot of teachers and friends and family in my life but none of them are math
teachers. They were all Language Art teachers are Social Studies teachers or Art teachers.
I always knew I kind of was going to into teaching just because I'm used to that. I was
incredibly gifted at math, so it just came very, very easy to me. Throughout college, when
I knew I was becoming a teacher, I started tutoring middle school kids in math. I got a lot
of complements saying like, "Oh, I understand it when you explain it to me." I was like,
"Okay. I guess I'm going into Math education." Plus Math, I knew everyone needed Math
teachers. You can always guarantee walking into any district and say, I'm a Math teacher
and they'll hire you. That was part of the reason I went into it.

When asked to elaborate on the introductory survey question on whether economic,
social or moral incentives played a role in her decision to enter education, P4 stated:
Definitely the economic one because like I said, I'd be a math teacher because I knew I'd
get a job anywhere and they were always needed. Those are real concerns of mine
especially coming out of college. Am I going to make money out of college? That was a
very big worry of mine. The reliability of a math teacher was something I really looked
into. Social, once again, it is something that I was good at teaching the kids and they
seem to really be able to understand the way I was putting things. I liked the effect I was
having on the kids as well and the connections you make with them. I like middle school.
They're a little nutty sometimes but they're good. I don't know if there is any moral basis
on it.

P4’s answers on both the introductory survey and interview questions indicated that economic
incentives played a significant role in her decision to enter education as a math teacher. Her
initial interest in education was sparked by her family and friends. Additionally, she stated that
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
75

even though she was interested in technology and science, she identifies predominantly as a math
teacher.
STEM interest development/ STEM integration and school structure. As described
by both P2 and to some degree P3, the ability to select a lab based on teacher interest is an
important structure in place at P4’s site. P4 stated that “It's [the lab is] just based purely on my
interest of whatever activity I wanted to do. It just depends on what interest I have at the
moment... I change them when I get bored.” P4 added to how important this structure is to her
with the statement:
I went and taught math at just normal public schools but I was getting bored very quickly
because when you're a math teacher and when you're good at math, and I hate to say it
because I don't want to sound unhumble, but my test scores were very good. I wasn't
allowed to leave math. My principals, and there's a couple, at least four principals that
I've had throughout the years, when I asked, "Hey, can I teach something else?" They'd
be like, "No, we need you in math." You kind of get stuck in that mold once you're good
at something, you have to teach it.

P4 then further reflected on STEM interest development and current credentialing requirements:

I just think in general terms, if I was going to make a plea to any district, just let teachers
teach what they're interested in. Just because I don't have a degree in such and such
doesn't mean I don't know science enough to teach it to 7th graders. I think when you get
teachers that are interested in the subject field they're doing, you're going to see a
difference. That's what you see. These kids [students at P4’s site] are really strong
because our teachers are willing to share their interest… but there are so many
restrictions right now. That's the problem.

Even though P4 does not specifically define the current requirement that middle school teachers
must possess either a single subject credential or subject authorization as a barrier to STEM
identity development and STEM content integration, there is an inference that this requirement is
a barrier. Additionally, the idea of allowing teachers to dedicate one regular school period a day
to a STEM lab chosen by the teacher, and the manner in which P4’s founding site administrator
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
76

addressed the middle school credential requirement, appears to be unique to P4’s site and will be
discussed further within the interview and analysis of P4’s site administration.
Subject-Specific Content Knowledge, Ability, and Self-Efficacy
Next P4 was asked, “What prior experience provided the subject-specific content
knowledge, ability, and self-efficacy to integrate subjects in K–12 STEM education? To this
question P4 answered:
I would say through college when you have to take all your general education. I mean I
took a multitude of ... I took discrete mathematics which all the computer science majors
usually have to take. I took a couple classes of computer science.

P4 then explained her self-efficacy in math. She stated, “I happen to like Math because it feels
like puzzles to me. If I just keep following the things, I'm going to get it” Throughout the
interview process P4 continued to reiterate that she was “incredibly gifted at math” that the
subject of Mathematics “just came very, very easy to me.” P4’s self-efficacy in STEM
integration became even more apparent when her philosophical mindset and way of categorizing
and defining the separate STEM fields were analyzed.
Mindsets or Attributes Used to Integrate STEM Subject Matter
Next P4 was asked if there was a concept, ability, or way of thinking which she utilizes to
help her make the connection between the separate STEM content areas. Like P3, P4 was also
given the example of describing the separate STEM fields as multiple layers within the teacher’s
consciousness while teaching. Additionally, to answer this question P4 was given the context,
“When you're teaching, and all of a sudden a connection to another STEM field pops into your
head and you go, ‘Wait, I could apply this over here.’ I'm asking you if you can define the "A-
ha," of what happens; how do you make the connection? To this question P4 answered:
I think all of those categories just came easily to me ... If I went into math class, it was a
very easy class. I went to technology class, I was like, yup, this is easy too. It's all very
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
77

linear thinking. Same thing with Science. There is a definite feel for me when I walked
into those classes versus when I walked into a History or Language Arts because there's
so much more of like, "Let's all just discuss things and what did you see and oh, that's
interesting. What did you see?" It wasn't quite as linear for me. When I start looking at all
the STEM categories, those were things that just seem very easy to me. I could connect
them just because well, if they're easy to me and these were hard to me, these must all go
together and these are separate.
P4 then added:
I don't see them [STEM] as separate fields. I know that ... I guess just like when you are
in college, there's a Bachelor of Science and there's a Bachelor of Arts. Bachelor of
Science is all those [STEM]fields. To me, they seem all very similar. I can't go into
computer science class per se without knowing basic math skills. I can't go into a Science
class without knowing certain basic Math skills. Now, technology is based on all these
other things. If I was going to like, okay, so what's at the core of all these, I personally
would feel it's Math. Science, there's a lot of observation skills, logic skills. I just think
that all of those things are very correlated.
In this discussion P4 explains her philosophy on how and why the STEM fields are connected.
She states that Math, Science, and Technology require linear thinking and therefore are similar.
In addition, P4 makes an explicit differentiation between the thought processes required to be
successful in History or Language Arts versus the STEM content fields. It must be noted that in
this answer P4 did not address the actual question of describing her personal thought process, but
instead described how she categorizes the separate STEM fields. Once again, the relevance of
this point did not become apparent until both P4’s and P3’s response to this question was
compared to Participant 5’s (P5) response.
Participant #5
Summary of Demographic and Survey Data
P5 self-identified as a male White / Caucasian between 35 to 44 years old. His
educational and professional background includes:
• Bachelor of Science in Physics
• Master of Art in Educational Administration
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
78

• Secondary teaching credential in physical sciences
• Administrative credential
• Current Assistant Principal/STEM charter school
• Previous county-level science/STEM coordinator
P5 indicated Agree on the importance of STEM education in creating a career and college ready
student and Agreed that it is important to integrate all STEM content areas in STEM education.
Additionally, P5 indicated that he feels Very Confident in his ability to integrate STEM content
in at least two STEM content areas and Confident to integrate all STEM content areas.
On the survey question, “Did economic, social, or moral incentives affect your decision
to enter the STEM field?” no choice was indicated; however, included in the electronic comment
field was the statement, “It was simply what interested me since as long as I can remember.”
When questioned if the ability to integrate STEM content areas was affected due to
environmental barriers (such as available technology and/or causes outside of the teachers’
control), P5 indicated, “No” with no explanation in the electronic comment field.
As previously stated, this information from P5’s introductory survey was attained after his
interview.
STEM Interest and Identity
To begin the interview process, and to determine to what P5 attributed his interest and
identity in STEM education, P5 was first asked how many years he had been in education. P5
gave the following summation:
I taught for 10 and a half years and then I was science coordinator for XXXX County
Department Ed and XXXX County Office of Ed for four years and then I was AVID
administrator for two years and now I've been a site administrator for one year. I didn't
keep a running total there, but I started when I was 21 and I'm 42 now, so 21 years.

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
79

Next, P5 was asked to describe the life experiences which led him to a career in STEM
education. To this inquiry P5, like P2, began with early memories of disliking school, but of
loving science:
My dad was an electrical engineer… he worked making military microwave
communication for missiles everything was top secret, and he hated this job…That
steered me away from engineering but I knew that I loved science...I had shelves in my
room and I made a little switch with a light bulb so I can work on my chemistry
experiments at night, but then I hated school. To this day, all I do is read and listen to
podcasts and watch educational TV. I love learning and I hated school. I thought,
"Something is wrong here. I can do better than that."

P5 continued by describing the life events in high school which triggered his interest in
education:
In 9th grade, I was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes and I swore to myself I was going to
become a doctor and find a cure for diabetes, and then realized doctors don't find cures,
they apply cures that researchers found and then it takes like 18 years of college to
become a doctor. I said, "Okay, I wouldn't do the doctor thing, but the science stuff is still
cool." I think that combination of my dad hating engineering, I loved science and I hated
school and that little trigger of wanting to become a doctor to cure diabetes, all those
things together I said, "I'm going to become a teacher and I'm going to do better than any
of my teachers ever did."

Based on his earliest recollections, it can be asserted that P5 developed a strong interest
in science early in life. It can also be asserted that even though P5 did not have an identity as a
student; he did possess the identity of a “learner” and future educator. This point leads to P5’s
discussion of his college years, the structure of education he experienced, and its effect on his
STEM interest and identity formation.
STEM interest development and school structure. P5’s STEM interest and identity
development continued throughout college despite the structure of the schools he attended. P5
continued with his interest and identity development story:
I thought, "Oh, when I get to college, things will be so much better." I hated every one of
my physics professors. Not a single one of them ever threw a paper airplane, did a
demonstration, took us on a field trip. It was 100% pure lecture and tests and the labs
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
80

were disconnected, taught by grad students, not connected to what we're learning in the
classroom at all, and they were always ...Yesterday we learned about blank, two weeks
from now we're going to do a lab that verifies what we already told you is true anyhow. I
ended up with a degree in physics, never ever, ever having done an experiment that I
didn't already know the answer to… except for my science fair projects…To have a
degree in science, never having done any actual science is not right… Now, I literally
have written a book on physics labs… I've written a book on chemistry labs.

It appears that P5’s “hate for school” led him to question the manner in which science content
was delivered. Additionally, this reflection was very similar to P1’s and P2’s and foreshadows a
later discussion on how the experience of disliking traditional school as a young person could
affect the willingness of the adult STEM professional to actively integrate STEM content areas.
P5 did, however, relate one positive experience from school which helped develop his
interest and identity in Science. P5 recalled:
I did a science fair project in 10th grade that I won the second place in the state,
memberships to museums and magazine subscriptions and cash and field trips and it was
one of the best experiences of my life. I can't tell you what science class I took in 10th
grade, what my teacher's name was or anything I learned, but I could tell you every detail
of that science fair project to this day. I could still do the calculations. I was up 180 nights
in a row watching this moon of Jupiter revolve around and calculated the speed of light
by watching a moon of Jupiter rotate around Jupiter while the earth moved farther and
farther away from the planet.

In this reflection, P5 describes winning the Science Fair as being “one of the best experiences of
my life.” This memory is consistent with research described in Honey et al. (2014), as to the
importance of positive school experiences in developing the necessary STEM identity to persist
in STEM education and potentially in STEM careers. It is interesting that P5 did not remember
his teacher or the class, only the experiment.
In contrast to P5’s Science Fair memory where only the experience itself was
remembered, when asked if there was a teacher, role model, or a mentor to who had played a part
in his STEM interest or identity development, P5 jumped forward in his interest/identity story to
a college professor who used stories from his childhood and guest speakers to make the class
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
81

more interesting. Even though P5’s answer does not truly speak to the question asked, it is
significant due the difference in how and to what degree these two experiences were
remembered, and to a later discussion on the effectiveness of using stories and analogies in
STEM integration. P5 recalled:
The best college professors that I had and this still isn't saying a whole lot, was because
he taught a course called Our Global Future and he grew up fenced in in Los Alamos.
His father was one of the creators of the nuclear bomb and now he's totally anti-nuclear,
but he had the greatest guest speakers come in and the way he taught us lessons, he was
teaching us about fooling yourself and placebo effect. He had us each right down our
birthdays one time and the next time he brought in horoscopes for us to read and had us
ranked on a scale of one to ten how accurate this horoscope was. Then he said, "All right,
now take it and pass it to the person behind you," and we all had exactly the same
horoscope, but the average in the class was eight out of ten. It was because you believed
in horoscopes, I could have written anything on that paper and you would have figured
out a way to convince yourself that it was an accurate horoscope. Just stuff like that. His
connection to the real, being able to tell stories and bring in speakers ... He made the
course interesting. He wasn't an amazing professor himself, but he made an amazing
course by telling stories of his childhood and bringing in great guest speakers. His lessons
weren't the best, but he made the course great by adding all of those other things to it.

In this recollection, P5 described in detail an experience which occurred many years ago. Unlike
his remembrance of his Science Fair project which only included the experiment itself, in this
case he was able to remember the particulars of this teacher’s background, the name of the
course, and the classroom activity even down to the eight out of ten class average results. This
observation opened the questions: (1) if storytelling is effective, then what is the mechanism
which makes it so? (2) Is there a distinct type of person who might be more inclined to use
storytelling in the classroom? And (3), is there a connection between the ability to use stories in
instruction and the ability to spontaneously see connections between STEM content areas? All of
these questions are related and will be discussed later in this chapter.

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
82

Subject-Specific Content Knowledge, Ability, and Self-Efficacy
P5 was then asked a series of questions designed to determine what prior experience
provided the subject-specific content knowledge, ability, and self-efficacy to integrate subjects in
K–12 STEM education. To this P5 elaborated:
I think the thing that made me into a good teacher was I had a great methods teacher at
XXXX where I got my credential. If it wasn’t for my methods teacher, I would have
ended up teaching the way I was taught. I would have been a lecturer who did a few labs.
My student teaching experience was at a great school and my master teacher taught at
that school…he was also the professor for the methods class. He was a huge proponent of
inquiry before it was even called inquiry. They called it discovery learning back then. He
was a huge proponent of that. It really opened my eyes to this is how I'm going to be
different [a different kind of teacher]. I ended up doing my master's thesis on inquiry
learning and does it lead to longer lasting learning and deeper learning.

There is little doubt that P5’s educational background and expertise in inquiry based learning set
the foundation to succinctly describe his opinion on the optimal school structure for STEM
integration.
STEM integration and school structure. Like the previous interview participants, P5
was asked to describe an ideal STEM integrated program. His response was based on his
extensive experience as a county-level science/STEM coordinator:
My job with the county office, I got to work with hundreds of schools, elementary
schools, middle schools, high schools, continuation schools, virtual schools and the
integration of STEM in elementary schools is nearly non-existent. If I was a principal of a
well-integrated STEM school ...especially at the elementary school level, I could walk in
to a classroom and I wouldn't know what time of day it was. Language arts time, math
time, science time. Because they'd be reading and writing and discussing and doing
hands-on activities and calculations about their hands-on activities all at once and I would
go, "I don't know if this is language arts or math time. They're doing both." I think that
would be the epitome. It makes it a little bit harder when you get to middle school and
high school because now they have periods and different teachers that they go to for each
different subject. You really depend on cross-curricular projects at middle schools and
high schools.

Only P2 shared P5’s vision of walking into a classroom where instruction was blended in such a
way that it was difficult to differentiate the separate content areas (including Language Arts).
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
83

The other participants held, in various degrees, to a school structure where instruction in the
separate STEM content areas were independently taught without significant integration. There
were, however, the interest-based labs where STEM integration was described in varying degrees
of effectiveness.
Upon later analysis of the interview data, the difference in how the participants described
the attributes of the ideal STEM classroom and/or program was an additional hint if the
exploration of teacher STEM interest/identity has the potential to uncover common (or
dissimilar) philosophical mindsets or attributes that teachers utilize to integrate STEM subject
matter. It became apparent upon analysis of the introductory survey results that teachers’
confidence in integrating STEM content areas were reflected in their description of the ideal
STEM classroom/program, with the higher the survey confidence the more integrated the ideal
STEM classroom. This point would seem obvious and expected, but it led to further examination
of data to look for differences in cognitive processes. Why would some educators envision a
completely integrated STEM classroom (P1, P2 and P5), while others visualize the necessity of
separate instruction for each core subject (P3, and to a lesser degree P4)? This question became
the foundation for identifying common underlying cognitive processes or procedures used by
teachers in integrating STEM content; and the later discussion on the teachers’ use (or lack of
use) of storytelling as a method of explaining common concepts between the STEM fields. It
must be noted that one explanation for the inequity in the ability of teachers is integrate STEM
content areas was detailed in Honey et al. (2014). Their research found that the ability to
integrate the STEM content areas hinged on the teachers themself having experienced integrated
STEM instruction. However, with all of the participants in this study having been chosen from
schools which focus on STEM integration, it can be asserted that it is appropriate to examine the
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
84

possibility of other explanations, including differences in mindset or attributes which teachers
used to integrate STEM subject matter.
Mindsets or Attributes Used to Integrate STEM Subject Matter
It is important to fully understand the context of the following exchange; when P5 was
asked to describe, as all the other participants had, the cognitive process which happened when a
spontaneous connection is made between STEM content areas, he answered immediately. This
immediate answer, without the need for clarification, was completely different from all other
participants’ responses. Of course, the argument could be made that the researcher asked the
question in a clearer manner than with the other participants; but upon review of interview
transcripts, there appears to be little difference in the way the question was presented with the
exception that the personal example of the math analogy was given after P5’s initial response. P5
was given the direction:
I'm asking you to define a cognitive process. I'm asking you to define the “aha.” You're
teaching one subject and you suddenly make a connection to another subject. Can you
articulate what is going on in your mind when that aha hits?

As stated above, P5 immediately replied:

That's hard. I think for me, it looks like taking a couple steps back like I was just hit by
something unexpectedly and go, "I have another way to ..." My aha's are always, "Oh, I
just came up with a much better way to explain it," by connecting it to something you
learn at another class or something you already know are my usual teaching aha's. "I just
thought of a better way to explain this." Then my 5th and 6th period classes were the
lucky ones because I have the aha's for a 2nd, 3rd period. It was much better. I don't
know that ... other than suddenly it dawns on me that there's a better way to explain this,
where there's a metaphor that I could use to explain it or I can connect it to something
else that they know, I think those were always my teaching aha's.
P5 was then given the same analogy (the word “analogy” was not used in the example) as the
other participants which liken each STEM content areas to a moving layer within the brain one
on top of the other, with multiple single-STEM-facts within each layer being represented by a
mathematical factor. A connection between the STEM content areas was then described as
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
85

occurring when a common factor (representing a common STEM content fact) is identified
across the layers (representing at least two connected STEM content areas).
P5 immediately stated:
Similarly for me, it's suddenly I saw connection between all of those… like I completed a
circuit and all these parts in the circuit didn’t do anything until I connected that last wire.
Definitely the circuit. I see all of the parts tied together and suddenly I put the pieces
together and there it is, now it all works.

P5’s use of an analogy to describe his cognitive process (comparing connecting a circuit to
connecting content in the separate STEM fields) was significant to this study’s findings. It was at
this point during analysis of the data that there appeared to be a tangible method to describe and
compare one participant’s cognitive ability to connect STEM content areas to another. Based on
the ground theory approach, it was hypothesized that the ability to use or not use analogies in
instruction could account for the decision to share or not share stories with students in order to
illustrate a connection in STEM content areas. This point, as stated earlier in P3’s interview
discussion, was not meant to imply cognitive superiority between the participants who use stories
and analogies versus the one who did not, only a difference. The purpose of isolating the use of
analogies was to identify a mechanism (e.g. the ability to “see” connections between the separate
STEM content fields) which could potentially explain the participants’ differences in perception
and instruction. These contrasting data and the resulting implications for this study will be
discussed in Chapter Five.
Finally, as described throughout P5’s interview results, it is evident that P5 possesses
extensive content knowledge, ability, and self-efficacy to integrate subjects in K–12 STEM
education. Also, based on P5’s educational and professional accomplishments, it is obvious that
he possesses high self-efficacy in integrating STEM content areas and a strong identity in STEM
education.
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
86

Additional Participants
As noted earlier, analysis of this study’s data is being presented in the same order as it
was obtained. Originally, P5 was the only site administrator included in the expansion of the
survey/interview process; however, as new data and themes in analysis became apparent, it
became necessary to expand the study to include the principals from both studied sites.
Therefore, both Participant 6 (P6) and Participant 7 (P7) were included to clarify and expand on
information acquired through the previous five interviews. Additionally, having used the original
participants’ STEM interest/identity formation stories to identify common (or dissimilar)
philosophical mindsets or attributes utilized to integrate STEM subject matter, and having
identified the use of analogies as a potential difference in the underlying cognitive processes or
procedures used by teachers in integrating STEM content, it was necessary to corroborate these
preliminary findings with additional interviews and data.
Participant #6
Summary of Demographic and Survey Data
Participant 6 (P6) self-identified as a male White / Caucasian between 35 to 44 years old.
His education and professional background includes:
• Bachelor of Art in History
• Master of Business Administration
• Secondary teaching credential in Social Studies
• Administrative credential
• Principal/STEM charter school
On the introductory survey P6 indicated Strongly Agree on the importance of STEM
education in creating a career and college ready student and Strongly Agreed that it is important
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
87

to integrate all STEM content areas in STEM education. Additionally, P6 indicated that he feels
Extremely Confident in his ability to integrate STEM content in at least two STEM content areas
and Very Confident to integrate all STEM content areas.
On the survey question, “Did economic, social, or moral incentives affect your decision
to enter the STEM field?” both social incentives and moral incentives were indicated.
Additionally, included in the electronic comment field was the explanation, “The opportunity to
help guide students so that they can be better digital citizens.”
When questioned if the ability to integrate STEM content areas was affected due to
environmental barriers (such as available technology and/or causes outside of the teachers’
control), P6 indicated “Yes” and explained in the electronic comment field:
Not necessarily at our site, but in general yes. Lack of access to technology is one of the
biggest hurdles for most schools, however it is a primary focus at XXXX and we make
sure we have the resources necessary to support our staff.
These technological resources were evident during multiple observations of P6’s school site.
Additionally, P6’s commitment to his staff’s interest and identity formation was also observed
and will be discussed in a later section after P6’s personal interest/identity story.
STEM Interest and Identity
Possibly due to his Master of Business Administration degree, P6’s educational path and
interest and identity formation story is different than the other participants.
I spent two years in the classroom as a History teacher and then was asked to do student
activities. In my third year of teaching full time, I took over the student activities director
position and I did that for seven years. I was asked by the superintendent to come out and
work for the museum as a coordinator…. I was still an employee of XXXX Unified…
I continued to build on what they’d [the museum] already established and increase their
field trips and develop the Science Saturday program and did a whole bunch of things.
Then the superintendent came and said that it was time to start a charter school [at the
museum].

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
88

When asked if he could remember a trigger experience which had led to his interest in STEM or
one of the STEM fields, P6 reminisced:
Sure. One of the biggest pieces is from a personal standpoint is I absolutely love, love,
love, my favorite place to go is in San Francisco at the Exploratorium which is an
interactive science based exhibits similar to the Reuben H. Fleet down in San Diego and
it’s just such a phenomenal museum, but it doesn’t have necessarily all the spit and polish
on all the exhibits. There’s where you still see the wood background. You see the nuts
and bolts and everything but it’s less about the appearance as it is about the core science
of what is being developed. When going through that experience and seeing what they
can do, that’s where we wanted to be eventually within the next 5 to 10 years you’ll see
that same element here on display when the kids are creating those types of exhibits and
putting them on display and the facilities that we have here.

Even though P6 self-reported having an educational background in History, his “love” for
interactive science exhibits, which led to an interest in STEM education, resulted in P6 being
chosen as the founding principal of the above noted STEM charter school. Additionally, due to
P6 having been given autonomy over site decisions, he was able to develop and implement a
unique school structure centered on nurturing both teacher and students’ interest/identity
formation in STEM education.
STEM interest development and school structure. When asked, P6 stated that the idea
of developing a teacher interest based lab was solely his. This structure was discussed in length
in P2, P3, and P4’s interviews. P6 explained how he formulated this idea:
A lot of it came up out of just personal experience with the idea of trying to be able to
find a way to get the kids exposed to as many different types of science as possible, and
to be able to have the opportunity for teachers to be able to disrupt their own thoughts…
and to have the flexibility to be able to create new content based on what their interest
level is. So much of it is an opportunity to tie in standards from NGSS and also across
curricular standards that you’ll see, but also an opportunity to be able to say I can teach
the same elements through aviation. I can also do it through art. I can also do it through
computer engineering that ultimately when we’ve had conversations with Google and
Broadcom and McCrometer and Edelbrock these companies who come to us, the biggest
thing that they’re looking for is not content knowledge. They’re looking for students that
have a willingness and a desire to learn. A passion to become those constant ongoing
learners who are willing find new ways.

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
89

Subject-Specific Content Knowledge, Ability, and Self-Efficacy
Next, P6 was asked a series of questions designed to determine what prior experience
provided the subject-specific content knowledge, ability, and self-efficacy to integrate subjects in
K–12 STEM education. P6 elaborated:
I am not a science person. I am fascinated by science. I love science. These kids can kick
my butt upside and down when it comes to content knowledge. I walk into 8th grade
Physical Science and go, “Huh, yeah, maybe on that.”

P6 continued:

Again, I think that part of my experience and my journey with this institution has been
the ability to find ways to get things done. To find creative ways to be able to meet the
needs for the kids and to be able to bring that element to them, to be able to give them
opportunity and tremendous success from finding those opportunities and also being
surrounded by a tremendous staff with classified and certificated that worked
tremendously hard to be able to give these kids everything that they need.

P6 indicated that his strength and identity in STEM education centers on his ability to develop
and implement the next to be discussed school structures which are conducive to STEM
integration.
STEM integration and school structure. Throughout the interview, P6 described his
focus on preparing students to enter the 21
st
century workforce. P6 stated:
We just took a group of 40 kids to the Google facility in Venice and got to tour the
facility and look at everything. One of the big pieces for our kids is what kind of
computer programmer are you looking for. Are you looking for Ruby or JavaScript or
Python? What type of thing is going to get our kids a little bit ahead? They couldn’t
answer the question. They’re like, “We have programmers from all over that do all
different languages.” It’s not that we’re looking for this one prototype of student that will
be the best fit for Google. We’re looking for an ideal type of person and if they have an
interest in programing, and if they have an interest in coding, if they have an interest in
fixing problems, then they’re going to be an ideal fit.

It is evident that P6’s idea of interest driven labs has created a school structure whose purpose is
to heighten student interest in STEM and empower students to meet the employment
requirements for STEM based industries; therefore providing a “supply” of prepared students to
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
90

meet the “demand” of industry for students with critical thinking and problem solving skills.
This interaction between school structure and teacher STEM interest development harkens back
to the Chapter Two’s discussion on principal/agent theory and will be discussed in Chapter Five.
Mindsets or Attributes Used to Integrate STEM Subject Matter
As previously indicated, this study’s research questions were answered by dissecting and
analyzing each participant’s individual story. In some instances an answer to one research
question was actually given when a different research question was asked; that is the case in this
discussion. When asked if there was a teacher, role model, or a mentor who had played a part in
his STEM interest or identity development, P6 began with an account of an English teacher (not
a teacher from one of the STEM fields) by whom he was influenced, and then continued with an
explanation of how he comprehends the integration of the humanities and science content fields.
In both parts of his response, P6 reveals an underlying mindset and attribute used to integrate
STEM subject matter. P6 shared:
It ties in but one of my favorite and most progressive teachers in my mind from high
school stands out, but he was an English teacher, but just the ability to break down your
thought process and your analysis of writing and that carries over obviously in how we
teach the kids to write up at the scientific level. But one of my big pieces was Music and
Art History was a big part of my life. It’s interesting to see an element here where we
don’t have those as a focus but taking the class like Physics of musical sound or taking
the Art History classes where you can establish and see the correlation and that there are
elements of science throughout. There’s not necessarily a core academic class from my
background that stands out. Part of this just having the appreciation from a well-rounded
humanity standpoint that science plays a very strong role in that but there’s also a life role
that you have to learn to appreciate what surrounds you.

Even though P6 was answering a question on teacher and coursework affect, in his response P6
detailed the connectedness between the humanities, science, and life in general. This mindset,
which highlights importance of being able to “break down your thought process” and described
how unrelated content “ties in,” could be paramount in not only finding discreet commonalities
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
91

between content areas such as Art History and Science, but also finding the commonalities
between the STEM content areas.
Additionally, in this response P6 foreshadows the assertion that the ability to
spontaneously make connections between STEM content fields could possibly be related to
having a strong humanities background. Even though it is fundamentally necessary to have
STEM content knowledge to be able to make the connection between the separate content fields,
the extra ability to look for commonalities across STEM content areas may be grounded in skills
learned through the humanities, especially Language Arts. It is the ability to communicate these
commonalities by use of analogies, which are usually relegated to the field of Language Arts,
which could account for the way in which some participants described their stories and their
ability to echo an analogy when given one. It is this realization that could possibly explain the
survey and interview results which indicated that participants who self-reported high self-
efficacy in content areas other than STEM and/or a dislike of the structure of school, reported
higher self-efficacy in STEM integration ability. Of course, these findings are based on
preliminary and exploratory research observations and would need further research to be
empirically verified.
Finally, as described throughout P6’s interview results, it is evident that P6 possesses
extensive experience, knowledge, ability, and self-efficacy in developing programs and school
structures which are conducive to STEM content area integration. It is his ability to create these
structures which appears to have led to his interest and identity as a STEM professional.
Likewise, even though P6 admitted that he was “not a science person” his ability to perceive
connected structure (which could also explain his ability to create instructional integrated
programs), leads back to the Honey et al. (2014) call to research which states:
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
92

Despite the rise in interest in providing students with learning experiences that foster
connection making across the STEM disciplines, there is little research on how best to do
so or on what factors make integration more likely to increase student learning, interest,
retention, achievement, or other valued outcomes (p.2).

It is the response to this question which drove the evolution of this study and the dissection of
each participant’s interest/identity story looking for clues to identify exactly what an effective
learning experiences entails. Additionally, it must be noted that as each sequential interview took
place, data from the previous interviews were compared and analyzed. With one last
participant’s interview to examine, major themes and preliminary answers to research questions
were already becoming apparent.
Participant #7
Summary of Demographic and Survey Data
Participant 7 (P7) self-identified as a male White / Caucasian between 35 to 44 years old.
His education and professional background includes:
• Bachelor of Art, Political Science
• Master of Art, Curriculum & Instruction
• Doctor of Education, Educational Leadership
• Secondary teaching credential, Social Studies
• Administrative credential
• Principal/design magnet school
P7 indicated Strongly Agree on the importance of STEM education in creating a career and
college ready student and Strongly Agreed that it is important to integrate all STEM content
areas in STEM education. Additionally, P7 indicated that he feels Very Confident in his ability to
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
93

integrate STEM content in at least two STEM content areas and Confident to integrate all STEM
content areas.
On the survey question, “Did economic, social, or moral incentives affect your decision
to enter the STEM field?” P7 noted all three incentive types as motivation; additionally, in the
electronic comment field he chose to only include the following web address:
http://youtu.be/9eYH0AFx6yI. When this link was opened, it led to the video-poem by Daniel
Beaty entitled “Knock-Knock.” When later asked the significance of this piece, P7 stated, “The
influence was the importance of remembering the WHY of what we do every day, and the
calling that we are here for more than ourselves.”
When questioned if the ability to integrate STEM content areas was affected due to
environmental barriers (such as available technology and/or causes outside of the teachers’
control), P7 indicated “No,” but then added in the electronic comment field that, “There are no
barriers, other than being able to connect the circuits in the minds and vision of teachers to be
able to do so. Time for collaboration and creativity are needed. That is a barrier.” It must be
noted that due to the before mentioned evolution of this study, the administrative participants
completed their introductory surveys after their respective interviews. P7’s reference to “being
able to connect the circuits in the minds,” in his response to the survey question on barriers to
integrating STEM content areas, reflects his response to an earlier interview question and a
subsequent discussion of this study’s preliminary finding after his interview was completed.
STEM Interest and Identity
P7 was first asked to describe what sparked his interest in STEM education. To that
question, he gave the explanation: “Economics. The emerging economies that are coming out are
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
94

going to be highly based on engineering and the sciences and the big ability to use and
manipulate and develop a new technology. Thus, we need strong, prolific STEM programs.”
Next, P7 was asked if he could recall a previous teacher who had affected his STEM
interest/identity development. To this question P7 stated that the only teacher who had
influenced him was his eighth grade Social Studies teacher Mr. XXXX who “talked about
current events and politics.” P7 went on to say that it was the class discussions which he found
engaging. P7 was then asked to recall his other teachers and asked, “What were they lacking that
they did not trigger any interest in you? I'm asking you for the antithesis.” To this P7 declared:
No relevance. I was bad in math I didn't understand because it was problems and
formulas in a book. I didn't understand the relation to the problems and the formulas.
When am I going to use this? Why do I need it? What does it mean? I understood biology
and that that was the study of life so I got that and I could deal with it. Chemistry I
couldn't deal with because it was numbers and molecules and chemicals and no. I mean I
would just do this, figure out these equations, make these things rise, make these bubbles
go. So I stopped taking science.

P7 then added:

Now I did do independent study Future Farmers of America horticulture for four years in
high school which counted as sciences because -- and that was hands-on engaged doing
things, working with animals, working at the plants every day.

P7 went on to describe this teacher by name. “Yeah, the teacher, Mr. XXXX was amazing. Just
he was a great person, brilliant in terms of agriculture.” When asked if this teacher ever told
stories, P7 stated that Mr. XXXX “told true stories all the time,” but when asked, P7 could not
remember any of them.
STEM interest development and school structure. Like P6’s site, P7 also offers
interest based labs. However, even though teachers are given the autonomy to choose the lab
they want to teach, they are not given the freedom to choose the lab subject content; the decision
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
95

on content is based on student interest, not teacher interest. This difference in structure relates
back to P1’s interview and her desire to teach labs based on her interest.
Subject-Specific Content Knowledge, Ability, and Self-Efficacy
P7 was asked a series of questions designed to determine what prior experience provided
the subject-specific content knowledge, ability, and self-efficacy to integrate subjects in K–12
STEM education. When specifically ask what prior experience gave him the qualifications to be
in his position, P7 stated “none, I was a Political Science major” then continued:
When I went into administration after being a history teacher, I was assigned to math and
science departments to oversee. Though that we had the opportunity to develop a grant
partnership with XXXX[a California university] and XXXX’s[a California University’s]
STEM Center and that's really where I got into ... became aware of the need for sending
students to university on career paths in STEM-related areas.

When asked if P7 had experienced “a learning curve” or the need to develop self-efficacy in
STEM, P7 stated:
I didn't have to do a lot necessarily in terms of content area… it was organization. It was
motivation. It was discussion. It was -- with teachers, to get teachers ... because what we
were doing is we were building a relationship with the university. What started getting
me going and interested in STEM, which I'm now disinterested in, and I'll tell you about
that, we took teachers to the university so they could actually see and feel what the
opportunities for our students leaving the high school could be at XXXX for STEM
majors. That was exciting because we got to see the equipment, we got to see what
they're actually doing, we got to see the opportunities for undergraduate research as
assistants with professors as opposed to going to XXXX where you're going to be a grad
student cleaning test tubes and that's going to be your experience. That all became
exciting working with the professors, mainly from the physics department, talking about
the future of K12 education, what we need students out in the workforce to be spurred
and interested in. I started learning more about what is industry doing, what do they need
from students? How are we preparing students? How are we not preparing students? The
push for STEM came out of that.

Much like P6, P7 did not consider himself a content specialist in STEM, but the organizational
force behind preparing students to continue in STEM education and to pursue STEM careers.
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
96

However, unlike P5 and P6, P7 had a definite negative opinion in regard to STEM integration
and school structure.
STEM integration and school structure. P7 was then asked to clarify his before stated
comment on now being disinterested in STEM. To this P7 observed:
When I look at STEM schools I see, well, I see a lot of things. When I look at a normal
school they say they do STEM but by doing STEM they have science classes and they
have math classes and they use an LCD projector and maybe a Chromebook cart so the
kids are accessing technology and everyone forgets about the E. What I don't see is the
integration of the S- T- the E- and the M- anywhere. I don't see this net of STEM, I see
people doing things and then I hear people talk about STEAM, which XXXX me off
[makes me mad] because they're throwing the arts into an acronym that we're already not
serving well. I was at Round Table for STEM educators and the thought came out there
that it should be SHTEAM so we add humanities and the arts to STEM. Which then our
thought was, "Well, now we're talking about school."

When then asked, as the other participants were, to describe what an ideal integrated STEM
classroom would look like, P7 answered:
It would look like a design school. Students would be using technology in a way that is
helping them do their learning or express their learning and using technology in their
engineering to be integrating mathematics into the engineering to be using the sciences
throughout. Because I haven't seen a really good model, I can't even express it really, I
can't paint a picture of it because when I think of science I think of ecology, biology,
chemistry, physics; the traditional silos of science that are taught in and of themselves
unrelated and I have never ... When I have seen science integrated usually with an E it's a
physical or a physics or a robotics so I've never seen an example of how biology fits in
with the technology that fits in with the engineering that fits in with the math.

P7 continued:

Like in sixth grade we have, it's more silo than it's supposed to be, we're supposed to just
have sixth grade STEM that kids go to for 95 minutes every day. When you walk in
they're going to be doing math and they're going to stop and they're going to do science…
we haven't even quite got there but we know we haven't gotten there. We talked about it I
think fairly openly that we haven't got there and we're working on what do we need to do
to get there? I don't think most people are to the point where they're even ready to have
that discussion because they think they're doing it.

As is the case in each participant’s interest and identity story, the purpose was to dissect its
components to uncover common (or dissimilar) philosophical mindsets or attributes utilized in
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
97

integrating STEM subject matter. In this exchange, P7 gives a transparent visualization of his
opinion on the current state of STEM integration and educational practices. Even though P7 does
not believe that STEM integration is occurring on the structural level, he does relay its
importance within the context of the teacher/student exchange, specifically in the next to be
described experience of teachers seeing (or not seeing) the connection between the STEM
content fields. This exchange highlights the importance of expanding the Honey et al. (2014)
definition of STEM experience to include the teachers’ affect as part of the STEM integration
experience discussion and definition.
Mindsets or Attributes Used to Integrate STEM Subject Matter

As all other participants, P7 was asked to describe the cognitive process which occurs
when suddenly the connection between STEM subjects become apparent. In addition, P7 was
given the same example as the other participants likening connecting STEM content areas to
finding common factors in math. Due to P7 being a site principal, he was also given the context
of observing instruction instead of teaching. P7 was asked to describe, “What happens in your
brain when you see the connection between the STEM subjects, but the teacher does not?” To
this question P7 replied, “It hurts,” then continued to explain, “I don't know how to describe it.
Anxiety, anxiousness…Are they going to? Is the kid going to pick it up? Can someone say
something? Should I say something? I don't know. Like I don't know fear, torment?” At this
point P7 was assured that all the participants had needed some time to think about the question,
and that he was being asked to define the “aha” which happens when he sees the connection. To
this P7 replied, “You can't cut it out of your head and put it into theirs?” He then continued:
I get anxious. I get anxious. I want them to do it. I want them to say it. I want them to
make the connection. I want it to make sense. I want it to be integrated. I want to be
across the board. It's like an incomplete circuit that needs to be soldered together.

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
98

In this response, P7 used the analogy comparing connecting STEM content areas to completing
an electrical circuit. The significance of this observation might have been overlooked if it were
not for the research question “How do teachers that self-report storytelling implement this
strategy in their STEM teaching?”
Storytelling, Analogies, and STEM Integration
Imbedded in the above research question was an assumption which had not been taken
into account at the beginning of this study. It was assumed that teachers would use their
interest/identity stories as a method to illustrate instructional points and through social cognitive
theory (Bandura, 1977) spark interest and identity development in their students. This hypothesis
was alluded to in Honey et al. (2014), especially within the context of underserved populations,
where the teacher’s cultural/ethnic identity resonates true with the student’s cultural/ethnic
identity, therefore potentially creating a beginning interest in STEM. In Honey et al. (2014) this
beginning interest is described as being actuated through the use of role models and mentors and
is due to students being able to envision themselves as successful based on identifying with the
mentor/role model.
The beginning premise of this study was that teachers’ interest/identity stories could be
used in a similar way to connect with students, therefore, increasing their interest in STEM. As
the study progressed, it became apparent that the concept of sharing personal stories with
students was met with varying degrees of understanding and was completely foreign to one
participant (P3). This observation brought this study back to the world of business once again;
specifically, to using the framework of questioning, asking a series of why questions to identify
the primary problem based on a regressive examination of foundational causes. This strategy is
one of five attributes of an innovative thinker detailed by Dyer, Gregersen, and Christensen
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
99

(2011) in their book, Innovator’s DNA: Mastering the Five Skills of Disruptive Innovators. It
must be noted that there is not an actual requirement within the framework to ask five questions,
only that you ask enough whys to reach the foundational cause. As mentioned in multiple
contexts throughout this chapter, this study evolved as data were analyzed; therefore, the
research question “How do teachers that self-report storytelling implement this strategy in their
STEM teaching?” upon analysis of the data changed to “Why do some teachers use storytelling
while others do not?
The Five Whys: Storytelling, Analogies, and STEM Integration
As detailed earlier in this chapter, P5 described two different classroom experiences; one
in which very few details were remembered other than the activity itself (Science Fair project),
and another which was extremely detailed (college professor and guest speakers). During P5’s
interview analysis, this disparity and the following questions arose: (1) If storytelling is effective,
then what is the mechanism which makes it so? (2) Is there a distinct type of person who might
be more inclined to use storytelling in the classroom? And (3), is there a connection between the
ability to use stories (analogies) in instruction and the ability to spontaneously see connections
between STEM content areas? These questions were then analyzed using the 5 Whys framework
detailed by Dyer, Gregersen and Christensen (2011).
Question #1: If storytelling is effective, then what is the mechanism which makes it so?
1. Why is storytelling an effective means to convey information?
a. because it helps the listener to remember information
2. Why does storytelling help the listener remember information?
a. because the listener connects the information to previously learned or known
information
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
100

3. Why does the information connect to other information?
a. because the information has something in common
4. Why does the information have something in common?
a. because the information shares mutual attributes and therefore can be used in
an analogy
The fundamental mechanism which makes storytelling effective, within an educational context,
is the ability to compare one thing, person, or experience to another. This observation is not new
and has been the foundation and use of storytelling throughout recorded history; specifically, in
many religious writings the use of parables were meant to teach a lesson by telling a story which
related to the listener/reader’s life. Additionally, many textbooks in use today begin with a “real
world application” or story meant to connect the learning objective with the students’ previous
experience. In regard to this study, and evidenced throughout the individual participant’s interest/
identity stories, some STEM professionals reported having been influenced by previous teacher’s
use of stories, while others were not. This point leads to the next question:
Question #2: Is there a distinct type of person who might be more inclined to use
storytelling in the classroom? To answer this question, the 5 Whys were once again used:
1. Why did some the study’s participants self-report using storytelling, while others did
not?
a. because some participants (P3) did not value storytelling as a method to
transfer knowledge, while others did (P5)
2. Why did P3 not value storytelling as a method to transfer knowledge?
a. because stories did not represent content knowledge or “linear thinking”
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
101

3. Why did P1, P2, P4 (to a lesser degree), and P5 value storytelling to transfer
knowledge?
a. because they are able to identify the connection between a story and
educational content area
4. Why were some of the study’s participants able to identify connections and
commonalities between stories and content areas, while others were not?
a. because the ability to use storytelling relies upon the ability understand and
use analogies to connect the attributes of one concept, or item, to another
5. Why is the ability to understand and use analogies not universal in all STEM
teachers?
a. because philosophical mindsets or attributes which some STEM teachers
possess inhibits the ability to perceive analogies due to a singular focus on the
given content area being taught (e.g., P3’s statement of having “a math mind”)
Based on an analysis of the data, it appears that the true variance is not whether the participant is
more or less inclined to use storytelling in instruction, but whether or not the participant is
inclined to use analogies to illustrate instruction. This point is not to be confused with giving
“real-world” examples (especially valued by P3), but in using a seemingly unrelated illustration
to better explain a STEM concept with the purpose of increasing student understanding and self-
efficacy in STEM.
Question #3: Is there an association between the ability to use analogies in instruction and
the ability to spontaneously see connections between STEM content areas?
1. Why is the ability to use analogies in instruction related to the ability to
spontaneously see connections between STEM content areas?
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
102

a. because both rely on an ability to recognize relevant commonalities and
applications of concepts and/or items
2. Why do some STEM teachers self-report an ability to recognize relevant
commonalities and applications between STEM concepts?
a. because they view the STEM content areas as “naturally connected” (P1, P2,
P4, and P5); therefore, they possess the mindset (belief that STEM content
areas are connected) and cognitive ability (ability to make the connections
between STEM content areas) to potentially integrate STEM instruction
It is without a doubt that by utilizing the 5 Whys, to further dissect and analyze each
participant’s interest/identity story, this discussion leads back to the importance of the STEM
teacher in both integrating STEM content areas and developing STEM self-efficacy in their
students. It is the foundational importance of the STEM teacher, not just the classroom
activity, which leads to this study’s recommendation that the definition of STEM experience
be expanded past the Honey et al. (2014) definition to include the STEM teacher as part of
the before mentioned STEM experience, and that his/her method of integrating STEM
instruction is a mechanism to increase student STEM integration understanding and
subsequent STEM interest/identity/self-efficacy development. Finally, even though teachers
did not explicitly define and explain their STEM interest and identity development with their
students as originally indicated in Chapter One, the dissection of their respective
interest/identity stories, and subsequent discussion on utilizing these stories with students, led
to an examination of the mindset and cognitive ability necessary to integrate STEM content
areas.

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
103

Self-Reported Use of Storytelling
As previously stated, each participant approached the interview question on the use of
storytelling to augment classroom instruction with varying degrees of understanding and
appreciation. In general terms, the participants who described themselves as “seeing” the
connection between STEM content areas (P1, P2, P4 and P5) each gave examples of using their
interest/identity stories to illustrate a concept during classroom instruction, whereas P3 focused
stories on real-world examples which applied to the problem or concept being taught.
One example of using personal experiences in instruction was relayed by P4. When
asked, “Have you ever told your students personal stories connected to your instruction? In other
words, how you became interested in math, or maybe the struggles that you had in math?” To
this question P4 stated:
We [the students and P4] have conversations a lot with what did you [P4] do in school or
what was going on. Yeah, I tell them definitely that math was easy for me, but I also try
to tell them- I mean there's many times that I've told them- I was also really good at those
little logic puzzles and like, I love those logic puzzles. There's a lot of math in them. I try
to remind them [the students] that there's some skills that if you just think of them as
games you can be fine at. Also, my kids love that I play video games so I try to relate as
much as I can to video games.

In this example P4 stated that she used personal stories “a lot” and that her students reacted
positively to her stories evidenced by the use of the phrase “my kids love that I play video
games.” Throughout P4’s interview, she articulated the importance of demonstrating a personal
connection between herself and her students. It was this connection which substantiated the need
to include the teachers’ affect in the STEM experience discussion.
Additionally, it was P4’s comparison of solving “puzzle games” with solving math
problems which first hinted at the usefulness of using analogies as a marker to indicate common
underlying cognitive processes or procedures used by teachers in integrating STEM content, and
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
104

determining if there is a possible connection between STEM teachers’ ability to “see” analogies
or connections between personal experiences and STEM content subjects and the ability to “see”
the connection between independent STEM content required to plan integrated STEM classroom
experiences. It was due to the need to further explore the connection between the use of
analogies within STEM interest/identity stories and the self-reported self-efficacy in integrating
STEM content areas, which led first to the inclusion of P5, and later the additional participants 6,
and 7.
Like P4, P5 also valued connecting with his previous students through storytelling (P5
recollected to a time before he was an administrator); however, in his remembrance, P5 stated
that he believed he could have used his stories more effectively. P5 recalled:
Looking back, I wish I had told more of my stories to my students. I think students
oftentimes look at teachers and go, "I have nothing in common with this guy. He's a
college graduate." I [P5]grew up in the ghetto, I went to horrible schools, there were gang
fights at my high school, SWAT team with machine guns. I saw a guy running from the
police and jumped over fence and his finger got torn off- A kid who got shot in the ankle
at school, gang fights across the street. My mother was murdered when I was a freshman
in college. I think if students had heard some of that, maybe they would have thought, "If
he came from that and I come from something similar, maybe I can go to college and get
a degree also.

In this highly personal reflection, P5 re-counts his life circumstances which, if shared with
students, could have intersected with their identities to create a learning environment conducive
to student interest/identity formation. Likewise, P5’s hesitancy in sharing his life story is
consistent with current research which underscores the difficulty experienced by teachers in
integrating STEM content areas. Lederman N. and Lederman J., (2013) state:
Although there is a long history of attempts to integrate science and mathematics, as well
as other foci of integration, the empirical literature is equivocal at best, and arguably
quite negative about the success of integration. The reasons for the lack of success are
complex, but it seems to us that they can be traced back to the nature of teacher
education, education in general, and the natures of the [STEM] disciplines. (p.1)
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
105

P5’s realization that his personal stories could affect his students’ identity formation came about
later in his career and speaks to the need for the inclusion, and importance, of these strategies in
teacher preparation programs.
Teacher Preparation Programs and STEM Integration
It is assumed that the function of teacher preparation programs is to prepare future
teachers with the necessary foundational skills to become successful in their profession. With the
exception of P3, who self-reported receiving training on content integration in her GATE
certificate program, all the participants in this study did not recall receiving formal instruction on
best practices in integrating content areas from different subject fields. This finding was
supported by P1, the most recent graduate in this study, who indicated that even though content
integration was expected by her professors, it had not been explicitly taught in her credentialing
program. P1’s observation of an instructional expectation (integrating content areas) having not
been explicitly taught in her credentialing program, is in a further example of EBS within current
educational practices. Of course, one could argue that the cognitive skills needed to integrate
content areas only apply within the context of a dedicated STEM integration program, therefore,
would not apply and need not be taught within a universal credentialing program. To counter this
claim, P1 stated that the requirements set forth in both the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS), and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) required her to use integration
strategies similar to those needed to connect STEM content areas, therefore, explicit instructional
strategies on content integration would be appropriate within a regular teacher credentialing
program.
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
106

As additional support to the teacher preparedness problem, P6 stated that the inability of
teacher preparation programs to prepare future middle school and high school teachers with
content integration skills led him to seek out teachers who have elementary-level training to staff
his 6
th
-10
th
grade STEM charter school. P6 explained that this decision was based on the ability
of multiple-subject credentialed teachers to integrate STEM content areas (better than single-
subject credentialed teachers) due to their daily experience in integrating subjects and attaching
real world connections to the content. It must be noted that P6’s site is chartered as an
“alternative school,” therefore, P6 experienced greater freedom in hiring teachers with varying
types of credentials.
Both P1 and P6’s observations on the current state of teacher preparation programs
reflect the Chapter Two discussion for innovation in current educational practices. This study
discussed two different scenarios in which STEM integration occurs. This first environment was
within carefully planned integrated STEM lessons, and the second centered on the ability to
make the spontaneous connections between the STEM content fields. It is this study’s assertion
that prerequisite instruction on content integration strategies, including the cognitive skills
necessary to identify the connections between the STEM content areas, is needed to successfully
integrate STEM subject matter. This recommendation will be further discussed in Chapter Five.
Conclusion
It was the hope of this study to respect each individual’s interest/identity story. Therefore,
additional details, not necessarily directly related to the research questions, were included to give
each participant’s story the context needed to insure that this study’s readers would have an
accurate account and visualization of each participant. According to Merriam (2009), due to the
researcher being the primary instrument in a qualitative study, validity and reliability of the study
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
107

hinges on the ethics of the researcher. Maxwell (2013) states that qualitative research establishes
validly through its “trustworthiness, authenticity, and quality” (p. 122); without ethics, a study
loses its credibility and ability to add to the body of knowledge of the subject under investigation
(Merriam, 2009). Additionally, foundational to establishing a study’s validity the researcher must
establish that the study’s findings and conclusions “make sense” (Merriam, 2009); or, in other
words, if another researcher were given the same data they would arrive at the same conclusion.
Consequently, to increase validity and for the findings and conclusions of this study to “make
sense” (Merriam 2009), it was necessary to present each participant’s interest/identity story
separately and in the order obtained.
Additionally, as in all qualitative analysis, the absence of data can be data itself
(Merriam, 2009); even though specific data were not obtained on the effect of teachers’ STEM
interest/identity stories on their students’ interest/identity formation, it was discussed within
context of the STEM professional reflecting back on teachers who had influenced them during
their student years. It was through the process of dissecting each teacher’s recollection which led
to the findings on the mindset and cognitive ability necessary to integrate STEM content areas.
Finally, it must be stated that P5’s participation in this study was vital in answering this
study’s primary and secondary research questions. It was not until after P5’s interview had been
analyzed and compared with other participants that themes of convergent and divergent data
appeared. Especially relevant were P4’s use of analogies which began the discussion on mindsets
and cognitive ability in STEM integration, P5’s ability to mirror an analogy, and the difference
in the manner in which P5 remembered his Science Fair experience versus his remembrance of a
college professor who had used stories during instruction.

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
108

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS

As previously stated, this study is based on a call to research by Honey et al. (2014) for
early-stage or exploratory research which examines how STEM experiences affect students’
interest and identity development. To achieve this end, STEM professionals were asked: (1) to
identify to what they attribute their interest and identity in STEM education; (2) what prior
experience provided the subject-specific content knowledge, ability, and self-efficacy to integrate
subjects in K–12 STEM education; (3) how teachers that self-report using storytelling
implement this strategy in their STEM teaching; and (4),what effect access to/engagement with
STEM professionals as role models and mentors have on student interest, identity and self-
efficacy in STEM (Honey et al., 2014). Additionally, by using demarcation to analyze each
STEM professional’s interest/identity story (a personal narrative which begins with incentives
and STEM interest, and continues through STEM identity/self-efficacy development), secondary
findings became evident. Specifically, (1) if the exploration of teacher STEM interest/identity
has the potential to uncover common philosophical mindsets or attributes that teachers utilize to
integrate STEM subject matter; (2) identifying common underlying cognitive processes or
procedures used by teachers in integrating STEM content; and (3) determining if there are
possible connections between STEM teachers’ ability to teach across subjects and students’
ability to solve problems across subjects.
Key Findings
In the following section, key findings from the data presented in Chapter Four are
discussed within the context of each research question and relevant literature.
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
109

Interest and Identity in STEM Education
Incentives. It became apparent, as each participant’s interest/identity story was
examined, that the incentives and motivation for entering STEM education were as diverse as the
participants themselves. There was, however, one unifying incentive and guiding principle
throughout the data and literature; the belief that STEM education (in the case of P7, its
derivative Design education) was the means to prepare students with the necessary expertise to
supply the highly skilled workforce required to meet the demands of a 21
st
century global
economy (Arrison & Olson, 2012; Beatty, 2011; Honey et al. 2014; NRC, 2011). This overall
realization encompassed economic, social, and moral incentives and spoke to the importance of
creating a school structure capable of actuating both teacher and student STEM interest/identity
formation.
Agency theory and interest development. One significant finding of this study on
STEM interest development relates back to the discussion of principal/agency theory; specifically
on P6’s decision to create a school structure centered on developing teacher interest and identity
formation. According to the cited literature, agency theory is grounded upon the relationship
between principals and respective agents and the contracts that are designed to incentivize the
agents’ behavior to achieve the principal’s goal (Jensen & Meckling, 1976). It was P6’s intent
(acting as principal) to incentivize the teachers (agents) to create educational content which was
interesting to them with the expectation that the teachers’ interest on their STEM content of
choice would then affect beginning student STEM interest formation. To validate this finding,
the teacher participants in this study affirmed the importance of being given the opportunity to
develop and teach a STEM lab based on their interest development. Additionally, the teachers’
freedom to choose interest-based labs relates back to the discussion on intrinsic versus extrinsic
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
110

motivation; specifically, the manner in which P6’s labs created intrinsic motivation, which can
be elicited through social and moral incentives (Barros & Lazzarini, 2012), appears to be the
basis for teachers’ continuing development of STEM interest and identity (Burnsa & Bellb,
2011) at P6’s site.
Identity in STEM education. After analysis of each participant’s interest/identity story, it
became evident that the way in which each participant viewed their identity within STEM
education affected their ability to integrate the separate STEM content fields. This point is best
represented by the participants who stated that they “saw” STEM content fields as being
“naturally” connected, versus the participant who valued STEM integration as a school structure
but not within a single classroom experience. It was the difference in self-reported identities
which first exposed the potential relationship between teachers’ development of STEM interest
and identity, and teachers’ self-reported ability and self-efficacy to integrate STEM subjects.
Even though this connection appears self-evident, it is important in explaining potential
variances students experience within STEM education other than the before mentioned different
STEM delivery models and environments (Honey et al., 2014). It is the need to better understand
the teachers’ effect on student STEM interest/identity formation and STEM integration ability
which necessitates the inclusion of the teacher and their paradigm as part of the “STEM
experience” described by Honey et al. (2014).
Experience, Subject-Specific Content Knowledge, Ability, and Self-Efficacy
As finding were analyzed, an unexpected association appeared between participants who
self-reported “not liking” school (e.g. the structure of school and/or their teachers), and who now
as STEM professionals reported “seeing” the “natural connection” between the STEM content
fields. This hypothesis is based on an observed human tendency to recreate situations and
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
111

environments that are familiar; specifically, teachers who experienced success in their early
school years tend to recreate the same learning environment in their teaching (Kober, 2015).
Conversely, educators who reported a negative school experience did not have an engrained
model of what school “should look like,” therefore, they were potentially more open to
nontraditional models of education (e.g. P5’s description of the ideal integrated STEM
classroom).
This assertion directly relates to social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977) which explains
the social learning mechanism whereas one generation of teachers replicates their instructional
pedagogy onto the next generation of teachers. Kober (2015) supports this point with her
recently released claim that one of the barriers facing effective STEM instruction is the
assumption that students should learn the way their teachers were taught while they were in
school. This unconscious tendency of teachers to recreate instruction to mirror their past
experience is reinforced in Honey et al. (2014) who state that teachers who have not themself
experienced STEM integration are less likely to integrate STEM content areas during classroom
instruction. Even though all of the participants in this study taught at schools focused on
integrated STEM instruction, the difference in their STEM interest/identity stories uncovered
dissimilar philosophical mindsets which affected their ability to “see” the commonalities
between the STEM content fields, and, therefore, potentially affected their ability to successfully
integrate STEM subject matter. However, it must be noted that successful STEM integration
depends upon the ability to carefully plan integrated classroom experiences (as denoted in Honey
et al.’s definition of STEM experience), in addition to the ability to perceive spontaneous
connections between the STEM content areas.

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
112

Storytelling, Analogies, and STEM Integration
According to Merriam (2009), “A grounded theory study seeks not just to understand, but
also to build a substantive theory about the phenomenon of interest” (p.23). One of this study’s
original research questions focused on determining how teachers who self-report storytelling
implement this strategy in their STEM teaching. It, however, became apparent as the study
progressed that the original question should be restated as “Why do some teachers use
storytelling in instruction while others do not?” To answer this question, the 5 Whys, (Dyer,
Gregersen, & Christensen, 2011) were utilized to further dissect and analyze each participant’s
interest/identity story. This analysis revealed that the true question was not whether the
participants were more or less inclined to use storytelling in instruction, but whether they were
inclined to use analogies to illustrate instruction. This point is not to be confused with giving
“real-world” examples, but in using a seemingly unrelated illustration, which shares mutual
attributes with the STEM concept, to better explain the STEM content being taught.
Analogies and STEM integration. In business, the strategy of using analogies to define
concepts is well documented as a tool to increase innovative thinking and improve understanding
of unknown concepts (Clifton & Anderson, 2001; Dyer, Gregersen, & Christensen, 2011; Paul,
2014); however, the use of analogies as a tool to integrate STEM content areas has not been
explored in literature. Multiple library internet searches were conducted to determine if the use
of analogies to make connections between STEM content areas had been researched and
documented. The first internet search used the key words “STEM” and “analogy,” the second
search used the same words with the addition of the word “integrated,” and the third search
substituted the word “analogy” for “figurative language.” In all searches, including dissertations,
no relevant results were identified. The absence of previous research, coupled with data analysis
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
113

utilizing grounded theory approach, became the basis to propose a new theory which details how
a single analogy could be used to show commonalities between two or more separate STEM
concepts (see Figure 1). Even though, as previously mentioned, the use of analogies/stories is not
new to education; the use of a single analogy to bridge STEM content areas appears to be new
and has not been documented in literature.

Figure 1: Single Analogy Used to Show Commonalities between Separate STEM Concepts

A possible example of how a non-STEM related analogy could bridge multiple STEM
content areas is in likening the laws of science (e.g. laws of thermodynamics) and properties of
Mathematics to a well-known children’s card game. In this popular game, each card has a
Related
Non‐STEM
Analogy
Science
Content
Knowledge
Technology
Content
Knowledge
Math
Content
Knowledge

Engineering
Content
Knowledge

Integrated STEM Content
Connection

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
114

distinct fantasy character which possesses well detailed attributes and powers that are
unchanging; likewise, the laws of science and math have detailed attributes and are unchanging.
The ability of students, especially in the elementary years, to understand the existence of
unchanging laws by relating this concept to their game cards’ unchanging attributes and powers,
demonstrates both the linking of previously learned concepts to new concepts (Ambrose et al.,
2010; Honey et al., 2014), and an integrated understanding that both science and math possess
unchanging attributes.
Analogies, STEM interest, and diversity. The use of analogies in instruction could also
help underrepresented groups develop interest/identity in STEM education and STEM careers by
intersecting their already developed cultural identities (Dhamoon, 2011). Even though a
complete discussion on the effect that teachers’ identities have on underrepresented students is
outside of the scope of this study, it is agreed upon throughout literature that students need to be
able to envision themselves in an academic or professional role before the interest/identity/self-
efficacy continuum can potentially begin (Honey et al., 2014; Brown & Lent, 1996). The ability
to confirm a student’s self-generated connection between STEM content areas requires that the
teacher has the ability to “see” and understand the student’s connection then restate the student’s
connection using a “like” or “as” statement for clarification. It is the teacher’s ability to utilize
the students’ cultural schema to restate and validate the students’ thought process which could
potentially lead to an upward trajectory on the student’s (and teacher’s) STEM “self-efficacy
spiral” (Rueda, 2011). The potential affect that the teachers’ use of analogies have in building
student STEM interest/identity formation, especially students from underrepresented groups,
further substantiates the need to include teachers as part of the “STEM experience” (Honey et al.,
2014) in future research.
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
115

Teacher Preparation Programs and Strategies for Innovation
As discussed in Chapter Two, all of surveyed literature touts the importance of preparing
students academically to meet demands of an innovation-based economy (Arrison & Olson,
2012; Beatty, 2011; Honey et al., 2014; NRC, 2011; PCAST, 2010); however, nowhere does this
literature call for teachers to be innovators themselves by reaching past standard educational
practices. The literature limits improvement in STEM education to a call for deeper content
knowledge and pedagogical improvement in the delivery of STEM instruction (Arrison & Olson,
2012; Beatty, 2011; Honey et al., 2014; NRC, 2011; PCAST, 2010). Based on analysis of the
participants’ interest/identity stories, it was evident that there existed a gap between STEM
integration expectations and the credentialing programs that the participants experienced. Of
course, the argument can be made that as STEM education evolves, so will the programs
designed to prepare teachers; however, unless these programs adopt strategies outside of current
educational practices their effectiveness will remain in question.
STEM Professionals Effect on Interest, Identity, and Self-Efficacy in STEM
In each interview, participants were asked to determine the effect previous STEM
experiences and/or teachers had on their interest/identity/self-efficacy formation. Even though
participants were explicitly asked this question within the context of STEM professionals’ affect,
each participant reflected back on people in general (teachers, parents, co-workers) who had
influenced them during their early years, and then relayed the effect that person had on their
STEM interest development. These remembrances were highly personal and demonstrated the
depth of effect life circumstances have on adult life and career decisions; as each participant’s
story unfolded, the circle of affect widened past that of only STEM professional’s to include
multiple layers of family, friends, and coworkers. The difference in the manner in which each
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
116

participant answered this question, highlighted the relevance of using the “constant comparative
method of data analysis” (Merriam, 2009, p. 199) to develop the “categories, properties, and
hypotheses” detailed in grounded theory research design.
STEM Professionals and STEM Experience
Both the study’s data and the literature were in agreement that student interest in STEM
education is the result of STEM experiences; however, as previously mentioned the definition of
what constitutes STEM experience, is still in question. Likewise, within this study, the definition
of STEM professional was expanded past the Honey et al. (2014) definition to include
practitioners in both education and industry. This synthesis of terms was suggested due to the
multiple environments in which STEM education exists, the wide variety of people of whom the
participants in this study attributed their STEM interest/identify formation, and the importance of
expanding future studies to include all practitioners who potentially affect student STEM
interest/identity formation. Finally, regardless of the ambiguity in the definition of STEM
experience, it is agreed upon throughout the surveyed literature that STEM interest is the catalyst
for STEM identity development (Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Honey et al. 2014; Renninger, 2009)
and its further study has significant implications in fulfilling the goal of preparing students with
21
st
Century competencies.
Implications
Theory
Economic theory and incentives framed the discussion of teacher interest and identity;
however, to further explain interest and identity development, and how teachers’ interest and
identity could potentially transfer to students, required a shift to social cognitive theory
(Bandura, 1986). Honey et al. (2014) added an additional layer to social cognitive theory by
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
117

emphasizing the importance of both the physical setting in learning, and the social psychological
processes that occur in the setting. It was the combination of the physical setting and the
psychological processes that formed the bases for social learning through what Honey et al.
(2014) described as a STEM experience. However, the Honey et al. (2014) definition of
“psychological process” excluded the teachers’ potential direct effect on student STEM
interest/identity formation; this point is in conflict with social cognitive theory (Bandura. 1986)
due to the exclusion of the STEM teacher as a potential part of the STEM experience within any
given STEM environment. Honey et al. (2014) does reference work by Vygotsky (1978) and,
Wood and Middleton (1978), which indicate that “the assistance provided by the teacher(s)”
(p.101) was important in STEM integration, but within the context of peer interaction and a
collaborative learning model.
An additional implication on theory that this study brings to literature in K-12 STEM
integration is the proposal of using a single analogy to show commonalities between separate
STEM concepts. This proposed theory meets the criterion set forth in Honey et al. (2014) for
foundational, early-stage or exploratory research which contributes to core knowledge in
education. Honey et al. (2014) further defined core knowledge as the “understandings of
teaching and learning, such as cognition; components and processes involved in learning and
instruction; the operation of education systems; and models of systems and processes” (p. 139).
Isolating the use of analogies as a possible means to better explain connections between STEM
concepts fulfills Honey et al.’s (2014) call for understanding of the “components and processes”
of STEM integration. Likewise, the demarcation of teacher STEM interest/identity stories
identified philosophical mindsets or attributes of teachers who were more likely to integrate
STEM subject matter due to their self-reported ability to “see” the connections between the
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
118

separate STEM content fields. It was the difference in identifying common underlying cognitive
processes or procedures used by teachers in integrating STEM content which could lead to future
implications in practice for teacher preparation programs.
Practice
One purpose of this study was to begin preliminary exploration to determine if teacher
reflection on the process of developing STEM interest and identity identified interconnected
relationships or pathways between the STEM content areas that later can be referenced to explain
their cognitive method of STEM integration to students, therefore, based on social cognitive
theory (Bandura, 1986), potentially affecting students’ STEM interest/identity formation.
Through the process of analysis using the grounded research approach it was determined that a
gap in the literature exists on the use of storytelling and analogies in developing student STEM
interest/identity formation. The specific implication of this study on current practice affects
teacher preparation programs in that if teachers’ interest/identity stories and use of analogies in
instruction are found to have an effect on students’ interest identity formation, and consequently
effecting students’ ability to integrate STEM content areas, then inclusion of these
strategies/connections in pre-service teacher education would represent the Honey et al.’s (2014)
call for “interventions or strategies to improve education outcomes” (p. 154). However, as
previously stated, the scope of this inquiry centers on Honey et al.’s (2014) called for
preliminary early-stage or exploratory research, and therefore only hinted toward the additional
research needed to prove a causal relationship between teachers’ interest/identity stories and
student interest/identity formation.

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
119

Limitations
In addition to limitations previously discussed in Chapter One, several other limitations
became apparent throughout the course of this study. Specifically, the availability of STEM-
focused middle schools located within the researcher’s area, compounded by the difficulty in
gaining access, created a limitation on available research sites. An additional limitation centered
on the narrow research available on interest/identity formation within the context of STEM
education, and the complete absence of research on the use of storytelling and using analogies to
aid in integrating STEM concepts. The final and most constricting limitation was the finite time
available to explore preliminary findings discovered through the grounded theory research
process.
Recommendations for Future Research
It was not the purpose of this study’s findings to suggest that the use of analogies and/or
teacher interest/identity stories alone would create an integrated STEM experience within a
classroom. As previously stated, effective STEM integration requires carefully planned lessons
with detailed learning objectives. It was, however, suggested within this study that in addition to
planned integrated STEM experiences (as detailed by Honey et al., 2014) a supplementary layer
of STEM experience, based on teacher affect, is worthy of additional study. These
recommendations for future research have several specific components:
• Further explore if teacher affect should be included as part of the STEM classroom
experience, and if that affect increases student beginning STEM interest
development.
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
120

o Develop a research protocol designed to specifically determine the effect of
teachers’ STEM interest/identity stories on student beginning interest
formation.
o Develop a research protocol designed to determine the effectiveness of using
a single analogy to bridge commonalities between separate STEM concepts.
o Develop a research protocol focused on determining the effectiveness of
using teacher interest/identity stories and analogies to intersect already
established student ethnic/cultural identities with the goal of studying student
STEM identity/self-efficacy development in historically underrepresented
student groups.
It is this study’s final recommendation that government reporting agencies (such as
Arrison & Olson, 2012; Beatty, 2011; Honey et al., 2014; NRC, 2011; PCAST, 2010) look
outside of current educational practices (e.g. improving teacher content knowledge and
pedagogical skill) to solve the problem of an underachieving education system. To achieve this
proposal, the attributes of successful innovators within the current business environment should
be used as a model to improve both teacher preparation programs and professional development.
These attributes are detailed in Dyer, Gregersen, and Christensen’s (2011) book, Innovator’s
DNA: Mastering the Five Skills of Disruptive Innovators and consist of: (1) associating-to use
information that at first glance appears unrelated to create innovative ideas; (2) questioning-
asking a series of why questions to elicit foundational causes; (2) observing- the ability to note
how constructs relate, then applying those observations to improve a different system; (3)
networking- looking outside your industry to identify innovative people and ideas; and (4),
experimenting- a continual process of trying new ideas, evaluating their success, and revising. It
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
121

is proposed that applying Dyer, Gregersen, and Christensen’s (2011) innovation strategies to the
STEM integration problem would create a blended model for best STEM integration practices.
This blended model for STEM integration practices is as follows:
• Associating-finding connections between STEM content areas that at first glance appear
unrelated to create a better understanding of how the STEM content areas are associated
and a deeper understanding of each independent STEM field
• Questioning- asking a series of why questions to identify commonalities and mutual
attributes in STEM content areas which can then be used to plan integrated classroom
experiences for students
• Observing- continue to look outside of education to identify the strategies, economic
trends, and best practices needed to improve STEM content relevance and student
educational outcomes
• Networking- partner with STEM professionals, especially within the STEM industries, to
identify innovative ideas and industrial trends to integrate into STEM instruction
• Experimenting- continually reevaluate and revise classroom instruction to determine if
integrated STEM student experiences improved both STEM content knowledge and
STEM interest/identity formation, for all students, but especially for students in
underrepresented demographic groups
Conclusion
As repeatedly stated, this study was based upon research suggestions set forth in the
report STEM Integration in K-12 Education: Status, Prospects, and an Agenda for Research by
the Committee on Integrated STEM Education (Honey et al., 2014). This article and its
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
122

supporting literature limited the discussion of teacher effectiveness in STEM integration to a call
for deeper content knowledge in STEM subjects and improved classroom activities defined as
“STEM experiences” (Arrison & Olson, 2012; Beatty, 2011; Honey et al., 2014; NRC, 2011;
PCAST, 2010). By applying the grounded theory approach to each participant’s STEM
interest/identity story, it was determined that the Honey et al. definition of STEM experience
should be expanded past only classroom activities to include the teachers’ effect on student
STEM interest/identity formation. This relationship is especially important in developing initial
STEM interest with students from historically underrepresented demographics. Furthermore,
after analysis of each participant’s interest/identity story, it became apparent that the way in which
each participant viewed their identity within STEM education affected their ability to integrate the
separate STEM content fields. This point is best represented by the participants who stated that
they “saw” STEM content fields as being “naturally” connected, versus the participant who
valued STEM integration as a school structure but not within a single classroom experience. It
was the difference in self-reported identities which exposed the potential relationship between
teachers’ development of STEM interest and identity, and teachers’ self-reported ability and self-
efficacy to integrate STEM subjects. Additionally, even though teachers did not explicitly define
and explain their STEM interest and identity development with their students as originally
indicated in Chapter One, the demarcation of their respective interest/identity stories, and
subsequent discussion on utilizing stories and analogies with students, led to an examination of
the mindset and cognitive ability necessary to integrate STEM content areas. Specifically, the
possible association between STEM teachers’ ability to “see” analogies and/or connections
between their personal experiences and STEM content subjects, and the ability to “see” the
connection between independent STEM content areas required to plan integrated STEM
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
123

classroom experiences. Finally, it was proposed that government reporting agencies (such as
Arrison & Olson, 2012; Beatty, 2011; Honey et al., 2014; NRC, 2011; PCAST, 2010) look
outside of current educational practices (e.g. improving teacher content knowledge and
pedagogical skill) to solve the problem of an underachieving education system. To achieve this
proposal, the attributes of successful business innovators (Dyer, Gregersen, & Christensen, 2011)
should be used as a model to improve both teacher preparation programs and professional
development in STEM education.

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
124

References
Adams (2010). Smart money: Using educational resources to accomplish ambitious learning
goals. Harvard Educational Press, Cambridge, MA., ISBN: 978-1-934742-59-4.
Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, Lovett, & Norman, (2010). How learning works. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Arrison & Olson (2012). Rising above the gathering storm: Developing regional innovation
environments: A workshop summary. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public
Policy; National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Engineering; Institute of
Medicine. ISBN: 978-0-309-25604-9.
Assefa & Rorissa (2013). A bibliometric mapping of the structure of STEM education using co-
word analysis. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 64: 2513–2536. doi: 10.1002/asi.22917.
Bakia, M., Means, B., Gallagher, L., Chen, E., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of the enhancing
education through technology program: Final report. Office of Planning, Evaluation and
Policy Development, US Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/964192264?accountid=14749.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
URL http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Bandura1977PR.pdf.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-815614-X.
Barros & Lazzarini (2012). Do organizational incentives spur innovation? Institute of Education
and Research. BAR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 9, n. 3, art. 4.
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
125

Barton (2012). Identity research in science education: Implications for integrated experiences &
best practices. A commissioned paper submitted to the NAS.
Beatty (2011). Successful STEM Education: A Workshop Summary. Committee on highly
successful schools or programs for K-12 STEM education. National Research Council.
ISBN 978-0-309-21890-0.
Bénabou & Tirole (2006). Incentives and prosocial behavior source. The American Economic
Review, Vol. 96, No. 5. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30034989.
Bohaty (2009). Funding for America competes act. Chemical & engineering news (0009-2347),
87 (9), p. 36.
Brewer, Hentchke & Eide (2010). Theoretical concepts in the economics of education. In Brewer
and McEwan. ISBN: 978-0-08-0965 30-7.
Brewer & McEwan (2010). Economics of education. Preface. In Brewer and McEwan. ISBN:
978-0-08-0965 30-7.
Brown & Lent (1996). A social cognitive framework for career choice counseling. The Career
Development Quarterly, 44(4), 354. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/219441933?accountid=14749.
Burnsa & Bellb (2011). Narrative construction of professional teacher identity of teachers with
dyslexia. Teaching and Teacher Education, Volume 27, Issue 5, July 2011,
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.usc.edu/10.1016/j.tate.2011.03.007.
California Department of Education (n.d). Science, Technology, Engineering, & Math (STEM)
website, http://www.cde.ca.gov/pd/ca/sc/stemintrod.asp.
Dhamoon (2011). Considerations on mainstreaming intersectionality. Political Research
Quarterly, 64(1), 230-243.
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
126

Dyer, J., Gregersen, H., and Christensen, C. (2011). Innovator’s DNA: Mastering the five skills
of disruptive innovators. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Eisenhardt (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. The Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14, No. 1. Academy of Management. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/258191.
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for
technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development,
47(4), 47–61. doi:10.1007/BF02299597.
Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education
5-Year Strategic Plan (2013). A Report from the Committee on STEM Education,
National Science and Technology Council. U.S. Government, 17 U.S.C. 105.
Fehr & Falk (2002). Joseph Schumpeter Lecture: Psychological foundations of incentives.
European Economic Review, 46. www.elsevier.com/locate/econbase.
Fink (2013). How to conduct surveys. (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Ginorio & Huston (2002). Characteristics of communities affecting participation/success. Jossey-
Bass Reader on Gender in Education (pp. 543-583). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hidi & Renninger (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational
Psychologist 41(2):111–127.
Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber (2014) Editors. STEM integration in K-12 education: Status,
prospects, and an agenda for research. Committee on Integrated STEM Education.
ISBN978-0-309-29796-7.
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
127

Jensen & Meckling (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and
ownership structure. Journal of .Financial Economics, 3(4), 305-360. doi:
10.2139/ssrn.94043.
Kober (2015). Reaching Students: What Research Says About Effective Instruction in
Undergraduate Science and Engineering. Board on Science Education, Division of
Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
Kuenzi (2008). Science technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education:
Background, federal policy, and legislative action. CRS Report for Congress, Order Code
RL33434.
Lederman N. & Lederman J., (2013). Is it STEM or ‘‘S & M’’ that we truly love?
Published online: 1 December 2013 © The Association for Science Teacher Education,
USA 201324:1237–1240 DOI 10.1007/s10972-013-9370-z.
Levitt, Dubner & Stephen (2005). Freakonomics: A rogue economist explores the hidden side of
everything. New York: Harper Collins.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
Ed.). Los
Angeles: Sage Publications.
McMahon (2010). The external benefits of education. In Brewer & McEwan. Economics of
education. ISBN: 978-0-08-0965 30-7.
Mechanism design and incentive compatibility (2009). Education briefing: Indian Growth and
Development Review Vol. 2 No. 2, 200 Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1753-8254
DOI 10.1108/17538250910992595.

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
128

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nathan & Petrosino (2003). Expert blind spot among preservice teachers. American Educational
Research Journal, 40(4), 905-928. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/200440373?accountid=14749.
National Research Council (2011). Successful k-12 STEM Education: Identifying Effective
Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, D.C.:
The National Academies Press. Retrieved from
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13158.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115,
Stat. 1425 (2002).
P21 Common Core Toolkit: A Guide to Aligning the Common Core State Standards with the
Framework for 21st Century Skills (2011). Retrieved from
http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/P21CommonCoreToolkit.pdf.
Patton (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Paul (2014). The key to innovation: Making smart analogies. Retrieved from
http://anniemurphypaul.com/2014/03/the-key-to-innovation-making-smart-analogies/#.
Pindyck & Rubinfeld (1992). The Basics of supply and demand. Microeconomics. McMillan
Publishing Company. New York.

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
129

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2010). Prepare and inspire: K-12
science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education for America’s future
Report to the President. Retrieved 5/24/2014 from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-stemed-report.pdf.
Renninger (2009). Interest and Identity Development in Instruction: An Inductive Model,
Educational Psychologist, 44:2, 105-118, DOI: 10.1080/00461520902832392.
Renninger & Hidi (2011). Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement, and
generation of interest. Educational Psychologist 46(3):168–184.
Rueda, R. (2011). Unit 4-Social Cognitive Theory [VoiceThread]. Retrieved from
http://voicethread.com/share/2255176/.
Tapping America’s Potential: The Education for Innovation Initiative (2005). Retrieved from
https://www.aau.edu/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6434
Taylor (1999). Government’s role in primary and secondary education. Economic Review,
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
Teitelbaum (2008). Is there really a shortage of technical professionals? Research Technology
Management, 51(2), 10-13.
U.S. Congress renews America COMPETES Act (2011). MRS Bulletin, Volume 36
www.mrs.org/bulletin.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2013). The Condition of
Education 2013 (NCES 2013-037).
U.S Department of Education (n.d.). Reading First Grant, CFDA Number: 84.357, retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/index.html.

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
130

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes.
M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, and E. Souberman (Eds.). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Weiner (1985). An attribution theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological
Review, 92, 548–73.
Weiss (1994). Learning from Strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies.
New York: The Free Press.
Wood, D.J., H. Wood, and D. Middleton. 1978. An experimental evaluation of four face-to-face
teaching strategies. International Journal of Behavioral Development 2:131–147.

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
131

APPENDIX A:

GENERAL RECRUITMENT EMAIL COVER LETTER

October, 2014

My name is Christine Ullerich and I am a doctoral student in the Rossier School of
Education at USC. I am conducting a research study as part of my dissertation process
under the direction Dr. Frederick Freking. You are invited to participate in this study;
your participation is voluntary.

This study focuses on identifying teachers’ STEM interest and identity formation. You
have been identified as someone who teaches integrated STEM courses and therefore may
be eligible to participate.

If you agree to participate in this study you will be asked to complete an online survey
about your experiences teaching and some demographic information. This survey is
anticipated to take up to 15 minutes.

Depending upon your responses in survey, you may be asked to participate in up to two 30
minute audio-recorded interviews; allow the researcher observe and take notes in your
classroom up to times and asked to reflect during classroom instruction on previous
experiences that relate to your decision to enter STEM education.

You do not have to answer any questions that you do not want to; you can move on to the
next question or withdraw from the study at any time.

The data will be coded with a pseudonym and when the results of the research are
published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable information will be used.

Your relationship with employer or the investigator will not be affected whether you
participate or not in this study.

If you have questions about this study, please contact me via email at ullerich@usc.edu or
phone at (XXX) XXX-XXXX

If you would like to participate, please click on the link below to access the consent
document (Information Sheet) and the survey.

Date of last edits: October 10, 2014
UPIRB#: UP-14-00516
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
132

APPENDIX B:
INTRODUCTORY SURVEY INSTRUMENT
1T. Information Sheet
Purpose of the Study: The purpose of this study is twofold: (1) to identify the incentives
and experiences that led to a teacher deciding to pursue a career in STEM education, with
the purpose of sharing the stories of those incentives and experiences with students; and
(2), determine through teachers’ STEM stories if an ability to deliver instruction across
content areas contains a world view or paradigm that teachers utilize to make these
connections.

Participant Involvement:

Participants of this study are current STEM teachers, within the Los Angeles and
neighboring areas, who teach at a school that: (1) identifies itself as a STEM school in its
mission statement; and (2), the school’s program/course description indicates that teachers
employ integrated STEM instruction. You will be asked to complete a survey through an
email link generated through SurveyMonkey.com; this survey should require no more than
15 minutes to complete. You may decline to answer any question throughout the survey
and all answers to questions will be kept confidential. The last question on this survey
will ask if you are willing to participate in an interview which expands on your
experiences in STEM education. If you agree, this interview will be recorded and last
approximately 30 minutes.

Confidentiality:

Inclusion of information attained through this survey or follow-up interview for this study
is voluntary and permission for that inclusion can be withdrawn at any time. Additionally,
the names of districts, schools, and teachers will be coded and changed so that no
identifying information will be published. Artifacts from surveys and interviews will be
securely stored and destroyed in 2017.To assure that the research standards required for
studies utilizing human subjects are met, the researcher participated in CITI training
offered through the University of Southern California’s (USC’s) Institutional Review
Board (IRB).

Investigator Contact Information:
Contact Christine Ullerich at email ullerich@usc.edu or telephone 951.285.7337.

RIB Contact Information:
University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall,
Room 224a, Los Angeles, California, 90089-1146, 213. 821.5272 or upirb@usc.edu

By selecting “Next,” you agree that you have read this information and are willing to
participate in this study.
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
133

2T. Current Age
25-34____
35-44____
45-54____
55-older____
3T. Ethnicity: How do you describe yourself? (please check the one option that best
describes you)
American Indian or Alaska Native______
Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander______
Asian or Asian American______
Black or African American______
Hispanic or Latino______
Non-Hispanic White______
4T. To what extent is STEM education important in creating a career and college ready
student?
not important at all 1 2 3 4 5 extremely important
5T. To what extent is it important to integrate all STEM content areas in STEM
education?

not important all 1 2 3 4 5 extremely important
6T. To what extent are you confident in your ability to integrate STEM instruction in at
least two STEM content areas?

not confident at all 1 2 3 4 5 extremely confident
7T. To what extent are you confident in your ability to integrate instruction in more than
two STEM content areas?
not confident at all 1 2 3 4 5 extremely confident
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
134

8T. To what extent are you confident in your ability to integrate all STEM content areas?
not confident at all 1 2 3 4 5 extremely confident
9T. Is your ability to integrate STEM content areas affected due to environmental barriers
(such as available technology and/or causes outside of the teachers’ control within the
classroom or school site)? Yes ___ No____

a. If applicable, can you briefly give an example_________________________?
10T. For this question, incentives are defined as a means, usually connected to a reward,
of influencing individual and/or group behavior. Incentives are divided into three
categories: (1) Economic incentives, usually monetary (i.e. grants or loan forgiveness);
(2) social incentives, perceived need to help society or a specific group; and (3), moral
incentives, applying behavior to doing right versus doing wrong. Did economic, social, or
moral incentives affect your decision to enter the STEM field? Check all that apply:

Economic incentives_____
Social incentives______
Moral incentives_______
b. If applicable, can you briefly give an example______________________?
11T. If chosen, are you willing to be interviewed about the experiences that led to your
decision to become a STEM teacher and your method of integrating STEM subjects?
Yes____ No______

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
135

APPENDIX C:
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall, 3470 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Title: Integrating STEM Instruction through Identifying Interest and Identity in STEM Teachers

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Christine Ullerich, under the
direction of Dr. Frederick Freking at the University of Southern California, because you have
been identified as someone who teaches integrated STEM courses. Your participation is
voluntary. You should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not
understand, before deciding whether to participate. Please take as much time as you need to read
the consent form. You may also decide to discuss participation with your family or friends. If
you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this form. You will be given a copy of this
form.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study focuses on identifying teachers’ STEM interest and identity formation. You have been
identified as someone who teaches integrated STEM courses and therefore may be eligible to
participate.
STUDY PROCEDURES
If you agree to participate in this study you will be asked to complete an online survey about
your experiences teaching and some demographics information. This survey is anticipated to
take up to 15 minutes to complete.
Depending upon your responses in the survey, you may be asked to participate in one to two 30
minute audio-recorded interviews and allow the researcher to observe your classroom up to two
times.
The interview will be conducted in your classroom, or at a place convenient to you and the
researcher. Interview questions will focus on what life-experiences led you into a career in
STEM education, and to what do you attribute your ability to integrate subjects in STEM
education. If you do not want to be audio-taped, you cannot participate in the interviews.
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
136

The classroom observations consist of one-two 20 minute observations, where the researcher will
take notes. You may also be asked to reflect during classroom instruction on previous
experiences that relate to your decision to enter STEM education.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks to your participation; however, you will be asked to remember
embarrassing or stressful life experiences; therefore; there is a possibility that some of the
questions may make you feel uneasy or embarrassed. You do not have to answer any questions
that you do not want to and you can move on to the next question or withdraw from the study at
any time without any negative consequences.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not directly benefit from participating in this study. It is hoped that this study will
contribute to the existing body of knowledge designed to explore teachers’ STEM
interest/identity and ability to integrate STEM content areas.

CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However, if we
are required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you. The researcher
and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may
access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and
welfare of research subjects.
The interview will be transcribed and the audiotape destroyed as soon as possible. Your
responses to all questions will be coded with a number. Each classroom will be given individual
codes and observation data will not be associated with teachers’ personal information. Your
name or the name of your school will not be identified in any document. Additionally, your
employer will not have access to your individual answers.
All the data gathered from this study will be stored in a computer, which will be protected with a
password. Participation in this study is voluntary. Identifiable data will be destroyed upon
completion of the research study; the remaining data will be destroyed three years after the study
has been completed.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or
remedies because of your participation in this research study.
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
137

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate. Your relationship with your employer will not be affected
whether you participate or not in this study.

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

Last edits made on: October 10, 2014 – General ICF No fMRI
USC UPIRB # UP-14-00516

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
138

APPENDIX D:
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL/TEACHER

Name of Researcher:_____________________ Date:_________________________
Interviewee Code:____________________
Start Time:_____________________________ End Time:_____________________

Introduction:
Hello, my name is Christine Ullerich, you previously agreed to participate in a research study
and that consent document remains current and valid. If you would like a copy of the consent
document, I can give it to you.
The purpose of this interview is twofold: (1) to identify the incentives and experiences that led to
the teacher deciding to pursue a career in STEM education, for the purpose of sharing those
incentives and experiences with students; and (2), determine through teachers’ STEM stories if
an ability to deliver instruction across content areas contains a world view or paradigm that
teachers utilize to make these connections. This interview will last for about 30 minutes. Do you
have any questions before we begin?
Research Questions:
1. To what do teachers attribute their interest and identity in STEM education?
2. What prior experience provided STEM teachers the subject-specific content knowledge,
ability, and self-efficacy to integrate subjects in K–12 STEM education?
3. How do teachers that self-report story telling/stem stories implement this strategy in their
STEM teaching?
4. What effect does access to/engagement with STEM professionals as role models and mentors
have on student interest, identity and self-efficacy in STEM (Honey et al., 2014)?
Interview Questions:
Background:
Restate information indicated on introductory survey; ask any questions needed for
clarification of survey information.

Teacher’s value of integration of all STEM content areas within the classroom:

1. How long have you been a teacher, and what grades and subjects have you taught?
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
139

a. If you had STEM integration training in your credentialing program, can you
describe what type of content was covered?
2. Tell me a little about how, in general, you believe that STEM integration is currently
being implemented in schools.

Environmental barriers
3. What would the ideal STEM integrated classroom look like?
a. (if applicable)You mentioned ________ in the “ideal STEM classroom,” how
much _________ is currently available to you?

Interest and identity in STEM education:

4. Tell me your story; what life experiences led you into a career in STEM education?
a. Do you remember a trigger experience that sparked your interest in STEM? or
one of the STEM fields?

b. Would you consider any of those teachers as role models or mentors? If so, would
you elaborate on how they affected your career path?

c. Did economic, social, or moral incentives affect your decision to enter the STEM
field? Can you give me an example?

STEM integration:
5. What prior experience provided you [STEM teacher] the subject-specific content
knowledge necessary to integrate subjects in STEM education?

a. Is there a cognitive ability, a way of thinking, which helps you see the connection
between the separate STEM content areas?

b. Can you describe what occurs in your thinking when you are teaching in one
STEM content area and a connection to a different STEM content area is made?

6. Would you be willing to participate in the next phase of this study which questions what
effect does access to/engagement with STEM professionals as role models and mentors
have on student interest, identity and self-efficacy in STEM?

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
140

APPENDIX E:
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL/ADMINISTRATION

Name of Researcher:_____________________ Date:_________________________
Interviewee Code:____________________
Start Time:_____________________________ End Time:_____________________

Introduction:
Hello, my name is Christine Ullerich, you previously agreed to participate in a research study
and that consent document remains current and valid. If you would like a copy of the consent
document, I can give it to you.
The purpose of this interview is: (1) to identify the incentives and experiences that led to the
educator deciding to pursue a career in STEM education; (2), provide the context and
administrative details for the studied STEM school (3) to determine if an ability to deliver
instruction across content areas contains a world view or paradigm that is utilized to make those
connections. This interview will last for about 30 minutes. Do you have any questions before we
begin?
Research Questions:
1. To what do teachers attribute their interest and identity in STEM education?
2. What prior experience provided STEM teachers the subject-specific content knowledge,
ability, and self-efficacy to integrate subjects in K–12 STEM education?
3. How do teachers that self-report story telling/stem stories implement this strategy in their
STEM teaching?
4. What effect does access to/engagement with STEM professionals as role models and mentors
have on student interest, identity and self-efficacy in STEM (Honey et al., 2014)?
Interview Questions:
Background:
1. How long have you been in education?
2. Tell me a little about how, in general, you believe that STEM integration is currently
being implemented in schools.

Environmental barriers
3. What would the ideal STEM integrated program look like?
INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
141

4. How did you develop the instructional program here?
Interest and identity in STEM education:

5. Tell me your story; what life experiences led you into a career in STEM education?
a. Do you remember a trigger experience that sparked your interest in STEM? or
one of the STEM fields?

b. Would you consider any of those teachers as role models or mentors? If so, would
you elaborate on how they affected your career path?

c. Did economic, social, or moral incentives affect your decision to enter the STEM
field? Can you give me an example?

STEM integration:
6. What prior experience provided you the subject-specific content knowledge necessary
to integrate subjects in STEM education?

7. I got a question for you and this is actually one of the questions I posed to the teachers
and it's a difficult question because I'm asking you to define a cognitive process.
Imagine that you're teaching one subject and you suddenly make a connection to
another subject. Can you articulate what is going on in your mind when that aha hits?

(Can you describe what occurs in your thinking when you are teaching in one STEM
content area and a connection to a different STEM content area is made?)

8. How about your philosophy of education?

9. Anything else you would like to add about education in general, STEM education
specifically?

INTEGRATING STEM INSTRUCTION
142

APPENDIX F:
ALIGNMENT OF INSTRUMENT AND
PROTOCOL TO RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Research Question Survey Questions Interview Question

1. To what do STEM
professionals attribute their
interest and identity in STEM
education?

2. What prior experience
provided STEM professionals
the subject-specific content
knowledge, ability, and self-
efficacy to integrate subjects
in K–12 STEM education?

3. What effect does access
to/engagement with STEM
professionals as role models
and mentors have on student
interest, identity and self-
efficacy in STEM (Honey et
al., 2014)?

4. How do STEM
professionals who self-report
storytelling implement this
strategy in their STEM
teaching?

Teacher: 1a, 2, 4, 4a, 4b, 4c
Administrator: 1

Teacher: 1, 2, 4, 4a, 4c, 5, 5a,
5b
Administrator: 1, 2, 3, 5a, 5b,
5c, 6

Teacher: 4a, 4b, 4c
Administrator: 8

Teacher: 5a, 5b
Administrator: 7

9,10,

4, 5 ,6, 7, 8,9

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This qualitative study was founded on research suggestions outlined in the report STEM Integration in K-12 Education: Status, Prospects, and an Agenda for Research by the Committee on Integrated STEM Education (Honey et al., 2014). It was the purpose of this study to explore teachers’ interest/identity/self-efficacy stories to uncover common philosophical perspectives, attributes, or cognitive processes and procedures used by teachers in integrating STEM content areas with the goal of defining best practices in STEM integration for teacher credentialing and/or staff development. Participant demographics included eight teacher/administrators

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Promoting STEM integration, interest and identity among elementary school students

PDF

Preservice teacher preparation for engineering integration in K-5

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

STEM + design thinking training: investigation of perceived changes in self‐efficacy, pedagogy, and conceptual development at the K-5 level

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Women, gaming and STEM majors: interest and motivation

PDF

STEM education in middle school: a promising practices study

PDF

Impact of participation in STEM organizations and authentic learning experiences on women of color engineering students

PDF

College and career readiness through high school STEM programs: an evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

Navigating success: what factors influence success among Latina STEM community college students?

PDF

Embracing the challenge of growing the “T” in STEM and its role in teaching and learning: a case study

PDF

How are teachers being prepared to integrate technology into their lessons?

PDF

The successful implementation of STEM initiatives in lower income schools

PDF

Analysis of STEM programs in Oregon public high schools

PDF

Integration of technology and teaching and learning practices at a technology magnet elementary school: a case study

Asset Metadata

Creator Ullerich, Christine S. (author)

Core Title Integrating STEM instruction through identifying interest and identity in STEM professionals

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/31/2015

Defense Date 05/06/2015

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

Tag analogies,identity,interest,K-12 education,OAI-PMH Harvest,STEM integration

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Freking, Frederick W. (committee chair), De Guzman, Paolo (committee member), Maddox, Anthony B. (committee member)

Creator Email chris.ul.usc@gmail.com,ullerich@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-622708

Unique identifier UC11304038

Identifier etd-UllerichCh-3781.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-622708 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-UllerichCh-3781.pdf

Dmrecord 622708

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Ullerich, Christine S.

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