University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content RUNNING HEAD: K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 1

AN EXAMINATION OF K-12 STEM INTEGRATION BY COMBINING SCIENCE
INQUIRY WITH ENGINEERING DESIGN

by

Toutoule Ntoya, M.Ed.

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

December 2015

Copyright 2015 Toutoule Ntoya
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION

2
Acknowledgments
This dissertation process has been a challenging process filled with highs and lows. I
came into this process with a very fixed mindset and emerged with the growth of knowing that I
still have learning to do.
I have to start with my father and mother Delondi and Germaine Ntoya. They’ve instilled
in all of us the need to continue with our education and to take our education very seriously.
They came to this country from the Democratic Republic of the Congo not knowing the language
or the culture of this new land and they were able to put three kids through college and
eventually a doctoral degree. I want to thank my uncle Rene and aunt Juliette. They were
always a part of our household and were always influential. It was a phone call from my uncle
while I was home sick that allowed me to persevere during my first time away from home in
college. I want to thank my siblings Bobby, Nicole, and Isaiah Ntoya for just being there over
the years. They are the reason I continue to strive. My older brother Bobby was set the tone for
all of us and was the torchbearer. I needed to be a positive role model for my younger siblings
Nicole and Isaiah. My uncle Leon was also an inspiration to me. We were able to go to his own
hooding ceremony as a doctor and he set a high bar for all of us.
I want to thank my wife who gave me all the support I needed to get through this process.
She finished her own Ph.D. program and I learned so much through her own processes that
helped me finish my process. We met while she was an undergraduate student at USC. I knew
that once I met her and we were together that I would attend graduate school at USC. She’s been
my rock through this entire process and I am so blessed to have her in my life. We are a Trojan
household and are very proud.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 3

I have three people to thank specifically. Neeraj Satyal, Amarpal Kanna, and Theo
Fowles. It was a conversation I had with Nick and Am that gave me the impetus to apply to
graduate school. I called my fraternity brother from Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, Inc. and told him
that I wanted to apply for the EdD program at USC and he said “Let’s GO”!!!! The rest is
history. If it were not for these three individuals I may have never applied for the program.
Lastly, I want to thank my dissertation committee. I remember sitting in the presentation
held by Dr. Maddox and not knowing what my topic was going to be. When he finished his
presentation I knew that he and Dr. Freking would be my dissertation chairs. I also have a very
big shot out to Dr. Seli. My very first class in the program was with her. I had a direct
connection with her and through our conversations she convinced me to switch from the K-12
emphasis to education psychology. That switch was probably the single most important move I
made while I was in the program. Dr. Seli is the third member of my dissertation committee and
I am so honored that she sat on my committee along with Dr. Maddox and Dr. Freking.
Lastly, I also want to give a big shot out to all of the 2015 cohort members. We all
started together in the summer of 2012 looking at each other through our computer screens. I
was actually on vacation in Costa Rica. We all learned so much and transformed how we think
about education. Now our charge is to go out and make a difference in the education landscape.

Fight On!
Toutoule D. Ntoya
“Our Cause Speeds On Its Way”

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 4

Table of Contents
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................2
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................7
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................8
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................9
CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY.................................................................10
Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................................11
Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................................12
Research Questions ............................................................................................................12
Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................13
Definition of Key Terms ....................................................................................................14
Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................................15
Integrated STEM Education Framework ..............................................................15
Social Cognitive Theory .......................................................................................17

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................19
Integration of STEM ..........................................................................................................19
Definition of STEM Integration............................................................................19
STEM Integration and Cognitive Load .................................................................20
Integration of STEM Efforts in K-12....................................................................21
Integration of Science and Math ........................................................................................23
Engineering in K-12 Curriculum .......................................................................................25
Engineering Standards ..........................................................................................25
Description of Engineering Tasks .........................................................................25
Integrating Engineering in STEM Education .......................................................26
Scientific Inquiry and Engineering Design ........................................................................28
Engineering and Iterative Design .......................................................................................31
Self-Efficacy ......................................................................................................................33
Sources of Self-Efficacy .......................................................................................33
Outcomes of Self-Efficacy ....................................................................................34
Self-Efficacy Related to Assessment and Science Achievement .........................34
Transformative Experience ................................................................................................35
Teaching for Transformative Experience .............................................................36
Learning and Transformative Experience .............................................................37

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................39
Sample Population .............................................................................................................39
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................40
Qualitative Data .................................................................................................................41
Open-Ended Interview Questions .........................................................................41
Student Journals ....................................................................................................41
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 5

Instructor Journal ..................................................................................................42
Quantitative Data ...............................................................................................................42
Self-Efficacy Portion of the MSLQ ......................................................................42
TEM ......................................................................................................................43
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................44
Survey Administration .......................................................................................................45
Iterative Science Design Cycle Curriculum .......................................................................45
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................48
Research Question One .........................................................................................49
Research Question Two ........................................................................................49
Hypothesis............................................................................................49
Null hypothesis. ...................................................................................49
Research Question Three ......................................................................................49
Hypothesis............................................................................................50
Null hypothesis. ...................................................................................50

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ......................................................................................................51
Instructor Journal ...............................................................................................................51
Curriculum Structure ............................................................................................52
Student-Centered Activities ..................................................................................54
Motivation and Learning.......................................................................................55
Student Journals .................................................................................................................57
Student Focus Groups ........................................................................................................61
Quantitative Research Questions ......................................................................................67
Summary ............................................................................................................................70

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................71
Discussion of the Findings .................................................................................................71
Messing About ...................................................................................................................71
Building and Designing .....................................................................................................72
Triggering Situational Interest STEM ...............................................................................73
Lowering Cognitive Load ..................................................................................................75
Did Students Experience TE? ............................................................................................77
Self-Efficacy ......................................................................................................................80
Implications for Practice ....................................................................................................82
Implications for Research ..................................................................................................85
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................87

References ......................................................................................................................................89

Appendix A Integrated STEM Education Framework ...............................................................96
Appendix B Open-ended Interview Questions ...........................................................................97
Appendix C Journal Entry Questions .........................................................................................98
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 6

Appendix D Iterative Science Design Cycle ..............................................................................99
Appendix E Investigation of Newton’s Laws Unit ..................................................................101

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 7

List of Tables
Table 1. Means and Standard Deviation for Self-Efficacy and TE Measures ...........................68

Table 2. Paired Differences of Self-Efficacy and TE Measures ................................................69
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 8

List of Figures
Figure 1. Learning by Design Cycle ...........................................................................................47
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 9

Abstract
This study addresses the topic of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM)
integration in a K-12 environment. The purpose of the study was to determine how the
integration of STEM in the informal K-12 environment could be established by combining
engineering design with scientific inquiry. This study is important because it allows practitioners
an understanding of how to implement an iterative science design curriculum. The research
method of this study included a mixed method approach of qualitative and quantitative
methodology. The findings from the research highlighted the importance of messing about,
triggering situational interest in STEM, lowering cognitive load in an integrated STEM
classroom environment, foster a transformative experience, and foster self-efficacy by promoting
mastery experiences in an integrated STEM environment. There were no statistically significant
findings to support that either a transformative experience was developed or self-efficacy was
impacted. The implications from this study included the implementation of Next Generation
Science Standards, developing STEM interest, alternative assessment methods, and forming
professional learning communities.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 10

CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and the Common Core State Standards
for Mathematics (CCSSM) has called for a deeper connection, or integration, between science
technology, engineering, and math (STEM) subjects (Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014).
In order to address some of the proficiency challenges faced by students in science, schools will
be forced to look at the instruction of science in a different manner. This will most likely involve
the integration of STEM and specifically integrating engineering and other STEM subjects into
the core curriculum (Honey et al., 2014). There is little research on ways to successfully integrate
STEM disciplines in formal and informal learning environments to foster learning (Honey et al.,
2014). This study looked to add to the body of research on the successful integration of STEM in
an informal school setting.
STEM education has received an overhaul with NGSS where engineering education is
being integrated into the K-12 classrooms and out of school settings (Honey et al., 2014). This
overhaul was necessary as the gaps in science education performance continue to persist. The
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reported science proficiency levels differ
by family background where students from higher income families scored 29 points higher than
students from lower income families (National Science Foundation, 2012). NAEP also reported
most students did not reach science proficiency, with only 21% of students scoring proficient or
above with African American students performing at 4% proficiency or above nationwide
(National Science Foundation, 2012). Examining state data revealed similar results.
The California State Testing (CST) has shown low student proficiencies for many
California school districts in science. Examining the largest school district in the state, Los
Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), there are 63,714 African American students that
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 11

comprise 9.6 percent of the district’s enrollment in 2012 (California Department of Education,
2013). LAUSD had 376 African American students that took the end of course (EOC) physics
CST in 2012. Of those students, 19% scored proficient and above while 81% scored basic or
below (California Department of Education Data Reporting Office, 2013). As a comparison,
30% of all students taking the EOC physics CST scored proficient and above. This data clearly
shows a gap of 11% proficiency levels between the African American population and their peers
in the district.
Stecher and Kirby (2004) stated the cornerstone of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
is performance accountability based on test scores. Examining the number of African American
students scoring below proficient in the physics portion of the CST, this student population has
not been meeting the performance accountability in physics. In looking at national performance
for African American students, performance accountability is not being met as well. Because of
the low accountability levels, the target demographic for this research will focus on African
American students in middle school. The rationale for this is that middle school students are
making the transition to high school and the work of affecting low achievement can begin in
middle school.
Statement of the Problem
The CCSSM and NGSS must be implemented in school districts across the state of
California. As a result, schools must learn how these standards will be implemented to support
the learning of students. This study researched how these standards can be implemented and
gave school administrators clues into what their schools need for successful implementation. In
looking at CCSSM and NGSS, the integration of STEM may be the solution to addressing the
challenge of low achieving African American students in STEM courses.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 12

The current research focused on the following topics STEM integration, the integration of
science and math, the meaning of engineering, combining engineering design and scientific
inquiry, self-efficacy and its role in learning of science, and how transformative experience can
be investigated to aid in the integration of STEM. By researching these topics, the problem of
low achieving African American students in science can be properly addressed by the integration
of STEM.
The research specifically focused on science and engineering. Engineering may be the
important topic that allows for the proper integration of the different STEM components. A focus
of the study was on the combination of engineering design and scientific inquiry to support
science learning. Another focus was how an integrated STEM environment can influence student
motivation, specifically self-efficacy and transformative experience. The study took place in an
informal classroom environment. The findings from the informal environment can inform the
implementation of STEM in the formal environment.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study researched the integration of STEM in the informal K-12
environment by combining engineering design with scientific inquiry to determine: (a) the
understanding of how to implement STEM in an integrated curriculum; (b) the impacts of STEM
integration on self-efficacy of students; and (c) students having a transformative experience as a
result of STEM integration.
Research Questions
The research questions for this study were:
1. What can be understood about implementing a curriculum that integrates STEM by
combining engineering design and scientific inquiry to middle school students in an
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 13

informal classroom environment?
2. Can an informal classroom environment involving an integrated STEM curriculum
impact the self-efficacy of middle school students learning physical science concepts?
3. Will middle school students in an integrated STEM environment experiencing
Teaching for Transformative Experience in Science (TTES) instruction in physical
science concepts have a transformative experience?
Significance of the Study
The United States is an international leader in science and technology; however, this
position is eroding mainly because of the increase in Asian science and technology capabilities
and the European Union’s efforts to increase its competitiveness in research and development
(National Science Foundation, 2012). In 2008, Natural Science and Engineering (NS&E) degrees
awarded to Chinese students was 280,000 compared to 248,000 awarded to United States
students and South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan had a combined 330,000 degrees awarded
(National Science Foundation, 2012). Moreover, a large proportion of NS&E degrees in the
United States were awarded to non-U.S. citizens (National Science Foundation, 2012). If this
trend continues, the U.S. will fall behind very quickly in the production of NS&E students that
graduate college and become practitioners in the field. The production of NS&E students in
colleges must begin at the high school level and younger.
Policy makers and school leaders should take action in ensuring that STEM curriculum is
properly implemented in K-12 classrooms. Education in STEM is important to sustain
innovation in the United States and provide a foundation for successful employment in STEM
fields (National Science Foundation, 2012). In order to increase the amount of U.S. students that
enter STEM fields, an integration of STEM in K-12 classrooms throughout the country may be
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 14

the answer.
NGSS and CCSSM are being implemented across the country and school leaders must
decide how these standards will be implemented. This study provides insight on how to properly
implement both the NGSS and CCSSM and the importance of getting students in K-12
classrooms engaged in STEM subjects. By engaging students in STEM concepts, schools will be
able to make an impact on the amount of students that enter college and possibly affecting the
amount of students that graduate in STEM majors.
Definition of Key Terms
Integration of STEM: Program where at least two of the STEM subjects are included
(Honey et al., 2014).
Formal K-12 environment: Classroom environments found in traditional settings during
regular instructional time (Honey et al., 2014).
Informal K-12 environment: Classroom environments that are found in after school and
out of school environments including after school camps, community events, competitions,
exhibit/on site drop in programs, mentoring programs, and media (Honey et al., 2014).
Transformative experience: Process where active use, expansion of perception, and
experiential value is present in a student as they experience a concept outside of the classroom
(Heddy & Sinatra, 2013).
Self-Efficacy: The judgments made by individuals about their abilities to learn or perform
a specific task in a specific domain (Pajares, 2009).
Iterative design cycle: The refinement of a design through multiple cycles (Kolodner et
al., 2009)
Ill-Structured problems: Problems that have vaguely defined and unclear goals and
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 15

unstated restraints with multiple solutions (Jonassen, Strobel, & Lee, 2006).
Theoretical Framework
Integrated STEM Education Framework
The framework that will inform this study is the Integrated STEM Education Framework
(Appendix A). This framework involves a range of experiences with some connection between
the experiences within STEM content (Honey et al., 2014). The framework includes goals,
outcomes, nature and scope, and implementation of an integrated STEM education curriculum
(Honey et al., 2014). Within this framework, an overarching goal emerged where students make
connections within STEM disciplines. Making students aware of these connections can be
leveraged to improve learning (Honey et al., 2014).
The goals for an integrated STEM program are the drivers that facilitate education
change (Honey et al., 2014). The goal that was the focus of this study is the ability to make
connections among STEM disciplines. More specifically, the connections were combining two
or more STEM disciplines to solve or complete a problem (Honey et al., 2014). Another goal
was to foster STEM literacy and 21
st
century skills. Literacy includes awareness of roles of
STEM components, familiarity with fundamental concepts, and basic levels of application
(Honey, 2014). Twenty-first century skills includes students being able to think critically,
innovate, communicate, collaborate, initiative, and use metacognition.
The outcomes in an integrated STEM curriculum should be consistent with the goal
(Honey et al., 2014). For example, if the goal is to make connections among STEM disciplines,
the outcome will be on learning and achievement of these connections. Cognitive outcomes may
be determined through standard measures such as formative and summative tests. This study will
use a summative test as a measure of outcome of learning of physical science. Honey et al.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 16

(2014) also discussed affective outcomes such as interest in or motivation to learn STEM
subjects.
The nature and scope of STEM integration will focus on the type of STEM connections.
Frequently in integrated STEM education, one subject has a dominant role while the other STEM
concepts support the deep learning and understanding of the targeted subject (Honey et al.,
2014). In this study, physical science was the content of focus while scientific inquiry combined
with engineering design was used to support learning and understanding. Although the
framework includes students and educators, the implementation of the framework focused on
students.
The implementation of the integrated STEM education focused on instructional design.
As stated earlier, the instructional design was scientific inquiry combined with engineering
design. The combination of scientific inquiry combined with engineering design allowed
students to engage in STEM practices in interesting and relevant ways (Honey et al., 2014).
Adjustments must be made during instruction to allow more time to iterate and improve on
designs and inquiry processes.
STEM integration outcomes may be cognitive through student achievement scores and
affective through motivation to learn (Honey et al., 2014). The framework was very narrow in
measuring motivational outcomes. The framework included constructs such as identity and
interest, but made no concessions for other motivational outcomes that could possibly influence
learning in an integrated STEM environment. Two of these outcomes are self-efficacy and
transformative experience. Both self-efficacy and transformative experience can be tied to the
goal of making connections among STEM disciplines. These connections must be accompanied
by success in STEM disciplines. Experiences that are interpreted as successful will generally
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 17

raise the confidence of students (Britner & Pajares, 2006). Pugh (2010) indicated students make
more meaningful connections if their classroom experience is connected to out of school
experience and a transformative experience occurs. A second framework is necessary to
encompass the motivational constructs in this study that the STEM integration framework was
unable to capture.
Social Cognitive Theory
A second framework that was used in this study is social cognitive theory (SCT). SCT
was developed by Albert Bandura and contends that learning occurs in social contexts and
learners can gain understanding through observation (Denler, Wolters, & Benezon, 2013).
Bandura (2001) stated that people have the ability to influence their own outcomes and their
environments in specific goal directed ways. An individual’s thoughts are the mediator between
knowledge and behavior and through reflection, and individuals can evaluate their experiences
and thought processes (Pajares, 1996). Contrary to behaviorism, another assumption in SCT is
that learning can occur without an immediate change in environment. Students can learn and not
show what they learned until they are motivated to do so (Denler et al., 2013). A core premise of
SCT is that people learn through observation or vicarious learning which can occur through
modeling (Bandura, 1977; Denler et al., 2013). In this study, students learned from other students
in order to produce working models. Students also worked in collaborative groups where each
group presented to other groups where students had the opportunity of learning from the
modeling of peers.
Self-efficacy emerged from SCT (Bandura, 2001; Denler et al., 2013). Individuals past
performance is used as a source of information that can influence self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977;
Denler et al., 2013). Social persuasion is also an influence on self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977, 1993;
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 18

Pajares, 2009). Since learning is social, students can learn while in a social context. The social
nature of presenting, working, and mastering content in collaborative groups has the ability to
influence students’ self-efficacy positively.
The construct of transformative experience can also be connected to SCT. SCT contends
that people have the ability to affect their behavior and their environment in purposeful ways
(Denler et al., 2013). In order to have a transformative experience, students must interact with
their environment outside of the classroom in order to value their learning in a new way (Heddy
& Sinatra, 2013). By making connections with the environment outside of school based on what
was learned in school, students can be motivated to show what was learned in the classroom.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 19

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
An overview of the literature related to K-12 STEM integration including historical
integration measures, inclusion of engineering in K-12 curriculum, and different motivation
constructs that can influence the integration of STEM have been presented within this chapter.
This chapter is divided into the following sections: (a) an overview of STEM curriculum and
how STEM has been integrated historically; (b) an analysis of integration performed historically
with math and science; (c) an analysis of engineering and what engineers have done in order to
integrate engineering into the K-12 curriculum; (d) an overview of science inquiry and
engineering design as a means of integrating STEM in the K-12 curriculum; (e) an overview of
self-efficacy as a construct; and (f) an overview of transformative experience and its
components.
Integration of STEM
Definition of STEM Integration
K-12 STEM integration is characterized as combining two or more STEM disciplines.
Therefore, a problem can be solved or a project can be completed (Honey et al., 2014).
Integration of K-12 STEM connects concepts from one discipline with a concept of another such
as physics concepts with algebra (Honey et al., 2014). Integrated learning also combines two
principles together such as engineering design and scientific inquiry (Honey et al., 2014). In this
manner, one component of STEM has been used as the central concept, while the other
components have been used to support the learning of the central component. Integrated learning
environments have had many benefits that include providing opportunities for students to build
knowledge and skills within and across disciplines and resulting knowledge that is more
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 20

integrated and wider in scope (Honey et al., 2014). Learning in an integrated STEM environment
has some implications to the learner that must be taken into account.
STEM Integration and Cognitive Load
Because of the many concepts that have been brought together in an integrated STEM
environment, excessive demands have exceeded the capacity of the working memory of the
learner and have hindered learning (Honey et al., 2014; Kirschner, Kirschner, & Paas, 2009).
Kirschner, Ayres, and Chandler (2011) described cognitive load theory as the instruction that is
processed and designed imposes a cognitive load on the working memory of a learner. Cognitive
load consists of three portions: (a) intrinsic cognitive load based on performing a task in
instruction or the number of elements that must be processed in working memory, (b) extraneous
cognitive load focuses on any processing that is not necessary for learning, and (c) germane
cognition which involves connecting new information to what is already known and directly
contributes to learning (Kirschner et al., 2009). Cognitive load limits the learner’s ability to
process instruction. In order to limit the cognitive load, instructional design is constructed to not
exceed the learners working memory when the learner is processing instruction (Kirschner,
Ayres et al., 2011).
The issue of cognitive load has been mitigated by implementing social and cultural
experiences into the curriculum such as engaging in discussions, group decision making, and
collaborative problem solving (Honey et al., 2014). For example, the learner should work in a
group setting to solve a complex problem. Cognitive load can also be lowered by guiding
students in the design process before any instruction is delivered (Kirschner, Ayres et al., 2011;
Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006; Schmidt, Loyens, Van Gog, & Paas, 2007).
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 21

Integration of STEM Efforts in K-12
Real world contexts and problems are typically solved using an integrated approach
(Honey et al., 2014). Engineers have drawn on science and mathematical principles in order to
create designs (Honey et al., 2014). Professionals also have interacted in many interdisciplinary
teams (Honey et al., 2014). This real world application of an integrated STEM environment has
given evidence to the need to allow students to interact with one another and across disciplines.
Traditionally, STEM integration meant students were involved in activities from more than one
discipline but outcomes were measured in a separate discipline (Honey et al., 2014). This has
undermined the idea of learning across disciplines. If students have been assessed in one content
area, the learning of other STEM contents have been lost and students have not been able to
transfer information between content areas.
Lederman and Lederman (2013) discussed K-12 STEM integration efforts around science
and mathematics. Students often have taken science and math courses and have not seen
connections within disciplines or across disciplines. This has been a result of teachers being
educated and certified in separate disciplines (Lederman & Lederman, 2013). Teachers are not
taught how to integrate other content areas. As a result, teachers have felt as though they lack the
necessary requisite skills to integrate other content areas into the curriculum and do not teach
these skills to students. Roehrig, Wang, Moore, and Park (2012) found that integration methods
that occurred fell under the category of science/engineering, science/math, engineering/math, and
engineering only.
Math has been easier for science teachers to integrate because of the background
knowledge that is necessary in their domain. However, math teachers have found it more
difficult to integrate science because science is not necessary in their domain (Lederman &
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 22

Lederman, 2013). This has shed some light on some inherent problems associated with
integration of STEM. Teachers have not learned their subject matter in an integrated way so they
have taught their content in isolation of other STEM content. It seems as though there has been a
need for recognition of what STEM integration is so the integration of the subjects can occur.
Roehrig et al. (2012) explored the models of STEM integration at the secondary level.
The researchers discussed the integration of engineering into the K-12 curriculum as a way of
providing authentic, real world way to engage students in STEM. A quantitative analysis was
used that included case studies of teachers to determine the interpretation and implementation of
new constructs in teacher classrooms. The teachers included 33 secondary science, 33 math, and
eight technology teachers from four middle schools and six high schools. STEM integration was
used in professional development modules driven by engineering principles. Each participating
school was required to implement one STEM integration lesson during the school year
determined by the teacher. During the modules engineering was found as a challenge for
instruction (Roehrig et al., 2012).
Roehrig et al. (2012) found that all of the STEM integration planned by a science teacher
with the highest quality STEM integration was co-planned and implemented by both math and
science teachers. Science teachers mostly used a product-focused engineering design lesson
whereas math teachers used a processed-focused engineering design method (Roehrig et al.,
2012). The implication of this study showed how engineering could be used to integrate STEM
across several content areas. Teachers were able to use design projects or process projects as the
integration tool. The research discussed the inclusion of math and science teachers in the
classroom in order to integrate these subjects. However, many schools do not have these
resources to allocate math and science teachers in one classroom.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 23

Integration of Science and Math
One of the most common STEM integration has been between science and math. Berlin
and Lee (2005) researched the topic ranging in time frame from 1901 to 1991 including 555
documents. The researchers found many terms that referred to integration. These terms
represented various ways of integrating science and math that included teaching math as a
prerequisite to science and teaching math as an applied portion of science problems. The most
important integration method that was mentioned by Berlin and Lee (2005) was teaching science
and math in concert to a real world problem-solving context. This real world application of math
and science has enabled students to make connections between both math and science like Honey
et al. (2014) suggested.
There was also an increase in science and mathematics integration citations from 401
documents from 1901-1989 to 449 citations between the years of 1990-2001 (Berlin & Lee,
2005). This growth in science and math integration shows that researchers are focused on more
ways to integrate the subjects. The majority of the increased citations were based on science
instructional activities with math related concepts included (Berlin & Lee, 2005). However, the
researchers did not mention what it meant to have a truly integrated curriculum. A more concrete
definition of what math and science integration is needed in order to determine if school
curricula are really integrating the STEM subjects and the outcomes of the integration.
Hurley (2001) attempted to define integration of math and science that fit in five general
forms that include sequenced, parallel, partial, enhanced, and total integration (Hurley, 2001).
The design of the classroom instruction dictated which form was used. Positive effect sizes were
found when instruction was sequential meaning science and math were taught sequentially with
one preceding the other (ES =.85 for math and ES = .34 for science) and negative effect sizes
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 24

were found when instruction was taught parallel when science and math were planned and taught
simultaneously through parallel concepts (ES = -.11 for math and ES = -.09 for science; Hurley,
2001). Interestingly, when total integration took place (math and science taught together equally)
the effect size was .96 for science and .20 for math (Hurley, 2001). Student achievement was
highest in math when the two subjects were taught in sequence where one subject was taught
before the second (Hurley, 2001). This research suggests that caution must be taken when
integrating math and science. Science seems to benefit from the interaction more than math.
Pang and Good (2000) discussed trends in the literature of science which focused on
integration with ancillary mathematics concepts similar to what Hurley (2001) described as
sequential level integration. However, integration could not happen with changing instructional
strategies that have omitted the development of conceptual understandings only to acquire
procedural knowledge (Pang & Good, 2000). In other words, in order to integrate math and
science, educators must include both procedural and conceptual understandings. Pang and Good
(2000) stated that conceptual knowledge is necessary to truly integrate content. Integrating math
and science has been common in the literature but often times very difficult to accomplish.
Meaningful learning has occurred in an integrated math and science curriculum when
skills and knowledge have been included in the curriculum and students have been able to make
connections (Czerniak, Weber, Sandmann, & Ahern, 1999). The connections between math and
science helped: (a) students make concrete examples of math content, (b) use math to help with
science relationship, and (c) integration provide relevance and motivation for students (Czerniak
et al., 1999). Even though integrating math and science showed positive outcome for students,
there may be more subjects, such as engineering, that are needed to truly integrate STEM in the
K-12 classroom.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 25

Engineering in K-12 Curriculum
Engineering Standards
K-12 engineering standards are not as developed as science and math standards (Carr,
Bennett, & Strobel, 2012). Carr et al. (2012) stated that engineering standards should be
integrated with existing standards as opposed to a separate standard. Of the 41 states identified
with strong engineering design, two states identified engineering integrated in STEM standards,
12 states integrated engineering in science, and one state integrated engineering with math (Carr
et al., 2012). Engineering standards already exist in many states around the country. It must be
determined how states, such as Massachusetts, have integrated engineering standards and their
effectiveness.
Although Carr et al. (2012) highlighted the existence of engineering standards, there is
still much that is not known on how specifically engineering standards are integrated into the
STEM curriculum. Also, although there were 41 states that have implemented engineering
standards, there were only two states (Colorado and Pennsylvania) that integrated engineering
standards with STEM. The researchers did not go into depth about how STEM and engineering
was integrated in these two states however.
Description of Engineering Tasks
Brophy, Klein, Portsmore, and Rogers (2008) discussed the importance of developing the
depth of knowledge of the STEM workforce. Development of the depth of knowledge of our
students will have occurred through STEM learning outcomes through the integration of STEM
in the K-12 formal environment (Brophy et al., 2008). The researchers discussed the concept of
understanding what an engineer does. This is an important concept because many teachers do not
have formal training in engineering and have very little concept of what it means to be an
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 26

engineer. A definition of what it means to be an engineer is important in order to have a
continued discussion of engineering as it pertains to K-12 education.
Engineers design, analyze, and troubleshoot systems to meet the needs of society (Brophy
et al., 2008). Engineers use iterative design to meet needs under given constraints (Carr et al.,
2012). Engineering design process includes problem definition, problem solving, testing, and
most importantly, iteration (Carr et al., 2012). Other skills necessary for engineering include
collecting data, creating models, and conducting material investigations (Carr et al., 2012).
Troubleshooting systems that are ill-structured or open ended are the types of activities
engineers typically spend their intellectual energy (Brophy et al., 2008). Ill structured problems
are difficult to comprehend because of the potential for multiple solutions, unclear goals, and
unstated constraints that can exist (Brophy et al., 2008; Jonassen et al., 2006). Ill structured
problems are the type of real world problems that students should be exposed to in the K-12
curriculum. The solutions to these types of problems can be introduced into the STEM
curriculum using engineering design.
Integrating Engineering in STEM Education
Engineering can be implemented with STEM through the construction of conceptual
prototypes or technical designs (Brophy et al., 2008). These prototypes can be linked to students’
curiosity and their desires to make something and learn how things work. Design based learning
activities can be a method of engaging students in problem solving activities that can be used to
support other STEM disciplines to enhance learning.
Kimmel, Carpinelli, and Rockland (2007) commented on the integration of engineering
and science. The integration of the two concepts can be made by emphasizing the
interdependence of the concepts as well as clarifying their differences. In this way, students will
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 27

understand how the two concepts relate to one another and how they differ in order to solve ill-
structured problems with which they come into contact. Often times students are only exposed to
science problems that may not have real world applications and engineering design can be a way
of integrating real world design problems to science curriculum (Kimmel et al., 2007). Scientific
investigation can be complemented by engineering activities that lead to the design of a product
(Kimmel et al., 2007).
Jeffers, Safferman, and Safferman (2004) gave pertinent insight into engineering outreach
programs. In order for students to learn in a K-12 integrated environment, engineering outreach
programs can be used to facilitate the integration. Design projects can be used based on scientific
inquiry in order to allow students the opportunity to solve complex problems (Jeffers et al.,
2004). One strategy that the researchers presented was teaming college engineering students with
K-12 classroom teachers. This allows the teaching of the science and math content to be
undertaken by content teachers and uses the college engineering students to supplement the
activity with engineering principles.
Jeffers et al. (2004) suggested ways of implementing engineering outreach programs that
included conducting activities on a college campus, conducting activities at the K-12 school, and
conducting engineering contests. By implementing these activities, K-12 schools can begin to
integrate engineering into the STEM curriculum. Engineering students can be partnered with
math and science K-12 teachers to develop integrated curriculum (Jeffers et al., 2004). This
process could possibly happen during professional development, on service days, and math and
science planning periods.
Jonassen et al. (2006) discussed the need for engineering students to learn how to solve
workplace problems. The researchers conducted a qualitative study (n= 106) with volunteer
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 28

engineers. The findings from the study concluded that the most common output of the problem
solving method was design and that the most workplace problems were ill structured (Jonassen et
al., 2006). These findings indicated that students in engineering programs needed to be able to
solve complex problems by evaluating multiple methods and solutions. By examining some of
the problem solving skills that engineering professionals need to be successful, these same skills
can be brought into the classroom in an integrated K-12 STEM environment. Engineers design
artifacts in order to solve engineering problems (Jonassen et al., 2006). The same engineering
design principles can be used in an integrated STEM environment to solve ill-structured
problems.
Scientific Inquiry and Engineering Design
Schmidt et al. (2007) discussed the use of problem-based learning (PBL). PBL enables
students to learn context in meaningful ways, construct mental models, and learn though sharing
cognitions with other students. The researchers also discussed the elements of PBL that included
small group work, training of groups in collaboration skills before any instruction is given,
initially discussing the problem that is being solved by activating prior knowledge, tutors to
facilitate learning, and resources for students to help solve problems. PBL enables students to
learn how to solve real world problems by reflecting on their experiences with a continual
approach to learning (Kolodner et al., 2009). An important idea in PBL is that students learn how
to solve problems and that the learning parallels their content knowledge (Kolodner et al., 2009).
Scientific inquiry has been used in many classrooms as a means of implementing PBL
curriculum.
Engineering design has shared many components of scientific inquiry. Because of this
fact, the scientific inquiry process has been combined with engineering design based learning to
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 29

be used as a means to integrate STEM curriculum. This section of the paper outlines the
importance of scientific inquiry and how it can be implemented in engineering design based
learning. The combination of the two will be used to provide an important basis for
implementing STEM in the K-12 environment.
Barrow (2006) discussed the history of scientific inquiry from Dewey up to the
implementation of current standards. A key component to scientific inquiry is building students’
confidence so they can conduct their own inquiry (Barrow, 2006). The inquiry should facilitate
the asking of scientific questions to solve a problem that is of interest to the student (Barrow,
2006). Barrow (2006) commented that there is no central definition for inquiry. As a result, many
educators have been confused regarding what it means to conduct inquiry in science classrooms
(Barrow, 2006).
Barrow (2006) gave some insights for how to implement inquiry in the classroom, but a
formal definition of inquiry was not given. He provided some relevant suggestions, for example,
that the early uses of inquiry and professional development programs should offer inquiry
models to teachers, but the definition was lacking. As a result, there may still be confusion on
what it means to undertake scientific inquiry in the classroom.
Minner, Levy, and Century (2010) defined inquiry as three distinct categories of
activities: conducting experiments using the scientific method; students inquiring about scientific
phenomenon by mirroring what scientists do; and teachers’ pedagogical approach to designing
instruction that includes and extends investigation. The approach to inquiry has been defined to
have core components that include: (a) learners engage in a question that is oriented to science,
(b) learners use evidence to develop and evaluate their explanations around scientifically
oriented questions, (c) explanations are formed from the evidence, (d) learners explanations are
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 30

evaluated despite other competing explanations reflecting scientific understanding, and (e)
learners communicate and justify their explanations. This inquiry process highlighted must be
guided and directed by the instructor (Minner et al., 2010). By guiding students through this
process, the cognitive load that can be imposed on the learner can be diminished to increase the
learning of the science content (Kirschner, Ayres et al., 2011).
Research conducted by Minner et al. (2010) included a very useful inquiry science
instruction framework. The framework has given us an operating definition for scientific inquiry.
The framework defined inquiry as having three portions. The first portion included science
content to be learned. The second portion included the types of student engagement, and the last
portion included the elements of inquiry domain (question, design, data, conclusion, and
communication; Minner et al., 2010). The element of the inquiry domain was associated with
improved student content knowledge specifically for learning scientific concepts (Minner et al.,
2010). This study has shown that learning in a hands-on method such as scientific inquiry can
increase the conceptual learning of students (Minner et al., 2010).
Harwood (2004) also outlined a separate scientific inquiry model. Differing from the
research conducted by Minner et al. (2010), Harwood’s (2004) model has nine activities
(observing, defining a problem, forming a problem, investigating the known, articulating the
expectations, carrying out the study, examining the results, reflecting on the findings, and
communicating with others) that were centered around questions. For Harwood (2004), questions
were the central portion of conducting scientific inquiry while the inquiry process for Minner et
al. (2010) was focused on the process of following the three portions of the framework.
However, Minner et al. (2010) provided learning outcomes for the model they developed while
Harwood (2004) provided no such outcomes for his model. The two models give increased
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 31

insight on how scientific inquiry can be defined and implemented in an integrated STEM
environment by following the specific models.
Engineering and Iterative Design
Kolodner et al. (2009) discussed the importance of designing to find solutions to
problems. The researchers indicated that designing involves iterations in the design process
where refinement can occur and a gradual understanding of concepts and learning of skills and
practices can occur (Kolodner et al., 2009). This iteration process allows students the opportunity
to refine their designs by using collaboration skills and presenting their designs to others. Similar
to research done by Schmidt et al. (2007), Kolodner et al. (2009) discussed the importance of
training students by coaching on the design process and the presentation of designs. Training
students in group collaboration skills has been shown to lower the cognitive load in a PBL
environment (Schmidt et al., 2007).
Kolodner et al. (2009) discussed the importance of providing a worked example in the
design challenge. Worked examples have been shown to improve learning in novice learners
(Van Gog & Rummel, 2010). Bamberger and Cahill (2012) also suggested using worked
examples to scaffold instruction. This scaffolding allowed students to create varied and creative
ideas to their design projects (Bamberger & Cahill, 2012). These worked examples can aid
students in designing a well working device such as windmills and a design challenge called
wake up your brother (Bamberger & Cahill, 2012). The process of actually designing a device
allows students the opportunity to ask questions about how to make their devices work better and
requires that students have science understandings to generate answers (Kolodner et al., 2009).
Worked examples can be an important part of the iterative approach to designing.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 32

Bamberger and Cahill (2012) also defined engineering as an iterative approach to
designing projects. The design process included defining the problem, gathering information,
planning, building, testing and evaluating, redesigning, and communicating results. This design
process, similar to Kolodner et al. (2009), is iterative: students go through the process many
different times in order to perfect their designs. There are no right or wrong solutions to the
designs, only multiple solutions that must be evaluated (Bamberger & Cahill, 2012). This allows
students the opportunity to construct their own solutions to possible design challenges and
construct their own knowledge of STEM principles in a fashion consistent with PBL.
Design-based learning can be combined with science inquiry in order to make learning
meaningful to students through implementation of a learning cycle (Apedoe, Reynolds, Ellefson,
& Schunn, 2008). Apedoe et al. (2008) highlighted the learning cycle to include creating a
design, evaluating the outcome, generating reasons, testing ideas, analyzing results, and
generating results connecting to big ideas then going back to the creating a design phrase. This
cycle is an iterative process that allows students to continuously improve on their designs and
refine the development of scientific inquiry questions. The cycle gives students the opportunity
to discuss both the design and the science portion of their project. In this way, the engineering
design can be combined with the scientific inquiry to scaffold the learning. Apedoe et al. (2008)
found that the science learned drove the modifications to the design and vice versa. Students
must be trained in this learning cycle before any instruction takes place in order to limit the
cognitive load on the learner and increase the learning of content (Kirschner, Ayres et al., 2011).
By successfully creating designs, students’ self-efficacy can possibly be affected.

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 33

Self-Efficacy
Sources of Self-Efficacy
The major sources of efficacy are performance accomplishments, vicarious experience,
verbal persuasions, and physiological states (Bandura, 1977). Slightly different than Bandura's
(1977) sources of self-efficacy, Pajares (2009) described the sources of self-efficacy as mastery
experience, vicarious experience, social persuasion, and physiological reactions. Pajares' (2009)
sources were the focus of the study.
Students constructed their self-efficacy beliefs through interpreting and applying these
four sources (Britner & Pajares, 2006). The most influential source is defined as mastery
experience or interpreting the effects of the actions to positive outcomes (Pajares, 2009). In fact,
mastery experiences are not enough to increase self-efficacy. Students must cognitively process
these mastery experiences along with personal and environmental factors (Britner & Pajares,
2006). The effectiveness of the self-efficacy sources increase as the learner interprets success to
the learner and not other sources (Pajares, 2009). Britner and Pajares (2001) found that African
American students who had low academic performance and were academically disadvantaged
gave more credence to social persuasion than mastery experiences. Vicarious experiences and
physiological arousals should be considered when influencing students science self-efficacy
beliefs (Britner & Pajares, 2006). It became increasingly important to use the four sources of
self-efficacy discussed by Bandura (1993) and Pajares (2009) to influence students’ beliefs about
their performance on a specific task no matter the background of the student. The sources of self-
efficacy can be used in an integrated STEM environment to influence students’ belief in their
ability to be successful.

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 34

Outcomes of Self-Efficacy
Bandura (1977) remarked that efficacy expectations are necessary to produce a desired
outcome. Self-efficacy was shown to have a direct effect on performance as well as ability
(Pajares, 1996). Individuals that believe they can attain a certain outcome will produce the
outcome, and individuals that believe they cannot produce a certain outcome will not produce the
outcome (Bandura, 1977). This fact is important because individuals with high self-efficacy will
visualize scenarios where they are successful and individuals with low self-efficacy will
visualize scenarios where there is failure (Bandura, 1993; Pajares, 2009). Because of these
visualizations, self-efficacy determines the goals individuals set for themselves, how long they
persevere during difficult times (Bandura, 1993; Pajares, 2009), and their resilience to failure
(Bandura, 1993). Individuals will engage in tasks for which they feel competent and confident in
performing (Pajares, 1996).
Self-efficacy can affect the self-regulatory practices that individuals use to self correct
their actions and cognitions (Pajares, 2009). When self-efficacy beliefs differ from outcome
expectations, the self-efficacy belief will determine the behavior of the individual (Pajares,
2009). This shows that self-efficacy beliefs can influence students’ ability to perform in an
integrated STEM environment even if the student thinks the outcome is not attainable.
Self-Efficacy Related to Assessment and Science Achievement
Self-efficacy beliefs should be assessed at the task specific and domain specific levels
(Pajares, 1996). If the assessments are not specific to task and domain, the effects of self-efficacy
will weaken (Pajares, 1996). This weakened effect of self-efficacy based on specificity was also
mentioned by Bandura (1993). When self-efficacy beliefs were closely aligned to tasks, the
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 35

prediction of behavior was enhanced (Pajares, 1996). In an integrated STEM environment, self-
efficacy beliefs in STEM must be aligned with the task performed.
The sources of self-efficacy have predicted science achievement in middle school
students (Britner & Pajares, 2006). Students that had strong beliefs in their abilities to succeed in
science persevered during difficult times and worked hard to complete science related tasks
(Britner & Pajares, 2006). Academic self-efficacy raised students grades directly and indirectly
by raising the grade goals of students (Pajares, 1996). Among middle school students, science
self-efficacy predicted science achievement of Caucasian students and African American
students (Britner & Pajares, 2001). Science self-efficacy was the most consistent predictor of
students’ science grades (Britner & Pajares, 2006). Boys science grades were predicted only by
science self-efficacy where girls science self-efficacy and self-concepts predicted science grades
(Britner & Pajares, 2006). Britner and Pajares (2006) found that inquiry oriented science
investigations provided students the mastery experience to develop strong science self-efficacy
beliefs. Socio-economic status (SES) had less effect on student’s achievement than the
experience that was provided to students (Britner & Pajares, 2001). This strong science self-
efficacy led to higher achievement in science courses. An integrated STEM curriculum should
include an opportunity for inquiry-oriented activities in order to affect the self-efficacy of
students and achievement.
Transformative Experience
The construct of transformative experience (TE) was developed to express the
engagement with content as an idea (Pugh, 2002). TE is a construct that extends beyond what is
learned in the classroom (Pugh, Linnenbrink-Garcia, Koskey, Stewart, & Manzey, 2010). By
doing so, students have experienced aspects of the world in new and meaningful ways through
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 36

their in school supported experiences and out of school transformative experiences (Pugh, 2002).
Pugh and Girod (2007) described an experience as transforming how an individual sees aspects
of the world in a new way to find a new meaning of the world and value it.
The three principles that define TE are active use (AU), expansion of perception (EP),
and experiential value (EV; Heddy & Sinatra, 2013; Pugh, 2002). AU can be described as
seeking opportunities outside of class to interact with content learned in class. EP occurs when
the content changes the way students view the world. EV occurs when a student values material
for how it transforms the student’s experience of the world (Heddy & Sinatra, 2013). TE happens
when an individual uses a concept that allows them to see aspects of the world differently and
the individual values this new way of seeing the world (Pugh, 2002). Heddy and Sinatra (2013)
found that students experiencing TE engaged in deeper out of school engagement.
Teaching for Transformative Experience
Pugh (2002) also discussed how to teach for TE. One strategy that the researcher
mentioned was using an apprenticeship model where the learner becomes more central part of
the learning community (Pugh, 2002). One important idea behind TE was that students should be
taught ideas about subject matter and infuse them into their lives so the students can live the
subject matter ideas (Pugh & Girod, 2007). Another example for teaching for TE was providing
opportunities for the students to use the content to expand their perception first in class and then
out of class (Pugh, 2002). By living the subject matter, students found the content more
meaningful and engaging.
The infusion of ideas into the subject matter can be made through the use of metaphors to
engage students with the possible connections, representations, and explanations in the content
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 37

(Pugh & Girod, 2007). Pugh (2002) suggested that crafting content into ideas gives students the
central role in classroom experiences by scaffolding of use, perception, and value by the teacher.
This can be accomplished by modeling, scaffolding the use of the content, perception, and value
by the teacher (Pugh, 2002). It was found that a greater percentage of students in an idea-based
class may have actively used and experienced an expansion of perception because of the use of
teaching for TE strategies (Pugh, 2002). Another strategy used to foster TE was re-seeing where
students were taught to look at ordinary objects in a new way and expand their perception.
Specifically teaching for TE was effective in facilitating TE (Heddy & Sinatra, 2013).
Heddy and Sinatra (2013) compared the treatment group that received TTES in a study to a
control group that also received direct instruction and group discussions. In the study, Heddy and
Sinatra (2013) found the treatment group outperformed the control group in science achievement
showing the impact TTES can have on students. TTES included framing concepts in terms of the
experiential value, modeling transformative experience, and scaffolding (Pugh & Girod, 2007).
Heddy and Sinatra (2013) explained framing of concepts happens so students recognize
the value that the concept has on their experience. Heddy and Sinatra (2013) also discussed how
modeling for transformative experience should be undertaken by the teacher to model how
students might see concepts outside of the classroom. The last portion of TTES involves teachers
scaffolding the three dimensions of TE for the students so students would be able to describe
their own transformative experiences (Heddy & Sinatra, 2013).
Learning and Transformative Experience
Students with high science identity have undergone TE in science content (Pugh et al.,
2010). As students applied what they learned to their everyday lives by engaging in TE, their
thinking about science became more fluid and agile where transfer of information happened
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 38

more frequently (Pugh et al., 2010). This transferring of knowledge when engaged across
different STEM disciplines can be facilitated with TE.
By connecting what is learned in school to everyday experience and applying what is
learned, students will have had experiential value for the content (Pugh, 2011). In order for the
learning experience to be complete, the learning must be expanded to experiencing of the
everyday world (Pugh et al., 2010). Experiencing TE lead to increased conceptual knowledge of
content and meaningful connections with content, and triggering interest in content measured by
experiential value (Pugh, 2002; Pugh et al., 2010). Students indicated that concepts were more
interesting to learn that had utility value or the content was useful for future purposes (Pugh,
2002). This increased utility value can be linked to experiential value and may influence
interesting in learning science concepts.
Students who underwent TE also learned science information more deeply (Pugh, 2011;
Pugh et al., 2010). Enduring transfer of content was also found to occur as a result of
engagement in TE. It was noted that TE helped students integrate new ideas with everyday
conceptions (Pugh, 2011). The two ways that learning transformed an experience was by
developing general attitudes and making connections to students’ everyday experience (Pugh,
2011). These integrations and connections can also be made across STEM disciplines (Honey et
al., 2014).
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 39

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of an integrated STEM. The
instruments that were used were the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ;
Pintrich, Smith, Teresa, & McKeachie, 1991), a TE scale called Transformative Experience
Measure (TEM; Pugh et al., 2010), open-ended interview questions, student journal entry
questions, and instructor reflections. This chapter includes information about the sample
population, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis.
Sample Population
The population for the study was African American middle school students. The student
sample was chosen from an urban middle school located in the southwestern United States called
Middle School Number One. The sampling method was a purposeful sampling of 30 eighth
grade students. The purposeful sampling was consciously selected participants of particular
attributes (Stringer, 2007). The guidelines for this study were that participants be enrolled in an
afterschool enrichment program located at Middle School Number One. The administrator and
afterschool coordinator at the site were consulted on which participants to include in the study
and participants were chosen based on their recommendations. The study was described to the
participants that were chosen and the participants were given consent forms that were approved
by the University of Southern California Internal Review Board (USC IRB). The students who
returned the consent forms were included in the study.
There were approximately 344 students and 328 of those students were African
American, which comprised 95% of the total school population for Middle School Number One
(Ed-Data, 2013). This student population differed from the local district African American
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 40

population of 9.4% (Ed-Data, 2013). The school has grade levels six through nine and is a part of
a larger charter management organization (Ed-Data, 2013).
The middle school that was used for the study was chosen for several reasons. The school
served approximately 95% African American students - the focus demographic for this study.
The high school that is fed by the middle school in this study achieved at 17% advanced and
proficient in physics (California Department of Education Data Reporting Office, 2013). In
comparison, the local district achieved at 30% advanced and proficient in high school physics
(California Department of Education Data Reporting Office, 2013). This gap in advanced and
proficient figures in high school physics has shown the need to focus on middle school students
as they matriculate to high school.
This study focused on the understanding of implementing an integrated STEM
curriculum and motivational factors that can influence achievement. The study did not
specifically focus on administrators at the school. Similarly, the study did not evaluate the
overall STEM program at the school because it was beyond its scope.
Instrumentation
Mixed method data analysis was used to collect data related to understanding the
implementation of an integrated STEM curriculum, self-efficacy, and transformative experience.
Quantitative data was collected in order to determine if the independent variable, being the
integrated STEM curriculum, impacted the dependent variables of self-efficacy and TE.
Qualitative data was used to understand the implementation of an integrated STEM curriculum.
Each instrument used in the study has been included in the appendices with the exception
of the self-efficacy portion of the MSLQ and the TEM. The open-ended interview questions are
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 41

available in Appendix B, and journal entry questions are available in Appendix C. The
instruments are detailed below. A daily instructor journal was also used to collect data.
Qualitative Data
Open-Ended Interview Questions
An adapted version of Pugh (2004) interview questions was used in this study (Appendix
B). The interview questions were highly structured. Three of the questions focused on TE while
two of them focused on engagement. Consistent with SCT, the data that was gathered from a
focus group was socially constructed (Merriam, 2009). Merriam (2009) also indicated that focus
groups be constructed through purposeful sampling. A focus group of eight students was chosen.
The sampling included students that engaged in the curriculum as well as students that may not
have engaged fully to get a full understanding of students’ experience. Students answered the
interview questions that best related to them. If a student did not want to answer a particular
question they were not forced to answer. The focus group was convened at the end of the
implementation of the curriculum. The questions were open ended and data was collected based
on answers given from each question. Data was coded based on themes that emerged within each
question.
Student Journals
Students kept weekly journals. Merriam (2009) indicated that personal documents give a
researcher insight into the everyday meaning of events. Three of the questions for the journal
entries were adapted from Pugh et al. (2010). The two remaining journal entries included a self-
efficacy and a reflection question (Appendix C). The last reflection question was given to the
students at the conclusion of the curriculum implementation. Students answered the journal entry
questions at the beginning of each class session. Students answered each individual question
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 42

independently. Journals were handed out at the beginning of class and were collected at the
conclusion of the journal entry session. The data was analyzed by compiling responses for each
of the journal entry questions and coded to find themes within the responses.
Instructor Journal
I acted as both the researcher and the instructor within this study. I implemented the
iterative science design curriculum and kept a journal at the conclusion of each instructional day.
Critical data points were collected from this perspective. The rationale for being the instructor
was to gather authentic data concerning the implementation of an iterative STEM curriculum.
Merriam (2009) commented that the data that is gathered from this personal information is
reflective of the participant’s perspective. This perspective allowed for some insightful data
points for this study.
I kept a daily journal pertaining to what transpired for the day. Merriam (2009) indicated
that personal documents, such as journals, give researchers a view into what was important to the
author. Personal documents, such as journals, give researchers the inner meaning of the events
that happen during the day (Merriam, 2009). As I reflected on the events of the day, meaningful
data was analyzed. The responses from the journal entries were compiled and broad themes were
formed. The data from my journal allowed for the understanding of implementing an integrated
STEM curriculum. Data was compiled and coded to find general themes.
Quantitative Data
Self-Efficacy Portion of the MSLQ
Self-efficacy determines the effort expanded on an activity and perseverance (Pajares,
2009). Self-efficacy has been shown to be an accurate predictor of academic performance in a
specific domain (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy was measured using a survey from the self-
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 43

efficacy portion of the MSLQ (Pintrich et al., 1991). The MSLQ is a self-reported instrument
with 81 items separated by two sections: motivation and learning strategies. The motivation
section has 31 total items with eight items designated specifically for self-efficacy for learning
and performance in a particular class. Bandura (1977) and Pajares (2009) indicated that self-
efficacy is effectively measured if it is domain specific. The domain in this study was physical
science, which was referred to as “this class” in the instrument. The self-efficacy portion of the
MSLQ was administered using a seven point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly
agree and was an interval scale measurement. The Cronbach alpha for the instrument was .93
(Pintrich et al., 1991).
TEM
Pugh (2002) suggested that students experiencing TE would experience aspects of the
world in new and meaningful ways. TE was measured using an adapted version of the Pugh et al.
(2010) TE Scale called TEM. The original instrument used by Pugh (2010) was based on the
existence of TE along the continuum from in school to out of school engagement. Heddy and
Sinatra (2013) adapted the Pugh (2010) instrument to include science concepts. This study
adapted the Heddy and Sinatra (2013) instrument and changed the wording from science
concepts to physical science concepts. The TEM has three dimensions that include active use,
expansion of perception, and experiential value. In order to experience TE, active use, expansion
of perception, and experiential value must be present (Heddy & Sinatra, 2013). There were nine
questions in the TEM that corresponded to each of the three dimensions. The instrument has 27
total items and a six point Likert scale was used as an interval scale measurement. The
Cronbach’s alphas for the original measurement was measured at .96 (Pugh et al., 2010). The
Cronbach’s alphas for Heddy and Sinatra’s (2013) instrument were measured at .90.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 44

Data Collection
Data collection for this study was conducted using a mixed method approach. A
qualitative case study research approach was also used. A case study is a qualitative strategy
where the researcher explores a program, event, activity, or process of one or more individuals
(Creswell, 2009). Merriam (2009) also described qualitative case study as searching for meaning
and understanding with the researcher being the primary instrument of data collection and
analysis. Merriam’s (2009) description of a case study was consistent with the first research
question in this study. The case was bounded to a classroom of learners and what was understood
from those learners.
Understanding of implementing an iterative STEM curriculum was measured using an
interview of a case study of eight students, as well as journal entries from me and the students. I
wrote daily reflection questions in a journal. The interviews of case study students were
administered at the end of the administration of the curriculum and the journal entries were given
throughout curriculum administration. My journal entries were also written throughout the
curriculum.
A quantitative data collection approach was used as well. A paired-samples t-test was
used as the statistical analysis. The rationale for this was that a single group of students were
being studied under two conditions - before the curriculum was administered and after the
curriculum was administered (Pallant, 2010). Also, there was one categorical independent
variable with one continuous dependent variable being measured under two conditions (Pallant,
2010; Salkind, 2011). The difference in the means of the dependent variables pre and post-tests
were analyzed to find significant changes in the means of the population before and after the
curriculum was administered.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 45

Survey Administration
Surveys and consent forms were developed using the online software Qualtrics and
Microsoft Word. The surveys included both the MSLQ and the TEM questions. The surveys
were administered using a paper and pencil format. Both surveys were given before and after the
curriculum was administered. The data from the survey and assessment was inputted into
Microsoft Excel to be properly formatted. Once the data was formatted, it was then inputted in
SPSS for analysis.
Upon approval from the USC IRB and approval from the middle school administrator, a
consent form was distributed to the parents of participating students. Upon receiving the consent
forms, a roster of students was created. The survey was administered to the students on the first
day of instruction. Once the surveys and the assessment were administered, the curriculum was
delivered to the students. Throughout the delivery of the curriculum, students were given journal
entry questions including, “Where do you think you see examples of bridges within your
community?” and “How have you perceived forces differently during the week?” The surveys
were given a second time at the conclusion of the curriculum and the data was analyzed.
Iterative Science Design Cycle Curriculum
This investigation was based on students’ understanding of the physical science concept
of Newton’s laws by building a bridge from wooden coffee stirrers and glue. Students received
design parameters in terms of how long the bridge must be and how much mass the bridge must
hold. Similar to Kolodner et al. (2009), the investigation included two mini-lessons where
students designed and built the platform of the bridge and the truss of the bridge. Students
applied their knowledge of the two mini-lessons together to form their final bridge product.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 46

The curriculum used for the study was adapted from Kolodner et al. (2009), Pugh (2002),
and Pugh and Girod (2007). The curriculum included a design cycle and a scientific inquiry
cycle as described by Kolodner et al. (2009). The two cycles were combined into one process
called the iterative science design cycle (ISDC). Elements adapted from Pugh (2002) and Pugh
and Girod (2007) were included in ISDC by teaching specifically for TE. Pugh (2002) had
students write about out of class experiences as it related to the topic of study in order to
facilitate TE. This writing example was used during this current study in the form of journaling
to encourage students to see the physical science content outside of the classroom. Similar to
Pugh (2002) having students take a field trip to the zoo and Pugh and Girod's (2007) idea of
having students experience the living of subject matter ideas, this study had students take a trip
through their neighborhood to look at freeway overpasses in order to connect what they learned
throughout the study to their environment to promote experiential value.
The “learning by design” curriculum that was developed by Kolodner et al. (2009) gave
the iterative refinement of the design that students create a central role. The learning by design
cycle was a combination of a design/redesign cycle and investigate and explore cycle (see Figure
1). These two cycles represented engineering design and scientific inquiry. The ISDC combined
the two cycles of the Learning by Design cycle into one process (Appendix D). This process
drove the curriculum by having students design, test, and analyze their model bridges in an
iterative cycle. Students also presented their findings to their peers and had the opportunity of
learning from their peers as well. Students received physical science content based on Newton’s
laws, but the ISDC process determined how the students integrated engineering design and
scientific inquiry to apply the specific science content. Bandura (1977) and Pajares (2009)
indicated that mastery experience is the most influential source of self-efficacy. It can be argued
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 47

that students who continuously iterated their designs experienced mastery as their designs
continued to advance through the iteration cycles and thus influencing master experiences in a
positive manner.

Figure 1. Learning by Design Cycle. Adapted from Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D.,
Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., … Ryan, M. (2009). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning
in the middle-school science classroom : Putting Learning by Design ™ into practice. Journal of
Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1204

The ISDC was developed by following the ADDIE framework which includes analysis,
design, development, implementation, and evaluation (Peterson, 2003). The analysis was done
by looking at the objectives outlined by the National Research Council (2015) and the self-
efficacy and TE literature. The framework and the literature allowed for a compilation of
possible objectives (Appendix E). The design of the curriculum occurred by finding one subject
matter expert (SME) in science instruction and one SME in instructional design to look at the
compilation of objectives. The SMEs gave their expert feedback that was used to develop the
final objectives. The objectives were aligned to the assessments and were used in the study.
There were 18 total units that were developed to align with the overall objectives and unit
assessments. The curriculum was implemented within the nine-week time frame where data was
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 48

collected and evaluated. Peterson (2003) commented that evaluation occurred at different points
in the curriculum. During this study, formative evaluations occurred during the gallery walks,
poster sessions, and through feedback from SMEs. Summative evaluations occurred through pre
and post assessments.
The issue of cognitive load must be properly addressed while implementing the ISDC
curriculum. Germane cognitive load can be increased by consciously connecting new
information with information already known (Kirschner et al., 2009). This was done by the
iterative process of making new rules of thumb based on the learning from the iterative design
process. Tasks were assigned to groups rather than individuals in order to lower cognitive load
(Schmidt et al., 2007). Problem solving was more effective and efficient for students learning
collaboratively while worked examples were more effective and efficient for students learning
individually (Kirschner, Paas, Kirschner, & Janssen, 2011). Even though problem solving was
found to impose a heavily cognitive load on individual learners, the ISDC was geared at
collaborative work where students solved a problem in groups to lower the cognitive load.
Data Analysis
The data for the first research question was measured using qualitative data analysis. A
focus group of eight students was asked open-ended questions and these questions were
transcribed for analysis. My journal entries, in addition to student journal entries, were also
analyzed. The analysis included coding for themes across the data sources. The themes were
further organized into larger comprehensive themes. The themes that emerged in the analysis
were used to answer the first research question. The themes were also used to further assess the
impact of student’s self-efficacy and the extent that students had a transformative experience.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 49

The data for the second and third research questions were measured using quantitative
data analysis. Specific descriptive statistics were made including the mean and standard
deviation of participant scores. A paired-samples t-test was used from the survey and assessment
data to compare the means of the pre- and post-tests of the participants. The data was analyzed to
find significance difference of participant’s pre and post self-efficacy, and TE as a result of
participating in an integrated STEM curriculum.
Research Question One
What can be understood about implementing a curriculum that integrates STEM by
combining engineering design and scientific inquiry to middle school students in an informal
classroom environment?
Research Question Two
Can an informal classroom environment involving an integrated STEM curriculum
impact the self-efficacy of middle school students learning physical science concepts?
Hypothesis. An informal classroom environment involving an integrated STEM
curriculum will increase the self-efficacy of middle school students learning physics concepts.
Null hypothesis. An informal classroom environment involving an integrated STEM
curriculum will have no effect on the self-efficacy of middle school students learning physics
concepts
Research Question Three
Will middle school students in an integrated STEM environment experiencing teaching
for transformative experience in science (TTES) instruction in physical science concepts have a
transformative experience?
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 50

Hypothesis. Middle school students in an integrated STEM environment experiencing
TTES in physics will have a transformative experience.
Null hypothesis. Middle school students in an integrated STEM environment
experiencing TTES in physics will not experience a transformative experience.
IV: ISDC
DV: Self-efficacy
DV: TE
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 51

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
This investigation focused on the integration of STEM by combining engineering design
and scientific inquiry. This chapter was organized by first describing the participants followed by
discussing the research questions and the findings. Currently, school districts are looking for
innovated ways of implementing the NGSS, and the findings from this investigation might shed
some light on the most effective ways of implementation.
The participants in this study comprised of 12 students in the sixth grade and one student
in the eighth grade. All of the participants were female. Originally, 30 African American
students were recruited with the help of the campus principal and the afterschool coordinator.
The participants who were recruited consisted of a mixed makeup of gender and grade levels.
However, when the consent forms were disseminated to these students, only 13 of the originally
recruited students returned the consent forms signed. These students made up the participants in
this study.
The mixed method approach to this investigation included three research questions. The
first research question was qualitative in nature and asked, “what can be understood about
implementing a curriculum that integrates STEM by combining engineering design and scientific
inquiry to middle school students in an informal classroom environment?” Data for the first
research question was collected in three ways: an instructor journal, student journal, and a
student focus group. The findings for the first research question were organized around each data
collection method.
Instructor Journal
Instructor journal entries were used to capture reflective thoughts of my role as the
instructor at the conclusion of each day. Merriam (2009) indicated these personal accounts give a
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 52

snapshot of thoughts that are important during data collection. The data was analyzed by looking
at the daily entries and finding emerging themes. The themes that emerged from the journal
entries included curriculum structure, student centered activities, and motivation and learning.
Curriculum Structure
Within this theme several findings were of interest. One of my remarks focused on
classroom management. Teachers often found classroom management very daunting. Comments
such as, “there was a lot of chaos” and “I had to think about how to get control back of the class”
shed some light on the challenges of implementing an integrated STEM curriculum. Another
factor that played into the classroom management was the actual physical structure of the
program. In my journal, I mentioned that "I have to figure out how to get past the fact that the
after school program has started and I'm coming on board new." I realized that if there was no
connection with the students, classroom management would become a barrier to implementing
an iterative science curriculum.
I was able to find some classroom management techniques that helped me obtain control
of the class. In my journal, I wrote, "this time I was able to get the students attention when I
needed it." Using the attention strategy from ADDIE worked for me. I started by giving out
name cards, and I made it a point to know all of the students’ names. Analysis of the data
indicated that classroom management strategies were necessary when implementing an iterative
science curriculum.
The integrated STEM framework discussed the need to adjust the learning environment
(Appendix A). Physical space should be present when implementing an integrated STEM
curriculum. In my journal, I noted, "Getting into the class I would be using was challenging" and
"I had half of the class present today because of an external activity." If designated spaces and
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 53

time were not present in the school schedule for an integrated STEM curriculum, the
implementation of the curriculum was not effective. This fact can be seen from my comments
regarding the external activity that only allowed for the attendance of half my students. This
affected the result of the planned activity because “the half that was present did not finish
building their platforms.” I also commented that “another important aspect is to have school
wide systems in place to integrate STEM” showing once again that the physical learning
environment should be present for an integrated STEM curriculum.
Another important finding was the time consuming nature of the integrated STEM
curriculum. In my journal, I commented, “How do we incorporate that time to build and design
into the curriculum and make it constructive.” This indicated that instructors should be mindful
about providing extra time for completing the building and designing activities. The need for
extended time can also be seen by the following journal comments: “designing and building
takes time” and “we spent a whole day just doing this” (building and designing). This extended
time should be built into the curriculum: “I will only have 2 to 3:30 to get my lessons in so I
gotta look back and adjust.” If time was not provided to complete tasks within the curriculum I
made a note of it: “I think I rushed to get the lessons and activities done.” This feeling of being
rushed may cause students to not participate in important aspects of the curriculum such as
presenting to their peers. I reinforced this rushing through the curriculum and indicated that
“students did not get to present their structures.”
The integrated STEM education framework also highlighted the need for an emphasis on
types of STEM connection. One of my journal comments stated, “maybe they can discuss
Newton’s laws as they present their data analysis,” which shows that students can connect
aspects of science with Newton’s laws and engineering practices by presenting their findings. I
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 54

also commented that “the students get Newton’s laws and now we have to tie it into their
bridges,” once again showing the need for students to connect science content with an
engineering concept in order to solve the problem of building the bridge.
Student Centered Activities
Student centered activities were at the core of the ISDC (Appendix D). In my journal, I
noted that students should be engaged in the activity before variables were discussed: “Talk
about the variables after to get them engaged.” This engagement was a way to get students
involved in the activity and use the involvement as a way to introduce the discussion of
variables. I also noted that students “may be true to constructivism and have students construct
their own meaning.” As students were more engaged in the activity, they were able to discuss the
variables that were necessary and constructed their own meaning of the importance of the
variables based on the interaction. Students also “input the science into what they experience” as
they designed their platform. “This looked like students designing their platforms before the
science or engineering is talked about.” This last quote emphasized the importance of allowing
students to experience the science by “messing about” before science content was introduced. I
also thought it was better to have students “mess about” because “it’s better to have students
mess about and build the bridges.”
The student centered activities allowed students the opportunity of generating useful
artifacts that allowed for greater understanding of the science. Students were able to collect
useful data from their designs. “I am happy with the fact that all groups tested their designs and
collected data." "The kids were able to really test their designs and figure out what was
happening,” and generate some meaningful rules that they used in later iterations. “I also like
how I was able to get students to generate rules of thumb.”
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 55

Motivation and Learning
The last theme that emerged from my journal focused on motivation and learning.
Bandura (1977) suggested that self-efficacy could be influenced in four ways (mastery
experience, social persuasion, vicarious experience, and physiological states). I noticed that
“building and constructing ties into self-efficacy.” This was seen through the students’ “mastery
of successfully putting something together.” In this case, the "something" was the students’
platforms. Students also experienced an impact to their self-efficacy in other ways. In one of my
journal entries, I commented about the “social persuasion of hearing their classmates reinforce
their work” and how the students began succeeding by “vicariously seeing other students
succeed.” One important impact of increasing self-efficacy was the students’ persistence with a
task (Pajares, 2009). One entry illustrates this persistence: “Even though the glue wasn’t sticking
to the student’s satisfaction they persisted until they were finished.”
A goal that was highlighted by the integrated STEM education framework was interest
and engagement. I highlighted the importance of interest in the integrated STEM curriculum:
“Rationale is to get students engaged and interested then introduce the science.” I also discussed
the need to get girls and boys interested in STEM as a possible outcome of the integrated STEM
curriculum: “If somehow we can get these girls interested in science and engineering.”
“Somehow think about how we can get more boys interested in science and engineering.”
In my journal entries, I discussed ways of keeping students interested in STEM topics: “It
is necessary to tie the program into some other motivation goal. The field trip would be a nice
way to add some external motivation to sustain the interest.” I also commented, “more along the
lines of triggering situation interest” in reference to the impact of the field trip on student interest
in STEM. The field trip may be a strategy for triggering situation interests that was discussed by
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 56

Renninger (2009). I noticed that “it seems that students may be losing interest” and “I’m seeing
just participating in the curriculum is not enough.” This is where the external motivating factors
like field trips may assist with the loss of interest.
I presented possible solutions to students losing interest in STEM. In one journal entry, I
mentioned, “eventually we want STEM interest to be internalized so we can remove external
factors and focus on learning of STEM and getting through the process of solving a real
problem.” Removing these external factors can only happen as student move from situational
interest to individual interest (Renninger, 2009). I also commented on the possibility of having a
contest as a way to trigger situational interest: “Contest needs to be connected to something the
students find interesting.” I mentioned another possible outcome of providing external factors:
“or just an opportunity that students can value like going to another school or being part of a
social group of STEM community.”
The learning aspect of the integrated STEM curriculum also had cognitive load
implications. I noticed that scaffolding was important for the students: “I scaffolded the data
collection by giving them the data chart.” I also found that “telling students what kind of data
they were going to collect helped a lot,” which indicated that students may have been able to
collect the data more readily because of the increased scaffolding. The need for scaffolding and
modeling the discussion in class was needed: “I might have to scaffold the discussion of variable
by asking questions and allowing them to pick from what I give to them.” “I also have to discuss
TE in order to model the out of school portion of this.”
I believed a worked example was necessary for the student’s learning: “I could have
constructed a worked example of a truss for them.” Because the worked example was not given
to the students, “students building their trusses started slow because they did not have a worked
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 57

example.” Giving students these worked examples could have helped with the learning process:
“With the worked examples student could have created their trusses and tested today.”
Student Journals
Students kept journals throughout the implementation of the integrated STEM
curriculum. Originally there were six journal entries that were adapted from Pugh (2002) and
Heddy and Sinatra (2013) that were connected with TE. Merriam (2009) suggested data
collection and data analysis happens simultaneously both in and out of the field. As the data was
being collected it became apparent that asking the six TE journal entry questions might not be
feasible so the journal entry questions were limited to three questions. The questions covered the
three aspects of TE: one question for AU, a second for EP, and a third for EV. As data was
collected, it was also decided that two questions on self-efficacy be asked.
The first journal entry question focused on AU where students use content outside of
school and asked, “What kind of structures do you see in your neighborhood?” This question was
changed from the original journal entry question one (Appendix C). The rationale for the change
was that students were unable to understand the phrase “structures in your community,” but
understood “structures in your neighborhood.” Students remarked seeing structures in their
neighborhoods including businesses, private locations, and public locations. The businesses
included 7-Eleven, Baldwin Hills Mall, Chipotle, Beauty Supply, Chicken Now, and Ralphs as
examples. The private locations included houses, apartments, and duplexes. The public locations
include schools, parks, police department, and roads. These locations can be used to allow
students to seek learning opportunities outside of school that is consistent with TE (Heddy &
Sinatra, 2013). Students have experiences in their neighborhoods that an integrated STEM
curriculum can use to make connections as the students interact with content.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 58

The second journal entry focused on EP where students perceive a phenomenon outside
of school differently and asked students, “How have you perceived forces differently since last
week?” This question did not change from the original journal entry question. Students’
perceptions were directed around personal interactions, such as “my little sister was fighting a
little she pushed me.” This specific student may have seen how the force she was learning about
in school was the same force she felt when interacting with her sister as she was pushed.
Another theme that emerged in this second journal entry question was based on students’
interactions with a vehicle. One student remarked, “When I’m in the car I move with it.” Another
student commented, “When I’m in my mom’s car, if I don’t have my belt when she stops I fall
forward.” Two other students referenced a rollercoaster with their statements: “The forces I
experienced are rollercoaster and train” and “the favorite that I experienced is are a rollercoaster
and car.” Students spent much of their time traveling in vehicles so it may follow that they would
see the phenomena of the forces they feel while being in a vehicle in a new way based on what
they are learning in school. The mention of the rollercoaster could be tied to students connecting
something they enjoy experiencing in a new way based on the learning of science. Previous to
learning about forces, students may not have connected riding on a rollercoaster with the
presence of forces but are now able to see the connection in a new way.
The third journal entry question focused on EV where students value the idea of forces in
a new way and asked students to “think about different forces that you have encountered outside
of school and talk about how you value these forces differently?” Pugh (2002) commented that
EV was the most difficult of the three aspects of TE to experience. Only two students discussed
how they valued forces differently: “I value the force of the floor because it’s very strong when I
walk and it’s safe for me” and “A thing I encounter outside of school is a wagon to carry stuff,
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 59

for instance a bunch of bricks, a tree, or a TV.” These quotes signified that students might find
some utility value behind forces. Forces allowed students to do useful tasks like carry stuff and
being able to walk on floors that are very strong.
The fourth journal entry question focused on self-efficacy: “Describe your self-efficacy
about being able to build a platform.” The themes that emerged within this question were
focused on high self-efficacy, mastery experience, and uncertainty. The success of building a
good structure may have caused the students to have a higher self-efficacy with building
subsequent bridges: “I think I can do it because I found a good technique” and “When it came to
the real test it I was confident because it was very sturdy.” These two comments could be linked
with the mastery experience comments such as: “But now that I know the glue will stick I have
high self-efficacy;” “My self-efficacy for building the bridge was high because I tested it on a
book and it worked;” and “I have high self-efficacy in building a structure because I did it before
and it did not break.” Students who see some kind of success when building the bridges seemed
to feel better about how they would be able to build subsequent structures. A student was unsure
about their self-efficacy and commented, “When I first started I didn’t know if it would stick or
not with the glue I was using.” By not experiencing the glue sticking, this student may have
uncertainty as to whether she would be successful in the task of building a structure.
The last journal entry question focused on whether students felt they would be able to
build a structure in the future. Interestingly, the responses focused on vicarious experience: “Yes
because I believe in the group” and “Yes because the instructor showed me a model and I think I
can learn from that.” These two comments are consistent with SCT where the students can learn
vicariously from others and the importance of learning when in a group environment. The
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 60

students also felt confident about building future structures because of the belief they had “in the
group” and the vicarious learning from the “instructor showed me a model.”
The students also answered a reflection question: “How have your feelings about science
changed?” Three themes emerged from this question. The first theme focused on the change
students felt about science. Some comments that were made included, “My feelings about
science changed is I thought science was a little boring but I see it can be fun;” “It has changed a
lot because we got to build bridges.” These comments may indicate that because students
participated in an iterative science design curriculum, their view of science changed and that
change was based on science being fun. However, two other students indicated that science was
actually boring and commented, “At first it was fun and now it’s boring” and “My feelings have
been dropping from exciting to boring,” which may be an indication that these students needed
more than just an interaction with the curriculum to change how they feel about science.
A second theme that emerged from the reflection question was based on affective
responses. Students made comments such as, “My feelings about science is that it’s exciting;”
“My feelings in science changes is happy;” “My feelings have been creative;” “My feelings are
exciting because we build bridges;” “I have really fun;” “I think science is like fun and
interesting now;” and “I also had fun.” These comments indicated that positive emotions and
having fun is an important component in implementing an ISDC. Also, as a result of
participating in this curriculum, a couple of students commented that they thought “science was
interesting now.” Coincidentally, one of the students who commented in the previous theme that
her feelings about science “dropped” also commented “I wanted to build something besides
bridges.” This student may have needed some extra autonomy to build what she wanted.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 61

The last theme that emerged focused on no change in student feelings about science. One
student commented, “My feelings have not changed that much because on the first day I was
excited to make model bridges and now I am still excited to finish making models.” This student
had a positive interaction with science and her excitement never tapered, whereas two other
students commented, “My feelings of science has not changed at all one bit” and “I also stayed
my normal feelings.” These last two comments indicated that students’ views of science did not
change even though they participated in the curriculum. In fact, these students may have had a
negative view of science and maintained the negative view.
Student Focus Groups
The focus group questions were slightly modified from the original questions (Appendix
B). The modification was to change “Newton’s laws” to “science.” The rationale was that
throughout the implementation of the ISDC, students related more to science than they did with
Newton’s laws. This could be because sixth grade students do not take physical science where
they would encounter Newton’s laws. These students have been in science classes so have more
familiarity with science. There were five questions that were asked and each question was
analyzed separately.
There were two themes that emerged from question one (Appendix B). These themes
included building structures and experimenting. Both of the comments around the theme of
building structures focused on students making a physical structure out of materials that are
found in the student’s physical environment. Kaprice, a student participant, commented, “On
weekends when I’m bored I go around my house looking for cardboard and make little play
houses in my house and put blankets on the floor” while Audrey, another student participant,
remarked, “I really like art and stuff I made something out of paper like little pop ups. Little
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 62

people and giant house and make them pop up.” Students using materials they found in the
environment was an interesting finding in this study. Consistent with Denler et al.'s (2013) claim
of the triadic reciprocity of the person, environment, and behavior in SCT, these students used
the environment in which they were immersed to make sense of science by performing their own
experiments.
Even though Kaprice mentioned, “I go around my house,” Audrey did not mention her
house explicitly, but may have implied “I made something out of paper” was done at her house.
In both cases, students did make a connection to their environment with science consistent with
the integrated STEM education framework (Appendix A). These students’ quotes also pointed to
STEM interest development as described by Honey et al. (2014) with Kaprice commenting that
she participated in a science activity “on weekends when I’m bored” when she was not prompted
by family members.
The theme of experimenting also highlighted how students used materials from their
physical surroundings to experience science concepts. Chelsea, a student participant,
commented, “My little brother and I get all of the stuff we don’t use like food and sauces and all
that stuff like baking soda vinegar and teriyaki sauce and mix them together and when they erupt
I saw different colors” while Christine, a student participant, remarked, “When I’m bored at
home and I can’t get on the computer I get a little container like a bowl and get all of my mom’s
perfumes and mix them together and see if they smell good.” These comments are consistent
with the integrated STEM education framework goal of students engaging in STEM content
(Appendix A). This engagement again took place in the home with materials with which students
were familiar. SCT highlighted that students learned vicariously from one another in social
environments (Denler et al., 2013). Chelsea may have learned from her brother, and vice versa,
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 63

as to which household products to mix and what the results were going to be as they “saw
different colors.”
The themes that emerged from question two were experimenting and building design.
Chelsea commented:
I had paint and they were sitting on my counter and I wanted to see if they still worked
and had to four different colors and I got a measuring cup and shook the bottles to see if
there were still liquid in there I poured it into the measuring cup and I poured all the rest
and put water and then I had wood and got some seasoning milk I had some ginger ale
and vinegar mixed it together and then it smelled like cow poop. I had to throw it in the
trash before my mom came home.
Debra claimed:
It was raining outside and I stuck my tongue out but wonder if the rainwater was clean
and not dirty. The clouds become gray and was thinking if the rainwater was clean and
not dirty because the clouds were lighter.
Both comments may suggest that the students had an expansion of perception by classroom
content; it changed how the word was viewed (Heddy & Sinatra, 2013; Pugh, 2002). Chelsea’s
comments indicated that the science content of conducting a possible experiment changed how
she saw the paint sitting on her counter. It became more than just a can of paint and she wanted
to “see if they still worked” by “put water” and “seasoning milk I had some ginger ale and
vinegar mixed it together.” Debra also viewed the rain outside as a possible science experiment
and more than just rain. She changed her perception of the rain and the clouds by conducting her
own experiment. She took it a step further to see how the changing of the colors of the clouds
made the “rain water” “clean and not dirty” by “sticking out my tongue.”
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 64

The theme of building and design emerged as Audrey made a connection between an
object she saw in her house with STEM. She commented:
In our house there’s a giant box that use to have a candy machine in it we took the box to
make a McDonalds out of it. We were going to cut the cardboard box to make the
restaurant with the designs and everything and my sister made food and you made a big
stove. We were going to eat out of it.
Audrey saw the giant box and was able to make the connection between the box, a business she
was familiar with, and designing a structure. The connections that Audrey made are consistent
with the integrated STEM education framework. STEM integration was defined as combining
two or more disciplines (Honey et al., 2014). Audrey combined engineering practices to design
the structure and physics to construct the structure. She also used both engineering and physics to
test her structure and was planning on “eating” in her designed and erected structure.
Building and experimenting also emerged as a theme for question three. This question
asked students to make connections between science and their lives. Kaprice commented:
I built a tent around me so the monster could not get in. I have a bunk and clipped the
sheet on the top and clipped the other side on the closet and created a triangle tent and
then I closed it in the front and the back.
Kaprice used the concept of building a sturdy structure by “clipped the sheet on the top and
clipped the other side on the closet” that could keep her safe from “the monster.” Even though
“the monster” may have been fictional, Kaprice was still able to use science concepts to build a
structure to help her deal with her fear. This connection between the science concept and keeping
her safe from “the monster” may be a way Kaprice was able to make a meaningful connection
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 65

with the building and design principles because it made her feel safe so the “monster could not
get in.”
The experimenting theme emerged as Chelsea was able to use household products to help
with cooking. Chelsea commented:
One day I got out early on a Wednesday I took my roller skates outside and went inside
and I got natural seasoning pepper salt and other ingredients and my mom was cooking
steak and I used all of the seasoning to cook the steak and the steak was good.
Once again the action of cooking was extended as Chelsea wanted to experiment with “natural
seasoning pepper salt and other ingredients” to “cook the steak.” The idea of integrating STEM
allowed for Chelsea to use scientific inquiry by asking the question of what kind of “seasoning to
cook,” and then use engineering design to test her mixture of the different seasoning on her
steak. If the steak did not come out as she expected she could possibly iterate the mixing process
and find other combination of seasoning. She could then test this combination once again to see
how the steak would taste.
The fourth question was focused on looking at the engagement component of the STEM
integration education framework. Students who are engaged in engineering and designing tasks
are likely to develop ideas specific to designing (Honey et al., 2014). The theme that emerged
from question four was building. Debra remarked, “The first day was fun was making the model
of the triple bunk bed,” while Chelsea commented, “When we tested it me and Lady’s stayed
together but mine cracked a little and it was fun and engaging because if I built it again I would
need more layers to make it sturdy.”
Both comments show that the students were engaged in engineering and designing
(Honey et al., 2014). Chelsea and Debra were able to engage in engineering practices of making
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 66

models and testing their designs to make a physical structure. Chelsea’s remarks of hearing her
model “crack a little” was in reference to collecting data on how sturdy her bridge was. Chelsea
was also able to use the principle of iterative design by reflecting on “built it again.” If she were
to engage in building her structure again, she would improve her design by “need[ing] more
layers to make it sturdy.” This iterative process of Chelsea engaging in building her bridge over
allows her to learn how to use engineering practices to improve her design.
The second theme that emerged from question four was around the utility, or the
usefulness, of learning science. Chelsea commented:
I like how we started building bridges out of popsicle sticks because it gave me a chance
to do it on our own and I felt like it was really helpful because it prepares me for the real
world and focusing skills by doing things for yourself.
Debra commented, “I liked working on my own because it prepared me for the real world.” Both
Chelsea and Debra realized there was a skill they were learning by engaging in an integrated
STEM curriculum and the skills they might be able to use in some future circumstance.
The last question focused on students’ ability to work in group settings. The theme that
emerged was around collaboration. Kaprice commented:
I kinda like groups because when I have groups and I have one idea we don’t agree so I
want to do it by myself and I like to work with my friends so we can call. We can build to
different structures and whichever worked the best we could both put our names.
Lady stated, “I liked working in groups because we get to get things done faster and it’s better to
work in groups than independently.” Lastly, Michelle indicated, “You guys can exchange ideas
and see which one is right and works the best.” Kaprice and Michelle made comments that were
very similar to one another. Both comments are consistent with SCT where learning happens in
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 67

social settings where students “exchange ideas” and “whichever worked the best could put both
of our names.” This collaboration process enabled students to build and design bridges in a
collaborative manner and sped up the learning process by “we get to get things done faster. “
Quantitative Research Questions
The second and third research questions were quantitative in nature. The second
quantitative research question asked, “Can an informal classroom environment involving an
integrated STEM curriculum impact the self-efficacy of middle school students learning physical
science concepts?” The third quantitative research question asked, “Will middle school students
in an integrated STEM environment experiencing teaching for transformative experience in
science (TTES) instruction in physical science concepts have a transformative experience?” A
paired sample t-test was conducted using the statistical software SPSS.
A paired-samples t-test was conducted to evaluate the impact of the ISDC curriculum on
students’ scores on the self-efficacy portion of the MSLQ (SE) and TEM (represented by the
three measures TEAU, TEEP, and TEEV). There were no significant findings in SE from Time 1
(M = 41.5, SD = 5.45) and Time 2 (M = 39.92, SD = 8.73), t (12) = 1.19, p < .05 (two-tailed).
The mean increase in SE was 1.58 with a 95% confidence interval ranging from -1.35 to 4.5.
There were no significant findings in TEAU from Time 1 (M = 34.08, SD = 5.45) and Time 2
(M = 35.00, SD = 12.90), t (12) = -.295, p < .05 (two-tailed). The mean decrease in TEAU scores
was -.92 with a 95% confidence interval ranging from -7.74 to 5.91. There were no significant
findings in TEEP scores from Time 1 (M = 34.75, SD = 12.41) and Time 2 (M = 37.33, SD =
14.67), t (12) = -1.09, p < .05 (two-tailed). The mean decrease in TEEP scores was -2.58 with a
95% confidence interval ranging from -7.78 to 2.61. There were no significant findings in the
TEEV scores from Time 1 (M = 40.50, SD = 14.49) and Time 2 (M = 39.58, SD = 17.05), t (12)
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 68

= .33, p < .05 (two tailed). The mean increase in TEEV scores was .917 with a 95% confidence
interval ranging from -5.11 to 6.95 (see Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations for Self-Efficacy and TE Measures

Group M N SE SEM
Pair 1 Total Pre SE 41.5000 12 5.45227 1.57394
Total Post SE 39.9167 12 8.73299 2.52100
Pair 2 Total Pre TE(AU) 34.0833 12 11.26909 3.25311
Total Post TE(AU) 35.0000 12 12.90525 3.72542
Pair 3 Total Pre TE(EP) 34.7500 12 12.41059 3.58263
Total Post TE(EP) 37.3333 12 14.66804 4.23430
Pair 4 Total PreTE(EV) 40.5000 12 14.49451 4.18421
Total PostTE(EV) 39.5833 12 17.05317 4.92283
Note. Means for SE reflects a seven point Likert type scale and means for TE reflects a six point
Likert type scale

In all, the second and third quantitative research questions had no statistical significant
findings. Pallant (2010) suggested that a minimum of 30 participants be included in a study to
find statistical significant findings. The fact that there were not 30 participants in this study may
have been the main determining factor for the lack of statistical significant findings.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION

69
Table 2

Paired Differences of Self-Efficacy Measure and TE Measures

Group
Paired differences
t df p
M SD SEM
95% Confidence interval of the
difference
Lower Upper
Pair 1 Total Pre SE - Total Post
SE
1.58333 4.62126 1.33404 -1.35288 4.51954 1.187 11 .260
Pair 2 Total Pre TE(AU) - Total
Post TE(AU)
-.91667 10.74885 3.10293 -7.74616 5.91283 -.295 11 .773
Pair 3 Total Pre TE(EP) - Total
Post TE(EP)
-2.58333 8.18489 2.36277 -7.78376 2.61710 -1.093 11 .298
Pair 4 Total PreTE(EV) - Total
PostTE(EV)
.91667 9.50080 2.74264 -5.11985 6.95319 .334 11 .744

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION

70
Summary
This chapter described the mixed methods analysis of data for this study. Although no
significant findings emerged from the quantitative data analysis approach, themes did emerge
from the qualitative data analysis methods. The themes that emerged were analyzed from the
data collection methods used: instructor journal entries, student journals, and focus groups. The
themes included curriculum specifics, student centered activities, motivation and learning, and
building and designing. The themes that emerged from the qualitative data analysis represented
the majority of the data for this study. This data allowed for the further understanding of how to
implement an integrated STEM curriculum.
In the next chapter, consideration will be given on how these themes can be used to
inform professionals working to implement science standards in a formal and informal STEM
environment. Some examples will also be presented to help teachers, principals, and educational
leaders as to how to implement NGSS. Finally, recommendations for future research will be
offered.

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 71

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Science education is receiving an overhaul with NGSS. When looking at achievement
indicators such as the EOC physics CST in 2012, African American students are falling behind
(California Department of Education, 2013). In looking at international comparisons of NS&E
degrees awarded to students in the United States in comparison to other countries such as China,
South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, it is very evident that the United States is falling behind in
STEM education. This mixed methods research focused on ways to integrate STEM to facilitate
the learning of physical science. This chapter begins with a discussion of findings followed by
implications for practice and implications for research.
Discussion of Findings
This section focuses on the findings from the first qualitative research questions as
second and third quantitative research questions had no statistically significant findings. The
findings were analyzed based on the data collection method (instructor journal, student journal,
and student focus group). The findings from these data collection methods allowed for a
collection of some key ideas that will allow for the understanding of how to implement a STEM
curriculum.
Messing About
Kolodner et al. (2009) defined messing about as an “informal exploratory activity where
ideas and questions are generated” (p. 519). This messing about process allows students to
construct their own meaning by generating questions and ideas. During the messing about
process, students can begin the process of designing and constructing based on their
understanding. Putting the messing about process before introducing content may cause students
to become more engaged in subsequent learning activities. This engagement allows students to
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 72

become more interested in the topic for further inquiry. Students should be able to connect their
learning during messing about time to the content that is being introduced by instructors.
Having students mess about before introducing content is an important understanding
from the study. Kolodner et al. (2009) indicated that messing about allowed students to get more
engaged in a challenge intellectually and allowed students to ask questions whose answers will
allow for a deeper understand the science content. However, if students do not engage in any
messing about activities at all, they may not be able to form the kinds of questions where more in
depth learning can occur. Messing about allows students to engage in a STEM activity by
challenging themselves intellectually in free play and using the content to push their
understanding of STEM further. The building efforts of students progress from free play to
solving and designing (National Research Council, 2015).
Given the analysis, educators might consider starting every STEM unit with messing
about and free play. SCT indicated that learning is social and can occur through observation
(Bandura, 2001; Denler et al., 2013). By messing about with peers, students can learn valuable
insight behind different techniques that are successful and implement those techniques as they
build their knowledge. Once the science knowledge is connected to other knowledge in students’
long term memory during messing about, teachers can introduce STEM content that will allow
students to connect the new material with the information that was stored in the students’ long
term memory as they messed about.
Building and Designing
With the implementation of NGSS, students should think like scientists and engineers.
Thinking like scientists and engineers can be done by allowing students to investigate how
science and engineering pertain to real world problems and apply science knowledge to
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 73

engineering design problems (National Research Council, 2015). The data collected from this
study indicated that students were able to think like scientists and engineers by building
structures of their own. Building and designing also connected with the messing about concept
where students can generate ideas and questions and later construct their structures.
Building and designing also allowed students to engage in science. The iterative approach
to designing allows students to learn skills and practices gradually (Kolodner et al., 2009).
Similar to how scientists and engineers solve problems, students are able to constantly refine
their designs during the iterative process. As students learn more of the science content, they
might be able to implement this learning into subsequent iterations of their designs.
Also, with the iterative process, students will consistently see a mastering in the skills
necessary to build a structure. These mastery experiences have been shown to increase the
persistent of students on a given task (Bandura, 1993; Pajares, 1996). If students are to engage in
science topics, the kinds of mastery experiences students discussed in this study is important.
Along with iterative processes, persistence may be necessary for students to build and
design their structures. One of the outcomes of the integrated STEM education framework is
educational persistence (Appendix A). Kolodner et al.(2009) suggested that students learn skills
gradually in an iterative process and students staying back to improve their structures may have
indicated they may not have been satisfied with their progression and needed more time to be
satisfied with their work. Educators might look to their own practice to determine how to
strengthen persistence through the iterative process of building and designing.
Triggering Situational Interest STEM
Developing interest has important impacts on a learner specifically in STEM subjects
where students may feel intimidated or have little past success. Honey et al. (2014) discussed
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 74

how an integrated STEM program could be used to develop and maintain interest in STEM.
School leaders might look at ways of triggering situational interest by allowing students to have
positive interactions with STEM content. Renninger (2009) cautioned, however, that this interest
must be cultivated and sustained. School leaders may provide more opportunities for students to
participate in sustained STEM subjects and make more opportunities available.
Hidi and Renninger (2006) commented that the presence of interest affects the attention,
goals, and levels of learning of a learner. Hidi and Renninger (2006) also indicated that positive
feelings about STEM are a way to trigger situational interest. Educators can look to students’
positive feelings about STEM subjects to gauge the effectiveness of the STEM programs
implemented.
Hidi and Renninger (2006) suggested that affect be used as an indicator of interest
development. Instructional materials need to first catch students attention before interest can be
held (Durik & Harackiewicz, 2007). Affective responses to STEM subjects, such as science is
fun, may be an appropriate start to triggering situational interest. Educators may look for
affective responses to content as indicators of early phases of interest before the instructor
introduces the content. As stated earlier, the concept of messing about can be used to allow
students to develop these affective responses that signify early interest development before the
instructor can begin to introduce STEM content.
Educators can assist students in attention to a specific tasks even when the task is
challenging to develop interest (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). Often students have challenges with
STEM related tasks such as building and designing. However, instructors can show attention and
possible solutions that allow students to generate strategies for success. That success may catch
student interest in the STEM related tasks. Early stages of interest development that the
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 75

instructor is searching for can be made by selecting and providing resources that allow students
to problem solve and generate strategies (Hidi & Renninger, 2006).
Educators should also consider maintaining interest of the students in STEM content.
One way of accomplishing this is to provide other motivational goals. A field trip connected with
the STEM content being learned may be a solution. Schools should consider planning field trips
that are directly aligned to the task of building and designing in the classroom. Triggering of
situational interest is typically external in nature (Hidi & Renninger (2006). The field trip could
possibly be an appropriate method to trigger interest in these students as they see real-world
solutions to building and designing tasks that takes place in the classroom. The field trip can
take place before content is delivered to allow students to engage in messing about as they return
to school.
Lowering Cognitive Load
The integrated STEM education framework calls for students to make connections across
multiple disciplines. These connections can put a strain on the limited cognitive processes in the
working memory. Students need effective guidance in order to make these connections (Honey et
al., 2014). The effective guidance comes in the form of scaffolding. By giving students a choice
in pre-determined tasks, such as picking which variables to measure, students do not need to
determine the variables for themselves freeing up cognitive processes and lowering cognitive
load. The cognitive process that is free may allow students to participate in other metacognitive
processes such as reflecting. This reflection process imposes germane cognitive load which has
been shown to improve learning (Kirschner, Paas et al., 2011; Kirschner et al., 2006).
Other strategies may be used to lower cognitive load. This study found that offering
students with data collection methods and a data collection chart were an effective strategy for
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 76

lowering cognitive load. Once again, students did not need to create their own charts freeing
cognitive resources for other activities and lowering cognitive load. Teachers may currently
engage in activities like providing data charts, but teachers should be mindful as to why these
strategies are used to ensure that cognitive overload is not reached. Teachers may also look to
other strategies of lowering cognitive load.
The worked example effect involves using worked out and resolved examples to aid
comprehension (Kirschner et al., 2009). This study gave some insights into the importance of
providing worked examples. Students were unable to form various structures because a worked
example was not present. The students did not have any previous schema behind how to solve
the problem of forming various structures. Providing students with a worked example would
have freed cognitive processes to allow students to connect the worked out solution with their
own designs as described by Van Gog and Rummel (2010). The consequence of not providing a
worked example is that students were unable to construct an important portion of their bridge. A
real consequence of not providing the worked example was that instruction may have been lost.
Teachers should consider how to introduce worked examples as students are building and
designing to maximize instruction time.
SCT also gave some evidence behind the importance of worked examples. Observational
learning is based on the presence of models (Denler et al., 2013). The worked example served as
a model for these students. The students in this study, and in many classrooms, were novice
learners in an integrated STEM curriculum. Models were very essential to their learning process
because they were able to learn vicariously through studying the worked examples and through
their peers’ construction of models. As the students noticed their peers being successful, they
also believe in their own success.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 77

Bandura (2001) indicated that belief systems are a working model that enables people to
achieve desired outcomes. Students’ belief systems can also be influenced in a group setting. By
exchanging ideas and collaborating, students get to input their beliefs of what the best solution
might be. A worked example can also reinforce students’ belief system. By studying a worked
example to find solutions, students may align their own beliefs as to what a possible solution
might be to an example that is viable.
Did Students Experience TE?
The third research question for this study was concerned with students experiencing TE
after experiencing TTES. There were no significant quantitative findings that supported this
research question. However, there were some qualitative findings that gave evidence that
students may have experienced TE. Pugh et al. (2010) indicated that in order for a learning
experience to be complete, an expanded experience of the world must be present or
transformative. In order for an experience to be transformative, active use (AU), expansion of
perception (EP), and experiential value (EV) must be present (Heddy & Sinatra, 2013; Pugh et
al., 2010; Pugh, 2011). We can look at each of these components of TE and analyze whether
there was evidence that TE was reached.
A student would show evidence of AU if they sought opportunities outside of the
classroom to apply a concept learned in class (Heddy & Sinatra, 2013; Pugh et al., 2010).
Students were asked how they experienced science concepts outside of school. Comments such
as, “looking for cardboard and make little play houses in my house and put blankets on the
floor,” and “I really like art and stuff I made something out of paper like little pop ups. Little
people and giant house and make them pop up” show that students applied science concepts
learned in school to building structures outside of school. This response to science in terms of
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 78

building structures could have been a direct response to the students building bridges in this
study. Nonetheless, the students tied what they learned about science to building outside of
school.
A second interesting application of AU was when students were asked to think of
structures in their neighborhoods. Many students identified businesses such as Subway, Ralphs,
McDonalds, Jack N the Box, 99 Cent Store, and Popeye’s as structures in their neighborhood.
Students also identified structures in their neighborhoods such as houses, apartments, parks, and
police stations. Students’ ability to tie different aspects of their neighborhoods to instruction
could be an important strategy for educators. This type of engagement with different aspects of
their neighborhood allows students, as Pugh (2004) remarked, to interact and see their everyday
world in meaningful ways. This interaction may also build more positive affective responses to
science content which may trigger situational interest as mentioned by Renninger (2009).
EP can be seen when classroom content changes how students view the world. Students
indicated, “When you’re carrying something that’s heavy it weighs your hand down” showing
that students were able to think about the force's impact on their ability to carry objects in a new
way. Another way that EP was shown was indicated when students discussed “The force that I
have experienced was when it was rainy and my umbrella fell in the air.” The student was able to
experience force differently because it caused the umbrella to fly into the air.
In order to have a true transformative experience, students must have EV or value the
content in a new way. Pugh (2002) indicated EV was the hardest portion of TE to experience.
This is because students must now value the content that may take longer to experience. By the
time students may begin to value content the timeline for the study may pass. The only two
students that may have valued the content in a new were Lady and Audrey. Lady remarked, “I
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 79

value the force of the floor because it’s very strong when I walk and it’s safe for me.” Lady was
able to value the utility of the sturdy floor because she was able to walk on it and not injure
herself. Audrey also commented, “A thing I encounter outside of school is a wagon to carry
stuff, for instance a bunch of bricks, a tree, or a TV.” Audrey valued how her wagon was able to
allow her to carry heavy materials like “bricks, a tree, or a TV.”
Given this analysis, the only student that experienced TE was Audrey. She was able to
actively use the content and commented she was able to design and build a structure “Little
people and giant house and make them pop up.” She experienced EP and commented, “When
I’m in the car I move with it.” She perceived the force of the car differently because it allowed
her to move. She also valued science in a new way because the force of her wagon allowed her to
“carry stuff.” With having a TE one of the comments that Audrey made was “My feelings about
science changed is I thought science was a little boring but I see it can be fun.” The experience of
participating in this study may have caused Audrey to value science in a new way based on some
of the comments stated earlier. While experiencing TE, Audrey had a positive affective response
of science.
An important by product of TE is being able to trigger situational interest. Pugh (2004)
and Durik and Harackiewicz (2007) discussed two forms of situational interest being catch
interest which is engagement in the short term where hold interest is a more enduring
engagement in content. The ISDC may have caught Audrey’s interest in STEM content by her
comment, “I see it can be fun,” referring to science and subsequent activities could eventually
hold her interest and transition her to a more enduring interest that Renninger (2009) termed
individual interest. Audrey would need subsequent interaction with STEM content in order to
move from situational interest to personal interest.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 80

Even though more of the students did not have a full TE experience, it was highlighted
that other students showed evidence of achieving specifically AU and EP. The importance of
experiencing AU and EP is connecting students’ everyday life with what they are learning in
school. By making these connections, students may find examples of science in their surrounding
neighborhoods making the STEM content they learn more meaningful. Further interactions with
science content are needed to not only catch student interest in STEM, but also hold their
interest. School leaders can implement curriculum such as ISDC and foster a TE in students.
Self-Efficacy
Bandura (1977) indicated the four major sources of self-efficacy are “performance
accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological states” (p. 195). Of
these four sources of self-efficacy consistent with Bandura (1977) and Pajares (2009), the
performance accomplishments, or mastery experience, was one of the major sources in this
study. Other sources that impacted this study were vicarious experience, and to a lesser extent,
physiological states.
Mastery experiences impacted students in this study and were shown by the comments,
“The building and constructing ties into self-efficacy” and “Mastery of successfully putting
something together.” In line with Bandura’s (1977) comments, the students’ ability to
successfully put a structure together influenced their self-efficacy positively. Mastery experience
was also seen as students persisted with their projects even though the glue was not sticking to
their satisfaction. Because these students’ self-efficacy increased with the mastery of building
their structures, they were able to persist through some of the challenges they faced such as the
glue not sticking.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 81

The lack of glue sticking to building surfaces was a major concern for the students. With
these concerns that the students brought up about the materials and the glue specifically, it was
very interesting to see how the students’ increased self-efficacy behind building their structures
caused them to persist and build their structure. This fact was even more evident as a student
commented, “But now that I know the glue will stick I have high self-efficacy.”
Mastery experiences positively predicted students self-efficacy in science (Britner &
Pajares, 2006). Students eluded to how mastery experience influenced their own self-efficacy in
science. Students indicated, “I think I can do it because I found a good technique” and “I have
high self-efficacy in building a structure because I did it before and it did not break” showed the
success or mastery of building their structures positively impacted students self-efficacy. With
this increase in self-efficacy students engaged in prolonged activities that enabled them to
engage in science and work with other students to see success. By implementing mastery
experiences into their practice as the experiences that was allowed for in ISDC, teachers may be
able to influence students’ self-efficacy positively.
A core idea in SCT was that people learn through observation (Bandura, 2001; Denler et
al., 2013). Learning is a result of watching other individual’s behavior in an environment (Denler
et al., 2013). Comments such as “vicariously seeing other students succeed" indicated another
way self-efficacy was influenced by the ISDC. This vicarious learning experience allowed
students to learn how to construct new structures from their peers.
The ISDC was constructed to take advantage of vicarious experiences (Appendix D).
Students worked in groups to allow them to learn from one another. Students also presented their
findings to the class and participated in a gallery walk. These presentations and gallery walks
allowed students to learn working techniques from one another. These presentations also allowed
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 82

students to see working models that were created by other students and provide the students with
worked examples from their peers. Seeing the success of others on these performance task
increased students’ own self-efficacy as indicated by, “Yes because the instructor showed me a
model and I think I can learn from that.” The actual model that positively impacted the self-
efficacy of the student was an example from another student.
Although not as strong an influence on self-efficacy as mastery experiences,
physiological states contributed to self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977, 1993; Pajares, 2009). Pajares
(2009) indicated that physiological and emotional states provide information concerning efficacy
beliefs. Students made comments such as “my feelings about science is exciting,” and “my
feelings in science changes is happy.” Based on Pajares (2009) comments, these emotional states
give us an indication that self-efficacy could have been influenced. Students with more positive
views of the subject might be more likely to engage in the subject and that increased engagement
will positively influence achievement.
Implications for Practice
Schools across the country are looking to implement best practices for science
instruction. As this implementation effort increases, school leaders should understand how the
implementation will take place. The K-12 science education framework discussed implementing
the new NGSS in three parts: cross cutting concepts, disciplinary core ideas, and scientific and
engineering practices (National Reserch Council, 2012). Teachers must integrate the three parts
in order to fully implement NGSS. This study gives some insight to how this can be done with
ISDC. With the implementation of the new standards, educators should look at their practice in a
different way. Schools should integrate scientific inquiry and engineering design when teaching
science (National Reserch Council, 2012). This study gave a possible framework of how to
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 83

integrate scientific inquiry and engineering design as best science education practices. This
framework can be introduced by implementing the ISDC. The objectives that were used to create
ISDC are the same objectives that educators used to implement the science and engineering
practices in NGSS.
The ISDC includes step-by-step guidelines for how teachers can implement scientific
inquiry and engineering design practices. As teachers go through ISDC, students will engage in
those key skills that are called for in the new standards such as making a hypothesis and planning
and designing an experiment (Appendix E). The changes in new standards such as NGSS look
for students to plan and design their experiment and not the teacher’s. Planning and designing
can happen in an iterative process that allows students to refine and perfect their investigations as
highlighted by the ISDC. The messing about process will precede the planning and designing of
the experiment.
This investigation was conducted in an informal K-12 environment (IKE). The definition
of an IKE is classroom environment that is found in after school and out of school environments
including after school camps, community events, competitions, exhibit/on site drop in programs,
mentoring programs, and media (Honey et al., 2014). One important distinction between IKE
and formal K-12 environments (FKE) is that IKE do not have the accountability mandates and
standards that FKE have. This lack of accountability allows IKE to be more flexible with the
implementation of curricula. A curriculum such as ISDC could be implemented with fewer
restrictions such as standards and time frames in an IKE.
However, with the implementation of new standards such as NGSS, FKE should look
more like IKE and test out different possibilities for implementation without the accountability
mandates and constraints. There will be no state tests that FKE are held accountable for in the
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 84

first two years of implementation of NGSS so there may be opportunities to try new approaches
to teaching science and implementing a curriculum such as ISDC might be a viable option for
many school districts.
Honey et al. (2014) indicated a key outcome for education is developing science interest.
Triggering situational interest can be obtained by allowing students to engage in science activity.
Interest can be triggered by giving support to engage and promote positive and even negative
feelings (Renninger, 2009). These affective responses can occur by allowing students to create
their own investigations. When students develop their investigation, they may have prolonged
attention to the content that may trigger situational interest by promoting affective responses. In
order for further interest to be maintained, students must be given the opportunity of
participating in other activities that build on their interest (Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Renninger,
2009). Educators may allow for these opportunities for students to participate in science
programs at school sites.
School officials are working on assessments for new standards such as NGSS. The focus
of these assessments should not be on standardized tests, but to allow students to show mastery
using authentic measures. There are many opportunities in the ISDC to authentically assess
students. These can include assessing the finished products that the students are able to produce
in response to a performance challenge. Schools can also assess presentations that students
provide and the posters that students create. These assessments are an unique opportunity for
schools to look at science education and make impactful changes to teaching methods.
Other assessments can measure affect and motivational constructs as students matriculate
through the curriculum. This study measured self-efficacy and transformative experience and
schools can use similar test to assess students. Schools can look at other affective information to
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 85

inform how different parts of the curriculum made students feel and look to promote
motivational constructs such as interest, self-efficacy, and TE. The data that schools can compile
from these assessments can be invaluable in providing educational outcomes that gives
meaningful information from students.
The National Research Council (2015) indicated that teachers will need support over a
two to three year period to take incremental steps towards the instructional vision of
implementing NGSS. A recommendation that was made by National Research Council (2015)
was to develop professional learning communities. These learning communities can take the
shape of science collaboratives where teachers meet regularly to discuss implementation efforts
and continue to learn new methods that would support teacher and student development.
Teachers are classroom experts and these collaboratives can allow for the sharing of best
practices in science instruction. These science collaboratives should allow for the discussion of
authentic assessment methods as well. These assessment methods should allow students the
opportunity of being successful and build interest and identity in STEM fields like Honey et al.
(2014) highlighted.
Implications for Research
This study was not able to investigate learning outcomes such as the learning of specific
physical science concepts. Learning outcomes were an initial interest for this research but was
out of the scope of the study. One reason for this was that a control group was needed. The time
needed to develop a control group was also out of the scope for this research. However, a follow
up study is needed to see how students participating in the ISDC would compare to a control
group of students in a traditional method of instruction in terms of learning outcomes.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 86

In addition to learning outcomes, the ISDC should be further analyzed and evaluated in
future studies. This future research should focus on analyzing how learning outcomes of students
were impacted by the ISDC. The ISDC should also be evaluated to ensure that the students are
meeting the objectives that are highlighted in the curriculum.
The sample size for this study was very small. Initially, this study planned for a 30
student participation group. However, students did not return proper documentation as outlined
by the USC IRB. This limited the study to 13 students. As a result, the quantitative portion of
this study had no statistically significant findings. In future research opportunities, recruitment
efforts should ensure that the appropriate sample size of students is included in the study. Future
research opportunities should also look to include a mixed group of gender and grade levels.
Interest was discussed as a possible outcome of this study but interest was not specifically
measured. It would be interesting to investigate how interest and identity are promoted with
ISDC. Honey et al. (2014) discussed the importance of developing interest and identity and
included interest and identity in the integrated STEM education framework (Appendix A). A
study measuring the triggering of situation interest in science would be a logical next step for
research.
This study focused on the self-efficacy of students but did not focus on teachers’ self-
efficacy. Studies are present that measure the self-efficacy of teachers as instruction is taking
place. A follow up study can look to measure how teachers’ self-efficacy is affected by
implementing an integrated STEM curriculum. This kind of study may be especially useful to
teachers that possess multiple subject credentials and do not have a background in science.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 87

Conclusion
The recent publication of NGSS and its explicit connections to science concepts and
engineering practices has elevated the need to integrate components of STEM education (Honey
et al., 2014). The integration efforts highlighted in this study focused on scientific inquiry and
engineering design. As schools across the state of California look at possible ways to implement
NGSS, this study gave some possible implementation practices. By implementing ISDC,
educators will have the necessary practices to begin with implementation of the new standards.
The implementation of NGSS will be a long process and will take some iteration by educators to
improve on the practices.
A concept that emerged from this study was that educators need to focus on affective
student responses such as science needs to be fun. Renninger (2009) indicated that affective
responses are a way to build interest in individuals. Affective responses like having fun should
be a key outcome to allow students to engage in the process of learning science. Renninger
(2009) remarked that even negative emotions like not having fun are way to build interest.
Students verbalizing why a specific activity was not fun will allow educators to assess the
learning environment and make necessary changes.
Another key concept that emerged was allowing students to engage in the process of
design and building before any content is introduced. This process was termed messing about.
The messing about allowed students to engage in the building and design process and find
success before any of the content is introduced. Messing about also allowed students to build
intrinsic motivation and use that motivation to introduce the content.
This study focused on an IKE. Because the program wasn’t involved in FKE, it was
necessary to build relationships and put structures in place to allow for the implementation of the
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 88

curriculum. Building relationships and structures for this study could have been done with some
longer term planning with the school. Even setting aside a set time and classroom space where
science happens is a start. The relationships start by making sure that instructors care for the
needs of the students. This caring was done in this study through facilitated conversations that
integrated the science with their neighborhoods with questions such as, “What kind of structure
do you see in your neighborhood?” Once the relationships with the students are built and
structures are in place, it becomes more effective to introduce the new curriculum.
FKE can also build these same relationships with the students and include structures for
the implementation of NGSS. Students will be asked to perform tasks that they are not
accustomed to performing like building and designing prototypes to tests. These tasks take time
and the time must be built into the FKE. Schools should look at structures such as providing
materials, space on campus, and time where scientific inquiry is able to take place.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 89

References
Apedoe, X. S., Reynolds, B., Ellefson, M. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Bringing engineering
design into high school science classrooms: The heating/cooling unit. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 17(5), 454–465. doi:10.1007/s10956-008-9114-6
Bamberger, Y. M., & Cahill, C. S. (2012). Teaching design in middle-school: Instructors’
concerns and scaffolding strategies. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(2),
171–185. doi:10.1007/s10956-012-9384-x
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Towards a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52(1), 1–26. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Barrow, L. H. (2006). A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to standards. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 17(3), 265–278. doi:10.1007/s10972-006-9008-5
Berlin, D. F., & Lee, H. (2005). Integrating science and mathematics education : Historical
analysis. School Science and Mathematics, 105(1), 15–29. doi:10.1111/j.1949-
8594.2005.tb18032.x
Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, race, and gender in middle
school. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 7(4), 269–283.
doi:10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.v7.i4.10
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 90

Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school
students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 485–499.
doi:10.1002/tea.20131
Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in
P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369–387. doi:10.1002/j.2168-
9830.2008.tb00985.x
California Department of Education, Assessment and Accountability Division. (2013). 2012 Star
testing results. Retrieved from
http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2012/ViewReport.aspx?ps=true&lstTestYear=2012&lstTestTyp
e=C&lstCounty=19&lstDistrict=64733-
000&lstSchool=&lstGroup=11&lstSubGroup=200
California Department of Education, Data Reporting Office, California Longitudinal Pupil
Achievement Data System. (2013). Cohort dropout data for the class of 2011-2012.
Sacramento. Retrieved from
http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/cohortrates/GradRates.aspx?cds=00000000000000&Th
eYear=2011-12&Agg=T&Topic=Dropouts&RC=State&SubGroup=Ethnic/Racial
Carr, R. L., Bennett, L. D., & Strobel, J. (2012). Engineering in the K-12 STEM standards of the
50 U.S. states: An analysis of presence and extent. Journal of Engineering Education,
101(3), 539–564. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00061.x
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Czerniak, C. M., Weber, W. B., Sandmann, A., & Ahern, J. (1999). A literature review of
science and mathematics integration. School Science and Mathematics, 99(8), 421–430.
doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.1999.tb17504.x
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 91

Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2013). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
Education.com website: http://www.education.com/print/social-cognitive-theory/
Durik, A. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2007). Different strokes for different folks: How
individual interest moderates the effects of situational factors on task interest. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(3), 597–610. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.597
Ed-Data. (2013). Fiscal, demographic, and performance data on California’s K-12 schools.
Retrieved from http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/
fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottom=/_layouts/EdDataClassic/Accountability/APIGrowth.asp?tab
=0&level=06&ReportNumber=1&County=19&fyr=1112&District=64733
Harwood, W. (2004). An activity model for scientific inquiry. The Science Teacher, 71(1), 44-
46.
Heddy, B. C., & Sinatra, G. M. (2013). Transforming misconceptions: Using transformative
experience to promote positive affect and conceptual change in students learning about
biological evolution. Science Education, 97(5), 723–744. doi:10.1002/sce.21072
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational
Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4
Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM integration in K – 12 education
status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington DC: The National Academies
Press.
Hurley, M. M. (2001). Reviewing integrated science and mathematics: The search for evidence
and definitions from new perspectives. School Science and Mathematics, 101(5), 259–
268. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2001.tb18028.x
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 92

Jeffers, A. T., Safferman, A. G., & Safferman, S. I. (2004). Understanding K-12 engineering
outreach programs. Journal of Professional Issues In Engineering Education and
Practice, 130(2), 95-108. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2004)130:2(95)
Jonassen, D., Strobel, J., & Lee, C. B. (2006). Everyday problem solving in engineering :
Lessons for engineering educators. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 139–151.
doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00885.x
Kimmel, H., Carpinelli, J., & Rockland, R. (2007, September). Bringing engineering into K-12
schools : A problem looking for solutions? Paper presented at the meeting of the
International Conference of Engineering and Education, Coimbra, Portugal. Retrieved
from http://icee2007.dei.uc.pt/proceedings/papers/49.pdf
Kirschner, P. A., Ayres, P., & Chandler, P. (2011). Contemporary cognitive load theory research:
The good, the bad and the ugly. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 99–105.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.025
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., Kirschner, P. A., & Janssen, J. (2011). Differential effects of problem-
solving demands on individual and collaborative learning outcomes. Learning and
Instruction, 21(4), 587–599. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.01.001
Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F., & Paas, F. (2009). Cognitive load theory. Retrieved from
Education.com website: http://www.education.com/reference/article/cognitive-load-
theory/
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance instruction does not
work : An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential,
and inquiry based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.
doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 93

Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., … Ryan, M. (2009).
Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science
classroom : Putting Learning by Design ™ into practice. Journal of Learning Sciences,
12(4), 495–547. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1204
Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2013). Is it STEM or “S & M” that we truly love? Journal
of Science Teacher Education, 24(8), 1237-1240. doi:10.1007/s10972-013-9370-z
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research (2
nd
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction-what is it and
does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474-496. doi:10.1002/tea.20347
National Research Council, Committee on Guidance on Implementing the Next
Generation Science Standards, Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and
Social Sciences and Education. (2015). Guide to implementing the next generation
science standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Science Foundation. (2012). Science and engineering indicators 2012. Retrieved from
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c0/c0i.htm
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research,
66(4), 543–578. doi:10.3102/00346543066004543
Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from Education.com website:
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw- Hill.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 94

Pang, J., & Good, R. (2000). A review of the integration of science and mathematics:
Implications for further research. School Science and Mathematics, 100(2), 73–82.
doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb17239.x
Peterson, C. (2003). Bringing ADDIE to life: Instructional design at its best. Journal of
Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12(3), 227–232.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Teresa, G., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of
the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for
Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning
Pugh, K. J. (2002). Teaching for transformative experiences in science: An investigation of the
effectiveness of two instructional elements. Teachers College Record, 104(6), 1101-
1137. doi:10.1111/1467-9620.00198
Pugh, K. J. (2004). Newton’s laws beyond the classroom walls. Science Education, 88(2), 182-
196. doi:10.1002/sce.10109
Pugh, K. J. (2011). Transformative experience: An integrative construct in the spirit of Deweyan
pragmatism. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 107–121.
doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.558817
Pugh, K. J., & Girod, M. (2007). Science, art, and experience: Constructing a science pedagogy
from Dewey’s aesthetics. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(1), 9-27.
doi:10.1007/s10972-006-9029-0
Pugh, K. J., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Koskey, K. L. K., Stewart, V. C., & Manzey, C. (2010).
Motivation, learning, and transformative experience: A study of deep engagement in
science. Science Education, 94(1), 1–28. doi:10.1002/sce.20344
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 95

Renninger, K. A. (2009). Interest and identity development in instruction: An inductive model.
Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 105–118. doi:10.1080/00461520902832392
Roehrig, G. H., Wang, H., Moore, T. J., & Park, M. S. (2012). Is adding the E enough?
Investigating the impact of K-122 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM
integration. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 31–44. doi:10.1111/j.1949-
8594.2011.00112.x
Salkind, N. J. (2011). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (4th ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schmidt, H. G., Loyens, S. M. M., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2007). Problem-based learning is
compatible with human cognitive architecture : Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and
Clark. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 91–97. doi:10.1080/00461520701263350
Stecher, B., & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Organizational improvement and accountability: Lessons for
education from other Sectors. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Van Gog, T., & Rummel, N. (2010). Example-based learning: Integrating cognitive and social-
cognitive research perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 155–174.
doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9134-7
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 96

Appendix A
Integrated STEM Education Framework
Goals for Students
STEM literacy
21st century
competencies
STEM workforce
readiness
Interest and
engagement
Making connections
Goals for Educators

Outcomes for Students
Learning and achievement
21st century competencies
STEM course taking, educational
persistence, and graduation rates
STEM-related employment
STEM interest
Development of STEM identity

Integrated
STEM
Education
Type of STEM
connections
Disciplinary emphasis
Duration, size, and
complexity of initiative
Instructional
design
Educator supports
Adjustments to
the learning
environment
Implementation
NATURE AND SCOPE

Outcomes Goals
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 97

Appendix B
Open-ended Interview Questions
1. What are some ways that you used Newton’s Law concepts outside of school?

2. What are some situations where you thought about and used Newton’s Laws?

3. How do you connect the concepts of Newton’s Laws to other portions of your life?

4. What part of this class did you find most engaging?

5. How did working in groups allow you to fully participate in the class?
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 98

Appendix C
Journal Entry Questions
1. What kind of structures do you see in our neighborhood? (AU)

2. How have you perceived forces differently during the week? (EP)

3. Think about different forces you have encountered outside of class and talk about how

you value these forces differently? (EV)

4. Describe your Self Efficacy about being able to build a platform.

5. How has how you feel about science changed?

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 99

Appendix D
Iterative Science Design Cycle
Engineering Design/Scientific Inquiry
Understand
Challenge/Make
a Hypothesis
• Messing about and gather examples
• Whiteboard session
o Identify/update facts
o Articulate and refine ideas
o Identify, revise, justify learning issues
• Identify and revise specifications
• Make predictions
• Form revise working definitions
• Apply prior understanding
Plan and
Design
Investigation
using science
• Generate and refine ideas
• Identify, test, control variables (values)
• Sketch ideas
• Justify with evidence
• Predict behavior
• Plan and create fair test
• Prepare posters
o Present design ideas and
reasoning
• Include evidence used while reasoning
• Identify experimental difficulties
o Decide on # of trials
o Write Procedures

Present and
share (poster
session)

• Identify use of science
• Identify Justification Practices
• Present Pin up
• Ask/Answer Questions
• Give Advice
Construct, Test,
and Conduct
Investigation
• Implement Design and procedures
• Run Test
• Collect and Log Data
• Compute results
Analyze and
explain results
• Compare Results to predictions
• Explain Outcome using science
• Revisit Rule of Thumb
• Identify Needed Changes and notice trends
• Prepare Presentations
• Extract possible rules of thumb
• Make design recommendations
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 100

• Prepare posters

Present and
Share in Gallery
Walk/Poster
Sessions
• Present Results on posters
• Demonstrate Design and explain procedures
• Demonstrate Trends
• Give/Ask for Help
• Ask/Answer Questions
• Listen to others
• Explain scientifically
• Discuss Plausibility
• Offer, Develop, Refine or create rules of thumbs

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 101

Appendix E
Investigation of Newton’s Laws Unit
Bridges Up

Unit Description
The unit will integrate engineering design combined with scientific inquiry to solve a real world
problem in physics. The problem will involve knowledge and application of Newton’s three
laws in order to design and build a bridge made of popsicle sticks and glue. Throughout the
design process students will plan, design, develop and test their prototypes while collecting data
to inform the decision on subsequent iterations of their designs. Students will also present their
model, justify the decisions they made in constructing the model, and develop “RULES OF
THUMB” that will inform their designs. The unit draws specifically from the K-12 science
education framework, California Common Core shifts, research on human motivation and STEM
integration.

Course Outcomes (CO)
1. Hypothesize by asking questions and defining problems
2. Constructing solutions to real world problems by developing and using models (Rules of
Thumb)
3. Construct an argument from evidence
4. Outline projects by planning and carrying out investigations
5. Testing designs based on analyzing and interpreting data
6. Implementing and designing a mathematical model from computational thinking
7. Design models based on explanations from science and design solutions
8. Critiquing design by obtaining, evaluating, revising, or communicating information
9. Detect self-efficacy in a specific course
10. Apply in school ideas to out of school experiences
11. Plan an investigation to provide evidence that change in an objects motion depends on the
sum of the forces on the object
12. Plan an investigation to provide evidence that change in an objects motion depends on the
mass of the object

Course Assignments (A)
1. Whiteboarding/Poster session
During the Iterative Science Design Cycle, students will brain storm ideas about their designs
based on data that is gathered. These ideas will be posted on poster paper for presentations.
Students must use the scientific language when presenting their ideas. During this session
students will present their Rules of Thumb. These Rules of Thumb will be collected and
compiled throughout the unit.

2. Gallery Walks
Students will post their design ideas for other students to give feedback. This is also an
opportunity for students to look at other student’s design and compare and contrast from their
own designs.

K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 102

3. Plan, Conduct, and analyze investigation
The investigation will undergo 3 phases of planning, conducting, and analyzing. Students will
plan an investigation by identifying variables, sketching ideas, justifying sketches with evidence
and planning a fair test. Conducting an investigation will be done by implementing a design and
procedures, running the fair test, and collecting data. Analyzing will take place by comparing
results to predictions, explaining outcomes using science, identify needed changes, and
identifying new Rules of Thumb.

4. Journaling
Students will reflect in daily logs. This reflection will focus on specific portions of the
investigation that was mastered. Students may be asked to share some of their mastery
experiences.

5. Freeway over pass assignment and reflection
In order to make the learning of the physics ideas more meaningful, students will be asked to
take a field trip around their neighborhood and examine specific freeway overpasses. Students
must tie what they learned in the bridge project to the overpass and how they value the overpass
now because of their experience with the Newton’s laws and participating in the Bridges Up unit.

The final course grade will be based on your cumulative scores of the following course
assignments:

Gallery Walks 20%
Whiteboarding/Poster session 15%
Freeway over pass assignment and reflection 30%
Journaling 10%
Plan, Conduct, and analyze investigation 25%

Your cumulative grade will be weighted in your favor (if you are one point below a higher grade
you will receive the higher grade) and figured according to this scale:
A = 95 - 100% B- = 80 - 82%
A- = 90 - 94% C+ = 77-79%
B+ = 87 - 89% C = 73-76%
B = 83 - 86% C- = 70-72%

Course Units

Week
#/Session
Unit/Weekly Objectives (UO) Unit Description (UA)
Week
1/Activity 1
Introduction
and Messing
o Check self efficacy,
transformative experience, and
physical science content
knowledge (9-12)
Overview
• Use pre-assessments
• Categorize class into groups
• Extrapolate group norms
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 103

about o Understand group choices and
group norms (1-8)
o Understand the unit overview
and the importance of thinking
about science and engineering
(1).
o Organize evidence of different
bridge design. (1)
o Communicate findings to peers.
(8)
o Revise findings based on
feedback. (8)
• Understanding of what bridges are
and what they are used for.
• Understanding the whiteboarding
process
• Find bridge designs that are most
appealing?
• Generate whiteboard findings to
present to peers.
• Revise bridge designs from peer
feedback

DUE: Journal Entry: Where do you think
you see examples of bridges within your
community?
Week
1/Session 2

o Understand the unit overview
and the importance of thinking
about science and engineering
(1).
o Communicate findings to peers.
(8)

• Understand the process of
building structures
• Generate whiteboard findings and
present to peers
Week
2/Session 1

o Understand the connection
between mini challenge and big
challenge (1-8)
o Construct a hypothesis and
possible solution based on
research. (1,2)
o Obtain information to be
communicated (8)

• Outline of Big challenge and
connection to 1
st
mini challenge.
• Messing about and create a
hypothesis.
• Identify specifications and make
predictions for design.
• Update information on whiteboard.

Week
2/Session 2
o Structure design and
investigation using science.
(4,11,12)
o Communicate design ideas to
class (8)
o Detect in school experience with
forces to out of school experience
with forces (10)

• Identify and control variables.
• Sketch design ideas based on science.
• Plan and create a fair test of
variables.
• Prepare posters to communicate to
peers including evidence for
justification of design
• Decide on number of trials and write
procedures
• Present posters to class
DUE: Journal Entry: How have you
perceived forces differently during the
week?
Week
3/Session 1
o Test designs based on procedures
(5)
• Implement designs and procedures.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 104

SCT o Implement a mathematical
model based on data (6, 8)
• Run test of variables
• Collect and log data.
• Compute results.

DUE: Weekly Research Organizer
Week
3/Session 2

o Critique designs based on data.
(8)
o Design new models based on
science and design solutions from
the data. (7)
o Communicate information based
on data (8)
o Detect in school experience with
forces to out of school experience
with forces (10)
o

• Compare results based on
predictions.
• Explain outcomes using science and
develop Rules of Thumb.
• Compare Results to predictions
• Identify Needed Changes and notice
trends
• Prepare Presentations and posters
• Make design recommendations
• Present results
• Offer, Develop, Refine or create rules
of thumbs

DUE: Journal Entry:
Week
4/session 1

o Understand the connection
between mini challenge and big
challenge (1-8)
o Construct a hypothesis and
possible solution based on
research. (1,2)
o Obtain information to be
communicated (8)

o Outline of Big challenge and 2
nd
mini
challenge.
o Messing about and create a
hypothesis.
o Identify specifications and make
predictions for design.
o Update information for whiteboard.
o Identify and control variables.

DUE: Weekly Research Organizer
Week
4/session 2
o Structure design and
investigation using science.
(4,11,12)
o Communicate design ideas to
class (8)
o Detect in school experience with
forces to out of school experience
with forces (10)

o Sketch design ideas based on science.
o Plan and create a fair test of
variables.
o Prepare posters to communicate to
peers including evidence for
justification of design
o Decide on number of trials and write
procedures
o Present posters to class
DUE: Journal Entry: Reflect on ways a
mini challenge can be used to build a
bridge in your city?
Week
5/Session 1

o Test designs based on procedures
(5)
o Implement a mathematical
model based on data (6, 8)
o Implement designs and procedures.
o Run test of variables
o Collect and log data.
o Compute results.
K-12 STEM INTEGRATION 105

DUE: Weekly Research Organizer
Week
5/Session 2
Expectancy
Value Theory
o Critique designs based on data.
(8)
o Design new models based on
science and design solutions from
the data. (7)
o Communicate information
based on data (8)
o Detect in school experience with
forces to out of school experience
with forces (10)

o Compare results based on
predictions.
o Explain outcomes using science and
develop Rules of Thumb.
o Compare Results to predictions
o Identify Needed Changes and notice
trends
o Prepare Presentations and posters
o Make design recommendations
o Present results
o Offer, Develop, Refine or create rules
of thumbs

DUE: Journal Entry:
Week 6 –
Week 8
o Apply mini challenges to big
challenge (1-8)
o Produce a physical project. (1-8)
o Critique design by
communicating to classmates
using science (11,12)
• Produce a bridge from specified
constraints.
• Generate a presentation for a final
gallery walk

DUE: Free way overpass field trip
Week 9 o Execute a reflection of out of
school experience (10)
o Check self efficacy,
transformative experience, and
physical science content
knowledge (9-12)

• Use the freeway overpass field trip to
reflect on out of school experience
• Coordinate pre-assessments for TE,
Self efficacy, and science content
knowledge

DUE:

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study addresses the topic of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) integration in a K-12 environment. The purpose of the study was to determine how the integration of STEM in the informal K-12 environment could be established by combining engineering design with scientific inquiry. This study is important because it allows practitioners an understanding of how to implement an iterative science design curriculum. The research method of this study included a mixed method approach of qualitative and quantitative methodology. The findings from the research highlighted the importance of messing about, triggering situational interest in STEM, lowering cognitive load in an integrated STEM classroom environment, foster a transformative experience, and foster self-efficacy by promoting mastery experiences in an integrated STEM environment. There were no statistically significant findings to support that either a transformative experience was developed or self-efficacy was impacted. The implications from this study included the implementation of Next Generation Science Standards, developing STEM interest, alternative assessment methods, and forming professional learning communities.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Promoting STEM integration, interest and identity among elementary school students

PDF

Integrating STEM instruction through identifying interest and identity in STEM professionals

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Integration of STEM and gardening for urban elementary youth

PDF

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

PDF

Preservice teacher preparation for engineering integration in K-5

PDF

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

PDF

Capacity building for STEM faculty and leaders: supporting university students with ADHD in earning STEM degrees

PDF

Independent research internship experiences of underrepresented minorities in biological sciences: an interview case study

PDF

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

PDF

STEM identity development: examining the experiences of transfer students

PDF

Developing a computer science education program: an innovation study

PDF

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

PDF

A needs assessment and evaluation of an elementary afterschool STEM program in a small urban school district

PDF

An exploration of the effect of the development of spatial awareness as a prerequisite science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) skill on the STEM gender achievement gap: an innovation study

PDF

Facilitating interest and out-of-school engagement in science in secondary school girls: Increasing the effectiveness of the teaching for transformative experience in science model through parent...

PDF

An investigation on the integration of science and literacy for English language learners

PDF

One Hawai’i K-12 complex public school teachers’ level of computer self-efficacy and their acceptance of and integration of technology in the classroom

Asset Metadata

Creator Ntoya, Toutoule Delondi (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 08/24/2015

Defense Date 08/24/2015

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

Tag building and designing,experiential learning,OAI-PMH Harvest,science instruction,STEM,STEM interest,transformative experience

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Freking, Frederick W. (committee chair), Maddox, Anthony B. (committee member), Seli, Helena (committee member)

Creator Email ntoya@usc.edu,toutoulentoya@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-638041

Unique identifier UC11306719

Identifier etd-NtoyaTouto-3840.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-638041 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-NtoyaTouto-3840.pdf

Dmrecord 638041

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Ntoya, Toutoule Delondi

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