University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

1

THE PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE: ESSENTIAL FACTORS WHEN
IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM IN MIDDLE SCHOOL

by

Joann Ferrara-Genao

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

August 2015

Copyright 2015 Joann Ferrara-Genao
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

2
Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to my sister Jean Ferrara-Cordova who holds a variety of
teaching credentials and has successfully taught various grades within the K-12 educational
pipeline. She has been my distinguished editor-in-chief throughout this process, devoting
countless hours to support, not just me, but our dedication to the field of education. It was an
honor to debate topics, agree to disagree, and reach consensus with my sister. Jean is an
amazingly dedicated service provider and talented educator in this field. She has been and will
always be my rock and I thank her for allowing me the opportunity to work with her
professionally.

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

3
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Anthony B. Maddox, for being an
inspirational leader. His guidance, insights, and support were the guiding force that propelled
me through this process. Thank you Dr. Freking for being a member of this team and providing
a thoughtful balance with your undivided dedication to this dissertation process. Dr. Maddox
and Dr. Freking made my dissertation process a smooth one. I would also like to acknowledge
and thank my third member, Dr. Sheehan, who added his time, energy, and insights to complete
the team that led me to the finish line.
A special acknowledgement goes to my dear friend, Dr. Lela Llorens, for listening,
advising, and teaching me during each phone call or visit I made seeking assistance. Dr. Llorens
supported me with her expertise during my USC educational journey and has championed my
advancement in the educational field. I am forever grateful to her and for her friendship.
I am eternally grateful for my sister and editor-in-chief, Jean Ferrara-Cordova, who ran
the race alongside me and missed a couple of birthday celebrations along the way. You are a
fierce educational leader. Special thanks, to my dear friend and colleague Shelly Yarbrough.
Both Jean and Shelly are dedicated educational leaders. Together they eloquently demonstrate
the art of engaging in educational conversations that are riveting. These two ladies are a joy to
be around!
I give grand thanks to my husband Robert, mother Jennie, brother Jeff, family, extended
family and friends. Thank you for your generosity of spirit and forgiveness toward me for not
being available many days and nights when I studied and wrote this paper. Justine, you were the
best study buddy an aunt could ever ask for! To my brother Joe, I channeled your sudden
departure during my USC journey into positive energy. I will always strive to make you proud!
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

4
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
Abstract 10
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 11
Introduction 11
Background of the Problem 12
Statement of the Problem 16
Purpose of the Study 16
Research Questions 17
Importance of the Study 17
Limitations and Delimitations 18
Definition of the Terms 19
Organization of the Study 23
Chapter Two: Literature Review 24
Introduction 24
Educational Leaders Drive Integrative Curriculum 25
Constructivism 25
The Gary Plan 29
The Baldrige in Education Initiative 31
21
st
Century Leadership 35
21
st
Century Integrated STEM Education 37
Implementation 40
K-12 Educational Pipeline 41
The Middle Connection in the Pipeline 44
Transformational Leadership 47
Diffusion of Innovations 48
Application 49
Human Capital Theory and Externalities 51
Application 52
Conclusion 53
Chapter Three: Methodology 54
Introduction 54
Purpose of the Study 54
Research Design 55
Sample and Population 57
Instrumentation 58
Interview and Observation Data 58
Data Collection 59
Validity and Reliability 59
Data Analysis 60
Analysis and Coding 60
Ethical Considerations 62
Summary 63

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

5
Chapter Four: Results 64
Introduction 64
Data Collection 64
Purpose of the Study 66
Research Findings Pertaining to Research Question One 67
Conclusion: Research Question One 70
Research Findings Pertaining to Research Question Two 71
Principal #1- Implementation Process 71
Planning Stages 71
New school name 74
Student entry 74
Electives 74
Marketing 75
Supportive environment 76
Key Players 76
Administrators 76
The leadership team 76
Data 77
Master schedule 78
Monito ring 78
Adjustments 79
Challenges 79
Staffing, Resources, Funding, Communication 80
Staffing 80
Resources 80
Funding 80
Communication 80
Classroom Observations: A, B, and C 81
Observation A 81
Integrated Classroom Environment 81
Classroom description 81
Technology available 81
Lesson 81
Materials 81
Integrated STEM Instruction 82
Technology used 82
Strategies 82
Student interest 82
STEM integration 82
Observation B 82
Integrated Classroom Environment 82
Classroom description 82
Technology available 83
Lesson 83
Materials 83

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

6
Integrated STEM Instruction 83
Technology used 83
Strategies 83
Student interest 83
STEM integration 84
Observation C 84
Integrated Classroom Environment 84
Classroom description 84
Technology available 84
Lesson 84
Materials 84
Integrated STEM Instruction 84
Technology used 84
Strategies 84
Student interest 85
STEM integration 85
Conclusion: Interview and Observations 85
Principal #2 - Implementation Process 86
Planning Stages 87
Master schedule 89
STEM teachers 89
Teacher training 90
Curriculum 90
Integration 91
Failure 91
Collaborative culture 91
Business partnerships 92
Key Players 92
Leadership team 92
Data 93
Monito ring 94
Initiatives 94
Changes 94
Student Performance 95
Adjustments 95
Improve integration 95
Challenges 96
Financial, Demographics, Sixth Grade 96
Financial 96
Demographics 96
Sixth Grade 96
Classroom Observations: D and E 96
Observation D 97
Integrated Classroom Environment 97
Classroom description 97
Technology available 97
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

7
Lesson 97
Materials 97
Integrated STEM Instruction 97
Technology used 97
Strategies 97
Student interest 98
STEM integration 98
Observation E 98
Integrated Classroom Environment 98
Classroom description 98
Technology available 98
Lesson 98
Materials 99
Integrated STEM Instruction 99
Technology used 99
Strategies 99
Student interest 99
STEM integration 99
Conclusion: Interview and Observations 99
Principal #3 - Implementation Process 100
Planning Stages 102
Magnet theme 103
Design and innovation 103
Culture 104
Engagement and discipline 104
Funding 105
Donations 105
Key Players 105
Founding faculty 105
Steering committee 105
Curricular leads 105
Data 106
Monitoring 106
Adjustments 107
Challenges 107
Classroom Observations: F, G, H, and I 107
Observation F 108
Integrated Classroom Environment 108
Classroom description 108
Technology available 108
Lesson 108
Materials 108
Integrated STEM Instruction 108
Technology used 108
Strategies 108
Student interest 108
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

8
STEM integration 109
Observation G 109
Integrated Classroom Environment 109
Classroom description 109
Technology available 109
Lesson 109
Materials 109
Integrated STEM Instruction 109
Technology used 109
Strategies 109
Student interest 109
STEM integration 109
Observation H 109
Integrated Classroom Environment 109
Classroom description 109
Technology available 110
Lesson 110
Materials 110
Integrated STEM Instruction 110
Technology used 110
Strategies 110
Student interest 110
STEM integration 110
Observation I 110
Integrated Classroom Environment 110
Classroom description 110
Technology available 110
Lesson 110
Materials 110
Integrated STEM Instruction 111
Technology used 111
Strategies 111
Student interest 111
STEM integration 111
Conclusion: Interview and Observations 111
Conclusion: Research Question Two 112
Research Findings Pertaining to Research Question Three 114
Principal #1 115
Essential Factors 115
Staff, support, autonomy 115
Communication 115
Funding 115
Additional factors 116
Effective STEM Integration 116

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

9
Principal #2 117
Essential Factors 117
WiFi 117
Space 117
Staff 117
Additional factors 117
Effective STEM Integration 118
Principal #3 118
Essential Factors 118
Staff 118
Additional factors 118
Effective STEM Integration 119
Conclusion: Research Question Three 119
Summary and Discussion Findings 120
Chapter Five: Conclusions 123
Purpose of the Study 124
Key Findings 125
Interviews 125
Interviews and Observations 126
Integrated STEM Classroom 127
Essential Factors Common to each School Site 128
Additional factors 129
Limitations 130
Implications for Practice 130
Recommendations for Principals 131
Recommendations for Future Research 132
Conclusion 133
References 134
Appendix A: Initial Contact with Principals 146
Appendix B: IRB Approval 149
Appendix C: University of Southern California 150
Rossier School of Education Principal Information Sheet
Appendix D: Middle School STEM Integration Study 152
Middle School Principal Interview Protocol
Appendix E: University of Southern California 155
Rossier School of Education Teacher Information Sheet
Appendix F: Middle School STEM Integration Study 157
Middle School Classroom Observation Protocol
Appendix G: STEM Curriculum Scope & Sequence 161
Appendix H: Sixth Grade Program Description School Brochure 162
Appendix I: Seventh and Eighth Grade Program Description 163
School Brochure
Appendix J: Course Descriptions 164
Appendix K: Egg Drop Apparatus 166

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

10
Abstract
Forecasting the future global economy places requirements on the United States to focus
developing a work force that is knowledgeable and astute in the areas of science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM). President Obama recognized the need to increase the
capacity within our educational system to make the leap necessary to address STEM for all and
close the educational achievement gap in the United States. The purpose of this study is to gain
an understanding of the middle school principal’s perspective regarding the essential factors
needed when implementing integrative STEM in middle school. The methodologies of
qualitative research, in the form of interviews with three middle school principals who have
implemented STEM integration and observations which followed each interview, were used for
the purpose of answering the research questions: 1. What do principals understand about the
importance of STEM integration? 2. How do principals describe implementing an integrated
STEM program at their school site and what does the implementation look like in the classroom?
3. What do principals perceive to be essential factors, and of them, which do they feel are the
most crucial when implementing an integrated STEM program? The interviews and observations
provided insight and understanding of the importance middle school plays as the connector in the
K-12 educational pipeline. The results indicated: the importance of passionate, innovative,
transformational leadership; leaders who are knowledgeable and aware that a supportive staff is a
key ingredient in the success of an integrative STEM program; the importance of district support
when implementing integrated STEM; and an integrative STEM program that provides access to
meaningful learning opportunities for all students is not a one-size-fits-all program.
Keywords: integrative STEM education, K-12 educational pipeline, Transformational
Leader
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

11
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF STUDY
Introduction
For the ongoing success of 21
st
century educational reform, it is imperative for educators
to recognize that connections to real life within the curricula are critical components to support
student learning (Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation, 2014). Furthermore,
developing critical thinkers who are self-motivated, innovative, interested, work cooperatively,
develop creativity, have a desire to learn, and a sense of community are essential ingredients in
the reform of our educational system as well (Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014; Kaluf &
Rogers, 2011). To be prepared for the job market that awaits them, it is essential for students to
be exposed to these ingredients throughout their K-12 educational experience and beyond.
Forecasting the future global economy places requirements on the United States educational
system to focus on developing a work force that is knowledgeable and astute in the areas of
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) (National Research Council, 2015;
Nugent, Kunz, Rilett, & Jones, 2010).
President Obama surmises the United States’ role as a leader of nations in the fields of
scientific discovery and technological innovation by meeting the challenges of the 21
st
century.
Challenges such as health care, developing environmentally safe energy sources and cures for
various diseases require STEM skills (The White House, 2009). To sustain world-class status,
America’s STEM work force must be able to bring solutions to 21
st
century challenges.
President Obama states, “Success on these fronts will require improving STEM literacy for all
students; expanding the pipeline for a strong and innovative STEM workforce; and greater focus
on opportunities and access for groups such as women and underrepresented minorities”
(National Research Council, 2015; The White House, 2009). President Obama recognized the
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

12
need to increase the capacity within the educational system to accomplish intentional outcomes
such as job growth in STEM fields, an increase in the number of students pursuing STEM
degrees and maintaining the United States’ leadership role in science and technology. He
acknowledged the responsibility agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF),
Department of Education (DOE), and National Institutes of Health (NIH) play in providing a
pathway for students to participate in higher education (California Department of Education,
2013; The White House, 2014). This aforementioned focus on STEM initiatives, affords
educational institutions opportunities to receive federal government support to improve their
organizational capacity and develop strategies to expand educational avenues for students.
Background of the Problem
Under the direction of President John F. Kennedy, STEM initiatives in school curriculum
took root in 1961 during the era of lunar exploration (Asunda, 2011). STEM initiatives
resurfaced in 2009 when President Obama prioritized the need to rejuvenate innovations in
STEM education for all students to be able to compete with the best educational systems in the
world. President Obama followed through in 2011 by pledging to prepare 100,000 STEM
teachers by the end of the decade, 2021 (Asunda, 2011). This pledge supported the National
Science Board’s (2007) highlight of the nation needing 2.2 million new teachers in K-12 schools
and community education settings over the next decade.
Following this pledge, colleges began preparing teacher education programs that focused
on STEM education collaborating with individual STEM discipline programs to develop
certification programs (National Science Board, 2007). Such programs are preparing pre-service
teachers to become K-12 STEM instructors using curriculum integration (Sanders, 2009). With
these programs in place it becomes imperative for school districts and leaders to implement K-12
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

13
integrative STEM initiatives ready for certificated teachers to commandeer. Additionally,
STEM-based understanding and experience that prepare learners beyond the classroom are of
imminent need, as today’s STEM education students are tomorrow’s leaders in science,
technology, engineering, mathematics, and education (Prabhu, 2009). Researchers have noted it
is imperative that educational institutions extend activities to students related to life and society
in order to stimulate an innovative and critical scientific awareness (Californians Dedicated to
Education Foundation, 2014; National Research Council, 2015; Rocas, Gonzalez, & Araujo,
2009).
In the Executive Report to the President, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science
and Technology (PCAST) highlighted the importance of STEM education for the United States
to remain a leader among nations and to solve the immense challenges in the areas of energy,
health, environmental protection and national security (The White House, 2010). A specific
PCAST recommendation was “the creation of at least 200 new highly-STEM-focused high
schools and 800 STEM-focused elementary and middle schools over the next decade, including
many serving minority and high-poverty communities” (The White House, 2010).
In spite of the growing number of specialized STEM high schools, student access is not widely
available, in part, because access to STEM schools is geographically uneven (Subotnik,
Edmiston, and Rayhack, 2007). Only 27 out of 50 states offer STEM programs such as regional
centers, magnet schools, governor schools, or exam schools. A select few of these states have
five or more programs: Georgia (eight schools), Maryland (five schools), Michigan (ten schools),
Virginia (nine schools), New Jersey (eight schools), and New York (seven schools). Many other
states with similar population sizes do not offer any such STEM educational opportunities.
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

14
Given the push to create additional schools, it appears imperative that “best practice” with regard
to specialized STEM high schools be identified in a scientifically robust manner (Scott, 2012).
Research indicates an increase in the number of STEM schools over the past decade;
however, it is inconclusive which of these schools is most effective and for whom (Scott, 2012;
Subnotinik, Kolar, Olszewski-Kublius, & Cross, 2010). Additionally, in a study of ten STEM
High Schools, where two out of ten schools admitted all student applicants using a lottery
system, (Scott, 2012) their student population was comprised of a higher number of non-white
students compared to other STEM schools in the United States. The significance of this study
was the findings indicating when given the opportunity and support many students are able to
successfully complete rigorous STEM academic programs that go beyond the basic graduation
requirements (Scott, 2012).
STEM education offers students opportunities to view the world from a broadened
perspective and prepares them for jobs in a domestic and foreign economy (National Research
Council, 2015). Studies show implementing an integrated STEM educational program will
demonstrate to students how science, technology, engineering, and mathematics can overlap in
the real world (Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation, 2014; National Research
Council, 2015; National Science Teacher Association, 2008). An example of successful STEM
integration may be observed when teachers in mathematics and science disciplines co-teach in
the same room or share ideas to integrate content with real life themes while embedding good
practices across both subjects (McCulloch & Ernst, 2012; Roehrig, Moore, Wang, & Park,
2012). Furthermore, research shows various K-12 engineering programs, such as Project Lead
the Way (PLTW) and Engineering Projects in Community Service (EPICS), have had a positive
impact on student awareness, focus, and perseverance in engineering, as well as, on helping
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

15
students develop a sense of engineering thought patterns that assist them with mathematics,
science, and technology (Berland, 2013; Kelley, Brenner, & Pieper, 2010; Nathan et al, 2013;
Roger, Wendell, & Foster, 2010; Zarske, Yowell, Ringer, Sullivan, & Quinones, 2012).
Despite these advances, national test scores have suggested that many students in the
United States finish the middle grades underprepared in STEM subjects. Examples of this
decline are reflected on the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) science
test, where 41% of eighth graders scored below basic level (National Center for Educational
Statistics, 2006) and 29% of eighth graders scored below basic on the 2007 NAEP mathematics
test (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2007). The National Science Board (2007)
stressed the urgency of investigating these deficiencies. Data supports a change needed by
teachers to reinforce the 21
st
century student’s learning approaches (National Research Council,
2015; National Research Council, 2013; National Research Council, 2011). An important
question to be addressed is, “If teachers do not begin to teach differently then how can we expect
students to gain an interest in STEM?” STEM teachers have reported that student’s interests
have directly influenced their instruction (Nathan, Tran, Atwood, Prevost, & Phelps, 2010).
Gaining and sustaining the 21
st
century student’s interest in STEM to produce highly qualified
learners ready for the global economy requires research, conversation, and then action.
The goal of this study was to examine middle school principals’ perspective regarding the
essential factors needed when implementing integrative STEM programs at this level. This will
in turn inform future implementation practices with the hope of building educational pathways
within the K-12 pipeline for students to access and gain knowledge. Findings show that
student’s gained knowledge through integrated STEM, incorporated with learned critical

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

16
thinking skills, can be useful for job entry and serve well for overall life-long decision-making
(Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014).
Statement of the Problem
A cluster of research indicated young people are ill prepared for college level STEM
coursework (California Department of Education, 2013; National Research Council, 2011; The
White House, 2010). This placed requirements on the United States educational system to focus
on developing a work force knowledgeable and proficient in the area of STEM for the United
States to maintain its leadership role in the global economy (Nugent, Kunz, Rilett & Jones,
2010).
Since President Obama pledged in 2011 to prepare 100,000 STEM teachers by the end of
the decade (Asunda, 2011) colleges have been ignited to prepare certificated teacher education
programs focused on STEM education (National Science Board, 2007). This now placed the
onus on school district leaders to implement K-12 integrative STEM programs ready for
STEM- focused certificated teachers to commandeer (National Research Council, 2011).
There is limited research regarding the ingredients necessary for a sustained middle
school integrated STEM program. Therefore, more can be learned about the role leaders play in
the organization when implementing an integrated STEM program at a middle school site. This
includes knowing the leader’s philosophy for supporting teachers and students with integrated
approaches to STEM education (National Research Council, 2015).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to gain an understanding of the essential factors needed
when middle school principals are implementing an innovative integrated STEM program. The
following questions guided this study.
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

17
Research Questions
• What do principals understand about the importance of STEM integration?
• How do principals describe implementing integrated STEM at their school site and what
does the implementation look like in the classroom?
• What do principals perceive to be essential factors, and of them, which do they feel are
the most crucial when implementing an integrated STEM program?
The results of this research may shorten the time required to execute a comprehensive
integrative STEM program in middle schools across the country in support of the 21
st
century
educational reform movement and student access to these initiatives within the K-12
pipeline.
Importance of the Study
The significance of this study was to address the urgency in the nation’s educational
system for the implementation of K-12 STEM integration as a response to fortifying the
workforce needed to maintain the nation’s leadership role in science and technology
(Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation, 2014; National Science and Technology
Council, 2013). The intent of this research was to provide knowledge and identification of
essential factors that influence STEM implementation at the middle school level. Unpacking the
results of the qualitative research may identify qualities leaders use to implement a
comprehensive integrated STEM initiative. This information may be useful as a blueprint for
other middle school leaders as they look to implement an integrative STEM program (National
Research Council, 2011).

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

18
Limitations and Delimitations
The limitations of this study include results that may not be generalizable beyond the
specific population from which the sample was drawn due to the sample size of this study. Non-
generalizable results leave room to further analyze the role of principals, as institutional agents,
in the success of middle school STEM integration.
The following assumptions guided the development and administration of the study.
1. Cooperating organizations provided access to individuals with training and/or experience
in STEM content and methodology.
2. Cooperating organizations provided a cross-section of potential participants in STEM
integration from the middle school setting.
3. Cooperating organizations provided access to principals and their STEM teacher staff
with implementation levels ranging from partial implementation to full implementation.
4. Respondent’s answers were accurate and honest.
5. A heterogeneous, purposeful, and nonprobability sampling method was chosen to provide
an opportunity to collect data regarding essential factors to STEM implementation in the
middle school setting of a diverse nature.
The study was strategically limited to middle school principals who initiated integrated
STEM programs at their school sites. The leaders involved in this study each provided the
researcher with access to any information pertinent to the research that would hopefully propel
the evolution of the integrated STEM movement. The teaching staff solicited from several of
these middle school organizations had previous experience with integrated methods. The study
utilized qualitative responses.
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

19
Definition of Terms
The following terms were used throughout the study as defined by cited references and
were the author’s intended meaning in this study.
Change Agent: The leader with ability to stimulate change in an organization by
analyzing the organization’s need for change, isolating, and eliminating structures and routines
that work against change, creating a shared vision and sense of urgency, implanting plans and
structures that enable change, and foster open communication (Sosik & Dionne, 1997; Marzano,
McNulty, Waters, 2005).
Critical Thinking: Involving use of logical thinking and reasoning (Teacher Tap, 2011).
Critical Thinking Skills: Involving use of comparison, classification, sequencing,
cause/effect, patterning, webbing, analogies, deductive and inductive reasoning, forecasting,
planning, hypothesizing, and critiquing (Teacher Tap, 2011).
Curriculum Integration: A curriculum design that is concerned with enhancing the
possibilities for personal and social integration through the organization of curriculum around
significant problems and issues, collaboratively identified by educators and young people,
without regard for subject-area boundaries (Beane, 1997).
Diffusion of Innovations: The process in which an innovation is communicated through
certain channels over time among the members of a social system and includes planned and
spontaneous spread of new ideas. It is a special type of communication, in that the messages are
concerned with new ideas. This newness of the idea in the content gives diffusion its special
character and a degree of uncertainty. Uncertainty implies a lack of predictability, structure, and
information. When a new idea is adopted or rejected this leads to certain consequences
establishing social change (Rogers, 2003).
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

20
Part one: The Diffusion of Innovations process occurs within a sequence of four stages (Rogers,
2003):
1. Innovation takes place. When individuals perceive an innovation holds advantages and
compatibilities, is able to pass a trial of tests, and is observed as non-complex, it most likely will
be adopted.
2. Communication develops through channels. The technical grasp of the innovation must be the
same message given through the channels to all receivers.
3. Time is the period it takes to communicate the innovation.
4. Getting the members of a social system on board is Stage four.

Part two: After communicating the innovation through channels, there are five adopter
categories (Rogers, 2003):
1. Fellow Innovators - are consistently interested in new ideas and embody a venturous spirit.
2. Early Adopters - believe in the innovation more then fellow innovators.
3. Early Majority - invest in the innovation if the Early Adopter does.
4. Late Majority - are the skeptics.
5. Laggards - are the last to adopt an innovation because they are suspicious of new ideas.

Differentiated Classroom: In a differentiated classroom setting a teacher provides
different avenues to the content (information taught), the process (activities for understanding),
and the products (demonstrated learning) in response to the readiness levels, interests, and
learning profiles of the full range of academic diversity in the class (Beane, 1997; California
Department of Education, 2014).
Diversity: The state of having people who are of different races or different cultures in a
group or organization (Merriam-Webster, 2015).
Externalities: Economic benefits derived by society when people make investments in
themselves which may include direct benefits to health, longevity, reduced poverty, lower crime
rates, lower public welfare, prison costs, environmental sustainability, contributions to
happiness, social capital, effects from new ideas as a result of research, democracy, human
rights, and political stability over a period of time (Almendarez, 2010; Eide & Showalter, 2010;
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

21
McMahon, 2010; Sweetland, 1996).
Human capital theory (HCT): The investment each person makes in one’s self, provides
a benefit for them in the form of higher earnings, well being, or anything of value to them (Eide
& Showalter, 2010).
Innovation: Any idea, practice or object that is humanly perceived as new is known as an
innovation (Rogers, 2003).
Institutional Agent An individual who occupies one or more hierarchical positions of
relatively high-status and authority. Such an individual, situated in an adolescent’s social
network, manifests his or her potential role as an institutional agent, when, on behalf of the
adolescent, he or she acts to directly transmit, or negotiate the transmission of, highly valued
resources (Stanton-Salazar, 2011).
Integrate: To unite with something else (Merriam-Webster, 2015).
Integrative STEM education: Technological/engineering design-based learning
approaches that intentionally integrate the concepts and practices of science and/or mathematics
education with the concepts and practices of technology and engineering education. Integrative
STEM education may be enhanced through further integration with other school subjects, such as
language arts, social studies, art, etc. (Sanders & Wells, 2006).
K-12 Educational Pipeline: A series of successive transitions in standards based
education from kindergarten through the completion of high school (Ewell, Jones, & Kelly,
2003).
Problem-Based Learning or Project-Based Learning: The fundamental difference
between project and problem-based learning, noted by Savery (2006), was the learning outcome.
While project-based learning focused on a final product such as an artifact, model, presentation,
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

22
or performance, problem-based learning focused on processes used to address a given problem.
Though differing in application, these pedagogical approaches both used student-centered and
teacher-facilitated instruction in which students work, individually or in teams, to learn self-
directed problem-solving skills along with real-world application of subject matter (Barron et al.,
1998; Beane, 1997).
Pedagogy: The art, science, or profession of teaching (Merriam-Webster, 2015).

Provost: an official of high rank at a university (Merriam-Webster, 2015).

Qualitative: Data conveyed through words (Merriam, 2009).

Real-life: Happening in the real world, rather then in a story (Merriam-Webster, 2015).

School Culture: Refers to the beliefs, perceptions, relationships, attitudes, and written
and unwritten rules that shape and influence every aspect of how a school functions. The term
also encompasses more concrete issues such as the physical and emotional safety of students, the
orderliness of classrooms and public spaces, and the degree to which a school embraces and
celebrates racial, ethnic, linguistic, or cultural diversity (Edglossary.org, 2015).
STEM Literacy: An individual’s conceptual understandings along with procedural skills
and abilities used to address STEM-related personal, social, and global issues (Bybee, 2010).
Transformational Leader: A successful organizational leader is a change agent or
transformational leader who creates lasting change in an organization (Marzano, McNulty, &
Waters, 2005).
21
st
Century Leadership: 21st century leaders who inspire others to alter their thoughts
and actions, in alignment with an empowering vision (Strock, 2013).

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

23
Organization of the Study
This study begins with an overview in Chapter One with the intent of exposing the
urgency for reform within our K-12 educational system if the United States is to maintain its
leadership role in the 21
st
century global economy. The review of literature provided in Chapter
Two supports the importance of this study and the unequivocal need for reform within our
educational system. This chapter is divided into five sections which reviews curriculum
integration and educational leadership; examines the importance of the leader’s role in
curriculum integration; reviews the application of economic and educational research; critiques
the effectiveness the components of integrated STEM initiatives have within the K-12
educational pipeline; and finally includes the definition of the diffusion of innovation and a
discussion of its application along with the application of Human Capital Theory and
externalities in conjunction with integrated STEM implementation.
Chapter Three describes the methodology of this qualitative case study and the
conceptual model used to develop the research questions, data collection instruments, and
determination of validity. Chapter Four gives a description of the chosen schools and the
findings in relation to the research questions. Finally, Chapter Five provides an analysis of the
collected data and discusses the implications and recommendations based on study findings.

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

24
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Within our educational system, we have experienced a metamorphosis of the term
“school reform” since its inception in the 19
th
century and rebirth in the 20
th
century. School
reform and student improvement continue to be an ongoing topic of discord; however, the
question facing the educational profession today is how to take the reform idea and manifest it
into transitional growth within our present day schools for enhancing the student experience.
The 21
st
century reform movement must be elevated to meet the needs of today’s diverse student
population.
As educational stakeholders look with urgency to embrace the most current movement
for student improvement, it is incumbent for them to recognize and acknowledge that the old
model, in its original form, may no longer be applicable because the population it once served no
longer fully exists. Research shows that today’s students require different learning approaches
than our educational system was originally designed to output (Prensky, 2011). Meeting the
needs of all students must be a priority for the stakeholders in the wake of the 21
st
century school
reform, along with recognizing the need for implementation to be a process and not an event
(California Department of Education Foundation, 2014; National Research Council, 2015).
This literature review examines contributions from the Diffusion of Innovations
framework and the Human Capital Theory (HCT). Externalities as essential components for
implementing an effective kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-12) integrated STEM program
are also examined. This chapter is divided into the following five sections. First, a review of
curriculum integration, as well as, the educational leaders who are driving it to improve the
capacity for all learners and the need to implement integrative STEM programs will be
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

25
examined. Second, an examination of the importance of a leader’s role in curriculum integration
will be presented. Third, the implementation of innovative integrated STEM programs will be
reviewed in relation to the application of economic and educational research. Fourth, a critique
of the effectiveness the components of integrated STEM programs have within the K-12
educational pipeline will be discussed. Fifth, a theoretical perspective, which includes a
definition of the Diffusion of Innovation and its’ benefits is placed into context. The review
concludes with a discussion of the application of Diffusion of Innovation, HCT, and externalities
in conjunction with integrated STEM implementation in the K-12 educational pipeline.
Educational Leaders Drive Integrative Curriculum
A pathway for curriculum integration was forged in the 19
th
century. It has since taken
root in education through initiatives such as Constructivism, The Gary Plan, and The Malcolm
Baldrige National Quality Model. The pioneers of these programs addressed the people of the
nation through their innovative efforts. Nationally, curriculum should be written to comprise
issues related to real life experiences in the lives of people (Beane, 1997). It should address their
needs, interests, problems, and concerns as they see them; contribute to the common good of
society as a whole; bring all young people together in a democratic experience; value personal
and social significance of all ages, and celebrate the definition of the word diversity (Beane,
1997; Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation, 2014; Palincsar, 1998; Robinson, 2011;
Rocas, Gonzalez, & Arajuo, 2009).
Constructivism
Constructivism as a theory of knowledge argues that humans generate knowledge and
meaning from an interaction between their experiences and ideas. Although knowledge in one
sense is personal and individual the National Science Teacher Association (2008) supports
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

26
constructivism as a theory of knowledge by giving examples of how learners construct their
knowledge through their interaction with the physical world, collaboratively in social settings,
and in a cultural and linguistic environment. The end of the 19
th
century delivered constructivist
ideas largely via the avenues of cognitive and social behaviors. The core ideas constructivists
agreed on were that knowledge must be assembled by the learner because learners hold the
existing ideas, therefore, teachers should not transmit knowledge to the learner thus impeding
their self discovery (Taber, 2006). Knowledge is represented in the brain as conceptual
structures that can be modeled and described with details. Learners bring superficial or
satisfactorily developed existing ideas about a multitude of occurrences to their learning
domains. The learner’s ideas are often accepted, shared, and become part of language in society.
This is observable through supportive metaphors used in the culture. The learner’s ideas also
function well as a tool kit to support the understanding of various phenomena.
Teachers have an obligation to take the learner's ideas seriously and help them make
adjustments to challenges and changes; recognize that learning should not be imposed on the
learner, instead allowing the learner to experience acquired knowledge. During student
knowledge acquisition they have the ability to discover, transform, and cross reference
information, as well as, revise rules when they no longer apply (Loyens, Rikers, & Schmidt,
2007). This constructivist view of learning supported by the National Science Teacher
Association (2008), considers the learner as an active agent in the process of knowledge
acquisition.
Learning is a process that requires self-regulation and conceptual development through
reflection and interpretation (Blumenfeld, 1992; Von Glasersfeld, 1995). The key to successful
learning in school and beyond (Boekaerts, 1999) is the ability to regulate one’s own learning.
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

27
Learners who use their meta-cognitive ability in conjunction with motivation to achieve goal
setting, self-observation, self-assessment, or self-reinforcement are practicing self-regulated
processes en route to becoming self–regulated learners (Zimmerman, 1990). Elaboration, an
additional metacognitive process, allows the learner to build upon prior knowledge while
incorporating interest and motivation (Forbes, Duke, & Prosser, 2001). The student also learns
through the conventions of discussion and explanation, asking and answering questions, and the
ability to create analogies (Weinstein & Mayer, 1983). No matter the learning style, educational
leaders driving the implementation of K-12 integrated STEM programs must put in place
opportunities for students to indulge in complex problem solving similar to ones they may
confront in future professions and authentic real-life situations (Californians Dedicated to
Education Foundation, 2014; California Department of Education, 2014; National Research
Council, 2015).
Complex problems serve as a challenge to the learner’s reasoning skills, problem-solving
ability, and organized learning patterns (White & Frederiksen, 2005), while developing an
understanding of subject matter. The intent is for the learner’s ideas to mirror the way an
experienced professional would generate and use knowledge in the work place (Blumenfeld,
1992). The more learning experiences mirror professional situations, the more plausible transfer
of knowledge will occur since authentic problems become fully clear for learners during
encounters with real-life situations (Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation, 2014;
Loyens, Rikers, & Schmidt, 2007; National Research Council, 2015). Migrating between
authentic and abstract reasoning is a skill for many disciplines including those of integrated
STEM education. The flexibility to allow students to experience both processing skills is
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

28
paramount to their ability to grasp concepts and take on new challenges (National Research
Council, 2015).
A significant challenge to social constructivism is promoting meaningful learning
environments and educational opportunities for all children, inclusive of those linguistically and
culturally diverse (Beane, 1997; Palincsar, 1998). Sanders (2012) reports K-12 integrative
STEM learning outcomes encompass constructivist core ideas, knowledge construction,
cooperative learning, self-regulation, and the use of authentic problems. These skills enable
students to demonstrate integrative STEM knowledge and practices. Students also effectively
use grade-appropriate STEM concepts and practices for designing, making, and evaluating
solutions to authentic problems (Sanders, 2012; The National Science Teacher Association,
2008). They further demonstrate STEM-related attitudes and dispositions after one or more
semesters in a K-12 integrative STEM program (Sanders, 2012).
Cooperative learning, which covers social interactions with fellow students and teachers,
contributes to the construction of knowledge (Steffe & Gale, 1995) and is of the utmost
importance for the learner to experience. Constructivists share the idea that cooperative learning
promotes social negotiation and interaction (Greeno, 1998), which is important to building
integrated knowledge in STEM education. Social interaction among students allows them to
communicate their level of understanding and ideas about subject matter and permits discussions
to be used as an assessment of students’ prior knowledge (Slavin, 1996). These student
discussions provide direction regarding the extent of study needed to accomplish a deeper
understanding of the subject matter.
Overall, constructivism’s core ideas, which are also applicable to integrative STEM
education, result in the learner’s ability to engage in the process of attaining learned information
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

29
through integration of knowledge construction, cooperative learning, self-regulation, and the use
of authentic problems (Loyens, Rikers, & Schmidt, 2007). These are important aspects for
learning and promoting success (Greeno, 1998).
The Gary Plan
These aspects of constructivism incorporated with student’s ability to acquire more
hands-on and problem-based learning skills can successfully support the nations competitiveness
for the world of tomorrow. News and public policy agencies report keeping the nation
competitive for the world of tomorrow may be inhibited due to a lack of resources (Roberts,
Schreibr, & Scissors, 2012; Williams, 2011). These aforementioned concerns were discussed in
the early 1900’s, during a time when financial constraints and students’ lack of skills were major
anxieties throughout our country and continued as the United States entered the twentieth

century. In 1907, William Wirt, Superintendent of Schools in Gary Indiana addressed these
ongoing concerns with the creation and implementation of the “work-study-play” integrated
program known as The Gary Plan (Kaluf & Rogers, 2011; Volk, 2005).
Immediately after Wirt took office as superintendent, he began implementing an
educational reform plan based on his belief that public schools should instill positive family
values, work ethic, and improved productivity among urban students to produce efficient orderly
citizens in society (Kaluf & Rogers, 2011). Superintendent Wirt believed strongly in manual
arts, the predecessor to technology education (Kaluf & Rogers, 2011). His plan, an innovative
way to implement and encourage the use of manual arts in K-12 education, had students
participate in hands-on activities inclusive of problem solving and career-related skills needed to
continue the nation’s reign. Manual arts was part of the elementary curriculum giving students
the opportunity to become familiar with the industrial shops and practices by observing older
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

30
students at work in these shops (building, repairing, printing) during the school day (Kaluf &
Rogers, 2011; Volk, 2005). This was an inclusive curriculum where girls were also expected to
participate at their level of strength and ability (Kaluf & Rogers, 2011; Volk, 2005).
A product of The Gary Plan in K-12 education designed to improve technology education
programs was the creation of a differentiated classroom. In a differentiated classroom setting a
teacher provided different avenues to the content (information taught), the process (activities for
understanding), and the products (demonstrated learning) in response to the readiness levels,
interests, and learning profiles of the full range of academic diversity in the class (California
Department of Education, 2014). Differentiated learning can offer students an opportunity to
succeed at their ability level while participating in constructivist core ideas such as problem
solving, working collaboratively, and classroom projects developed to stimulate their learning
(Beane, 1997).
A classroom project referred to as either project- or problem-based learning is an
instructional approach, built upon authentic activities that engage student interest and motivation
to improve their educational outcomes (Barron et al., 1998; Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber,
2014; Savery, 2006). Authentic activities are designed to answer questions or solve problems by
reflecting on various learning and working experiences encountered in real life situations (Beane,
1997). Project-based learning has been successfully implemented in science, technology and
engineering classrooms to improve instruction, develop scientific inquiry skills, and use
engineering design processes (Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014). A study by Marx et al.
(2004) confirmed that project-based learning increases students’ test scores compared to
traditional practices.

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

31
The fundamental difference between project- and problem-based learning, noted by
Savery (2006), was the learning outcome. While project-based learning focused on a final
product such as an artifact, model, presentation, or performance; problem-based learning focused
on processes used to address a given problem. Though differing in application, these
pedagogical approaches both used student-centered and teacher-facilitated instruction in which
students work individually or in teams to learn self-directed problem-solving skills along with
real-world application of subject matter (Barron et al., 1998; Beane, 1997). These similar
approaches are rooted in constructivist core ideas (Savery & Duffy, 1995), which are also
fundamental when implementing a K-12 integrative STEM program. Research shows students
perception of their learning environment (versus their perception of the curriculum) greatly
affects how they cope with it, which is directly related to their learning results (Beane, 1997).
One of the demands placed on education today is to graduate more students who are able
to apply their knowledge to solve complex problems in a working context (California
Department of Education, 2014). Concepts in K-12 classrooms based on elements of The Gary
Plan inspire a balanced integrative STEM program. This plan includes active environmental
exploration, self and teacher directed hands-on learning activities, individual and group
activities, supportive interaction with teachers and peers, and both active movement and
quiet activities (Kaluf & Rogers, 2011). Since the ingredients in The Gary Plan equate to solving
complex problems in a working context, utilizing elements of the Gary Plan’s “work-study-play”
system may help teachers better prepare students to apply their knowledge to life situations.
The Baldrige in Education Initiative
Teachers who invest time preparing students to apply their knowledge to life situations,
within a school site supported by a mission and vision, promote awareness of performance
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

32
excellence. Performance excellence is foundational to The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
Improvement Act of 1987 written to honor quality in business (Walpole & Noeth, 2002). The
President of the United States furnishes The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award that
promotes awareness of performance excellence as an important element in competitiveness,
sharing successful performance strategies, and benefits gained from using such strategies
(Karathanos & Karathanos, 1996; Walpole & Noeth, 2002).
In 2010, The Baldrige Performance Excellence Program was established specifically to
focus on the quality of products, services, and customers. It also strategically placed a focus on
the overall organizational quality identified as performance excellence (Walpole & Noeth, 2002).
The Baldrige Performance Excellence Program, governed by the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), recognizes United States profit and non-profit organizations for
performance excellence in education, health and other sectors. The Education Criteria for
Performance Excellence is composed of eleven core values. These core values include:
Visionary Leadership; Learning-Centered Education; Organizational and Personal Learning;
Valuing Faculty, Staff, and Partners; Agility; Focus on The Future; Managing for Innovation;
Management by Fact; Public Responsibility and Citizenship; Focus on Results and Creating
Value; and Systems Perspective (Walpole & Noeth, 2002).
To attain the award many organizations, including those in education, have used
Deming’s Total Quality Management (TQM) tenets adopted during the 1980’s quality movement
decade (Marzano, McNulty, & Waters, 2005; Walpole & Noeth, 2002). TQM was predicated on
continuous improvement of work processes with fourteen tenets organized into five factors,
which specifically defined the actions of an effective leader. The five basic factors focused on
the process and long-term perspective of a quality organization led by an effective leader. These
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

33
factors included change agency, teamwork, continuous improvement, trust building, and
eradication of short-term goals (Marzano, McNulty, & Waters, 2005). Marzano, McNulty, &
Waters (2005) stated an effective leader helps establish the criteria for goals to be set and
participates in the design and implementation of them.
In 1998 several states, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, New Mexico, Ohio and Texas,
established The Baldrige in Education Initiative (BiE IN) (Walpole & Noeth, 2002). This was a
national initiative that sought to improve educational management and student achievement by
setting goals to establish an infrastructure composed of national leaders from both key business
and education organizations. These organizations were aligned to educational reform policies
and successful practices, and from states and communities with sustained long-term
improvement efforts (Walpole & Noeth, 2002). BiE IN addressed educator’s beliefs that
focusing on the five quality common core operational elements of teaching, learning,
administration, operations and personnel in schools greatly improves leadership, teaching and
learning (Blankstein, 1992; Bonstingl, 1992, 2001; Schmoker & Wilson, 1993).
Many BiE IN schools articulated how, along with leadership, it is critical to establish
leadership teams that support implementing strategies focused on improvements of core
processes with a long-term outlook (Walpole & Noeth, 2002). When teamwork is the norm, staff
members are continually learning, collaborating, and directing efforts toward meeting the needs
of students to ensure their learning. These schools highlighted the significance of planning and
establishing business partnerships that could provide resources such as facilities use, access to
technology, knowledge of quality principles, and assistance with training initiatives (Walpole &
Noeth, 2002).

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

34
Quality school leadership champions the framework for implementation, quality
improvements, and supporting staff and students during the process (Blankstein, 1992;
Bonstingl, 1992, 2001; Schmoker & Wilson, 1993). In the past, efforts to actually change the
teaching-learning process have been arduous and often unsuccessful because they have
typically lacked leadership decisions based upon data and analysis, knowledge of educational
institutions as interdependent systems, and the ability to change the culture of schools (Sarason,
1990). Additionally, changes in leadership can be a precursor for program failure in education
when decisions are made to replace one program with another. On the other hand, innovative
leaders who focus on school quality, which is Baldrige’s theme, have the ability to greatly
improve the teaching and learning environment (Blankstein, 1992; Bonstingl, 1992, 2001;
Schmoker & Wilson, 1993). Before considering a quality school improvement program, a
strategy held by innovative leaders is to ask strategic questions such as, “How will this program
benefit our organization?”
True education reform occurs when there is a systematic approach such as the framework
BiE IN provides (Schumacher, 2011). School districts in New Mexico, Tennessee, North
Carolina, New York, Florida and New Jersey have implemented the BiE IN framework. These
states reported that with a process in place to ensure continuous improvement based on
accountability to its stakeholders, successful systemic change readily occurs (Walpole & Noeth,
2002). There is value in the importance of those in leadership positions to embrace belief in a
quality educational system that supports innovation. Wilson & Collier (2000) used a causal
model to empirically investigate the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award criteria. The
results indicated that leadership drives system performance and these two elements, leadership
and organizations, result in business and customer satisfaction. Ultimately, leaders (the drivers)
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

35
and organizations (the systems) are dependent on each other. Schumacher (2011) noted, BiE IN
concepts of continuous improvement in education or life need to be embraced and implemented
for continued economic solvency.
21
st
Century Leadership
The core principles of Constructivism, The Gary Plan, and The Baldrige in Education
Initiative are ready building blocks for an integrated STEM education program. Integrated
STEM education will survive the latest fad syndrome if the educational community recognizes
and embraces the need for continual improvement in teaching practices for present and future
generations of learners (National Research Council, 2015). Ultimately, an institutional agent’s
actions will contribute to the success or failure of integrated STEM education. An organization’s
leadership, coupled with teachers willing to explore the learning process, can make
implementing an integrated STEM program grow and flourish (California Department of
Education, 2014; National Research Council, 2015). Breiner (2011) suggested various strategies
that bode well for the success of an integrated STEM program. These suggested strategies are:
model real-life; integrate coursework in science and math to make explicit connections within
these disciplines; update teacher preparation programs requiring arts, sciences, and education
course collaboration; and train teachers to teach engineering design in K-12 by taking advantage
of existing programs such as Engineering Is Elementary or Project Lead the Way.
As organizations are led, they are not without imperfections and successfully assessing
them is a process. This process would include knowing desired outcomes and having a plan for
addressing obstacles along the journey. Organizational leaders must be able to make, implement,
and oversee decisions, as well as, reflect and create change for the good of the organization while
staying open to new possibilities (Baldridge, Julius, & Pfeffer, 1999). A successful
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

36
organizational leader is a change agent or transformational leader who creates lasting change in
an organization (Marzano, McNulty, & Waters, 2005). The transformational leader engages with
others in the organization and creates conversation that raises the level of motivation and
morality, while being attentive to helping them reach their fullest potential. A transformational
leader has the ability to build trust among constituents by responsibly sharing decision-making to
create a solid foundation within the organization. These abilities are key components to
accomplishing organizational change such as implementing an innovative integrative STEM
program in K-12 schools within the United States.
Overall for change to occur leaders are the driving force (National Research Council
2014; National Research Council, 2015). Leaders who are honest, fair, passionate in their
beliefs, and capable of making the hard decisions are proven change agents (Alexander, 2000).
Lasting change will take effect when leaders do more than manage a group of people (Olsen,
2000). A key responsibility leaders face is the need to sustain working relationships in the
organization. According to Marzano, McNulty, & Waters (2005) establishing effective
relationships is critically important because these relationships have a direct effect on the
execution of many responsibilities held by other members of the organization. The
transformational leader is capable of producing results beyond expectations primarily because
they place a focus on relationship building (Marzano, McNulty, & Waters, 2005).
A transformational leader inspires followers to change expectations, perceptions, and
motivations to work toward common goals with shared decision-making, coveting unified
discussions, and legitimizing decisions by consensus (National Research Council, 2015; Riggio,
2009). Conversations lead to consensus on implementing tactics for the improved growth and
benefit of the entire organization. Leaders demonstrate valuing their employees by supporting
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

37
and empowering them to be decision-makers, communicating the vision and goals, inspecting
what is expected, ensuring a positive learning experience for all, and celebrating successes
regularly (National Research Council, 2015). A key aspect of a transformational leader is
empowerment.
To meet the challenges of the 21
st
century, transformational leadership skills are
necessary for school principals (Marzano, McNulty, & Waters, 2005). School principals have
different avenues that can be used to acquire skills for practicing their craft and layering their
leadership style with personal beliefs and values (Hudson, English, Dawes, & Macri, 2012).
Bass and Avolio (1994) have identified four specific skills that characterize the behavior of
transformational leaders: individual consideration, intellectual stimulation by allowing people to
be innovative, inspirational motivation with high performance expectation from a dynamic
invigorating leader, and ideal influence from demonstrated exemplary behavior through personal
achievements and overall character. For sustainability, transformational leaders must be focused
on cultivating an environment that asks important questions and gives rise to finding solutions to
improve the learning process (National Research Council, 2015).
21
st
Century Integrated STEM Education
Educational leaders should have an understanding of how students learn within the
context of their school’s culture when they are embarking on implementing an integrated STEM
program. Learning theories have been around since the 19
th
century. Now that we are in the 21
st

century, it appears imminent that our educational leaders explore how they can initiate early
innovative (Rogers, 2003) implementation of an integrated STEM program for sustainability
(National Research Council, 2015).
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

38
In the 1990’s members of the NSF originally used the acronym SMET, then decided
SMET would not be as pleasant an acronym to say or remember as STEM (Sanders, 2009).
Once this acronym was in place the introduction of STEM Education to the nation was
underway. Dr. Bybee (2010), an acknowledged curriculum developer and researcher for the
science educational community, recognized a need to define the purpose of STEM education and
stressed that this topic involves the integration of STEM disciplines as interrelated and
complimentary components.
Bybee (2010) introduced and defined the term STEM literacy as “the conceptual
understandings and procedural skills and abilities for individuals to address STEM-related
personal, social, and global issues”. Implementing integrative STEM instruction and various
complementary components throughout the K-12 curriculum has the potential for greatly
increasing the percentage of learners interested in STEM subjects and fields, maintaining
learners’ interest throughout elementary, middle, and high school years, and adding significance
to American education, culture, and global competitiveness.
Research indicates Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) in
Blacksburg, Virginia led the nation by introducing Integrative STEM Education college courses
for graduate and undergraduate levels in Fall, 2007 (Sanders, 2009). Recognizing the potential
positive impact an integrated STEM program can have in the educational pipeline, The Virginia
Tech faculty discussed at great length what the meaning of Integrative STEM Education would
signify and established the following definition.
“ Integrative STEM education refers to technological/engineering design-based learning approaches that
intentionally integrate the concepts and practices of science and/or mathematics education with the concepts and
practices of technology and engineering education. Integrative STEM education may be enhanced through further
integration with other school subjects, such as language arts, social studies, art, etc.” (Sanders & Wells, 2006).
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

39
The Integrative STEM Education graduate program was designed to encourage and
prepare STEM educators from kindergarten through higher education (K-HE) and train
administrators to explore and implement integrative alternatives as opposed to traditionally
teaching separate STEM subjects. The coursework maintained a focus on integrative approaches
to STEM education by offering foundations, pedagogies, curriculum, research, and contemporary
issues of each STEM discipline merged with ideas, procedures, and instructional materials
(Sanders, 2009). Integrative STEM Education courses also included approaches that explored
teaching and learning between any two or more of the STEM subject areas, and/or, between a
STEM subject and one or more other school subjects. Successful completion of Integrative
STEM Education coursework prepares and enables educators to better understand and integrate
complementary content and process from STEM disciplines other than their own (Beane, 1997;
Rogers, 2010; Sanders, 2009).
As educators are prepared to better understand and integrate complementary content and
process from STEM disciplines other than their own, the pedagogy taught used a tactic similar to
project-based or problem-based instruction referred to as Purposeful Design and Inquiry (PD&I).
This pedagogy intentionally combines technological design with scientific inquiry engaging the
learners, individually and as teams, to problem-solve in the context of technology (Sanders,
2009). Sanders (2009) described how a problem-based learning design challenge, as taught in
technology and engineering education, intentionally spotlights scientific inquiry and
mathematical applications in the context of technological designing and problem solving. This
problem-based learning design challenge emulates the design and scientific inquiry routinely
used in the engineering of solutions for real-world problems (Beane, 1997; National Research
Council, 2015; Sanders, 2009).
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

40
Implementation
There are various ways integrative STEM can be implemented in the United States
educational system. Some scenarios include, STEM educators implementing integrative
approaches within their own STEM discipline(s), others may begin working together across
disciplines in pairs or teams. Dyer, Gregersen, & Christensen (2011) support the concept of
working together in and across disciplines; however, there are many factors to be considered
before implementing STEM integration. There is no one right way to integrate because there are
many factors which influence a direction the implementation of integrated STEM would follow
in a diverse school culture. STEM Integration is operationalized differently for learners,
teachers, stakeholders, districts, schools, classrooms, homes, communities, and businesses. It’s
implementation is achieved through the use of problem-, project-, or designed-based tasks to
engage students in addressing complex contexts that reflect real world situations (Roehrig,
Moore, Wang, & Park, 2012).
Educational processes are inherently top-down, however, in a data-driven, evidence-
based climate, bottom-up thinking, and instruction to influence the direction of implementing
integrated STEM also needs to exist (Beane, 1997). Implementation of an integrated STEM
program requires leadership to be cognizant that this innovation is complex, may be multi-
faceted, is a process in itself, and not a one-size-fits-all program (National Research Council,
2015). Implementation of STEM integration is imperative for developing critical thinkers as
forerunners in maintaining our country’s economic growth. Leadership will need to use skillful
decision making to create effective teams, giving them autonomy to develop an innovative
integrated STEM program (Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014).
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

41
Innovation will be the primary driver of our future economy, as the creation of jobs will
be largely derived from advances in technology and engineering complimented by science,
mathematics, and other academic disciplines (National Research Council, 2015). Several reports
have linked K-12 leadership and economic growth in the United States, supporting the need for
innovative leadership in our country’s educational system. Leaders with passionate beliefs, a
sense of fairness, and skillful decision-making are authentic change agents (Alexander, 2000)
who may be the catalysts when implementing integrative STEM education.
K-12 Educational Pipeline
Our American educational pipeline is a systemic pathway that supports academic
attainment in grades K-12 and allows for advancement into college and universities (higher
education) (California Department of Education, 2014). An effective pipeline that supports
educational attainment in the K-12 system, according to Yosso and Solorzano (2006), is a system
where all students move from one level to the next because school culture, procedure, policies,
and dialogue facilitate the flow of knowledge and skills that support all students on their varied
journeys along the educational pipeline. Yosso and Solorzano (2006), further emphasized the
critical need for all students to have equal access in the United States K-12 educational system to
prevent further persistent leakage in the United States K-12 education pipeline. The 2011
United States Census Bureau report identified achievements and leaks within the educational
pipeline. The report stated, of approximately 200 million Americans, ages 25 and older in 2010,
87 percent earned at least a high school diploma or its equivalent, which was up three percent
from the year 2000 (Sparks, 2011; United States Census Bureau, 2000, 2010).
This data supports the efforts that states are making toward adopting educational
programs and policies that increase the number of students who successfully progress from ninth
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

42
grade to a four-year college degree. Many states developed policies such as Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) and programs such as integrated STEM to assist with gaining a high number
of knowledgeable and skilled workers into the workforce. State residents holding college
degrees are the basis of a state’s educational capital affecting economic development and the
quality of life for residents (Sweetland 1996). The number of highly knowledgeable and skilled
people making up a state’s workforce increases the number of college graduates and this
occurrence is both an educational and social issue (National Center for Public Policy and Higher
Education, 2014).
An educated workforce directly affects the state’s economy as well as an individual’s
quality of life, because dividends accrue for individuals who earn higher degrees (Schultz 1997;
Sweetland 1999). An example of a dividend would be a higher income that creates higher buying
power, which results in more tax revenue and economic activity for the state. Additionally, an
educated population handles decisions about health care, personal finance, and retirement more
effectively, resulting in less government responsibility in social services or public resources in
general (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2004). This is supported by
research reporting that students’ exposure to K-12 STEM integration develops critical thinking
skills which equip learners with the ability to make substantially better decisions throughout their
lives (Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014). An educated workforce can be reflective in
accomplishing tasks such as choosing elected officials and personal economic-planning.
With or without a higher education degree, the critical thinking skills afforded to learners
by a K-12 integrated STEM curriculum can raise the level of a learner’s self-efficacy. To
accomplish this, learners must pass through an educational pipeline that is a system of parts
working together toward an established process whose end result is student achievement. States
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

43
are placing an emphasis on developing quality K-12 programs focusing on improving the
national graduation rate (California Department of Education, 2014), which substantiates the
importance of K-12 integrated STEM programs. Efforts to create a stronger K-12 educational
pipeline within an integrated school system, varies from state to state as well as within each state.
It appears the research on the key ingredients for developing a successful STEM
integrated program parallels the research for creating a positive impact within a K-12 educational
pipeline. The most significant qualities of these key ingredients include transformational
principals, effective teachers, and knowledge and understanding of the school’s culture.
Additional qualities identified in both successful STEM integrated programs and the K-12
educational pipeline include an integrated curriculum, technology, partnerships, finances,
professional development opportunities, planning time, and interdisciplinary and cross grade
level articulation (McGowan & Miller, 2001; Purpose Built Communities, 2009). The presence
of community involvement, high performance-driven and quality teachers, rigorous and relevant
educational curriculum, and a focus on excellent outcomes are also paramount (McGowan &
Miller, 2001; Purpose Built Communities, 2009).
It is no easy task to teach people the effective qualities of leadership such as optimism,
balance, commitment, courage, and empathy (Marzano, McNulty, & Waters, 2005). A
successful school leader in the educational pipeline will demonstrate a focus on building
relationships within the school culture and creating systems that encourage and support these and
other positive strengths (McGowan & Miller, 2001). Organizational leaders are faced with a
multitude of responsibilities, which they execute on an on-going basis, yet the key responsibility
faced is the need to sustain working relationships in the organization. Marzano, McNulty, and
Waters (2005) decree, establishing effective relationships is critically important because they can
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

44
have a direct effect on the execution of many other responsibilities held by other members of the
organization. Transformational leaders seek to sustain integrated STEM education by increasing
student access through establishing programs and initiatives throughout K-12 grades. This
requires educational stakeholders to cultivate “whatever it takes” attitudes to propel integrated
STEM education to the top of the priority list (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Karhanek, 2004).
This can be accomplished by raising awareness about the importance of integrated STEM
education and sustaining positive outcomes within the K-12 educational pipeline (Californians
Dedicated to Education Foundation, 2014).
The Middle Connection in the Pipeline
As stakeholders cultivate a what-ever-it-takes attitude, designers of integrated STEM
education programs must have goals that are consistent with school culture and mission (Honey,
Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014). The design of an integrated STEM experience must be
explicit to achieve goals that have sustaining positive outcomes (Honey, Pearson, &
Schweingruber, 2014). In a K-12 educational pipeline the design must begin at the elementary
level to establish learning roots that elevate the learner’s self-efficacy, which continues through
the middle grades and into the high school level. Designers also need to thoughtfully articulate
their hypotheses concerning why and how a particular integrated STEM experience will lead to
particular outcomes and how those outcomes should be measured (Honey, Pearson, &
Schweingruber, 2014). Asking important questions such as, “Why should we implement
integrated STEM at our school?” must be addressed by the stakeholders (Sinek, 2009).
It is imperative that characteristics of integrative STEM education be thoughtfully
articulated throughout the K-12 educational pipeline regarding pedagogy and learning outcomes
(Sanders, 2012). It is equally important for integrative STEM education pedagogy to be
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

45
consistent with accepted learning principles (Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence, 2012), and
is inter-disciplinary, trans-disciplinary, or multi-disciplinary in nature (Drake, 2007). Pedagogy
needs to purposefully engage students to think from simplicity to complexity and assess their
application of grade-appropriate concepts and practices in designing, making, and evaluating
solutions to authentic problems (Sanders, 2012). Additionally, pedagogy must provide a robust
context for integrative STEM-related learning associated with all levels of the cognitive and
affective taxonomies (Krathwohl, 2002). Research reports that within a span of one or more
semesters of K-12 integrative STEM education, quality pedagogical learning outcomes occur.
These outcome produce students with STEM-related attitudes and dispositions who are able to
demonstrate their grade- appropriate knowledge and practices in designing, making, and
evaluating solutions to authentic problems (Sanders, 2012).
In the K-12 educational pipeline, the rates of student progress throughout elementary and
secondary school are one of the best measures of the health of an educational system (Haney et
al., 2004). A way to keep the K-12 educational pipeline healthy is to recognize the importance
of middle school as the connector between elementary and high school. Providing students
access to career information as early in their educational career as possible and encouraging
progress during the pre-adolescent years is important. This can be achieved by providing
students access to career information that is beneficial to aligning goals needed to be well
prepared for employment (Mourshed, Farrell, & Barton, 2012). The United States Bureau of
Labor Statistics asserts STEM employment will grow approximately 13 percent or 200,000 jobs
in any one field between the years of 2012-2022, which is consistent with integrative STEM
pedagogy (Vilorio, 2014). Exposing students to jobs in the elementary stages of the educational
pipeline and increasing information at middle and high school, to include market information,
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

46
supports the growth of students prepared for future STEM employment (Honey, Pearson, &
Schweingruber, 2014).
Pre-adolescent exposure to integrative STEM practices lays a foundation for students
who are transitioning into adolescent grades. This early exposure to critical thinking practices
provides a pathway for deeper understanding and a measure for continued learning progress
(California Department of Education, 2014; National Research Council, 2015). In support of
continuity within the K-12 pipeline and the importance of measuring the health of our education
system, an assessment agency called ACT, launched an assessment tool in the spring of 2014 for
grades 3-10 called ACT Aspire (ACT, 2013). ACT Aspire will provide a look at STEM results
to assist educators to broaden STEM opportunities for students in the K-12 pipeline. Educational
leaders who utilize this data will be able to prompt meaningful discussions with students and
thereby extract intelligence for pedagogy and planning (ACT, 2013).
It is essential to come toward and leave from the adolescent years in middle school
equipped with the tools needed to build knowledge capacity (California Department of Education,
2014; National Research Council, 2015). An effective middle school educational program has
the capability to build capacity and make adjustments with ease when the K-12 educational
pipeline is aligned to do so. Middle school principals, as transformational leaders, who
communicate with elementary and high school leaders regarding the capacity building
characteristics of integrative STEM initiatives support laying a path of educational sustainability
for the country’s future. Leaders should agree that implementing sound curriculum and
instruction can be done in various ways. Ultimately the goal is to produce critical thinkers and
capable learners in the shared K-12 educational pipeline. This pipelines weaves into the
complex fabric of our educational system.
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

47
How can we expect students who see engineers as manual laborers rather than creative
thinkers making lucrative salaries, and teachers with misguided thoughts about engineers and
who think they are categorized under construction workers, to become innovators (Carr, Bennett,
& Strobel, 2012)? Attributing to creating integrative STEM educational excellence is the need to
implement integrative STEM-rich learning environments for students and educators as well as
the infrastructure or processes that promote more cross-sector collaboration (Californians
Dedicated to Education Foundation, 2014). When supporting innovation, it is apropos that
teachers work in teams, are responsible for selecting curriculum, develop and deliver integrated
lessons and regularly assess students. Those who design and implement integrative STEM
education need to attend to a number of these interrelated factors if they hope to influence
student learning, interest, motivation, and persistence in integrated STEM subjects (Honey,
Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014). Curriculum integration is not a simple method of rearranging
lesson plans, but rather a broad theory of curriculum design that encompasses particular views
about the purposes of schools, the nature of learning, the organization and use of knowledge, and
the meaning of an educational experience (Beane, 1997; National Research Council, 2015).
As students move through the educational pipeline, middle school is the connector for
receiving students from elementary and passing them on to the High School level with
integrative learning approaches. Educational leaders can effectively address integrative STEM
education by initially finding ways to develop and sustain learners’ interest in STEM education
throughout their K-12 educational school years (Sanders, 2009).
Transformational Leadership
Our nation is due for sustained good practice. For the Nation’s educational system to
experience sustained good practice, the literature suggests it will require transformational leaders
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

48
who focus on school quality and an innovative learning environment (National Research
Council, 2015). Transformational leadership is supported within the Diffusion of Innovations
Framework and HCT.
Diffusion of Innovations
Any idea, practice or object that is humanly perceived as new is known as an innovation
(Rogers, 2003). An innovation’s newness is a perception and, therefore, may or may not actually
involve new knowledge. Moreover, an individual may have known about an innovation for a
length of time yet not developed an opinion toward it. Once an individual becomes aware of an
innovation, it is common for an individual to go through a decision process of either accepting or
rejecting it. Rogers (2003) acknowledges this process exists in five stages. The stages are
sequential, beginning with an individual seeking to gain knowledge about an innovation. Gained
knowledge will persuade the individual to favor the innovation or not. The individual will then
engage in some type of activity to affirm a decision to adopt or reject the innovation. If the
individual is in favor of the innovation then implementation will be underway. Finally, the
individual will seek confirmation to reinforce the decision to implement the innovation and it is
at this juncture that an individual may continue or reconsider the action.
Diffusion is the process in which an innovation is communicated through certain
channels over time among the members of a social system and includes planned and spontaneous
spread of new ideas. It is a special type of communication, in that the messages are concerned
with new ideas. This newness of the idea in the content gives diffusion its special character and
a degree of uncertainty. Uncertainty implies a lack of predictability, structure and information.
When a new idea is adopted or rejected this leads to certain consequences establishing social
change.
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

49
The Diffusion of Innovations process occurs within a sequence of four stages (Rogers,
2003). First the innovation takes place. When individuals perceive an innovation holds
advantages and compatibilities, is able to pass a trial of tests, and is observed as non-complex, it
most likely will be adopted. Second, communication develops through channels. The technical
grasp of the innovation must be the same message given through the channels to all receivers.
The third element in the Diffusion of Innovation is the period of time it takes to communicate the
innovation and the final component involves getting the belief system of the members of a social
system on board.
Once an innovation is communicated through channels there are five adopter categories
(Rogers, 2003). Rogers (2003) describes the first category as fellow Innovators. Fellow
Innovators are consistently interested in new ideas and embody a venturous spirit. They
represent 2.5 percent of those who will adopt the innovation at its beginning point. Second, the
Early Adopters play a more integral part in believing in the innovation than the first group. Early
Adopters represent 13.5 percent of recipients who help trigger the masses of people when they
adopt an innovation. These people are often sought out by change agents, as the person with
whom to check before adopting a new idea. The third group, Early Majority, invests in the
innovation if the Early Adopter does. This group represents 34 percent of the adopters and they
usually deliberate for some time before completely adopting a new idea. The Late Majority is
the fourth group of adopters known as the skeptics who also represent 34 percent. Finally, the
Laggards are the last in a social system to adopt an innovation. They are suspicious of new ideas
so they wait until all the bugs and kinks have been ironed out of the innovation before adopting.
Application. Very often when a transformational leader implements an integrative
STEM program, it is an innovation. It appears many of the best practices from Constructivism
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

50
and The Gary Plan are incorporated in integrative STEM education programs. Best practices in
an integrated STEM program must be expansive enough to simultaneously meet the needs of a
diverse culture, provide inclusive access for all students adapting to student learning, and
produce critical thinkers discovering their capabilities (National Research Council, 2015).
Flexibility within this program is required to create revisions and make use of outside agencies,
while utilizing key components such as transformational leaders, quality teachers and an
integrated curriculum based on the school’s culture.
There is value in the importance of leaders embracing belief in a quality educational
system that supports innovation. Early adopter leaders set the stage for the early majority leaders
to implement integrated STEM. All leaders who focus on school quality have the ability to
greatly improve the teaching and learning environment. These abilities are key to accomplishing
organizational change such as implementing an innovative K-12 integrative STEM program.
Leaders who are the driving force for change are referred to as change agents (Honey, Pearson,
& Schweingruber, 2014; National Research Council, 2015). Change agents transform
environments by empowering others, building trust, and sharing decision making to create a
solid foundation within the organization. Change agents are transformational leaders that do
more than manage a group of people (Olsen, 2000). They inspire people to upgrade their
expectations, perceptions, and motivations to work toward common goals, while coveting team
discussions and legitimizing decisions by consensus (Riggio, 2009).
Sustaining a transformational leader’s vision encompasses implementing innovations
such as integrative STEM programs within the K-12 educational pipeline. When a
transformational leader within the K-12 educational pipeline perceives that an innovation such as
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

51
integrated STEM holds advantages, compatibilities, deems it uncomplicated, and nonthreatening,
the innovation will be implemented (Rogers, 2003).
Early adopter transformational leaders realize integrated STEM can be customized to the
culture of a school and have strong beliefs about quality education. The more integrative STEM
roots are planted at an elementary and middle school level, the firmer the foundation for best
practices that produce critically thinking students with a positive self efficacy for learning. Early
majority transformational leaders, empowered by the early adopter, empower their staff to
implement integrated STEM innovation that supports students, teachers, and parent interest. A
positive result from integrated STEM will be the critically thinking students bringing awareness
to communities in the educational pipeline about integrated STEM innovations as viable avenues
for learning that are worth sustaining.
Human Capital Theory and Externalities
In the 1960’s, American economists, Theodore Schultz and Gary Becker, pioneered the
Human Capital Theory (HCT) (Blaug, 1976). HCT is based on expecting the investment people
make in themselves, such as educational advancement or training time, to provide a benefit for
them in the form of higher earnings, well-being, or anything of value to them (Eide & Showalter,
2010). HCT suggests that both individuals and society derive economic benefits from
investments in people (Almendarez, 2010; Eide & Showalter, 2010; Sweetland, 1996).
Human capital externalities occur when people make investments in themselves which may
include direct benefits to health, longevity, reduced poverty, lower crime rates, lower public
welfare, lower prison costs, environmental sustainability, contributions to happiness, increased
social capital, and positive effects from new ideas as a result of research (McMahon, 2010).
Moreover, when people make investments in themselves through education, the benefits can
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

52
include health, nutrition, quality of life, and life expectancy (Becker, 2007). Benefits from
education may also include contributions to democracy, human rights, and political stability over
a period of time (McMahon, 2010). These benefits are termed external benefits of education
(Eide & Showalter, 2010; McMahon, 2010).
HCT asserts a worker’s capacity should be productive with the ability to see the coexisting
relationship between their own productivity and improving the quality of their life (Sweetland,
1996). Based on this, an assumption that income will be a reflection of the worker’s productivity
can be made. Additionally, one can assume education or on-the-job training will help develop
the skills that may improve the worker’s capacity to produce (Sweetland, 1996).
Government is involved in providing public education mainly because of the social
benefits to society, and a belief that, if left to other markets, education would be under served
(McMahon, 2010). People who are not in school or not working are typically a social cost to
society, since many jobs require some form of higher education or workers with post-secondary
level skills. Moreover, the external social benefit report states that individual earnings and
personal welfare are higher in today’s economy due to external social benefits of education from
prior generations (Levin, 1989; McMahon, 2010). With this knowledge, one can hope that
leaders find an inherent motivation to offer innovative programs that provide students with the
skills needed to successfully compete in the present and future emerging global economy.
Application. Research on the development of human capital includes the areas of K-12
and post secondary education completion rates, on-the-job training, and previous experience.
The investment in education by a society goes beyond the tangible items, to the investments
made in people who are able to demonstrate benefits for other individuals (learners) and society
as a whole (productive employees) (Sweetland, 1996). The educational investment in human
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

53
capital is not immediately available to the economy because of a gestation period that happens
when beginning a new venture such as integrative STEM programs (Levin, 1989).
HCT was framed around the core idea that human efforts inherently are situated within the
core of wealth. This core idea which had its’ inception in the 18
th
century has evolved over time
(Blaug, 1976). Wealth comes to fruition when people make investments in themselves through
education and the resulting benefits are observable in health, nutrition, quality of life, and life
expectancy. These benefits of education, or external benefits, may also include contributions to
democracy, human rights and political stability (McMahon, 2010). The extended benefits
derived from HCT, are noted in education with empirical data surrounding results that affect
education and education policy, drawing the conclusion that education increases or improves the
economic capabilities of people (Sweetland, 1996). With this conclusion in focus, the
educational community at large is turning its attention to innovative programs in STEM
education.
Conclusion

There is expressed concern that the United States will lack the workforce needed to
maintain its leadership role in science and technology because young people are ill prepared for
college level study, particularly in the disciplines of STEM ((Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber,
2014; National Research Council, 2015). A national emphasis on improving the graduation rates
and educating our student population to be prepared to succeed in the growing global economy
motivates school districts to implement innovative programs, such as integrative STEM.

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

54
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLGY

Introduction
This chapter describes the purpose of the study and research design. The research
settings and participants are identified, and the methods of data collection are discussed as to
why these participants and settings were chosen and how these methods answered the research
questions.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to gain an understanding of essential factors needed when
middle school principals implement integrated STEM initiatives. The following research
questions guided this study.
• What do principals understand about the importance of STEM integration?
• How do principals describe implementing integrated STEM at their school site
and what does the implementation look like in the classroom?
• What do principals perceive to be essential factors, and of them, which do they feel are
the most crucial when implementing an integrated STEM program?
In pursuit of answering these research questions, my research design was a qualitative
approach gathering data through interviews and observations. To achieve an understanding of
each educator’s perspective I first conducted three isolated interviews with middle school
principals, each of whom initiated an integrated STEM program at their school site in three
varied school districts in Southern California. Each interview was followed by observing the
implementation of the integrated STEM program in classrooms at their school site. Qualitative
research allows the researcher an opportunity to explore the “how” and “why” of people’s
thoughts and feelings which adds richness when explaining a phenomenon (Merriam, 2009).
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

55
This qualitative method was two-fold. First, interview middle school principals to yield
information through asking open-ended questions (see Appendix D) to answer the following
three research questions: What do principals understand regarding the importance of STEM
integration in education? How do principals describe implementing integrated STEM at their
school site and what does the implementation look like in the classroom? What do principals
perceive to be essential factors, and of them, which do they feel are the most crucial when
implementing an integrated STEM initiative? The second part of the data collection was
observing integrated STEM teachers’ management of an integrated STEM classroom and the
communication and structure within that learning environment. These observations facilitated
answers to the research question, how do principals describe implementing integrated STEM at
their school site and what does the implementation look like in the classroom? The observation
protocol (see Appendix F) was designed to look for qualities identified through literature
research such as communication techniques that teachers use in their teaching practice,
incorporating student interest, and integration of knowledge construction. Additionally, the
observation protocol was designed to investigate the presence of the qualities identified by the
site principal as essential factors when implementing an integrated STEM program.
With responses and input, along with the literature review, this research study provides
information to elevate the understanding of the essential factors needed when implementing an
innovative integrated STEM program at the middle school level.
Research Design
Using qualitative research enabled the researcher to gain an understanding of how middle
school principals interpret their experiences from implementing an integrated STEM program at
their current school site. This researcher interviewed three middle school principals working in
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

56
various Southern California School Districts serving students in grades six through eight in the
public school system. The initial point of contact with the principals of each school was via an
email letter of introduction requesting their participation with an abstract attachment that
explained the purpose of the study (see Appendix A). Once the researcher gained entry, a
follow-up email requesting the opportunity to also observe one or two integrated STEM
classroom settings and explaining the purpose for observing the integrated STEM program
within the classroom setting at their school site was disseminated (see Appendix A). Prior to the
interview date, the principals were emailed a copy of the interview questions (see Appendix D)
and an information sheet (see Appendix C). Also, prior to the observation date (which was the
same as the interview date), the principals were emailed a copy of the classroom observation
protocol the researcher would utilize while observing classrooms (see Appendix F) and an
information sheet (see Appendix E) for review by each of the teachers whose classrooms were
being observed. The researcher was readily available for any questions or concerns prior to the
interview and observation date at each school site.
The interview approach for capturing data was to set up a meeting time with each
interviewee at their school site. Approximately 60 minutes was proposed as the interview time
length. The observation approach for capturing data was to view an integrated STEM classroom
setting from the beginning of the classroom instructional time period until the end, commonly
referred to as “bell to bell.”
The researcher assumed the position of “observer as participant” (Merriam, 2009).
Referring to the researcher in this way means the teacher, students and support staff in the
classroom were completely aware that the researcher’s presence was primarily to be an observer
and not to be a participant in classroom activities. As a non-participant, the researcher sat in the
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

57
back of the classroom taking notes while activities continued for teachers, students, and support
staff. Using an observational protocol (see Appendix F) as a grid for coding, field notes were
written both on a hard copy and on computer. The researcher was positioned near enough to
hear student-to-student conversations at table groups, individual students who approached the
teacher for guidance, and the teacher’s rapport with students in general. The goal was to observe
verbal and nonverbal communication of the integrated STEM teachers’ management and
structure within that learning environment.
The results of this research may shorten the time required to execute a comprehensive
integrative STEM program in middle schools across the country in support of the 21
st
century
educational reform movement and student access to these initiatives within the K-12 pipeline.
Sample and Population
The population of this study consisted of three middle school principals and nine
integrated STEM teachers. The population demonstrated a high level of commitment to
implementing an integrated STEM initiative for students. The researcher chose to interview the
principals and observe the teachers to uncover demonstrated learned knowledge of implementing
an integrative STEM initiative, the effectiveness an integrative curriculum has on student
learning outcomes, and benefits of an integrative STEM initiative for students.
To best capture the principal’s perceptions, I chose to use observational data in this
qualitative study, in addition to interviews, because it allocated viewing the match between the
participant’s oral descriptions about essential ingredients when implementing an integrated
STEM initiative with student learning during classroom time. Corbin and Straus (2009) noted
that observations put the researcher at the heart of classroom activities while enabling the
researcher to seize the quality of what the participant said was happening in the classroom.
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

58
There were three middle school sites chosen that were led by principals who
implemented an integrated STEM initiative. Two of the sites had first year initiatives and the
third site initiative was in its third year. As such, this population met the researcher’s criteria:
middle school principals whose emphases were initiating the implementation of an integrative
STEM program at their public middle school site that was accessible to all students in grades six
through eight.
Instrumentation

Interview and Observation Data
In order to begin the data collection process I gained entry into the three schools by
earning the confidence and permission of each gate-keeper, the school principal, after providing
them with information to the following questions: Why did I choose him/her? What will I do
with my findings? How flexible was I around their schedule? I proceeded to speak to each
participant for permission to interview and observe classrooms. All participants were happy to
decide on a date and time to give an interview and showcase his/her learning environment.
Once my entry was gained, my focus became solely data collection and gaining
confidence. Merriam (2009) reminds us not to take anything personally, to make the first
observation relatively short to avoid first time jitters, to put people at ease by acting unassertive,
to be relatively unobtrusive, to dress appropriately for the setting, to be friendly and not overly
technical or detailed during explanations, and to be honest while you mind your manners.
Commencing with ensuring strategic results for this study, protocols for interviews (see
Appendix D) and observations (see Appendix F) followed. The questions for the interview
protocol took the respondents on a journey from personal background information as an
educator, to their opinions about instructional practice, and finally their opinions about
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

59
instructional practice in concert with the topic of this study. Merriam (2009) suggests the
information gathering be informal. This gives the researcher flexibility with the information
collecting while helping the interviewee feel comfortable responding. Merriam (2009) further
promotes a semi-structured interview as it is a mix of structured questions with the largest part of
the interview guided by the list of questions.
The observational protocol was designed to gather data in response to the research
questions and to observe concepts discussed during the interview previously executed with these
participants. Furthermore, the observation protocol was designed to seize information about the
participants, physical setting of the classroom, activities and interactions, conversations, subtle
factors showing the evidence of STEM integration, and my own behavior. Merriam (2009)
recommends using this information because research has shown that these are the behaviors most
often present in any observational setting. The observational protocol document included open
space design for the collection of data.
Data Collection
Validity and Reliability
The decision to gain entry into integrated STEM classrooms at the sites, after
interviewing each principal, was based on a desire to successfully implement triangulation (using
multiple measurements to pledge validity of research) in response to collecting authentic data
that spoke to the research questions. Triangulation is of great importance to qualitative analysis
because the ability to compare and crosscheck data ensures trustworthiness, validity, and
reliability (Merriam, 2009).
Corbin & Strauss (2008) support utilizing both interviews and observations as a
systematic way to double-check the data collected. Without a system in place to check the
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

60
accuracy and validity of the data collected, a researcher may fall prey to drawing false
conclusions that are not the intention of the participant. To avoid this drawback, the observer
should perform checks with participants whenever possible (Corbin & Strauss, 2009). Each
person would contribute substantially to the development of the phenomenon engulfed in the
research question, “How do principals describe implementing integrated STEM at their school
site and what does the implementation look like in the classroom?” Merriam (2009) supports the
process of purposefully selecting participants who closely match the barometer of the study to
ensure strategic results.
Data Analysis
A variety of approaches were used to capture the data during the interview and
observation process to provide resolution of the research question, “How do principals describe
implementing integrated STEM at their school site and what does the implementation look like
in the classroom?”
Analysis and Coding
Data collecting through a structured interview process, including writing questions before
the interview takes place, offers the novice interviewer the experience to build confidence in
their ability to calibrate interviews with open-ended questioning (Merriam, 2009). Open-ended
questions allow the respondents to readily expand on their opinions and knowledge about the
topic. My interview questions were broken down as follows: Background and Demographic
(#1, 2), Opinion and Values (#4, 5, 12, 13, 15), Knowledge (#3, 7, 8), Experience and Behavior
(#10, 11, 14, 17), Sensory (#9, 16), and Feelings (#6). A variety of approaches were chosen to
uncover a broader perspective by eliciting both information and opinion responses (Merriam,
2009). All respondents granted permission to audio record the interview sessions ensuring I
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

61
would have an accurate record of our conversations together (Bogden & Biklen, 2007; Merriam,
2009). Audio recording afforded me the opportunity to make personal connections with the
interviewees by allowing me time to give them my full attention as they told their story through
the seventeen interview questions (Merriam, 2009). The recorder was placed close to each
respondent with the intent of providing clarity during the transcription process. No glitches
occurred during the tape recording sessions.
The seventeen interview questions were answered with ease. During the interview
process, adjustments were made following the respondent’s answers. For example, some
respondents answered more than one question at a time, unaware of doing so. This experience
gave me an understanding of the importance of having flexibility during the interview process.
As with the interview process, different approaches were also used during the observation
process to capture the data to answer the research question, “How do principals describe
implementing integrated STEM at their school site and what does the implementation look like
in the classroom?” I compromised with the teachers regarding when to visit their classroom and
observe from bell to bell, which means from the beginning to the end of the period.
Discrepancies in time frame are acceptable according to Merriam (2009) because no set amount
of time or one pattern of observation was preferred by researchers.
The observational protocol categories were broken down into the categories of an
introduction box, integrated STEM classroom environment, integrated STEM
lesson/activities/interactions, and field notes. These categories allowed the researcher to readily
make notes about the integrated STEM classroom’s participants, conversations, physical setting,
activities, interactions, any subtle factors, and the researchers own behavior. Merriam (2009)
suggests observing these areas because, according to research, they are often present in any
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

62
observational setting. When analyzing the captured data, categories allowed me to code sets of
common themes that provided information pertinent to the research question, “How do principals
describe implementing integrated STEM at their school site and what does the implementation
look like in the classroom?”
Merriam (2009) explains that “open coding” is the first step to organizing observational
data in a thematic way that takes shape based on the information presented. To engage in open
coding the researcher uses the margin to jot down numbers, letters, or a combination of both to
begin a system of sorting the information. The next step is organizing the open codes into
further refined categories known as “analytical coding”. For example, the researcher can
analyze patterns and regularities and put three terms used in the open coding into one new
category. Naming the categories happens when the investigator stays focused on the study’s
purpose. Corbin & Strauss (2007) refer to analytical coding as “axial coding”. Finding patterns
and trends in the collected data substantiates the process of coding as making relationships out of
the data. Relationships afford the researcher capability to analyze connections that foster
answers and theory building in response to the research questions.
Merriam (2009) reports that every observer takes a role in the classroom such as a
“complete participant, “participant as observer”, “observer as participant”, and “complete
observer”. During the process of capturing data in each classroom, as described by Merriam
(2009), I declared myself to be an “observer as participant” researcher because my participation
role was secondary compared to my role as the information gatherer.
Ethical Considerations
Ethical considerations were followed in the design of the study, as well as in any and all
necessary follow through. The University of Southern California Institutional Review Board
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

63
(IRB) guidelines and procedures were followed (see Appendix B). All participants were sent a
request to participate and each gave their consent. They were informed of the purpose and
nature of the research and that the confidentiality and the anonymity of their and all participants
in the study would be strictly honored.
Summary
Explaining a phenomenon is a daunting task. This chapter reviewed the methodologies
of qualitative research in the form of observations and interviews for the purpose of answering
the research questions. The research questions that required data for theorizing a solution was
formulated as part of an important problem regarding the need for STEM integration at the
middle school level. The researcher proceeded to conduct interviews and observations to collect
and organize data that may in some way answer the research questions: 1. What do principals
understand about the importance of STEM integration? 2. How do principals describe
implementing integrated STEM at their school site and what does the implementation look like
in the classroom? 3. What do principals perceive to be essential factors, and of them, which do
they feel are the most crucial when implementing an integrated STEM program? Exiting the
research sites was handled with fidelity because in the educational field the participant’s craft is
very personal to whom they are. The amount of personal time the participants spend to prepare
for student learning is extraordinary and must be recognized with sincerity.
The overall process of capturing data through interviews and observations was broken
into three parts: gaining entry into the site, collecting data within the site, and preparing to exit
the site (Merriam, 2009). Once the process of collecting data was completed, using the research
to review and analyze the degree to which the responses to the interview questions matched the
classroom observations was the next challenge.
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

64
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Introduction
This Chapter presents and discusses the data collected from a qualitative method using
observations, interviews, and triangulation of this data with the evidence acquired through
interviews with middle school principals, observations of integrated STEM classrooms and
artifacts collected. At these sites, where the learning environments created by the principal and
teachers were through innovative integrated STEM programs, positive performance outcomes for
students were observable.
Matching the data collected with the literature on curriculum integration, the role of
educational leaders in curriculum integration, and the effectiveness components of integrated
STEM programs have within the K-12 educational pipeline will be discussed. Also presented
will be the contributions of the Diffusion of Innovations, Human Capital Theory, and
externalities in conjunction with integrated STEM implementation in the K-12 educational
pipeline.
This project is a best practice study of three middle school principal’s perspectives of the
essential factors needed when implementing integrative STEM programs at this level. An
examination of interviews with middle school principals who have implemented STEM
integration, classroom observations, and artifacts collected will provide insight and
understanding of the importance middle schools play as the connector in the K-12 educational
pipeline.
Data Collection
There was a total of three hours and fifty-five minutes of interviews with three middle
school principals who were instrumental in implementing innovative integrated STEM programs
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

65
at their school sites. The interviews provided answers to three research questions. First, “What
do principals understand about the importance of STEM integration?” Interview questions # 4-6,
and 17 yielded data for this research question (see Appendix D). Second, “How do principals
describe implementing integrated STEM at their school site and what does the implementation
look like in the classroom?” Interview questions #3, 7-14, and17 yielded data for this research
question (see Appendix D).
Each interview was followed by observations of integrated STEM classrooms at their
respective school sites. The researcher invested approximately eight hours viewing integrated
STEM classrooms focusing on the implementation of integrated STEM programs. This included
observing integrated STEM teachers’ classroom management along with the communication and
structure of that learning environment. Teacher interactions with students included both
individual and whole groups. These observations were in nine different classrooms, observing
nine different teachers. Field notes were taken during classroom observations and analyzed into
thematic categories (see Appendix F). Findings showed reoccurring themes when considered
through the lens of Diffusion of Innovations, Human Capital Theory, and externalities in
conjunction with integrated STEM implementation through which all research questions asked in
this study were answered. Responses, facial expressions, student interactions with peers and
teachers, independent work, teaching style, overall classroom management, and atmosphere were
noted. The observation protocol was designed to look for the qualities, identified through
literature research (Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014), such as communication techniques
that teachers use in their practice, techniques used to incorporate student interest, and integration
of knowledge construction. Additionally, the observation protocol was designed to look for the
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

66
qualities identified by the site principal as essential factors when implementing an integrated
STEM program.
Finally, the Principal’s ability to reflect provided data for the third research question,
“What do principals perceive to be essential factors, and of them, which do they feel are the most
crucial when implementing an integrated STEM program?” This research question also utilized
responses to interview questions #15-17 (see Appendix D).
This chapter includes findings in response to research questions, which were designed to
understand principals’ perspectives regarding implementation of STEM integration at middle
school. These findings correlate to the problem presented in Chapter One, “There is limited
research regarding the ingredients necessary for a sustained middle school integrated STEM
program.” Finally, analyzing the literature in Chapter Two in accordance with these findings,
will create discussion regarding the contributions from the Diffusion of Innovations framework
and HCT as essential components for implementing an effective K-12 integrated STEM
program.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to answer the following research questions:
1. What do principals understand about the importance of STEM integration?
2. How do principals describe implementing integrated STEM at their school site
and what does the implementation look like in the classroom?
3. What do principals perceive to be essential factors, and of them, which do they feel are
the most crucial when implementing an integrated STEM program?

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

67
Table 1
Demographics of Interview Participants
Name

District

Type
School
Type
Grades

Student

population

Years

as

Principal

Years
as
a

STEM

School

Principal
#1
Suburban
Middle

6-‐8
600
3
1

Principal
#2
Suburban
Middle

6-‐8
900
6
3

Principal
#3
Suburban
Middle

6-‐8
686
1
1

Research Findings Pertaining to Research Question One
What do principals understand about the importance of STEM integration?
The operational definition for Integrative STEM Education used in this study is “the
technological/engineering design-based learning approaches that intentionally integrate the
concepts and practices of science and/or mathematics education with the concepts and practices
of technology and engineering education. Integrative STEM education may be enhanced through
further integration with other school subjects, such as language arts, social studies, art, etc.”
(Sanders & Wells, 2006).
Each principal’s understanding of STEM integration and the positive influence these
programs can have for student learning is a key component to their philosophy as educational
leaders. More can be learned about the role leaders play in the organization when implementing
an integrated STEM Program at a middle school site, which includes knowing the leader’s
philosophy for supporting teachers and students with integrated approaches to STEM education
(Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014).
The following is a collective report of each principal’s response when asked interview
questions # 4, 5 and 6 (see Appendix D). The researcher asked: What is your understanding of
STEM integration? Have you had an opportunity to observe STEM integration prior to
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

68
implementing it? How did your knowledge and observations influence your implementation
process? Describe your understanding regarding the importance of STEM integration in
education. How confident are you that STEM integration is necessary for students to be
successful in the United States and global economy? Principals 1, 2, and 3 stated as follows:
Principal #1 stated:

What are we really teaching kids? What are we really doing as a nation to continue our
success? Where are we really putting our focus in comparison to other competitive
countries? How can we try things differently in the public school system? My
understanding of STEM came from reading and visiting existing STEM programs at
various school sites. STEM allows us to approach education innovatively. The
importance of STEM integration is that it will engage students with relevant material
while teaching them to think. When students are thinking, engaged, and challenged they
will enjoy learning. Instead of only certain kids taking a STEM class all students should
have the opportunity to do so.

The ultimate goal of education is social and economic empowerment of a society,
which ultimately benefits our foundation as a democratic nation. The subjects that
compose the acronym STEM are where the world is heading with automation,
engineering, scientific thinking, mathematical ability, technological skill, and having the
aptitude to problem solve and critically think. STEM programs have paved the avenue
of a different kind of learning environment. STEM lends itself to teaching students how
to process their thoughts, work cooperatively, and creatively problem solve. Hands-on
experimentation and testing things in the real world is relevant and valuable, along with
technology skills.

Principal #2 stated:
STEM integration in a broader scope is getting STEM imbedded in your school, into the
school culture and the feeling that STEM is something all kids should do. In fact, one of
our guiding comments in the beginning by one of our teachers was, “STEM is so good
this is what all kids need to do.” When you say STEM integration, it is about getting the
concepts of problem and project-based learning into the language arts and social studies
classes where they are not specifically designated STEM courses. Integrating STEM
components into the language arts and social studies curriculum is the integration path we
are trying to get better at now. There are different paths to STEM. However you
structure that path, it should include all students.

In 2009 there was no one to observe, no local schools in our area. At the time
when we started I think it was really ground floor in this area. If you said to a teacher in
2008 or 2009, “Do you do STEM?” They would have asked, “What is that?” Nobody
knew what STEM was. STEM is a focus through problem and project-based learning. If
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

69
you are not doing a problem or problem based learning it is really not STEM. When I
explain STEM to parents I tell them, “STEM is going to show them how to saw, let them
play between a Phillips and a Flat Head screw driver, build things, break things, build
things that are not going to work, experience failure, learn how to overcome failure, and
design projects.”

STEM brings back creative thinking and engineering to meet the jobs of the
future. STEM gives kids problem-solving skills and helps kids understand failure. We
need kids to build things and for them not to work, then for kids to figure out why it
doesn’t work and have time to figure out how to fix them, or to totally redesign it because
that is how they learn. That is what STEM integration needs to do for kids, teach them
the concept of solving problems and failure.

I am confident the U.S. Department of Commerce numbers from 2010 to 2011
showed the growth of the STEM field and jobs as astronomically greater then other jobs
in the heart of the recession. Google and Apple are currently hiring engineers from out of
the country because we simply do not have enough American engineers to do those jobs.
STEM can also appeal to parents because it supports job opportunities and learning 21
st

century skills for solving problems.

There will always be service jobs available, but if you want a higher paying job
you have to think, figure something out, solve a problem, write a marketing plan, come
up with a new product, or build something differently in order for your company to do
well. Innovative is what is in your head. If our kids can learn problem solving, failure,
and innovation in school then when they go to get a job and their boss says, “I need to
know how to build this thing, or I need to know how much it costs, or I need to source the
parts, or I need to sell it to people and I am not really sure if it’s going to work, figure it
out.” STEM supports the knowledge base needed for these types of jobs. Middle school
must be more exploratory to support STEM.

Principal #3 stated:
STEM means science, technology, engineering, and math are seamlessly integrated as
one aspect of the school experience. Subjects should not stand alone like silos. The
importance of STEM integration is to mirror when kids go out into the workforce and use
a group of integrated skills such as mathematical, communication, and problem solving.
STEM integration pulls skills and abilities together with content knowledge, which can
support real life needs.

I am 100% confident that STEM integration is necessary for students to be
successful in the United States and global economy. My impression is that other
countries don’t approach K-12 education the way we do, divided into all these silos, they
are all inclusive and that is the direction we need to be looking into and moving toward.

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

70
Conclusion: Research Question One
The interviews with each middle school principal unveiled their understanding of the
importance of STEM integration as each discussed their purpose for starting a STEM integration
program. Commonalities arose in their responses as follows:
• All principals interviewed had a rationale for their understanding of the importance of
STEM integration. Each concurred that nationally, curricula should be written to
comprise issues related to real life experiences in the lives of people (Beane, 1997).
Essentially, the principals all agreed, curricula should address student needs, interests,
problems, and concerns as they see them; contribute to the common good of society as a
whole; bring all young people together in a democratic experience; and value personal
and social significance of all ages (Beane, 1997; Californians Dedicated to Education
Foundation, 2014; Palincsar, 1998; Robinson, 2011; Rocas, Gonzalez, & Arajuo, 2009).
• All principals interviewed agreed, all students should have access to opportunities that
will elevate their learning. Principal #2 affirmed, “There are different paths to STEM.
However you structure that path, it should be all inclusive for all kids.”
• All principals interviewed agreed, integration of STEM should be done “correctly”.
Principal #3 proclaimed, “People don’t do STEM well. You can’t talk about integrating
STEM until you really have an understanding of what STEM means either at a school,
district, or as an approach.”
The Commonalities in the principal’s responses coincide with research findings, Integrative
STEM Education is important because it extends activities to students related to life and society,
that stimulates an innovative and critical scientific awareness (Californians Dedicated to
Education Foundation, 2014; National Research Council, 2015; Rocas, Gonzalez & Araujo,
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

71
2009). Furthermore, students’ knowledge gained through integrated STEM, along with learned
critical thinking skills, is useful for job entry, as well as, overall life-long decision making
(Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014).
Research Findings Pertaining to Research Question Two
How do principals describe implementing integrated STEM at their school site and what
does the implementation look like in the classroom?
Principal #1 - Implementation Process

Principal #1 began integrated STEM at the school site in August of 2014, three years
after beginning as the principal at this school site. The principal feels, “It originated very
organically.” The principal began by leading teachers on a journey, which focused on student
achievement and closing the achievement gap. That journey resulted in positive results under the
California State Testing (CST) model. The principal said, “As the CST was transitioning away,
it seemed a perfect time to start experimenting with different trains of thought that support
closing academic achievement gaps.”
This principal gained knowledge from various authors and research such as World Class
Learners, by Dr. Zhao and A Whole New Mind, by Daniel Pink. The principal stated, “Dr.
Zhao’s approaches made sense with Common Core and the era we were going into, as well as,
Daniel Pink’s concept of different types of learners.” Knowledge and insight was also elicited
through a series of discussions with staff members ready to participate in a positive change.
Planning Stages

Principal #1 stated:

At the end of my first year, we implemented the first major change. The school changed
from a six period day to a seven period day. Offering a seven period day gave every
student an elective time. The CST model inspired the idea to enable more intervention
classes in the master schedule. We were talking about equal access or more access for all
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

72
students. Rationale for going to a seven period day: A student on a six period day takes
four core classes and a PE class and has one class opening left to fill with either help in
LA or MATH, not both. An ELD student would not get any intervention or an elective
under a six period model because an ELD class would be mandatory in the schedule.

In the second year we started with a lot of intensive interventions and eventually
students began moving out of interventions and into elective courses because they were
showing improvement. This created a need for electives in the master schedule. Now we
were thinking of the type of electives to offer students. A math teacher was familiar with
and had an interest in robotics and started an elective class. We looked into piloting a
coding and robotics elective in a semester and that class took off in popularity. The
students loved it! We put up about $2000.00 and with my persuasion, the district matched
the $2000.00. We bought enough robotics kits for students to work in teams of three and
four in a classroom. We also purchased mini netbooks for the students to use as the
technology component in the coding and robotics class. Teachers went on the code.org
website and started learning. We also opened up a computer lab and started using much
more technology and we saw more students enthusiastic about the use of technology. We
started creating our own emails with permission slips in order to be able to use Google
docs (eventually the district issued student emails).

There was a buzz and excitement about the pockets of things we were doing, it
wasn’t school wide yet. We only had a fraction of seventh and eighth graders using
Goggle drive and a small group of kids in a robotics and coding class. Around the same
time we created a basic science lab designed to replicate a science class in a college
setting that includes lecture, then application using hands on learning. We invested
$3000.00 into purchasing digital microscopes, hands-on kits with pulleys and levers,
tables and chairs. This lab did not look like a traditional lab but it was a workspace for
kids to have hands on learning. The students and science teachers really enjoyed that.
Overall, this year there were pockets of hands-on applied science learning, some tech
going on in the classrooms with the use of Google drive, robotics, and coding. Parents
started coming in and asking to sit in on classes and that grew and grew.

A series of conversations began to take place with the superintendent about establishing
school wide classes. Discussions with school board members included ideas embedded in World
Class Learners, by Dr. Yong Zhao and about concepts from a nearby technology driven middle-
high charter school.
Principal #1 stated:

It was taking a lot of concepts and figuring out, “How can we make this work in a public
school? How can we create a magnet school that still services community students?”
When the concept of the magnet school was first being discussed, one of the cabinet
members asked, “Do you want to make it a school for the gifted and talented?” I thought
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

73
about it and said, “No, that is not why I got into public education. I believe this type of
setting can benefit all kids.” We want to service Special Ed students, ELD students,
struggling students, and all the way up to the gifted and talented students. I presented this
idea to the staff. We are paving the way and creating something where we show that we
can service all types of kids in a learning environment that reaches them all.

These talks began in March, 2014 and momentum began to move fast to get the new integrated
STEM school opened by August, 2014. The school would incorporate the arts and thus use the
acronym STEAM for science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics.
Principal #1 stated:

I was very cautious and thought we were moving too fast. But, being willing to take
risks, I started talking about restructuring the school to include new types of teachers with
specific credentials. This took a lot of buy-in and cooperation from the teachers union,
the school district, the district cabinet, the school board, and our staff to really pull
together the minimal resources we had, restructure how the teachers were staffed, what
type of credentials they had, how the schedule for a seven period day would look, and
what type of classes would we offer to make this school-wide so every kid had access to
a STEAM program. They would at least have one or two electives that fell under the
STEAM umbrella, plus the concept of technology, or applying problem solving skills
would be in every class.

“Growing organically”, we pulled in certain teachers and it started snowballing
and it just grew and grew and grew and became a lot of work! We were here non-stop in
May, June, and July. It wasn’t a typical summer where we had free time. We created a
buzz with a brand and marketed our concept using murals, shirts, stickers, Facebook,
Twitter, Instagram, and social media. The school was opened up to any student who
wanted to apply.

When we created the school no one lost their job, but it was no longer the school
for all of the teachers. Certain things were not going to be negotiable for all the teachers
such as the new schedule with seven periods. Certain teachers met with me and I told
them, “If this is not going to work for you we will facilitate a transfer.” We have twenty-
four teachers, eight left and we brought in eight. Those that stayed wanted to stay. They
had buy in. Those that came had buy in. The buy in was created because of the program.
There were more teachers who wanted to come in than we had spots for. We have a wait
list. We grew by one hundred students and two teachers. We currently have twenty-five
teachers on staff and six hundred kids. There is a waiting list of students to get here as
well.

I gave a lot of freedom over to teachers. I worked with the district to bring over
the right personnel and the union had to buy in. There are huge pieces that come into
play and having the right people is key. The right people who are willing to work in a
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

74
changing environment, changing the status quo, and working together to figure this out.
We did not come together knowing exactly what it will look like saying, “Here is what
each of you will do.” Steve Jobs never had an end product in mind. We put the right
people in place with the right ideas. We know we want to move in a direction and we
allow the process and creativity to guide us. We do not know what the exact end product
looks like. We know the direction we are headed, as far as certain skills we are going to
prepare the kids with. Everyone is allowed to have an opinion.

New school name. The principal relayed that coming up with a new name for the school
was a process. The principal first spoke to prominent members of the community before making
any changes to the name of the school to respect the history of the families. After a series of
community meetings it was decided the new name should commemorate the original name. The
Principal stated, “The idea for the name of our new school came from viewing a new technology
school on-line.”
Student entry. The principal further relayed that student entry was another process to be
tackled.
Principal #1 stated:

We formed a committee with teachers and an assistant superintendent. We talked about
kids who would thrive in this system, they would be not the highest test scorers or highest
grades, but also not kids who would create a lot of problems and bring down the school.
Even if they were a basic C student and were not given the opportunity to learn in this
type of environment, we accepted those types of kids. Ultimately, what you attract with a
school that has a process are families that care. They take the time to invest in their
child’s education. Taking the time to drive to the school, not the closest school, because
they want what is best or the student wants to come here and be a part of this. We looked
at test scores, no lottery, and sent out notices with a cut off date. This year we will get
the applications out in November, get them back in January, and get the notices back to
them in February. The application is available on line on our web site.

Electives. To generate ideas about what type of electives to offer the students, the school
staff initiated many conversations and held staff meetings. The topics of these discussions were
focused around common core instruction. The staff also looked at different YouTube videos and
researched 21
st
century education, global learners, and the global economy. The principal breaks
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

75
down the key facts of each video and reviews it with the staff as a lesson before they watch the
video. They culminate with a conversation about the information presented.
Principal #1 stated:

Educators have been indoctrinated with one way of doing things, not only with No Child
Left Behind, but we came up in this system and the way of learning. It worked for us so
we think it is great because we were successful. However, it has not worked for
marginalized students, it is not that great. So it is tricky when you challenge mindsets. I
was thinking about education more globally. How do we reach all students? How
different kids are engaged? Where do they come from? What tools are we going to give
them?
My staff and I watched and studied Pedro Noguera talk about equality, access,
and equity. It really hit home with them. The staff has to really buy in on some level
because there are multiple levels to it and they have to be given the support and the
brand. It’s hard and I think they are doing a good job.

So many things to do to make it work and not be a half created program. The
assistant principal and myself were creating classes, schedules, moving furniture, creating
a different look every way possible. We worried that we couldn’t meet the expectations
of the community. The expectations permeated the staff. For example, one of our
science teachers took skills to another level after eight to ten years of great teaching, with
more labs, more hands on learning, 100% group projects, and not a lot of lecture.
Administration didn’t ask teachers to do that they started “vibing” off each other.

The staff bought in and had full reign of their elective. They had 100% input.
I asked, “What type of elective are you going to create that is going to be different then
the Common Core classes?” For example: A teacher came in and was unsure about what
to do. We were bouncing ideas off each other. We had a 100% dialogue. The teacher
told the parents we are figuring it out as we go and the parents are buying in because the
kids are learning.

We started paying teachers over the summer to become Google certified. That
made it voluntary. The Tech lead failed the first session. It was harder then they thought.
They stuck with it. As of yesterday we have five Google certified teachers. The students
see that the teachers get a certificate from Google. The principal goes into the classroom
and presents the certificate to the teacher.

Marketing. We realized we are creating something new. I kept saying these
students are going to walk back onto our campus in the fall and it has to feel different.
We painted over the old murals and created a new mural centerpiece of campus to create
a new feel. New teachers change the dynamics of the school, a new marque, a new
mascot, new PE uniforms, and new agendas. You rebrand everything because it takes a
lot to sink in and I think it is starting to catch on. I talked to the teachers about
continuing to market.
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

76

Supportive environment. The Principal professed having the confidence to take risks in
the workplace because the support received from district administrators and the superintendent
created an emotional safety net making it easy for the principal to try new things. The principal
then encouraged the teachers to try new things knowing they would be supported by the school
administration. The principal reported, “I have had great support from the district. They trust us
and believe in us. The teachers will do things and get worried. I let them run with it. I think that
you have to have support and I think the school board members and the district’s cabinet
members are in support of me.”
Key Players
Administrators. The principal and the assistant principal worked together to accomplish
important tasks before the STEAM school opened. One major task was placing tables in the
classrooms for student collaboration and project-based learning to happen with ease. There were
many important tasks to accomplish in a short period of time, which generated a need for a
systematic approach that organized items on a time line of due dates, which could potentially be
a due date of next year. The principal felt writing the School Improvement Plan for Student
Achievement (SIPSA) and establishing a school site counsel were protocols that needed to be
done and recounted the following:
Suddenly everything becomes very valuable. No one has unlimited money and the
District is only able to help very minimally. Teachers were very good at being patient
and waiting. We worked with what we had to innovate and create. We took all the new
computers from the classroom teachers and made a lab for students and gave the teachers
back their old computers. In the new student computer lab there now is “graphic art”
because we subscribe to Adobe Creative Cloud for student access to the latest Photo
Shop.

The leadership team. The principal acknowledges that in the past years the school has
had a leadership team until this year. This is deliberate because the principal wanted everyone to
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

77
participate by offering ideas and talking with peers or administrators. When the district asked for
the school site to have a behavioral intervention team, the principal told the staff they were all on
the team and doing it together. The principal believes key people have been waiting to
participate in an open leadership style.
Principal #1 stated:

Everybody had a legitimate voice. Some people will naturally pick up roles and it is
working. I don’t want an in-group and an out-group. You don’t always need to talk to
me. The driving force has been me (principal) but key people have been waiting for it.
They love the ideas. I worry that if I were to leave, the key teachers would be great but
would they keep innovating? How do you create the sustainability to innovate? Try and
get them to think and do things differently.

Data
Beyond the United States test data, after allowing the staff to look at data from around the
world, the principal began talking about global test scores. To enable the teachers to begin to
think of the big picture, they began talking about the world’s view of education in South Korea,
Denmark, and Australia.
Principal #1 stated:

We constantly try and use data from all over the world. We show statistics to show how
others do things differently. We don’t do it to say we need to be like them. We like to
get teachers thinking big picture. Often times we get caught up in this country or
California and we are now talking about the kids competing globally. We do actually
look at worldwide data to try and develop the mindset or paradigm of how we approach
education.

I said to the teachers, ten years from now the students probably won’t remember
most algebra they learned, but what they will learn because of the way you are doing
math, is to think critically, be resilient, how to fight through a problem, how to come to
an answer, and how to collaborate with other people. Those are the skills they are going
to learn from you and it doesn’t matter what high school or college they go to, these big
picture skills you learn through STEM and Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts,
Mathematics (STEAM) integration.

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

78
Master schedule. Data, such as recent test scores, was used for honors classes and
placing students into high level accelerated math or geometry classes. Students still needed to be
proficient or advanced to do well in those classes. The Principal stated, “In the Project Lead The
Way (PLTW) class, we went with basic kids. We looked at grades and recent test scores. We
didn’t want the kids to be too low where this was too difficult. We wanted it to be challenging
for them and reach students that have scored basic who may have traditionally gotten C’s in a
class like this. All Special Education (SpEd) students, even though their schedule is a little more
restrictive, we make sure they get one STEAM elective class.”
Monitoring
The principal is concerned about monitoring and relays the following items as important to
answer this year. First asking, “How are we going to monitor? How do we gauge creativity?
How do we gage students being collaborative? How do we assess ourselves?” Then spewing,
“Let’s create some type of mid-year assessments. Start looking for trends and data. I began to
create surveys for ourselves, kids and parents.”
Principal #1 stated:

I walk around and talk to the kids. I want to gauge from their perspective what they took
away from the lesson. I ask them lots of questions to see how the information is sinking
in. We are pushing natural collaboration with each other and the teacher. The kids are
holding each other accountable and recognize other kids who are sitting alone. The kids
usually have STEAM electives as their favorite classes. Pride – there is a sense of pride
and school spirit because our school is doing something differently.

We say to them this is a STEAM academy and we don’t behave this way. We can
say, “In another school you are not going to learn robotics.” Kids don’t want to go to
another school because they are “ghetto”. Kids are beginning to see a sense of privilege
along with pride. It will not be overnight. I tell the teachers to keep challenging the kids,
be hard on them.

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

79
Adjustments
Transitioning into a STEM integrated program affected the entire school community,
which included parents, students, teachers, and support staff.

Principal #1 stated:

We had to give our teachers time to catch their breath. They needed to slow down.
Slowing down was received well by teachers and it gave them relief to slow down.
Slowing down the flow of ideas is a good problem to have. They were sprinting out of the
gates. We needed to find our stride and balance. The students were thrown off as well,
the rigor increased and the way they were learning changed. The types of things being
asked of students changed and they started not doing their work. In turn, the parents
started pushing back that this is too difficult. I told the teachers to hold their ground,
keep the expectations high, we will have the supports there for them, the students will
have to reach the level of expectation, and the parents will have to adjust.

We had to change the culture in the community about what they should expect. It
is going much better since August with less parents pushing back. The parents
acknowledged they did not have the technology at home, which is fine because we
provide that here. Now the parents are talking about the type of technology they want to
buy and are asking the members of the school community their opinion about the
technology available to buy stating, “ We want to support our kids.”

The only adjustment was trying to slow down a little bit. Everyone tried to sprint,
go too fast, and do so many things. And we were saying, “Let’s do it!” We wanted to
prioritize a little bit and say, “Yes we want to do all that, but that is something that is
going to wait.” Project based learning (PBL) was a huge piece. Everyone wanted to get
out of the gate with that, but we said, “Let’s start small, pilot some project based lessons,
and let’s be okay with taking a year or two to get this down.” Prioritizing all these ideas
and great initiatives, we asked, “What do we really need to do now and what can we get
to next year?”

Challenges
The principal reported the significant challenges during the implementation of the
integrated STEM program were staffing, resources, funding, and communication. First, staffing
a school for an integrated STEM program required responsibly protecting employee rights as
well as student’s needs. Second, knowing what resources are needed and which are eminent was
pertinent to the process when asking for assistance from the school district. Third, acquiring
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

80
funds. Finally, the communication was hard because it went across so many different channels
such as parents, businesses, and educators.
Staffing, Resources, Funding, Communication
Principal #1 stated:
Staffing. Staffing was the biggest challenge because of legalities that you have to work
through such as employee rights, union rights, and doing as right as you can by the
people without putting their needs before the student needs. Through it all, it was very
challenging. People still hold major grudges against me. Doing what is best for kids
does not always means doing what’s best for adults. Everyone likes to say let’s do what
is best for kids. But when we really do what is best for kids some times it goes against
the adult interests. That is hard to do. You have that ethical piece and then the legal side
with contracts, employee rights and Credentialing. That was challenging, because of
back and forth heavy exchanges with myself and the superintendent, and the director of
HR (Human Resources). Me fighting and fighting and fighting while they were trying to
balance the political pressures of the teachers and the teachers union.

Resources. You only have so much money they (school district administrators) can help
with. I didn’t know what to ask for because it was not made clear to me. They (school
district administrators) said, “Well just ask and we will tell you if we can.” Ok, let’s say
they (school district) are going to help with $20,000 worth of money, really not that much
money. How do we prioritize between new furniture, new technology, software and
application, paying teachers extra duty, and professional development? How do we
prioritize the limited resources that we have?

Funding. I have one teacher researching some grants. We are slowly getting some
donors. I have talked with some city officials, nothing formally. We want to get to some
structured partnerships.

Communication. Communication across all parties, parents, businesses, to other
administrators, you name it. What starts happening when you do something radically
different is rumors start to swell and people get strange pieces of information that they
turn. We had to be cautious not to get sucked into, as a staff, the things that are still being
said. You have to be cautious about not ignoring them, but not being sucked into them.
What do you want to spend your time cleaning up vs. what you ignore? Some stuff you
brush off and say you are not going to waste my time with that. Other stuff you do need
to tend to. For example: parents question the legalities, rumors the district is spending
all the money on this school. You don’t want something positive to get lost in all the
rumors. We did send out a postcard to every single family showcasing what we were
doing to market ourselves.

Transitioning from one school to another school. Doing graduation to end a
school year and end that website and starting up a new website for the new school. The
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

81
communication was tricky to do away with the old school and begin the new school.
People would call and it was so time consuming. The secretary and office staff had to be
well versed in our new program because myself, and the assistant principal did not have
the time to answer all the questions. The communication was hard.

Classroom Observations: A, B, and C
The following observations were made in integrated STEM classrooms with fifty-minute
teaching periods where the researcher spent the class period observing classrooms A, B, and C.
The classes were comprised of less than thirty middle school students each with varying ability
levels ranging from below to above grade level, special education needs, and multi-linguistic.
The classroom desk configurations included two or more students sitting together working
cooperatively.
Observation A

Integrated Classroom Environment

Classroom description. The class was composed of 27 seventh grade students with
student ability levels varying from below to above grade level learners, special education
students, various student nationalities, and multi-linguistic students present. The class time was
50 minutes in duration. The classroom desk configuration included three or four students able to
sit at rectangle shaped tables as well as individual student desks.

Technology available. The classroom was equipped with a projector mounted to the
ceiling interfaced with a computer and document camera. Students had access to individual
classroom laptops.

Lesson. The lesson objective was “to draw a bed” on the laptop using the additive and
subtractive methods. A PLTW Gateway design and modeling activity worksheet was used.
Instruction was delivered using PLTW engineering and design curriculum as described in the
school’s course description catalogue (see Appendix J). All students demonstrated the ability to
follow directions and participate. This teacher has been trained and certified to lead PLTW
instruction.

Materials. Print rich walls included a math word wall, inspirational sayings, and a PLTW
curriculum wall with student work on display. Projects that were displayed on top of the
classroom cabinetry were student designed and constructed bunk beds made to suit the
specifications of a school staff member’s request. Materials to construct the bunk beds were
provided by students, school staff, families, and funds.

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

82
Integrated STEM Instruction

Technology used. Technology use was evident. Each student was issued a Lenovo 17
inch laptop computer with Internet access. The computers were bought during the summer of
2014.

Strategies. Strategies were evident. The technology was used to drive instruction. The
teacher checked for student understanding both verbally and pictorially. Students checked each
other for understanding both verbally and pictorially. The use of organizers and systematic
procedures were in place. For example, time was built into the lesson at the beginning and end to
retrieve and put away student laptops. Each student was assigned an exact laptop to use and there
was a specific location where the laptops were stored. No homework was given.

Student interest. Student interest was evident. There was time built into the lesson to
engage in interactions between student to student and student to teacher. Students actively
participated in conversations with peers and teacher. It appeared optional for students to walk
around the classroom to ask for assistance from or give assistance to peers. Passive student
participants sat at tables and were checked on by the teacher.

STEM integration. Stem integration was evident. Math, engineering, and technology
were forerunners of today’s lesson. The students were engaged in mathematical measurements
for engineering a design with the use of a touchpad and mouse on a laptop computer. During
this process the teacher had routines to which the students adhered. For example, there were
times when the teacher would say, “ Your hands off the keyboards please” as the teacher
projected the demonstration onto the screen in the front of the classroom from a computer
located in the back of the classroom. When it was time for the students to join, the teacher said,
“Try this with me,” before continuing directions with the students. Students followed directions,
were extremely attentive, and whispered or were quiet during the lesson.

Students were excited and anxious to show the teacher and each other their
accomplishments. As soon as the teacher said, “Now you try it,” the learning noise began. Aside
from students assisting each other with the additive and subtractive design, I overheard a student
say, “ I know this will help me make good money in my future.” Another student replied, “ I am
thinking about what I will do and this could help me.”

Observation B

Integrated Classroom Environment

Classroom description. The class was composed of 23 seventh and eighth grade
students with student ability levels varying from below to above grade level learners, special
education students, various student nationalities, and multi-linguistic students present. The class
time was 50 minutes in duration. The classroom desk configuration included three, four, or five
students able to sit at rectangle and kidney shaped tables.

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

83
Technology available. The classroom was equipped with a projector mounted to the
ceiling interfaced with a computer and document camera. Students had access to individual
classroom tablets.

Lesson. The lesson objective was “to design an app or a new product to launch a new
business”. Two support teachers were present in the classroom for special education students.
All students demonstrated the ability to follow directions and participate in this activity. The
teacher of this class has been Google trained and certified to use the Google Apps for Education
curriculum. The school utilized this trained and certified teacher to deliver instruction in the
integrated coding and robotics courses, as well as for Advanced Via Individual Determination
(AVID) classes.

Materials. Print rich walls included maps, inspirational sayings, an AVID wall with the
poster explaining WICOR (writing, organization, collaboration, organization, reading), a Goggle
word wall, literary genres wall, college information, and a technology poster that was an
instructional tool. The technology poster instructed the user to research, design, build, test,
improve, and go back to the research, if necessary.

Integrated STEM Instruction

Technology used. Technology was evident. Each student was issued a Samsung tablet
with Internet access for use in this class.

Strategies. Strategies were evident. The technology was used to drive instruction. The
assignment was posted on the classroom website that the students easily accessed. The teacher
began the lesson with a YouTube video of an 11year old motivational speaker addressing 1100
adults and peers about determination. In this lesson each student was expected to develop an app
or product to start a new small business by doing research on the Internet. A variety of
suggested websites to research were given to the students. The end product of this lesson was a
slide show presentation designed to pitch the small business owner’s idea. The end product was
due at a later date.

The teacher checked for student understanding both verbally and pictorially. Students
checked each other for understanding both verbally and pictorially at their tables. The use of
organizers and systematic procedures were in place. For example, time was built into the lesson
at the beginning and end to retrieve and put away student tablets. Each student was assigned an
exact tablet to use and there was a specific location where the tablets were stored. No homework
was given.

Student interest. Student interest was evident. There was time built into the lesson to
engage in interactions between student to student and student to teacher. Students actively
participated in conversations with peers and teacher. I heard a student empowering another
student, “You can do it; don’t say you can’t.” It appeared optional for students to walk around
the classroom to ask or give peers assistance. Students ran over to the table where the teacher
showed interest in a student’s work. I heard a student saying, “That is cool. What a great idea.”
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

84
Passive student participants sat at tables and were not forced to answer but were checked on by
the teacher.

STEM integration. Integration of technology, design, and language arts were
forerunners of today’s lesson. The teacher championed the lesson and made sure the students
understood what the lesson entailed and when the final product was due. The goal of this lesson
was to learn about creating a Google app and using Google tools.

Observation C

Integrated Classroom Environment

Classroom description. The class was composed of 29 eighth grade students with
student ability levels varying from below to above grade level learners, special education
students, various student nationalities, and multi-linguistic students present. The class time was
50 minutes in duration. The classroom desk configuration included three or four students able to
sit on stools at rectangle shaped lab tables. A demonstration station was located in the front of
the lab classroom with the lab tables positioned along the perimeter, leaving a large open space
in the center of the room. This lab classroom was attached to a science storage room that was
connected to the student’s science classroom. The science storage room was equipped with a
sink for students to use as needed during the physical science lab experimentation.

Technology available. The lab classroom was not equipped with technology.

Lesson. The lesson objective was “to make glue”. The students were exposed to an
investigation about making glue prior to this lab activity. During the investigative learning
process the students read a non-fiction informative document. All students demonstrated the
ability to follow directions and participate in this activity while using a lab journal notebook to
document all lab work. The teacher of this class sat on the California State Science Committee
for Next Generation of Science Standards and feels that no student should ever be without the
opportunity to participate in lab practice therefore, together with the school’s principal, they
designed this lab classroom.

Materials. Materials to make glue were present with a system in place for each lab group
to acquire them. Various types of student projects and equipment such as microscopes and triple
beam balances were displayed around the lab classroom. Print rich walls included many and
varied inspirational and informational science posters.

Integrated STEM Instruction

Technology used. Technology was not used during lab time. Technology was used with
the students during classroom instruction in preparation for the student’s use of the lab for this
experimentation.

Strategies. The teacher checked for student understanding both verbally and visually.
The students checked each other for understanding both verbally and visually. The use of
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

85
organizers such as the lab journal and systematic procedures were in place. For example, time
was allotted for setting and cleaning up of equipment and lab stations. No homework was given.

Student interest. Student interest was evident. There was time built into the lesson to
engage in interactions between student to student and student to teacher. Students actively
participated in conversations with peers and teacher. The teacher built time into the lesson for
students to share information with each other and it was evident they had established routines for
taking turns listening and speaking with each other. Within a lab group, each person was
responsible for a task to accomplish, which I viewed as part of student interest because it
produced laughter and conversation. It appeared optional for students to walk around the
classroom to ask or give peers assistance. Students were heard saying, “I will read the
directions. Can we take turns pouring? We need to start over because the glue does not look the
same as the demonstration.” Passive
student participants were not allowed in the room. The teacher held all students accountable by
their first name.

STEM integration. Stem integration was evident. Math and science were forerunners
during this lab lesson.

Conclusion: Interview and Observations

Integrated STEM was implemented at this school site from the vision of a principal
interested in innovatively closing the achievement gap for all students. The master schedule at
this school site evolved to be inclusive of all students having equal access to integrated STEM
classes through a seven period day (see Appendix G). The first year began with elective classes
that produced a strong student and teacher interest by the end of that year. The majority of
teachers demonstrated readiness for positive change that provided opportunities for all students
to be involved with integrated STEM curriculum. By year two, teachers developed the desire to
receive professional development to build their skill base and more elective classes were added
to the master schedule. The principal describes this as an organic process entering into year
three with a theme, adding the arts to STEM, and moving forward as a magnet school that
services all students with an integration of STEAM.
During the interview process the principal related factors influencing implementation
included being a risk taker, gaining knowledge and insight through books and discussions with
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

86
staff members ready for positive change, and having buy in and cooperation from multiple
sources including district, school board, teachers union, and staff. The principal emphatically
related that having the right people who are willing to work in a changing environment is key.
Principal #1 reported significant challenges during implementation included staffing, knowing
the resources needed, acquiring funds, and communication. The staffing problems arose because
doing what is best for kids sometimes is not aligned with adult interests. Having limited
resources required prioritizing which materials and equipment to purchase, while including
purchasing professional development training for teachers. Finally, communication was difficult
across the multi-channels of parents, businesses, and educators, because doing something
radically different such as STEAM created rumors that needed to either be addressed or ignored.
Discernible in all classrooms, observed by the researcher, was the principal’s desire to
service all students utilizing cooperative learning, project-based learning, and technology driven
student learning with student access to using technology. Positive performance outcomes by
students were also observable in these classrooms. The data pointed to the importance of teacher
training in integrated STEM strategies because these strategies, along with teacher pedagogy,
were evident in their content knowledge base. The teacher’s performance driving the curriculum
and the curriculum content was reflected in observable student interest in the class and projects
assigned. Evident in all projects were real life experiences.
Principal #2 - Implementation Process

Principal #2 led a science charge at this school site when it opened in 2009. The
principal revealed student interest and economics were two reasons why integrated STEM
originated in August 2012 and continues to flourish to date. The principal recalled regarding
student interest, “We liked seeing what these kids could do with it, so that is one reason why
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

87
STEM grew for us.” The principal notes an economic decline when the district closed two
schools, “ It was economically important that the student population be restored in this district.
Students were actively choosing to attend an independent charter school that opened a middle
school program and it was negatively affecting the budget of this school district”.
This perpetuated the principal and staff to realize there was a need to become competitive
and began an internal discussion focusing on the question, “If we have to be competitive what
are we going to do?” The principal and staff decided: “STEM is something we are good at, we
can get better at, and is good for kids. Let’s make STEM our focus and really try and convince
families in our area that this would be a good place to send their kid(s) because STEM is where it
is at now and in the future. STEM is where the jobs are going to be.”
Principal #2 stated:

We planned it in 2011, but got the ball rolling in 2012-2013. This would be our third
year of being labeled a STEM school, even though we started this when we originally
opened. It has been very positive for us. I have about thirty students from just east, about
fifteen students from just west, and a smattering of students here and there. If you look at
it from a purely cold financial point of view, each student is roughly six to seven
thousand dollars worth of Average Daily Attendance (ADA). Every student keeps a
teacher’s job here, keeps the program going, make my bosses at the district happy, keeps
my promise to the school board that we are going to attract kids, makes it a good program
for the kids who are already here, and we have been able to do that. It is a nice feather in
our cap.

Planning Stages

The school opened in 2009 with elective classes that would have been considered STEM
but were not labeled as such. The principal recounted, “If you asked a person what STEM was,
probably no one knew including myself.” Applied Science was the elective class offered that
gave students a chance to learn about robotics and Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) / forensic
investigations. This elective class was project driven.
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

88
The next school year, 2010, the master schedule continued to offer the Applied Science
elective to students. During this school year an educational alliance organization propagated
training and money to expand STEM’s reach at this school site. The principal was on board with
this idea, “We used the money to send a teacher to PLTW training. That was the spark that got
us going. From there we were able to expand the elective to two sections.”
Principal #2 further stated: In 2011, the beginning of our third year, a lot of different
forces began to come into play. Our understanding of STEM and our institutional
capacity to teach STEM got better because we had that teacher who had gone to training.
I then sent another teacher to training. This teacher came back “gung ho” and wanted to
teach these STEM classes. We made that happen and at the same time we had students
who were showing interest in these classes.

The Applied Science class became our STEM Applied Science class. Then we
started a design class we called, STEM Advanced Design. Those classes started off with
one or two sections and right now they are at four sections. The one thing that started
STEM rolling was student interest. Students liked those classes and my staff liked those
classes. STEM lets kids blow things up, build things, put them back together, think and
do school a different way.

We decided we wanted to be a STEM school. What would that look like? That
really led to an epiphany that STEM should be for every kid at this school. We are very
aware that there are STEM pathways and STEM electives, our staff and myself included,
felt that if STEM is so good for kids, “Shouldn’t every kid do it?” By every kid I mean:
the EL’s, the moderate or severe special education kids, the kids who are in intervention
classes because they are falling apart. I mean every kid, not just the advanced kids or the
kids who sign up for a particular class.

We developed this idea of how could we deliver STEM or a STEM experience to
all students and we have a model for that. We have a model where every student gets
STEM. All 900 of them, in one way, shape, or form. Some get a lot, some get a little,
but they all get STEM. When we marketed that to parents, our whole philosophy was: If
you come to us you will get STEM every year, and it is not the same thing every year, it
is a rotation cycle of units. In fact, we began developing it, and right now we have about
40 STEM units that happen within three years. We didn’t want to be the school that says,
“What do you do in 8
th
grade? We do robots. What do you do in seventh grade? We do
robots.” I know that there are schools that do that, but we recognize that STEM isn’t just
robots, or isn’t just PLTW, or isn’t just the wood shop class that now they call STEM. It
is this whole package of STEM things that we want kids to do.

By developing these different units and saying here is a three-year sequence we
really started developing our identity. At the time we were just a seventh and eighth
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

89
grade school and we felt that to really complement our program we wanted sixth graders
here. We also felt we could do sixth grade really well. I had staff here that were seventh
and eighth grade teachers but had taught sixth grade before. I had been an elementary
principal, the model in the state is that most middle schools are sixth through eighth
grade, and our district was not at the time. So we put together a proposal to the School
Board that we wanted to be a STEM magnet school. The word magnet was a marketing
tool because basically anyone who wants to come for STEM will get it. We want to
allow sixth graders who want to come instead of being at their home elementary school
they could come here. We asked for some money and the permission to advertise and the
School Board said, “Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.” to all of those things. We needed to
really market ourselves. We had a staff that could do it.

It is about making what is good for kids and paying the bills. We are actually in a
situation now where many of the kids from that charter school leave that K-8 school and
come here because they don’t have the program I have here. We are in a good spot.

Master schedule. Integrated STEM would not be available to all students under the
current elective model. Therefore, the following model was developed to include two elective
paths. A student would choose a path based on their education needs and interests.
1. Take one of our dedicated STEM classes (Applied Science, Advance Design, or
Digital Media) and they would get STEM every day.

2. Let’s say you are a band, yearbook, or intervention kid, you can take these classes four
weeks a year. They peel off from their elective class and go visit the STEM teacher in
the STEM lab (a five week unit) they take a break from band, yearbook etc. I have the
STEM teacher and the Band teacher there. I have two adults to thirty-six kids union cap.
Those kids get STEM four times a year and let’s say they start as a seventh grader, they
roll into it again as a eighth grader with four different units (there are a total of eight units
over the course of two years with no repetition). SpEd student and intervention kids all
peel away and do STEM. They all need a release to see that school can be fun too.

STEM teachers. The principal notes that the band teacher, yearbook teacher, and
student council teacher all teach a STEM four-week rotation. The planning for this begins the
year prior. The band teacher will look at the school year calendar to plan four teaching weeks of
STEM as well as the band performances throughout the school year. The yearbook teacher also
teaches STEM and will plan for it while taking into consideration the yearbook deadlines
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

90
throughout the school year. The student council teacher also teaches STEM and will plan for it
while taking into consideration dances throughout the school year.
Principal #2 stated: That STEM teacher has no classes scheduled for four periods of the
day. Those periods are open for the other classes to pop in and visit. That did take a
board approval and they signed off on it. The credential is science. There is talk about a
STEM credential coming. Right now my STEM classes are taught by technology,
science, and mathematics credentialed teachers.

Sixth grade model (see Appendix H): We have an elective wheel. We have created a
more sheltered environment. They go out for an elective, which is predetermined and
rotated within four types. In sixth grade they do about nine weeks of AVID, nine weeks
of STEM Robotics, nine weeks of art, nine weeks of either music or robotics. Sixth
grade gets a good buffet and this helps to make an informed choice for seventh grade. In
seventh grade they will choose if they want STEM every day or not.

Seventh and eighth grade model (see Appendix I): My science teacher who teaches the
rotating blocks her first two periods teaches the STEM applied year round classes. They
are two sections of thirty kids using PLTW. In the other periods every elective class will
see her four times a year. Other then the yearlong class, she developed four units for the
year. When the moderate to severe Special Education or English Language Learner kids
visit, she has modified the curriculum. She is still doing rocketry with more adults and
they are not getting anything much different. Do those kids need STEM? Yes! We have
a math teacher picking up one of her sections because she is teaching a robotics class to
the sixth grade.

Teacher training. Once the staff recognized that there was teacher-buy in, I sent
teachers to training and they came back energized and excited primarily about PLTW training.
There were some other trainings here and there, not as expensive or lengthy, but basically PLTW
training was $4,000 a person for two weeks and very valuable and well worth it.
Curriculum. The Applied Science curriculum is a year round class that includes
learning about flight, space, and simple machines. Students are exposed to design through
advanced methods. Students will also have an opportunity to solve situational problems, which
asks the students to figure out the best solution to a problem. PLTW offers students direction
and time to redesign the solution if necessary.

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

91
Principal #2 stated:
Integration. The whole STEM in English and STEM in Social Studies, I have these
STEM classes where everyone experiences them. We are working on integrating STEM
into English and Social Studies. I call that the STEM 2.0 initiative for us. We are working
on that this year. The next step is let’s integrate smart and wisely. You can’t take a
STEM idea and ask the English teacher to have them write about rocketry. You do it this
way. “Hey, English teacher what are you reading. We are reading The Pearl. What if we
had the kids build the boat? Will that work? That will be the symbolism for the story.
The kids will build them and see if they float.” You need to see how the thing that the
English teacher is doing fits into the STEM. We did it the other way and it didn’t work.
We did it this way this year and it is working. The English teacher sees how their thing,
that they are going to do anyway, can have a STEM piece. Saying to the English teacher,
“Hey, you guys need to teach more STEM” has not worked for us. We have
collaboration six times during the year, minimum day for the kids. The curriculum things
happen in department meetings, on collaboration days, and sometimes I’m there and
sometimes I’m not.

Failure. The biggest is the concept of failure, because when we first started
doing STEM activities it was interesting to see smart kids who scored 600, perfect STAR
scores, on math fall apart when their marble maze didn’t work. They did not know how
to handle it. They built it, it was supposed to work, and it didn’t work. They asked, “Can
we go on?” We said, “No you can not”, and they fell apart. We told them, “You are
supposed to fix it.” They replied, “ I don’t know how to do it. I don’t know how to fix it.”
Okay, let’s think about it, you can do it. Interestingly, some of the low performing and
mid range kids were more innovative at these projects then the 600 scoring advanced
kids. The 600 scoring kids are great kids, but they learned how to be great in a system
we created for them (we are going to tell you, you are smart and your parents are going to
be happy for you). We never created a system that pushed them to really think. Now I
get those kids in the sixth grade and they will have tears but I have them for three years
and by eighth grade they are fine. They are not crying about the failure. They will tell
you, “I tried this, this, and this and I figured out why that didn’t work. I saw that person
do that over there and guess what, I tried that with a little of this and it worked.” The
resiliency and the perseverance, they are so much better for it, but that is not tested on a
test, unfortunately, and hard to quantify, but that has been a learning outcome I have
seen.

Collaborative culture. The principal feels this school has always had a collaborative
culture. No matter if ideas are deemed good or bad, the staff is always encouraged to talk it
through.
Principal #2 stated: We have a pretty good feel here, administration has always gotten
along with both classified and certificated. We do not go up against roadblocks because
we talk it out. I try to run an efficient school. When you are efficient, things click nice.
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

92
When you want to challenge the system, the system can then handle it because of the
efficiency model you have already set up. I will admit that coming up with this schedule
was complicated, as was coming up with all the electives. If your people don’t have
confidence in you, that you can pull it off, it is going to be a wreck. I have really, really,
really, good teachers. Bad teachers left, I hired new teachers, and good teachers
transferred in. I have the right people on the bus, says James Collins. You have to have
the right people on the bus. They trusted me. It was a mutual trust. They trusted me that I
could go to my bosses and pull this off.
Business partnerships. Middle schools are not what businesses give lots of
money to. Corporations like to support high school. We do not have a lot of large
corporations here in our district. The few companies that exist gravitate to high school.
The local gas station will buy me saws and I say thank you. The lumberyard gives me
200 pounds of scrap wood. The little relationships are need based. The local Lowes
made donations for us. They donated 50 miter boxes. There is no massive scheme in
kind donations. Local businesses will give you stuff rather then money. Often times,
parents will have connections for us. So we are getting truck and water company people
to talk with kids about Geographic Information Science (GIS) because of a connection. I
probably would not have gotten them otherwise.

Key Players
Leadership team. The principal acknowledges that twelve people were the key players
figuring out what the structure of integrated STEM would look like for this school. It was an
invitation open to any classified and certificated staff member who wanted to stay after school
and talk about it.
Principal #2 stated:

It was helpful to have my custodian and instructional aides. Those are key players. If
your custodian is not on board or clerical staff is ticked off, it will be an uphill battle.
Our inclusive and survivability theme is what brought the right people. In a separate
meeting I brought in my Parent, Teacher, Student Association (PTSA), school site
council, and English Learner Advisory Committee (ELAC). A lot of this was
brainstorming about what are we good at. I brought the poster board. International
Baccalaureate Program (IB) was placed on it and STEM was up there. This was done
with all groups. That we were going to do STEM was not calculated by me. For
example, there was another charter school run by our district that had an IB focus. Did we
want to fight that? The independent charter school had more of a leadership model and
we thought that maybe we could do leadership better.

As a staff I didn’t tell them what to do, it was twelve people around the table. The
English Language Learner (ELL) and Special Education (SpEd) teachers said, “Don’t
forget us.” That was a good point and we rallied to make it happen. Our guiding
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

93
directive was, “How can we have all kids doing STEM? When we do this, what about all
the other stuff?” For example, if I just say every kid will take this class, what about the
band kid, the yearbook kid, the kid who really does need intervention, or the SpEd kids
whose Individualized Education Plan (IEP) states they must have so many special
education minutes to go do this. I can’t really do STEM through an elective model when
it short changes kids who want to do other things. When the band director is sitting at the
meeting and brought this to our attention, we realized we needed to acknowledge the
need for kids to be able to do other things. As a school we did not want to do this. Look
there has to be a yearbook class and they should be able to do STEM. Are we not going
to have a yearbook because they are going to do STEM? Well, no.

There are a lot of themes out there in education. It boiled down to what are we
already good at and what are we excited about. I did not come to everyone and say we
are doing STEM. We recognized that we were doing STEM in its basic stages. The
leadership team was purely brainstorming. It took maybe a couple of meetings and the
parents came to the same conclusion. Then we asked, “What does STEM look like?” I
then heard from all the different groups of teachers, parents, PTSA, and helicopter
parents who do not want their kids to get short-changed. Yes, I was the central pillar in
that, but I was listening to all ideas, and there were no naysayers. But, there were
questions like, “How will that affect my PE” or “How will that affect my custodial staff?”
I answered questions for my parents as well. I take input from all and redirect it, if need
be.

A lot of input came from the staff. Having a great STEM teacher was key
because she was willing to show and share with others. Getting feedback from other
teachers who have been teaching for a while and getting their approval was very good.
Teachers were gravitating to the inclusiveness, “STEM for all,” because I would not be
devoting thousands of dollars just for special kids. This is for everybody.

Data
The principal felt this implementation was not student performance data driven. The
principal stated, “We knew STEM was good for kids. But it wasn’t, look students are doing
poorly on tests so let’s implement STEM to help them do better. Instead, it was this is something
kids are not doing. Common core was a flicker in our eye, the tests were still there, and we felt
STEM was good for kids.”
Principal #2 stated: I would like data to show that STEM is good for kids. The bias in
this system is that they want number data! We are struggling with how do we collect
data! We were thinking about a STEM assessment. It is not a multiple-choice test. It
can be performance. Do we want a portfolio? If so where is the number in that? Will
the grant people be impressed with a portfolio because they want to see data? There are
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

94
tests out there from other companies that purportedly measure student’s ability to
innovate, out-of-the-box thinking, etc. We also want to be sure we don’t get into the trap
of “test driven curriculum” because we have had fifteen years of that. We don’t want a
test that will distort what we are trying to do here. How do we measure failure, try to flip
it around, and say that is good?
The only luck we had is that our students really did perform very well on the
STAR (State Testing and Reporting). We did well in all of our subgroups and then
STAR stopped. I told a grant person about the numbers and they asked what part of that
is based on your population? Is independently dependent on you? I told them, some kids
came to me because they wanted to come or parents wanted their high performing kids to
come. I can’t tell you if they performed high solely because of STEM. I would like a
STEM assessment to help us with the monitoring. I want some data because that is what
the bosses like.

Monitoring
The principal is monitoring the exposure middle school students have had to STEM prior
to entering middle school. The principal has an awareness of the curriculum taught in the
elementary school, as well as various high student interest items that are marketed to their
enjoyment. The principal uses this knowledge to leverage the planning of the school’s integrated
STEM program. The outcome of the principal’s awareness has led to the following initiatives
and changes.
Initiatives. The principal is forward thinking about how our country and the world is
technology focused and therefore rapidly changing. A major initiative to grow the integrated
program at this school has been to create an Outdoor STEM Lab. The principal accomplished
having architectural plans drawn up, the school board’s approval, and permits put in place to
build an “Outdoor STEM Lab” on campus. The Outdoor STEM Lab includes a water basin,
amphitheater, a sand pit, storage, cover arch, and room for demonstrations.
Changes. The principal professes, “Things have to be done fast otherwise we will get
old fast.” To meet the student’s needs, “We begin to pull things out and put things into our
curriculum.” The principal gave some examples that loom and may therefore perpetuate the
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

95
need to update and make changes to the current STEM curriculum at middle school. First, sixth
graders are beginning to arrive at middle school having played with robotic kits, thus a change in
the robotics class may be needed. Second, the bottle rocket demonstration is now being used at
the elementary level.
Principal #2 stated: Coding is a big thing. Last year it was the day of code, this year it
is the week of code. The monitoring piece includes what do you get rid of. You are not
going to hold on to anything that is being eclipsed by kids. The other piece of monitoring,
we would like data to show that STEM is good for kids. Grant people want to see
numbers. Well, at middle school I don’t have graduation rates, college acceptance rates,
or drop out rates to measure the effect of STEM. I can mention how many kids are in
STEM.

Student Performance. Now here is where I think we are lucky because the
common core test performance tasks are very often open-ended questions. For example:
one of the sample tests, you had to place trees around the park. My STEM kids could do
that very well and had confidence. Other kids were nervous, “What is the formula for the
trees?” The new CCSS is a perfect fit for STEM. The test is a good fit. There are parts of
the test that need rote calculations, which is also good because it has a place. I am very
hopeful that what we are doing with STEM is going to result in good test performance.
If it doesn’t, then it will be a real reflective process for us. We will need to ask, “Is there
a part of STEM that we are missing, that could be better reflected if we do it this way?” I
don’t know yet to be honest with you. Is the test a tease and maybe not as a performance
test as I think it will be. I will need to play the game because my bosses will want us to
have good measurement.

Adjustments

Improve integration. The principal has plans to visit a K-8 magnet STEM school in a
nearby school district. The goal is to view the “STEM in all subjects” initiative at this school
site because that is the area that the Principal feels could use adjusting and improving at his
school site.
Principal #2 stated: It is interesting to me that when I talk about “STEM for all” and
“STEM embedded into the whole school” it does not mean the same thing for all school
sites. So it is interesting to me that we don’t have this common understanding of what
STEM integration is.

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

96
Challenges

Financial, Demographics, Sixth Grade

Principal #2 stated:

Financial. We have not lived off of grants but I have learned very quickly how helpful
they are. The big pockets are hesitant to donate because I don’t have data. I would have
loved a 3-D printer. We spent money at the beginning that was sustaining so that we did
not loose all the money. For example: building a catapult. To build it we needed tools.
Originally we found an organization that had a career technology education workshop on
wheels and they showed local kids how to do this. We saw it, the first couple of years
they came, we watched, and took pictures. We now do it for ourselves. We know how to
use all equipment and tools. We invested our grant money into items that would sustain
our program such as the equipment. Now I invest in the consumables. We wanted to
make sure we serviced all of our kids, not just 50. Eventually, a time is going to come
when making this catapult will not be a big deal. Now I need to get with a bigger donor to
replace the money from the grants that we spent. The sustainability of STEM is long
term. Since much of the grant money has been spent, I have to sustain things on our own.
I also wish I could have sent more people to training because staff comes and goes.
Hiring the teaching staff, and providing them with the training to teach an elective and
feel successful, is very important.

Demographics. Demographic is a big one. I have to adjust to meet the needs of
the kids that I have. A challenge is my feeder school demographics changed. Some of
the good kids went to other schools before the STEM thing, then after STEM. I got kids
from other districts and then I had to educate them to our district. Approximately 52 %
of my kids are on free and reduced lunch, 20% are ELL and I have to meet the needs of
those kids. I have not had the same chunk of kids during the six years we have had
STEM courses.

Sixth Grade. Taking on the sixth grade was a new challenge. Now all district
middle schools are sixth grade with the local sixth grade kids attending our school. We
do not experience the same kids year in and year out. But yes, it is about making what is
good for kids and paying the bills. We were in survival mode because charters were
taking our kids and the economy was bad. We really positioned ourselves well with
something we had a talent with. We are actually in a situation now where many of the
kids from that charter school leave that K-8 school and come here because they don’t
have the program I have here. We are in a good spot.

Classroom Observations: D and E

The following observations were made in integrated STEM classrooms with fifty-minute
teaching periods where the researcher spent the class period observing classrooms D and E. The
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

97
classes were comprised of less than thirty middle school students each with varying ability levels
ranging from below to above grade level, special education needs, and multi-linguistic. The
classroom desk configurations included two or more students sitting together working
cooperatively.
Observation D

Integrated Classroom Environment

Classroom description. The class was composed of 26 eighth grade students with
student ability levels varying from below to above grade level learners, special education
students, various student nationalities, and multi-linguistic students present. The class time was
50 minutes in duration. The classroom desk configuration included four individualized desks
arranged in groups. Each group consisted of three or four students.

Technology available. The classroom was equipped with a projector mounted to the
ceiling interfaced with a computer and document camera. Students had access to individual
classroom laptops.

Lesson. The lesson objective was “an Egg Drop practice”. The students made a
prototype of a device that would save an egg from breaking when dropped from a high elevation.
This was the beginning of a four-week course in a STEM Rotation of courses available to grades
six through eight. Each table group had a leader in charge of keeping the group on task.
Materials used were identical for each group. Time was built into the lesson for groups to test
the prototypes they developed. An egg drop apparatus was located in the courtyard for all
classes to use (see Appendix K). All students demonstrated the ability to follow directions and
participate. A certificated math teacher led this integrated STEM instruction and was supported
by an elective teacher during this four week STEM rotation.

Materials. Print rich walls included math projects, a multitude of various projects
displayed on shelves in the classroom, and student of the month per class period.

Integrated STEM Instruction

Technology used. The teacher used technology to instruct the class.

Strategies. Strategies were evident. The technology was used to drive instruction. The
teacher checked for student understanding both verbally and visually. Students checked each
other for understanding both verbally and visually. The use of organizers and systematic
procedures were in place. For example, time was built into the lesson at the beginning and end
of class for set up and clean up. Before the egg launch, the teacher reminded students, “ This
lesson is not about perfection, it’s about what can you do to make it better.” During the egg drop
launch the student groups had one person as the timer, one person as the recorder, and one
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

98
person who launched the egg. The teacher utilized final minutes of class as a collaborative
brainstorm session to prepare for tomorrow’s improved egg drop prototypes. During this time, a
group requested to use copy paper instead of graph paper because of durability. Any changes
made had to be agreed upon by all students. Yes, homework was given. Homework was to
think about changes they will make and bring notes to class that initiate the redesign of the first
prototype. The teacher reminded students, “ You are all great friends that is why you picked the
groups you did, so you all text each other and don’t forget to keep talking.”

Student interest. Student interest was evident. There was time built into the lesson to
engage in interactions between student to student and student to teacher. Students actively
participated in conversations with peers and teacher. Group leaders make sure that everyone was
involved and everyone’s opinion was valued. Student conversations about the egg were
observable among each group. When the students were on their way out to the egg drop site in
the courtyard they were walking very fast. When the students returned to the classroom from the
egg drop site I heard, “That was a crazy amount of fun!”

STEM integration. Stem integration was evident. During this lesson students were
engaged in mathematics, engineering, and science throughout the full duration of the class.

Observation E

Integrated Classroom Environment

Classroom description. The class was composed of 29 sixth grade students with student
ability levels varying from below to above grade level learners, special education students,
various student nationalities, and multi-linguistic students present. The class time was 50
minutes in duration. In this course, two adjoining classrooms were used. Thirteen students
started in a robotics lab classroom equipped with 20 desktop computers and two acceleration
simulators. Sixteen students, in pairs, sat on stools at either a rectangle or square table in the
robotics-building classroom. Both rooms were viable learning classrooms.

Technology available. The robotic building classroom was equipped with a projector
mounted to the ceiling interfaced with a computer and document camera. Students had access to
computers in the robotics lab classroom.

Lesson. The lesson objective was “to build a robot that would respond to two different
directions of movement”. Students worked in pairs and used the computers to transmit various
codes to their robot to produce movement. The students were allowed to test the robots at varied
points of construction. Thus, going back and forth to the computer to make code adjustments was
a frequent process for some students. Two support teachers were present in the classrooms for
special education students. Lego parts were used to build the robots and transistor parts
communicated with a technology-based coding program. The teacher reminded students of the
future dates when they will use this project to participate in a robot challenge and a robotic
dance. The teacher is certified to teach integrated STEM through a Career and Technical
Education (CTE) STEM small engines course.
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

99

Materials. Print rich walls. Projects were displayed. There were 107 robots around the
room. The robots included Lego blocks, bushings, ultra sonic sensors, touch sensors, and more.

Integrated STEM Instruction

Technology used. Technology use was evident and a necessary part of this curriculum.

Strategies. Strategies were evident. The technology was used to drive instruction. The
teacher checked for student understanding both verbally and visually. Students checked each
other for understanding both verbally and visually. The use of organizers and systematic
procedures were in place. For example, time was built into the lesson at the beginning for
direction and review of five block programs so students could program their computers to move.
At the end of the lesson there was time to clean up and put away materials. No homework was
given.

Student interest. Student interest was evident. There was time built into the lesson to
engage in interactions between student to student and student to teacher. Students actively
participated in conversations with peers and teacher. All students in pairs must participate in
learning. The teacher held everyone accountable by name. Students walked around the two
classrooms with purpose and a level of excitement was heard when they ask for assistance from
each other. After the teacher reviewed a team’s robot, one student exclaimed, “ Let’s have three
moving things!”

STEM integration. Stem integration was evident. The use of science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics were present.

Conclusion: Interview and Observations

Integrated STEM was implemented at this school site because the principal observed a
high degree of student interest since 2009 when they were implementing integrated STEM
without the STEM label. In conjunction with this, the school district had an economic need to
inflate district enrollment which coincidentally coincided with an organization reaching out to
this school site with money for teacher training in STEM applied science courses and STEM
advanced design. This school site partnered with the organization and teacher interest soared.
The school took on an integrated STEM label and began constructing a master schedule designed
to be inclusive of all students having equal access to integrated STEM classes.
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

100
During the interview process the principal related the one important factor influencing the
master schedule was providing integrated STEM for all students. This factor endorsed the
creation of two pathways for seventh and eighth grade students to choose from to attain an
integrated STEM curriculum experience. One pathway provided students with daily STEM
classes through applied science, advanced design, and digital media. The alternate pathway
provided students with four weeks of an integrated STEM Lab. The sixth grade is on a yearlong
rotation of courses, which included integrated STEM described by the principal as a “good
buffet”. Principal #2 reported significant challenges during implementation which included
acquiring continued financial support to sustain and grow this venture, the demographics
changing yearly required adjustments, and the incorporation of a sixth grade component.
Discernible in all classrooms observed by the researcher was the principal’s desire to
service all students utilizing cooperative learning, project-based learning, and technology driven
student learning with student access to using technology. Positive performance outcomes by
students were also observable in these classrooms. The data pointed to the importance of teacher
training in integrated STEM strategies because these strategies, along with teacher pedagogy,
were evident in their content knowledge base. The teacher’s performance driving the curriculum
and the curriculum content was reflected in observable student interest in the class and projects
assigned. Evident in all projects were real life experiences.
Principal #3 - Implementation Process
Principal #3 began integrated STEM as a design school in August 2014. This site opened
as a magnet school to support the district’s magnet pathways. The principal stated, “Our older
kids are the heart and soul neighborhood kids. Our Special Ed. population is about 20%, English
Language Learners about 80%, with 95% free and reduced lunch population. We have a tough
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

101
group with a lot of really engaged kids learning. The sixth graders are pulled from seventeen
elementary schools in this district.”
The principal noted, “As a design school we are the intersection of where STEM and the
arts meet. We try and do three big things on campus: 1. Foster creativity; 2. Provide students
with actual technical skill so they can innovate; 3. Take students deeply into the design thinking
process, which is our problem solving process taken from Stanford University’s Student
Design.” The principal noted, “We are on the Stanford University Design School’s map as one
of the design thinking schools.” Principal #3 further stated, “Terms are very important to this
organization because any and all terms are aligned to college and careers, as well as, to the
identity of the school and mascot. Every term is part of a teachable moment and learning
experience for students.” An example of an important term used on this campus is “provost”
which has been issued to the assistant principal at the school site.
Last year was the planning year and the staff accomplished a lot of practice, planning,
collaboration, and training over the summer. The principal has divided the implementation
process into four phases:
Phase 1 – Implementation before the school opened.
Phase 2 - Gearing up for the opening of the school year.
Phase 3 – Implementation of the program. (According to the principal, this is the current
phase the school is in.)
Phase 4 – Monitoring will begin with the formal collection of data on what has been
done.

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

102
Planning Stages
There were three principals during the 2012-2013 school year and the current principal
was the third. The principal felt, “No Child Left Behind (NCLB) essentially destroyed the
school.” The districts leadership decided that the former school as it was known would be shut
down and a new school would take its place at this same site. They came and told the faculty to
reimagine what they are doing at this school site. The current principal stated, “The year that I
came there were supposed to be 440 sixth graders in the school, but only 160 sixth graders came
to school. I came in and had to build trust.”
In 2013-2014 the principal observed a positive change in the school culture stating, “I did
a formal training about design thinking in January, to get everyone thinking. The seventh grade
team latched on as well as other content areas. A founding teacher started launching design
challenges for our school community to participate, after learning how the design thinking
process provides a common language for problem solving by giving students a consistent
message and steps for engaging in problem solving.” The principal stated that teachers were
making project-based learning focused and meaningful for students. The principal stated as an
example, “We gave students the opportunity to solve the real concern last year as to why kids are
eating so much fast food. The students started asking their peer group about their fast food
eating habits and that led to creating a vegetable garden so that students could see how to do it
and research the benefits they could attain from it. The student research uncovered that the price
of healthy food was too high for families and their lack of knowledge, how to cook and eat it,
were high factors as well.”
In the 2013-2014 school year, the principal was closing the existing school while
planning for the start of a new school at this same site for the next school year. The principal
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

103
stated, “I was also recruiting in January and we barely knew what we were talking about. I don’t
think we had a name for ourselves until November. We had to have applications out by the end
of January. If teachers wanted to be part of this, it would be hard work with training and they
would be compensated. They had an option to put in for a transfer at any three other schools and
would not have to have an interview. Only one person left. Everyone was really excited,
committed, and changed their approach and paradigm they believed in for education.”
The district did not want to move students therefore the current students were allowed to
stay at this school site if they wanted to. The principal stated, “Ninety percent of the students
stayed. The gang problems left, including students who thought the dress code was stupid.”
Magnet theme. The community was in an uproar so the district and principal got the
community involved through surveys and questions. Their input was gathered, reviewed and
used for discussion points for deciding the new theme to be launched at this site. Various themes
were proposed and the theme of design and innovation was chosen. The expression of creativity
was extremely important to parents in this community. Their top three ideas for this school site
were arts, global studies, and STEM. The principal noted, “There was already a STEM middle
school. The district had already just shut down a failed middle school portion of a magnet school
that was based on the visual and performing arts. So we didn’t want to do that, Global Studies
was not quite rich enough because again that is a silo, and we needed to be integrating the idea of
Globalism.” The theme that was agreed upon was “design and innovation”. The school board
approved this theme and the principal then had to decide what will design and innovation look
like at this new school site.
Design and innovation. The founding faculty decided through design there will be
innovation at this school site. They researched design and discovered that Stanford University
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

104
does design in the “D School”. After looking at the D School’s process they discovered mentors
such as David Kelley and Tony Wagner. The Principal stated, “We started pulling ideas from
design thinking schools like the Nueva School, Ella, and Henry Ford Institute.” The founding
faculty discussed these ideas using guiding questions such as, “What does design look like to the
humanity teacher and STEM teacher?” The principal reported a snafu, “No one saw their
curriculum in “design” and felt excluded by the idea of design because they did not see it was an
integrated approach to everything. The founding faculty worked really hard to make sure that
not only the humanities and STEM teachers saw their roles, but that everybody felt really
comfortable with the concept.”
Principal #3 stated: And now that everyone has owned it within the content areas, we
say that Design is the intersection where the Arts and STEM meet. The humanities give
us the context and the ability to communicate about what we have done and why we have
done it. That has been very powerful. We had to decide what that really looked like.
Science wise, we are going with PLTW. This is our main component of curriculum. It is
so expensive and such an investment. There are eight courses in the gateway program for
PLTW. One class is the CSI CLASS, medical detectives. In this class there are sheep
brain dissections. We did not wish for this to become a science class but for it to really
integrate subjects such as math as well. We paid an annual fee, signed a contract, and we
agreed as a group this is good. Everyone will be trained by this summer.

Culture. Culture, the idea of defining culture, developing what we expect as culture, and
what we want as culture is really, really, really important. A few days before we opened
we had a school culture guy come out and we did a follow up to that. We did a design
challenge around school culture and empathy is a really big part of that. We had some
classified staff, teachers, parents, and students set up at stations in the gym and the
remaining faculty went around to interview to find out what makes a good school culture.
Next week we are doing a design challenge with kids about what makes a great middle
school experience. We have two minimum days next week. We committed as a faculty
that minimum days were a waste of time instructionally therefore we are going to do
design challenges every minimum day.

Engagement and discipline. The principal and the staff have witnessed student
engagement and discipline interacting as a direct relationship. The principal states, “The only
thing we have to compare are the students who we know, the level of learning from before, and
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

105
we have zero discipline issues now. Nothing here is about programs, because it is about people.
The people make everything work. We are 2/3 of the old school where the kids may have told
you to fuck off. They see that people care and there is excitement and energy. We have 2/3 of
the same kids, 95% of the same adults, and a brand new concept and idea.
Funding. The principal notes, “Design innovation does not have to be expensive kits.
For example, motor designs have been developed with Popsicle sticks and motors for 6 dollars.
The district gives us some funding because we are a magnet school.”
Donations. The majority of items needed for the academic programs come from
donations. Teachers ask for and receive household donation items. Large donation boxes are set
up in the office for the community members to use. Types of donations have been cereal boxes,
water bottle caps, and old CD’s. Donations have enabled everyone in the student body to
participate. The principal notes, “The seventh and eighth graders have more poverty than the
sixth graders and with the donation process everyone can equally participate in the donations we
need for our classes. Parents are told to bring it to us and if we can’t use it we will recycle it.”
Key players
Founding faculty. The founding faculty includes six teachers, the provost, and principal.
Steering committee. The steering committee includes eight teachers, the provost, and
the principal. The members of this committee include all the founding faculty members. The
principal and a founding teacher are co-chairpersons. The principal mentioned, “Anyone
interested in being part of the steering committee put their names in the hat and the union voted.
Everyone involved represented what the staff wanted.”
Curricular leads. The group is composed of all the teachers responsible for each
curricular area.
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

106
Data
The principal is conscientious that the new testing series, Smarter Balanced Assessment
Consortium (SBAC), is looming stating, “If the testing isn’t good I will lose my job and the
school may shut down. We have not mentioned the word SBAC prep or anything to the teachers.
It will come and we have the chrome books for it. We are trying to demonstrate that we are so
confident in what we are doing, that kids will do better. But if the kids do not do well it is the
baseline.”
The principal reported that two-thirds of the students don’t read at their grade level. For
this reason, the principal feels state testing scores are going to be lower than students who can
read at or above their grade level. The principal notes, “Our sixth graders will probably do okay
compared to the other schools. But then, I believe we will show more improvement than others
as we go.”
Monitoring
The steering committee meets monthly to review and talk about how things are going.
The principal notes, “We need to start writing down what we have done and the order we have
done it. We have an instructional philosophy and built into that are reflection questions based on
our mission and vision.”
The Curricular Leads meet to discuss what is working, what is not, and what do we need
to work on in the curriculum. The principal noted, “Next month, teams will be working on
where are we, how are we doing, what are our units actually looking like, what is our direction,
and how is our integration.”

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

107
Adjustments
The school staff is adjusting to the newness. The principal refers to the newness as,
“bumps in the road, handling things, procedures, people being overwhelmed, time management,
and being able to collaborate.” The principal continues to say, “We had those bumps at the
beginning, we are through that, and passed it. It took a team to work it through; however, we
have not fully adjusted yet.”
Challenges
One challenge is managing the parents of the many sixth graders on campus whose
incomes are larger then the parents of those students who live in the surrounding neighborhood.
The principal stated, “This type of parent brings extra stress to the staff because they question
and are demanding. We are balancing no one gets more treatment than another.” An additional
challenge comes from the development and implementation of an innovation studio called the I
Studio, which was a direct result of staff members attending a STEM professional development
seminar. The primary challenge is maintaining “Design labs” which are both semester and
yearlong.
Classroom Observations: F, G, H, and I

The following observations were made in integrated STEM classrooms that had fifty-
minute teaching periods. The classes were comprised of no more than thirty middle school
students. Students had varying ability levels ranging from below to above grade level, special
education needs, and multi-linguistic. The classroom desk configurations included two or more
students sitting together working cooperatively.
The principal chaperoned the researcher during the observation time spent in the first
three classrooms F, G, and H. The observation time was thirty minutes for classroom F and ten
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

108
minutes for classrooms G and H. The researcher spent the entire class period observing
classroom I unaccompanied by the principal.
Observation F

Integrated Classroom Environment

Classroom description. The class was composed of 25 seventh grade students with
student ability levels varying from below to above grade level learners, special education
students, various student nationalities, and multi-linguistic students present. The classroom desk
configuration included three or four students able to sit at rectangle shaped tables as well as
individual student desks. The class time was 50 minutes in duration.

Technology available. The classroom was equipped with a projector mounted to the
ceiling interfaced with a computer and document camera. All students have iPads in this school
for use in every class. All students were encouraged to continually photo document their
findings. The iPads go to and from school with the student.

Lesson. The lesson objective was “How can we switch from fossil fuel based to a
renewable energy?” This course is Biomimicry. Biomimicry is an approach to innovation that
seeks sustainable solutions to human challenges. The goal is to create products, processes, and
policies for new ways of living that are well adapted to life on earth over the long haul. Some of
the curriculum used for this course comes from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA). The students were in day three of researching this objective and
experimentation was to follow.

Materials. Print rich walls were evident. A plethora of student projects were displayed
around the room. The room also accommodated a caged non-poisonous snake. Student Portfolios
were part of this classroom culture as a measure for assessing student mastery.

Integrated STEM Instruction

Technology used. Technology use was evident. All students used iPads and were
encouraged to photo document their findings.

Strategies. Strategies were evident. The technology was used to drive instruction. The
teacher checked for student understanding both verbally and pictorially. Students checked each
other for understanding both verbally and pictorially. No homework was given

Student interest. Student interest was evident. There was time built into the lesson to
engage in interactions between student to student and student to teacher. Students actively
participated in conversations with peers and teacher. Everyone uses an active participant in class,
had a job to do, and the teacher held everyone accountable by name.

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

109
STEM integration. STEM integration was evident. Science and technology were
forerunners of this lesson. Math and engineering will become evident after the students delve
into the research and are ready to begin innovative designs addressing this topic.

Observation G

Integrated Classroom Environment

Classroom description. The class was composed of approximately 25 seventh grade
students with student ability levels varying from below to above grade level learners, special
education students, various student nationalities, and multi-linguistic students present. The class
time was 50 minutes in duration. The classroom desk configuration included desks close
together in groups of four to six students. The researcher spent 10 minutes in this classroom.

Technology available. The classroom was equipped with a projector mounted to the
ceiling interfaced with a computer and document camera. Students had access to iPads.

Lesson. The lesson was on “robotics”.

Materials. Print rich walls. Nothing specific was noted.

Integrated STEM Instruction

Technology used. Technology use was evident. Each student was using an iPad during
the lesson.

Strategies. Strategies were evident. The technology was used to drive instruction. The
teacher checked for student understanding both verbally and pictorially. Students checked each
other for understanding both verbally and pictorially. The use of organizers and systematic
procedures were in place.

Student interest. Student interest was evident. There was time built into the lesson to
engage in interactions between student to student and student to teacher. Students actively
participated in conversations with peers and teacher. The teacher immediately acknowledged the
principal with me and allowed the students to demonstrate their learning to us from their
personal iPads. We saw pictures drawn by students that were part of a robotics lesson.

STEM integration. Stem integration was evident. Math, engineering, and technology
were forerunners of today’s lesson.

Observation H

Integrated Classroom Environment

Classroom description. The class was called the I Studio also known as the maker
studio. Composed of approximately 30 seventh and eighth grade students with student ability
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

110
levels varying from below to above grade level learners, special education students, various
student nationalities, and multi-linguistic students present. The class time was 50 minutes in
duration. The classroom desk configuration included tables along the perimeter of the classroom
for groups of up to four students.

Technology available. The classroom was equipped with a projector mounted to the
ceiling interfaced with a computer and document camera. Students had access to iPads.

Lesson. The lesson objective was “dissecting sheep brains”.

Materials. This teacher used ecology sites through google.com. All the materials needed
to dissect sheep brains were available to the students.

Integrated STEM Instruction

Technology used. Technology use was evident. Students took many pictures using their
iPads to document the lesson.

Strategies. Strategies were evident. The technology was used to enhance instruction.

Student interest. Student interest was evident. Students were encouraged to adapt new
ideas when their ideas did not accomplish the task at hand.

STEM integration. Stem integration was evident. Science and technology were
forerunners of today’s lesson.

Observation I

Integrated Classroom Environment

Classroom description. The class was composed of 28 sixth grade students with student
ability levels varying from below to above grade level learners, special education students,
various student nationalities, and multi-linguistic students present. The class time was 50
minutes in duration. The classroom desk configuration included high top tables with four
students able to sit at each table.

Technology available. The classroom was equipped with a projector mounted to the
ceiling interfaced with a computer and document camera. Students had access to individual
iPads.

Lesson. The lesson objective was “to draw a histogram”.

Materials. Print rich walls included a math word wall, inspirational sayings, and a PLTW
curriculum wall with student work on display.

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

111
Integrated STEM Instruction

Technology used. Technology use was evident. Each student was issued a Lenovo 17
inch laptop computer with Internet access. The computers were bought during the summer of
2014.

Strategies. Strategies were evident. The technology was used to drive instruction. The
teacher checked for student understanding both verbally and pictorially. Students checked each
other for understanding both verbally and pictorially. The use of organizers and systematic
procedures were in place. During the lesson students were encouraged to talk to other students,
asking specific questions to collect data to be used to draw a histogram.

Student interest. Student interest was evident. There was time built into the lesson to
engage in interactions between student to student and student to teacher. Students actively
participated in conversations with peers and teacher. During the lesson, students walked around
to collect data from each other with excitement and focus. Passive student participants sat at
tables and were checked on by the teacher.

STEM integration. Stem integration was evident. Math and technology were
forerunners of today’s lesson. The students were engaged in plotting data to create a histogram.
Students used their iPads to build the histograms. During this process the teacher gave clear and
concise directions, built in time to review, built in time for mistakes, built in time for students to
discuss the process.

Conclusion: Interview and Observations

Integrated STEM was implemented at this school site to support the district’s magnet
pathways. The community had a voice in the design of the school through surveys. The
expression of creativity was extremely important to parents through the arts, global studies and
STEM. Knowing this, the principal’s research of the Stanford University Design School aided in
the development of this school site as a design school. As a design middle school, this site
focused on three big ideas: Fostering creativity, providing technical skills to innovate, and the
design thinking process. The master schedule at this school site evolved to be inclusive of all
students having equal access to integrated STEM classes.
During the interview process the principal related how the implementation process was
divided into four phases, which began before the school opened with phase one, program
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

112
implementation. This was followed by phase two, which geared up for the opening of the school
year. The principal believes they are currently in phase three, continued program
implementation. The final phase four will begin when they formally monitor and collect data.
Discernible in all classrooms observed by the researcher was the principal’s desire to
service all students utilizing cooperative learning, project-based learning, and technology driven
student learning with student access to using technology. Positive performance outcomes by
students were also observable in these classrooms. The data pointed to the importance of teacher
training in integrated STEM strategies because these strategies, along with teacher pedagogy,
were evident in their content knowledge base. The teacher’s performance driving the curriculum
and the curriculum content were reflected in observable student interest in the class and projects
assigned. Evident in all projects were real life experiences.
Conclusion: Research Question Two
Quality school leadership and transformational leaders champion the framework for
quality improvement and for supporting staff and students in the implementation of integrated
STEM programs (Blankstein, 1992; Bonstingl, 1992, 2001; Marzano, McNulty, & Waters, 2005;
Schmoker & Wilson, 1993). Understanding that today’s students require different learning
approaches than our educational system was originally designed to output, each principal
enthusiastically described implementing an integrated STEM program for all students at the
middle school site (Prensky, 2011). They were passionate about designing a master schedule
that incorporates approaches that meet the needs of all students. It is evident in the wake of 21
st

century school reform that each of these stakeholders recognized the importance of
implementing integrated STEM and that it will require time (California Department of Education
Foundation, 2014; National Research Council, 2015).
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

113
Each principal expressed a key component to a successful innovative program is a
supportive staff. As such, each middle school has integrated STEM teachers that are willing and
capable to drive the implementation of an integrated STEM program. A program that provides
opportunities for all students to indulge in complex problem solving similar to ones they may
encounter in authentic real-life situations or future professions. (Californians Dedicated to
Education Foundation, 2014; California Department of Education, 2014; National Research
Council, 2015). The intent is for the learner’s ideas to mirror how an experienced professional
would generate and use knowledge in the work place (Blumenfeld, 1992).
The classroom observations affirmed the principal’s integrated STEM philosophy, which
promotes meaningful learning environments and educational opportunities for all children,
inclusive of those linguistically and culturally diverse, at varied ability levels, and with special
education needs (Beane, 1997; Palincsar, 1998). At all school sites the researcher observed
students effectively using grade-appropriate STEM concepts and practices for designing,
making, and evaluating solutions to authentic problems (Sanders, 2012; The National Science
Teacher Association, 2008). These integrative STEM learning outcomes encompassed
constructivist core ideas, knowledge construction, cooperative learning, self-regulation, and the
use of authentic problems, which enabled the students to use their skills to demonstrate
integrative STEM knowledge and practices (Sanders, 2012).
Observable to the researcher in all classrooms were cooperative learning seating
arrangements, allowing for social interactions among fellow students and teachers, which
contributed to the construction of knowledge (Steffe & Gale, 1995) . Constructivists share the
idea that cooperative learning promotes social negotiation and interaction (Greeno, 1998), which
is important to building integrated knowledge in STEM education. Social interaction among
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

114
students allowed them to communicate their level of understanding and ideas about subject
matter and permited discussions to be used as an assessment of students’ prior knowledge
(Slavin, 1996).
These principals seek to sustain integrated STEM education by increasing student access.
Thus, the leadership and all stakeholders at these school sites have cultivated a “whatever it takes”
attitude to propel integrated STEM education to the top of the priority list (DuFour, DuFour,
Eaker, & Karhanek, 2004).
Research Findings Pertaining to Research Question Three

What do principals perceive to be essential factors, and of them, which do they feel are the most
crucial when implementing an integrated STEM program?

Data gathered from this final research question can be used to affirm the actions taken at
these three school sites to implement integrated STEM programs. This data can also be used as a
springboard to support leaders who take on the charge of implementing integrated STEM
programs at middle school sites within the K-12 educational pipeline. Principal #1 believes you
must be willing to take risks and step out on a cliff that potentially no one has stepped out on
because STEM is the type of venture that is for people who thrive off of action and the ups and
downs from it. Principal #1 stated, “Believe in what you are doing and you will enjoy it.”
Regarding beginning the integrated STEM process at a middle school site, Principal #1
continued, “Yes, you look at data and read research, but, your instinct, insight, or gut feeling
about what you are doing is right for kids and is being done for the right reasons with the right
people is important to pay attention to.”
There is no one right way to integrate because there are many factors which influence a
direction the implementation of integrated STEM would follow in a diverse school culture.
Implementation of an integrated STEM program requires leadership to be cognizant that this
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

115
innovation is complex, may be multi-faceted, is a process in itself, and not a one-size-fits-all
program (National Research Council, 2015). Principal #2 acknowledged, “STEM seems to be
unique to each site. I go to STEM conferences and I hear how another school did STEM and
none of us have done it the same way.” Principal #3 stated, “I was at the ASCD conference last
spring and a presenter was pretty radical in his views because he wanted it all blown up and
hands on. I don’t know if I believe in everything 100%.”
The following is a collective report of each principal’s response when asked interview
questions #15 and 16 (See Appendix D). The researcher asked: What attributes do you feel led
to the successful implementation of STEM integration? Do you believe these attributes are key
components needed for effective STEM integration within the K-12 Pipeline? Is there any
additional information or key components of STEM integration and the learning process that you
would like to add? From your experience, what advice (“Do’s and Don’ts”) would you give
school leadership teams preparing to implement an integrated STEM initiative at their site?
Principals 1, 2, and 3 stated as follows:
Principal #1

Essential Factors

Principal #1 stated:

Staff, support, and autonomy. The right staff, support, and freedom from cabinet and
school district are essential. They have to back you on it because we have tried some
things that did not work so well. Everyone has to be okay with that. I feel I need the
district to be willing to support if a parent complains.

Communication. A key is having strong avenues of communicating your new message.
I have certain parents I reach out to because I know parents will go out in the family and
spread the message. Starting Facebook and Twitter, you are marketing yourself in a way
and you have to have those pieces.

Funding. You need money because you have to be able to buy PLTW, more technology,
Adobe Creative Cloud, science lab tables. You could probably do it all with 20-30
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

116
thousand, but more would be nice. You need resources to start this and really make
change because the professional development side costs money.

Additional factors.

• Be willing to take risks
• Look outside of your community
• Look at other models beyond education
• Think big picture

We said we are not really going to get a lot of parent input. We know what is best and we
are going to do what is best for kids. For example: The dentist doesn’t reach out to the
community and ask how do you want me to work on your teeth or the doctor doesn’t
reach out and ask how do you want me to perform surgery? We go to them and trust
because they have studied it for years, they are the experts, and they are going to do what
is right. We said we are going to do what is right because we are the experts in our field.

Another example: Steve Jobs says lots of businesses want to do customer surveys
and get feedback and we don’t ever do that we don’t ever ask the customer what they
want because the customer does not know what they want. We create something that is
so great and so useful in their lives that suddenly the customer says oh I want that. How
can we create a school that once it is created others will say we want that and we want to
go there.

Some parents came to us and said why did you not ask us. The parents were upset
that you did not ask us. I said well we just felt we could move forward. We challenged
the status quo and we did not hold community forums or ask what do you think we
should offer? We had myself, a couple of board members, and cabinet personnel. We
needed the district support. Just the other day I got an email how come you did not hold
any community meetings? You just did this without asking and I said yes we did. We are
not trying to be arrogant or cocky we believed in it, we know what is best for kids, and
the concept of the business model to trust us because we all have a lot of background and
degrees and we can create something great. Now we have less and less parent concerns
and more parents who want to be a part of it.

Effective STEM Integration
Principal #1 stated: The K-12 pipeline is key so we are not operating in a type of
isolation and doing a disservice to the kids in the long run. The K-12 pipeline is a huge
factor in the STEM integration process and there are two major concerns that should be
discussed:

1. When students come to the middle school, we can keep re-teaching them to keep them
up to speed. However, teachers are asking if the elementary students are going to come
to us prepared? If all those kids come to us knowing the skills and how to use technology
we could just take our level of projects to a whole new level.
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

117

2. Today, I just sent my course descriptions to the high school assistant principal and
principal because if the high school has the next integrated STEM class offerings, our
kids will be ready to take them.

The parents are beginning to question where should I take my kids if our own high
schools are not ready to take in my well-prepared student. The parents are already
looking at other magnet schools or high schools that are going to have this type of
classes. Again you don’t want a kid to go through sixth, seventh, and eighth grade and
then end up in another type of system without familiarity and they say the key word
“boring”.

Principal #2

Essential Factors

Principal #2 stated:

Wi-Fi. Because we are a new facility, we have campus wide Wi-Fi. The kids bring
their own devices. We term it BYOD (bring your own device). I don’t have issues
because 100 people can be on line and it is going to work. A lot of older schools just
don’t have it. I hope this sustains us for a long enough time.

Space. We were not taking an existing school and morphing it. This school was built to
be a high school and it wasn’t turned into a high school because the homes were never
built. I have a lot of space, no space restrictions. I do STEM events in the full size gym
because it is easy to do.

Staff. I have really good teachers. One teacher is the state teacher of the year 2007, four
county teachers of the year, and two state classified staff personnel of the year. A lot of
these people have been with me for a while. Having all-stars on campus makes a world of
a difference.

Additional factors.

• Be collaborative. However you structure or package it, get everyone on board not just
your bosses, but your parents too.
• Start small. I don’t imagine something as big as we are doing to work straight out the
gate.
• Invest in long term infrastructure things like Wi-Fi.
• Invest in the boring things not the sexy things. Build your capacity. Don’t buy the
sexy things at first. Examples: Buy the Lego robots not the 5000.00 robots; Buy the
drill press and saws not the 3D printers.
• Be dynamic
• Keep yourself fresh.
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

118
• Be all-inclusive. When I say STEM for all it is a big step for some schools. Anything
you can do to get more kids into STEM is good for kids. In 10 years STEM should
no longer be as special as it is now because we want every kid to be doing this.
• Don’t try to force it on your staff or boss. Educate people who do not understand.
Education can be faddish as things come and go. STEM can very easily be put into
that category because it is not a program or curriculum, but it is really how you teach.
• Define STEM. STEM is problem and project based learning, failure, struggling
through, building, breaking, and blowing things up. In the last 50 years, schools
should have been doing that and probably have been doing that, but we just need to
give it more shape and structure.
• STEM seems to be unique to each site. I go to STEM conferences and I hear how
another school did STEM and none of us have done it the same way. One school did
all the paper work and then came up with STEM. We did STEM and then figured out
the paper work. Our paper work was only one page and not 32 pages.

Effective STEM Integration
Principal #2 stated: In ten years STEM should be what every kid does from
kindergarten through twelfth grade, not just here in middle school. We do need
kindergarteners sawing pieces of wood. It is sad to me that I will get a sixth grader who
has never had a saw in his hand. That is crazy! How are you going to build things unless
you cut wood? That is changing and it is getting better. We do need STEM to be infused
into that whole curriculum and it is going that way. I know the Next Generation of
Science Standards (NGSS) have the STEM components infused in there. And I know the
elementary people will do more science than they have ever done before with the testing
model changing. The K-12 continuum of getting STEM everywhere is a model that is
good. Elementary kids are coming to middle school “more STEMY” and the middle
schools are pushing the high schools to get better and the high schools have to do more.
By the time these current middle school students are graduating high school we will have
better prepared students for the U.S. and global workforce.

Principal #3

Essential Factors

Principal #3 stated:

Staff. I feel it is teachers, one hundred percent!

Additional factors.

• Involve the teachers
• Can’t be a district mandate
• Funding is important to do STEM well. You need professional development to train
the teachers how to teach this way. I was at the ASCD conference last spring and a
presenter, Gary Staggar, was pretty radical in his views because he wanted it all
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

119
blown up and hands on. I don’t know if I believe in everything 100%, but he talked
about “maker spaces” and we knew that is what we wanted our Istudio to be. The
teacher of the Istudio went to a workshop called “construction of modern knowledge”
and could not stop talking about how much the information helped her integrated
STEM teaching in the Istudio.

Effective STEM Integration
Principal #3 stated: If teachers don’t understand it, believe in it, want to do it, don’t act
on it then nothing else matters. Nothing. It is our job as leaders to help teachers
understand it. We can’t tell them, we have to show them. What I like to do is have people
come to their own conclusions and have conversations. Have people get there on their
own, so they really own it and believe in it. As opposed to we are doing this because the
principal thinks this is important or that we trust in the principal so we want to do it.
Administration comes and goes. Therefore, the teachers have to have it!

Conclusion: Research Question Three
This series of interview questions unleashed a passion from each middle school principal
about the essential factors needed to implement a successful integrated STEM program. Each
principal was opinionated about the importance of K-12 educational pipeline maintenance. In
the K-12 educational pipeline, the rates of student progress throughout elementary and secondary
school are one of the best measures of the health of an educational system (Haney et al., 2004).
A way to keep the K-12 educational pipeline healthy is to recognize the importance of middle
school as the connector between elementary and high school. Providing students access to career
information as early in their educational career as possible and encouraging progress during the
pre-adolescent years is important.
The overwhelming commonality that arose in each middle school principal’s response
was agreeing teachers are an essential factor in a successful integrated STEM program. The
principals recognize that pedagogy must purposefully engage students to think from simplicity to
complexity and assess their application of grade-appropriate concepts and practices in designing,
making, and evaluating solutions to authentic problems (Sanders, 2012). They were enthralled to
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

120
have teachers who were serious about their craft and understood pedagogy must provide a robust
context for integrative STEM-related learning associated with all levels of the cognitive and
affective taxonomies (Krathwohl, 2002). Quality pedagogical learning outcomes produce
students with STEM-related attitudes and dispositions able to demonstrate their grade
appropriate knowledge and practices in designing, making, and evaluating solutions to authentic
problems (Sanders, 2012).
These leaders used skillful decision making to create effective teaching teams, giving
them autonomy to develop an innovative integrated STEM program (Honey, Pearson, &
Schweingruber, 2014). When leaders support innovative designing and implementation of
integrative STEM education, by allowing teachers to work in teams, be responsible for selecting
curriculum, develop and deliver integrated lessons, and regularly assess students, this has a
positive influence on student learning, interest, motivation, and persistence in integrated STEM
subjects (Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014).
Summary and Discussion Findings
This study yielded responses through principal interviews and classroom observations to
answer the research questions posed. All findings were consistent with this study’s examination
of the literature on educational leaders driving integrated STEM curriculum, 21
st
century
leadership, 21
st
century integrated STEM education, the K-12 educational pipeline, and
transformational leadership pertaining to implementing integrated STEM programs used at the
middle schools in this study.
This chapter was presented in a narrative format to interpret the findings from the
interview responses with the addition of supporting literature and observation notes to further
answer the questions. First, this chapter presented data in the form of interviews with middle
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

121
school principals. Second, data was presented from classroom observations of integrated STEM
teachers’ management, communication, and structure within that learning environment. The data
was collected for the purpose of answering three research questions in this qualitative study.
The data clearly indicated the importance of passionate, innovative transformational
leadership in education. They are the early adopters with a natural desire to be risk takers
focused on implementing innovative programs such as integrated STEM for the benefit of all
students (Rogers, 2003). The data indicated that transformational leaders are knowledgeable and
aware that a supportive staff is a key ingredient in the success of integrated STEM programs.
They ask the right questions, challenge limitations and boundaries, and promote autonomy
among staff.
The data further showed the importance of district support when implementing an
integrative STEM program. A program that is essential for all students provides them with
hands-on learning opportunities, opportunity to develop critical thinking skills, exposure to
cooperative learning, the use of technology, and incorporates real-life experiences. Also
illuminated in the data was that an integrative STEM program, providing access to meaningful
learning opportunities for all students, is not a one-size-fits-all program (National Research
Council, 2015). To accomplish this enormous task the transformational leader must know the
school culture, be part of a strong K-12 educational pipeline (promoting college and career
readiness), and communicate with the community at-large (including parents). The data clearly
indicated a need for a strong K-12 educational pipeline, professional development for teachers,
and financial support.
Finally, exposure to integrated STEM makes for an informed citizen, a better decision
maker, and promotes innovation throughout our nation whether entering a STEM field or not
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

122
(Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014). The following chapter will discuss more generally
this study’s findings and present a summary and further recommendations.

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

123
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS
This study was constructed to gain an understanding of the essential factors needed when
middle school principals implement an innovative integrated STEM program. The results of this
research may shorten the time required to execute a comprehensive integrative STEM program
in middle schools across the country in support of the 21
st
century educational reform movement
and student access to these initiatives within the K-12 educational pipeline. For the United
States to maintain its leadership role in the global economy, the educational system must focus
on expanding a workforce that is knowledgeable and proficient in the areas of STEM. A cluster
of research indicates that whether a student enters a STEM field or not, overall, their gained
knowledge through integrated STEM, incorporated with learned reasoning skills, will serve them
well for life-long decision-making.
This study examined the effectiveness of: curriculum integration, educational leaders
who are driving integrated curriculum to improve the capacity for all learners, the
implementation of integrative STEM programs at middle schools, and components that
integrated STEM programs need within the K-12 educational pipeline. There are many facets to
consider when initiating an integrative STEM program and the evidence clearly indicates that
implementing sound curriculum and instruction can be accomplished in various ways.
Ultimately, the goal is to produce critical thinkers and capable learners in the shared K-12
educational pipeline.
The Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers, 2003) process was evidenced with all principals
interviewed. All principals recognized that an innovative integrated STEM program held
advantages for all students. This information was communicated to all stakeholders because the
principals understood the importance of all stakeholders being on board with the implementation
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

124
of integrative STEM. The commonalities of these middle school principals interviewed
confirmed them to be transformational leaders who realized integrated STEM could be
customized to the culture of their school site. Additionally, these middle school principals
harbored strong beliefs about equality and quality educational opportunities for all students.
The more integrated STEM roots are planted at an elementary and middle school level,
the firmer the foundation for best practices that produce critically thinking students with a
positive self-efficacy for learning. An enormously positive end result from an integrated STEM
program will be critical thinking students. Such students will bring integrated STEM innovation
awareness to communities in the educational pipeline, thus demonstrating integrated STEM as a
viable avenue for learning worth sustaining. The evidence of student’s high interest in integrated
STEM programs is critical for our nation’s educators to recognize when planning curriculum for
the student population to learn and achieve success in the growing national and global
economies. The evidence of student’s high interest is also a caveat when seeking to ensure one
hundred percent graduation rates at the high school and higher education levels.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to investigate and examine the contributions from the
Diffusion of Innovations framework, the Human Capital Theory, and externalities as essential
components for implementing an effective K-12 integrative STEM program. Consequently the
purpose of this study included the effectiveness that components of integrated STEM programs
have within the K-12 educational pipeline; the importance of curriculum integration, as well as,
the educational leaders driving it to improve the capacity for all learners; and the importance of
the leader’s role when implementing an integrated STEM program.
With these purposes in mind, the following research questions were the focus for this study:
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

125
1. What do principals understand about the importance of STEM integration?
2. How do principals describe implementing integrated STEM at their school site and what
does the implementation look like in the classroom?
3. What do principals perceive to be essential factors, and of them, which do they feel are
the most crucial when implementing an integrated STEM program?
Key Findings
The key findings were based on the analysis of the data in Chapter Four. These findings
included the importance of the following: curriculum integration; educational leaders driving
curriculum integration to improve the capacity for all learners; the leader’s role when
implementing an integrated STEM program; integrated STEM programs within the K-12
educational pipeline.
Interviews
Data was retrieved through interviews with principals about their understanding
regarding the importance of STEM integration. All middle school principals gained knowledge
about the importance of curriculum integration used with STEM. Informational reading,
observations, and hands-on experience with STEM curriculum integration demonstrated
enormous high interest from students and teachers. The middle school principals were congruent
about the following:
1. Each had a rationale for understanding the importance of STEM integration.
2. A national curriculum should be written to comprise issues related to real life experiences
in relationship to people’s needs, interests, problems, and concerns as they see them, and
should contribute to the common good of society as a whole.
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

126
3. All students should have access to opportunities such as integrated STEM that will
elevate their learning.
4. Knowing that we are preparing our students for the workforce, integrative STEM
programs should be designed and taught with an understanding of expected outcomes.
5. Integrated STEM is an innovative educational approach.
6. The importance of STEM integration is teaching critical thinking, using problem and
project-based learning.
Interviews and Observations
Interviews with the middle school principals were conducted to gain a perspective on
how they implemented integrated STEM at each of their school sites. Additionally, observations
of two or more integrated STEM classrooms at each of their school sites were held which
legitimized the information uncovered during the interviews. The middle school principals were
congruent about the following:
1. Each school site had teacher’s interested in PLTW professional development training.
2. Each school site spent money for PLTW professional development, then used PLTW
curriculum to deliver integrated STEM learning opportunities for all students.
3. Each principal was passionate about the importance of project-based learning and it was
incorporated with integrated STEM instruction at each school site.
4. Each principal recognized the existence of high student and teacher interest for the
integrated STEM curriculum and the learning techniques associated with it.
5. Each principal participated in designing the master schedule to support opportunities for
all students to have equal access to an integrated STEM curriculum and learning
approach. Therefore, each school site had a master schedule that supported their
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

127
principal’s philosophy, “STEM for All”.
6. Since the academic needs of the students varied at each site, each school site custom
designed a master schedule that supported equal access for all students to participate in
integrated STEM curriculum during the school year. Therefore, none of the participating
school sites master schedules looked the same, yet they were all built from like-minded
ideology.
7. Each school thoughtfully purchased and/or built a variety of tangible items deemed
necessary to create an innovative integrated STEM learning environment. Items such as
desks, tables, gadgets, instructional materials, and technology equipment were evident.
8. Each principal marketed their school’s integrated STEM program to the local community
of parents, district leaders, staff, and students. In some cases the local businesses were
included.
9. Each principal understood a STEM’s school culture must be inclusive of supportive
teachers and staff, collaboration, communication, student-focused, nurturing, and
trustworthy. Therefore, intra-district transfers were accessible at each school site.
10. Each principal stated a common challenge was attaining money and would continue to
be. They agreed the future success of an innovative integrative STEM program would
require money and thinking of creative ways to stretch and spend the dollars they acquire.
Integrated STEM Classroom
Discernible in the integrated STEM classrooms at these school sites were the following:
1. All students utilized cooperative learning, project-based learning, and technology driven
student learning with student access to using technology.
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

128
2. Positive performance outcomes by students.
3. Evidenced by data was the importance of teacher training in integrated STEM strategies
because these strategies, along with teacher pedagogy, were evident in their content
knowledge base.
4. The teacher’s performance driving the curriculum and the curriculum content was
reflected in observable student interest in the class and projects assigned.
5. Evident in all projects were real life experiences.
Essential Factors Common to each School Site
Interviews with the middle school principals were conducted to gain a perspective on
what they perceived to be essential factors when implementing an integrated STEM program. In
addition to the principal’s perspective, the researcher observed essential factors common to each
school site. The following are the key findings:
1. Transformational Leaders: These unique principal leaders used skillful decision making
to create effective teaching teams, giving them autonomy to develop an innovative
integrated STEM program; modeled a collaborative culture which built a trusting school
community.
2. STEM for all students: Each principal spoke of the importance for maintaining a
communicative K-12 educational pipeline by providing all student’s access to career
information and exposure to integrated STEM curriculum as early in their educational
career as possible. Throughout the middle school years, connecting to high school and
educational pathways beyond high school was key to achieving this factor.
3. Great teachers: An overwhelming commonality for each principal’s belief system was
their agreement that teachers are an essential factor in a successful integrated STEM
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

129
program. Each principal was enthralled to have teachers who were serious about their
craft and understood that pedagogy must provide a robust context for integrative STEM-
related learning associated with all levels of the cognitive and affective taxonomies.
4. Fiduciary Challenge: The principals recognized an integrated STEM program requires
money to innovatively execute and considered funding important to implement integrated
STEM well. Each principal has stretched their budgets to include, both present and
future spending.
5. Marketing: Each principal understood the importance of marketing their integrated
STEM brand to their community of parents, district leaders, school staff, students, and
local businesses.
6. Wi-Fi: This convenience was available and utilized at each school site as a key
ingredient to the integrated STEM learning experience.
Additional factors. The following were important factors for one or more principals in this
study:
• Define STEM for your school site.
• Educate people who do not understand what integrated STEM is.
• Start small.
• Think big picture.
• Be willing to take risks.
• Be dynamic.
• Keep yourself fresh.
• On a limited budget, invest in things that can build capacity. Example: Buy the Lego
robots before the $5000.00 robots; Buy the drill press and saws before the 3D
printers.
• Look outside of your community, at other models beyond education.

The commonalities in the principal’s responses coincided with research findings.
Integrative STEM education is important because it extends activities to students related to life
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

130
and society; and it stimulates an innovative and critical scientific awareness (Californians
Dedicated to Education Foundation, 2014; National Research Council, 2015; Rocas, Gonzalez &
Araujo, 2009). Furthermore, students’ gained knowledge through integrated STEM, along with
learned critical thinking skills, will be useful for job entry, as well as, overall life-long decision
making (Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014).
Limitations
Participants were strategically chosen for this study and limited to middle school
principals who successfully implemented an integrated STEM program at each of their school
sites. Time constraints were such that only three middle school principals and nine integrated
STEM classrooms within these three middle schools were examined. There was insufficient
time to seek out and observe other middle schools similar in philosophy and implementation of
integrated STEM programs. Since this study only provided time to interview three middle
school principals, the sampling size was minimal.
Implications for Practice
This study evidenced commonalities among three middle school principals who
implemented integrated STEM programs at their school sites. The ingredients necessary for a
sustained middle school integrated STEM program included knowing the leader’s philosophy for
supporting teachers and students with integrated approaches to STEM education (The National
Research Council, 2014). The findings presented have particular implications in identifying
qualities leaders use to implement a comprehensive integrated STEM innovation for all students.
Educational leaders embarking on implementing an integrative STEM program would
want to have an understanding of how students learn within the context of their school’s culture.
Transformational leaders in education are focused on cultivating an environment that asks
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

131
important questions that give rise to finding solutions to improve the learning process (National
Research Council, 2015).
Transformational leaders in education are the driving force for change and are known as
change agents. These change agents, implementing an innovative K-12 integrative STEM
program, alter environments by empowering others, building trust, and sharing decision making
to create a solid foundation within the organization while cultivating a “whatever-it-takes”
attitude. Furthermore, transformational leaders in education can do more then manage a group of
leaders. They can also provide inspiration for people to upgrade their expectations, perceptions,
and motivations to work toward common goals, valuing the importance of team decisions and
decisions by consensus.
Recommendations for Principals
This study revealed the following recommendations as important for middle school
principals who are interested in implementing an integrative STEM program:
• Recognize the importance of training, motivating, and cultivating teachers to
understand, learn, and utilize best practices that offer innovative integrated
learning opportunities for all students.
• Support innovative programs of high interest for teachers and students that
incorporate curriculum integration such as integrative STEM.
• Support innovative teaching practices that afford students the most significant
learning experiences to assist them with the opportunity to attain a satisfying and
productive place in society as well as in the workforce.

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

132
Recommendations for Future Research
Although this study showed significant findings for middle school leaders to utilize when
embarking on implementing an integrative STEM program, there can and should be more studies
performed in this area. It is imperative that these studies provide information regarding the
characteristics of integrative STEM education articulated throughout the K-12 educational
pipeline. In the K-12 educational pipeline, the rates of student progress throughout elementary
and secondary school are one of the best measures of the health of an educational system (Haney
et al., 2004). A way to keep the K-12 educational pipeline healthy is to recognize the importance
of middle school as the connector between elementary and high school.
In a K-12 educational pipeline, the design must begin at the elementary level to establish
learning. Asking important questions such as, “Why should we implement integrated STEM at
our school?” must be addressed by the stakeholders (Sinek, 2009). In order to expand the
context of the current study there are several recommendations for future research that may
include the following:
• Explore the K-12 educational pipeline beginning with the articulation of feeder
schools within a school district: Elementary, Middle, and High School. School
sites that share zoned students can design a master schedule that includes
integrative STEM programs. Thus, integrated STEM programs will establish
roots at the elementary level with customized curriculum designed to meet
students at all levels of magnitude and interest.
• Explore the communication needed to connect the middle school to the
elementary and high school for integrated STEM curriculum planning. What does
the master schedule design look like at each institutional level?
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

133
• Explore the relevance of teacher field trip days readily built into the school year
for articulation with elementary, middle, and high schools.
• Investigate integrated STEM work-study programs available for high school
students to connect with middle school students. What does that look like? What
are the advantages and disadvantages of such a work-study program?
Conclusion
With the pressure of forecasting the future global economy and sustaining the nation’s
world-class status, it is imperative that students are exposed to innovative integrative STEM
programs throughout their K-12 educational experience and beyond. To achieve this requires
improving STEM literacy for all students within the nation’s K-12 educational pipeline.
Furthermore, accomplishing such a task requires a transformational leader who is passionate and
astute in empowering stakeholders to take on an innovative integrative STEM program for all
students within the K-12 educational pipeline. An innovative integrative STEM program
requires transformational leadership with dedication and passion to cultivate an environment that
asks important questions in search of solutions to improve the learning process.
Recognizing that middle schools play a role as the connector in the K-12 educational
pipeline by establishing communication with elementary, middle, and high schools is the puzzle
piece needed to strengthen student’s progressive learning. With these essential factors in place,
this information may be used as a blueprint for further implementation of successful integrative
STEM programs to occur in a shortened amount of time in support of the 21
st
century
educational reform movement. Students prepared to meet the needs of the national and global
economies through their exposure to STEM will bring solutions to 21
st
century challenges and
support maintaining our nation’s global leadership position.
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

134
References
ACT (2013). The condition of STEM 2013. Retrieved from http://www.act.org.
Alexander, F. K., (2000). The Changing Face of Acccountability: Monitoring and assessing
institutional performance in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(4),
411-431.
Almendarez, L. (2010). Human Capital Theory: Implications for Educational Development. In
Proceedings of the Belize Country Conference, November.
Asunda, P. A. (2011). Open courseware and STEM initiatives in career and technical education.
Journal of Stem Teacher Education, 48(2), 1-32.
Baldridge, J. V., Julius, D. J., & Pfeffer, J. (1999). A memo from Machiavelli. The Journal of
High Education, 7(2), 113-133.
Barron, B. J., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D.
(1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem-and project-based
learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3-4), 271-311.
Bass, B. M.& Avolio, B. J.(1994). Improving organizational and effectiveness through
transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Beane, J. A. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education.
Teachers College Press, Columbia University, New York and London.
Becker, G. S. (2007). Health as human capital: Synthesis and extensions. Oxford Economic
Papers, 59(3), 379-410.
Berland, L. K. (2013). Designing for STEM integration. Journal of Pre-College Engineering
Education Research (J-PEER), 3(1), 3.

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

135
Blankstein, A. M. (1992). Lessons from enlightened corporations. Educational Leadership,
49(6), 71-75.
Blaug, M. (1976). The empirical status of human capital theory: A slightly jaundiced survey.
Journal of economic literature, 14(3), 827-855.
Blumenfeld, P. C. (1992). Classroom learning and motivation: Clarifying and expanding goal
theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 272-281.
Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we are today. International Journal of
Educational Research, 31(6), 445-457.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research in education. An
introduction to theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bonstingl, J. J. (1992). The total quality classroom. Educational Leadership, 49(6), 66-70.
Bonstingl, J. J. (2001). Schools of quality. Corwin Press.
Breiner, J. M. (2011). Is it all in the name? School Science and Mathematics, 112(3), 131-132.
Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. The Technology and
Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30-35.
California Department of Education (2013). California common core state standards.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/
California Department of Education (2014). Common core state standards systems
implementation plan for California. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/
Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation (2014). Innovate: A blueprint for science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics in California public education. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/pd/ca/sc/documents/innovate.pdf

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

136
Carr, R. L., Bennett, L. D., IV, & 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. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1024810519?accountid=14749
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Drake, S. M. (2007). Creating Standards-based integrated curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
DuFour, Ri., DuFour, Re., Eaker, R., & Karhanek, G. (2004). Whatever it takes: How
professional learning communities respond when kids don't learn. Bloomington, IN:
National Educational Service.
Dyer, J., Gregersen, H., & Christensen, C. (2011). Innovator’s DNA: Mastering the five skills
of disruptive innovators. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence (2012). Earning principles. Retrieved from
http://www.cmu.edu/teaching/principles/learning.html
Edglossary.org (2015). The glossary of education reform for journalist, parents, and community
members. Retrieved from http://edglossary.org
Eide, E. R., & Showalter, M. H. (2010). Human capital. Retrieved from
http://faculty.wwu.edu/kriegj/Econ406/Papers/Eide%20&%20Showalter.pdf
Ewell, P. T., Jones, D. P., & Kelly, P. J. (2003). Conceptualizing and researching the educational
pipeline. National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, The National
Information Center for Higher Education Policymaking and Analysis.

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

137
Forbes, H., Duke, M., & Prosser, M. (2001). Students' perceptions of learning outcomes from
group-based, problem-based teaching and learning activities. Advances in Health
Sciences Education, 6(3), 205-217.
Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American psychologist,
53(1), 5-26.
Haney, W., Madaus, G., Abrams, L., Wheelock, A., Miao, J., & Gruia, I. (2004). The education
pipeline in the United States 1970-2000. Chestnut Hill, MA: The National Board on
Educational Testing and Public Policy.
Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education:
status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Retrieved from
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18612
Hudson, P., English, L. D., Dawes, L., & Macri, J. (2012). Contextualizing a university-school
STEM education collaboration distributed and self-activated leadership for project
Outcomes. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 40(6), 772-785.
Kaluf, K. J., & Rogers, G. E. (2011). The Gary Plan: A model for today’s education? Journal of
STEM Teacher Education, 48(1), 13-21.
Karathanos, D., & Karathanos, P. (1996). The Baldrige Education Pilot Criteria 1995: An
integrated approach to continuous improvement in education. Journal of Education for
Business, 71(5), 272-276.
Kelley, T. R., Brenner, D. C., & Pieper, J. T. (2010). Two approaches to engineering design:
Observations in STEM education. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 47(2), 5-8.

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

138
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice,
41(4), 212-218.
Levin, H. M. (1989). Mapping the Economics of Education. Educational Researcher, 18(4), 13-
16.
Loyens, S. M., Rikers, R. M., & Schmidt, H. G. (2007). Students’ conceptions of distinct
constructivist assumptions. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22(2), 179-199.
Marzano, R. J., McNulty, B. A., & Waters, T. (2005). School leadership that works. Denver,
CO: ASCD & MCREL.
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., & Tal, R. T.
(2004). Inquiry‐based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban
systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1063-1080.
McCulloch, A., & Ernst, J. (2012). Estuarine ecosystems: Using T & E signature approaches to
support STEM integration. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 72(3), 13-17.
McGowan, P., & Miller, J. (2001). Management vs. leadership. School Administrator, 58(10),
32-34.
McMahon, W.W. (2010). The External Benefits of Education. Brewer & McEwan, 68-80.
Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative Research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam-Webster: Dictionary and Thesaurus (2015). An Encyclopedia Britannica Company.
Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integrate
Mourshed, M., Farrell, D., & Barton, D. (2012). Education to employment: Designing a system
that works. National Partnership for Educational Access. Retrieved from
www.educational-access.org.
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

139
Nathan, M. J., Srisurichan, R., Walkington, C., Wolfgram, M., Williams, C., & Alibali, M. W.
(2013). Building cohesion across representations: A mechanism for STEM integration.
Journal of Engineering Education, 102(1), 77-116.
Nathan, M. J., Tran, N. A., Atwood, A. K., Prevost, A., & Phelps, L. A. (2010). Beliefs and
expectations about engineering preparation exhibited by high school STEM teachers.
Journal of Engineering Education, 99(4), 409-426.
National Center for Education Statistics (2006). The nation’s report card: Science 2005.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2005/2006466.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics (2007). The nation’s report card: Mathematics 2007.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2007/2007494.pdf
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2004). The educational pipeline: Big
investment, big returns. Retrieved from www.highereducation.org
National Research Council (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective
approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Retrieved from
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13158
National Research Council (2013). Monitoring progress toward successful K-12 STEM
education. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13509
National Research Council (2015). Guide for implementing the next generation science
standards. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18802
National Science and Technology Council (2013). Federal science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM) education: 5-year strategic plan. Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/stem_stratplan_2013.pdf

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

140
National Science Board (2007). A national action plan for addressing the critical needs of the
U.S. science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education system. Retrieved
from http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2007/stem_action.pdf
National Science Teacher Association (2008). Science as inquiry in the secondary setting.
Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Nugent, G., Kunz, G., Rilett, L., & Jones, E. (2010). Extending engineering education to K-12.
Technology Teacher, 69(7), 14-19.
Olson, L. (2000). New thinking on what makes a leader. Education Week.
The Journal of High Education, 7(2), 113-133.
Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual
Review of Psychology, 49, 345-75. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/205845573?accountid=14749
Prabhu, M. T. (2009). Obama launches new STEM initiatives. eSchool News:
Technology News for Today's K-20 Educator. Retrieved from www.eschoolnews.
com/2009/11/24/obama-launches-new-stem-initiatives/
Prensky, M. (2011). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon. MCB University Press,
9(5), 1-6.
Purpose Built Communities (2009). The educational pipeline leads to a world of possibilities.
Retrieved from http://purposebuiltcommunities.org
Riggio, R. E. (2009). Cutting-edge leadership: Are you a transformational leader? Psychology
Today. Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-
edgeleadership/200903/are-you-transformational-leaders

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

141
Roberts, J.M., Schreiber, M., & Scissors, D. (2012). Brazil: Restoring economic growth through
economic freedom. Retrieved from
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/09/brazil-restoring-economic-growth-
through-economic-freedom
Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Westford, MA: John Wiley &
Sons.
Rocas, G., Gonzalez, W., & Araujo, F. (2009). Implementing selective waste collection: The
articulation between pedagogical theory and practice in the pollution and ecology class
in the environmental control technical course. Retrieved from EBSCOhost, 20 pp.
(ED504870).
Roehrig, G., Moore, T., Wang, H., & Park, S. (2012). Is Adding the E Enough? Investigating the
Impact of K ‐ 12 Engineering Standards on the Implementation of STEM Integration.
School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 31-44.
Rogers, C. B., Wendell, K., & Foster, J. (2010). A Review of the NAE report, engineering in
K ‐ 12 education. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(2), 179-181.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster.
Sanders, M. (2009). Integrative STEM: A primer. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20-26.
Sanders, M. (2012). Integrative stem education as “Best practice”. Explorations of Best
Practices in Technology, Design, and Engineering Education, 2,102-117.
Sanders, M. & Wells, J.G. (2006). Integrative STEM education. Retrieved from
http://www.soe.vt.edu/istemed/
Sarason, S. B. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change course
before it's too late? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

142
Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 3, 9-20.
Savery, J.R. & Duffy, T. M., (1995). Problem Based Learning: An instructional model and its
constructivist famework. Educational Technology (35), 31-38. Retrieved from
http://www.ouwb.ohiou.edu/this_is_ouwb/papers/savery-duffy.pdf
Schmoker, M. & Wilson, R. B. (1993). Transforming schools through total quality education.
Phi Delta Kappan, 389-395.
Schumacher, G. (2011). Key factors for successfully implementing and sustaining quality
improvement in K-12 education. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 33(4), 17-
20.
Scott, C. (2012). An investigation of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)
focused high schools in the US. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research,
13(5), 30-39.
Sinek, S. (2009). Start with why. London, England: Penguin.
Slavin, R. E. ( 1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know,
what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 43–69.
Sosik, J. J., & Dionne, S. D. (1997). Leadership styles and Deming's behavior factors. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 11(4), 447-462.
Sparks, S. D. (2011). Education pipeline. Education Week Spotlight, 30 (30), 5.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2011). A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents
and their role in the empowerment of low-status students and youth. Youth & Society,
43(3), 1066-1109.

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

143
Steffe, L. P., & Gale, J. E. (Eds.). (1995). Constructivism in education (p. 159). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Strobel, J. & Van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of
meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Problem-Based Learning 3(1), 44-58.
Strock, J. (2013). Serve to Lead. Retrieved from http://servetolead.org/21st-century-leadership-
defined/
Subotnik, R., Edmiston, A., & Rayhack, K. (2007). Developing national policies in STEM talent
development: Obstacles and opportunities. NATO Security Through Science Series E
Human and Societal Dynamics, 16, 28-38.
Subotnik, R. F., Kolar, C., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Cross, T. L. (2010). Specialized science
high schools: Exploring contributions of the model to adolescent talent development.
Roeper Review, 32(1), 7-16.
Sweetland, S. R. (1996). Human capital theory: Foundations of a field of inquiry. Review of
Educational Research, 66(3), 341-359.
Taber, K. S. (2006). Beyond constructivism: The progressive research programme into learning
science. Studies in Science Education, 42(1), 125-184.
Teacher Tap (2011). Critical and creative thinking – Bloom’s Taxonomy. Retrieved from
http://eduscapes.com/tap/topic69.htm
The White House (2009). Educate to innovate. Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/k-12/educate-innovate.

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

144
The White House (2010). Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) for America’s future. Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-stemed-execsum.pdf.
The White House (2014). Preparing Americans with 21
st
century skills. Retrieved from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/fy_2015_stem_ed.pdf
United States Census Bureau (2000) Educational Attainment in the United States. Retrieved
from http://www.census.gov
United States Census Bureau (2010) Educational Attainment in the United States. Retrieved
from http://www.census.gov
Vilorio, D. (2014). STEM 101: Intro to tomorrow’s jobs. Retrieved from
http://www.stemedcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/BLS-STEM-Jobs-report-
spring-2014.pdf
Volk, K. S. (2005). The Gary Plan and technology education: What might have been? Journal
of Technology Studies, 31(1), 39-48.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. Studies in
mathematics education series 6. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
Walpole, M., & Noeth, R. J. (2002). College readiness begins in middle school: The promise of
baldrige for K–12 education. Retrieved from http://www.act.org.
Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1983). The teaching of learning strategies. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/63438128?accountid=14749
White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (2005). A theoretical framework and approach for fostering
metacognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 211-223.

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

145
Williams, A. (2011). Shining a light on the resource curse: An empirical analysis of the
relationship between natural resources, transparency, and economic growth. World
Development, 39(4), 490-505.
Wilson, D. D., & Collier, D. A. (2000). An empirical investigation of the Malcolm Baldrige
National Quality Award causal model. Decision Sciences, 31(2), 361-383.
Yosso, T. J., Solorzano, D. G. (2006). Leaks in the Chicana and Chicano educational pipeline.
Retrieved from http://www.chicano.ucla.edu/files/LPIB_13March2006.pdf
Zarske, M. S., Yowell, J. L., Ringer, H. L., Sullivan, J. F., & Quinones, P. A. (2012). The
Skyline TEAMS Model: A longitudinal look at the impacts of K-12 engineering on
perception, preparation and persistence. Advances in Engineering Education, 3(2), 1-25.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview.
Educational psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

146
Appendix A
Initial Contact with Principals

Initial contact was a request by three colleagues attending the researcher’s university cohort,
asking the middle school principals if the researcher may contact them.

1. Email sent to the researcher’s cohort requesting assistance with attaining interviewees:

>Hi Everyone!
>I hope this email finds you all doing well!
>I am reaching out to you all with a favor in support of my qualitative dissertation.
>If you know of any principals who were instrumental with the implementation of an integrated
>STEM program at the middle school level I would appreciate you forwarding me an email.
>Or – If you know of any middle schools that have a STEM program, but are not sure about the
principal’s endeavors, those school names would be helpful as well!
>Thank you all in advance for creating our smart, thoughtful, and hard-working cohort!!!
>Joann

2. Email sent to three middle school principals requesting permission to interview them:

>Dear (insert Principal Name),
>My name is Joann Ferrara-Genao, I am a middle school student advisor/administrator interested
>in learning more information about implementing a middle school integrated STEM program.
>Your district colleague, (insert name of colleague), recommended I reach out to you in support
>of a research study I am conducting. Currently, I am a graduate student, at the University of
>Southern California’s Rossier School of Education, finishing a K-12 Leadership Doctorate
>Program and working on a dissertation to understand the Middle School Principal’s perspective
>on the essential factors needed when implementing integrative STEM at the middle school
>level. I’m told you initiated the STEM program at (insert name of school), therefore, you
>absolutely have the knowledge base that contributes masterfully to this area of research I am
>delving into.

>I would be extremely grateful if I had the opportunity to interview you. Our conversation
>would extend for about one hour and I would not identify you or your organization by name in
>this dissertation. If you granted me this interview, would a day in (insert month) work for
>you? It would be extraordinary if you could choose 1 or 2 days and times during the month of
>your choice to coordinate an interview. I also would appreciate your permission to tape the
>interview in order to have an accurate record of our conversation. Would that be okay?

>I look forward to your correspondence. Attached is an abstract reflective of my study.
>Thank you again!
>Sincerely,
>Joann Ferrara-Genao, USC Rossier School of Education, Ed.D. Student

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

147
Abstract attached to the previous email sent to three middle school principals:

Abstract
The Principal’s Perspective: Essential Factors When Implementing
Integrative STEM in Middle School
Forecasting the future global economy places requirements on the United States to focus
developing a work force that is knowledgeable and astute in the areas of science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Recently, President Obama recognized the need to
increase the capacity within our educational system to make the leap necessary to address STEM
for all and close the educational achievement gap in the United States. He specifically
acknowledged the critical role agencies such as National Science Foundation, Department of
Education, and National Institute of Health play in providing a pathway for all students to
participate in higher education. Educational institutions have a unique opportunity to receive
support from the federal government to improve organizational capacity and develop strategies
to expand STEM educational opportunities for all students. The purpose of this study is to gain
an understanding of the middle school principal’s perspective regarding the essential factors
needed when implementing integrative STEM at the middle school level. An examination of
interviews with middle school principals who have implemented STEM integration, artifacts,
and observations will provide insight and understanding of the importance middle schools play
as the connector in the K-12 educational pipeline.
Keywords: integrative, STEM integration, educational pipeline

3. Email sent to three middle school principals with updates regarding IRB approval, new
interview dates, and requesting to observe integrated STEM classrooms at their school sites:

>Dear (insert Principal Name)
>RE: Interview update
>I hope this email finds you well and the start of the new school year was fantastic for you!

>I passed the initial proposal defense of my dissertation chapters 1-3 on (insert date). My
>committee consisted of (insert names and titles of all committee members). I am still awaiting
>approval from the University of Southern California's Institutional Review Board (IRB) to be
>able to conduct our interview.

>Since your interview is a key component of my dissertation, I would like to be proactive and
>reschedule our (insert date) for the month of October or November. I apologize for this change
>of date. I fully plan to disclose the interview questions to you as soon as I receive IRB
>approval. Can we reschedule to any of the following dates: (insert a list of dates here).
>(insert the hour previously agreed upon) is still a good hour if that works for you.

>To support the rich data from our interview it would be extremely beneficial if I could observe
>1 or 2 STEM classrooms. I would not need to interview teachers or students, but solely observe
>a class period (bell to bell) to see the dynamics of a STEM learning environment at your school
>site. Would that be possible?

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

148
>I will not disclose the names of faculty or student body within my dissertation. If I am allowed
>to observe 1 or 2 STEM classrooms, I will email you the observational tool that I plan to use as
>soon as I have IRB approval.

>I can not thank you enough for participating in my research. The educational experience you
>and your staff are providing students is priceless!

>Sincerely,
>Joann Ferrara-Genao, USC Rossier School of Education, Ed.D. Student

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

149
Appendix B
IRB Approval

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY PARK INSTITUTIONAL
REVIEW BOARD FWA 00007099

Exempt Review

Date: Oct 24, 2014, 04:09pm
Principal Investigator: Joann Ferrara-Genao, BA,MA,MEd
ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
Faculty Advisor: Anthony Maddox
ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
Co-Investigators:
Project Title:
Middle School Classroom Observation Protocol and Middle School Principal Interview Protocol
USC UPIRB # UP-14-00457

The University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB) designee determined that your project
meets the requirements outlined in 45 CFR 46.101(b) categories (1,2) and qualifies for
exemption from IRB review. This study was approved on 10/24/2014 and is not subject to
further IRB review.
Minor revisions were made to the information sheets and sections 24.4 and 26.2.2 by the IRB
Administrator (IRBA).
Approved documents: --Certified Information Sheet - Principals UP-14-00457 10.24.14 --
Certified Information Sheet - Teachers UP-14-00457 10.24.14
To access IRB-approved documents, click on the “Approved Documents” link in the study
workspace. These are also available under the “Documents” tab.
Please check with all participating sites to make sure you have their permission to conduct
research prior to beginning your study.
Social-behavioral health-related interventions or health-outcome studies must register with
clinicaltrials.gov or other International Community of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)
approved registries in order to be published in an ICJME journal. The ICMJE will not accept
studies for publication unless the studies are registered prior to enrollment, despite the fact that
these studies are not applicable “clinical trials” as defined by the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA). For support with registration, go to www.clinicaltrials.gov or contact Jean Chan
(jeanbcha@usc.edu, 323-442-2825).

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

150
Appendix C
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Principal Information Sheet

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Middle School STEM Integration Study

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Joann Ferrara-Genao under the
supervision of Anthony Maddox at the University of Southern California because you are a
Principal at a Southern California middle school, where Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics (STEM) curriculum is being integrated into the classroom. Research studies
include only people who voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information
about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This research study aims to understand the essential factors needed when implementing
integrative Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) at the middle school
level.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate in a 60 minute audio-taped
interview. You do not have to answer any questions you don’t want to; if you don’t want to be
taped, handwritten notes will be taken.

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

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential.
Your responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately. The
audio-tapes will be destroyed once they have been transcribed.

The data will be stored on a password protected computer in the researcher’s office for three
years after the study has been completed and then destroyed.

De-identified aggregate data will be shared with the participating school sites and administrators
at the completion of the study.

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

151
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Principal
Investigator Joann Ferrara-Genao at 949-350-3650 or ferrarag@usc.edu.

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

IRB Template Version: 3-8-13
Last edits made on: 10/20/14– Information Sheet for Exempt Applications – Principals
UPIRB#: UP-14-00457

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

152
Appendix D
Middle School STEM Integration Study
Middle School Principal Interview Protocol

My name is Joann Ferrara-Genao and I am a graduate student at the University of Southern
California’s Rossier School of Education. I am currently attending the K-12 Leadership
Doctorate Program and conducting a study about middle school STEM (Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Math) integration. As part of this project, I am interested in understanding the
middle school principal’s perspective regarding the essential factors needed when implementing
integrative STEM at the middle school level. The information you provide will serve to inform
future research on how to implement a STEM integration initiative at the middle school level.

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

This interview should take about an hour. Do you have any questions before we begin?

Date of Interview: _____________________
Name of Interviewer: Joann Ferrara-Genao
Name of Interviewee: _____________________________________________________
Interviewee Job Title: _____________________________________________________
Interviewee Phone Number: ________________________________________________
Interviewee Email Address: ________________________________________________
Name of School: _________________________________________________________
School Location: _________________________________________________________
Authorizer’s Phone Number: ________________________________________________
Authorizer’s Email Address: ________________________________________________
Interview start time: _______________
Interview end time: _______________
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

153
Middle School STEM Integration Study
Middle School Principal Interview Protocol

School Demographics – I will confirm information from an on-line school report card and
Website. Such as the population of: students, teachers, special education, EL, Gifted

1. How long have you held the position as Middle School Principal at this school site?

2. In chronological order, what other educational positions have you held, approximately
what length of time did you spend in each position?

3. A. How did the STEM initiative idea originate?
B. What year was it implemented?

4. A. What is your understanding of STEM integration?
B. Have you had an opportunity to observe STEM integration prior to implementing it?
C. How did your knowledge and observations influence your implementation process?

5. Describe your understanding regarding the importance of STEM integration in education.

6. How confident are you that STEM integration is necessary for students to be successful
in the United States and global economy? Please elaborate.

7. Please explain the process you used to implement the integrated STEM initiative.
For example: use of data, the planning stages, executing, and monitoring etc.

8. Who were the members of the original leadership team?

9. Reflecting on the planning stages for implementing STEM integration with the leadership
team, how much input did you receive from the teaching staff? Please elaborate.

10. What were the steps used to establish an integrated classroom setting?

11. What are your observations regarding student learning since incorporating STEM
integration?

12. A. What role did school culture play in the implementation process?
B. How did you gain buy-in from your teaching staff?

13. During the implementation what were some of the challenges?

14. What types of adjustments have been made to this initiative since implementation?

15. A. What attributes do you feel led to the successful implementation of STEM
integration?
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

154
B. Do you believe these attributes are key components needed for effective STEM
integration within the K-12 Pipeline? Please elaborate.
C. Is there any additional information or key components of STEM integration and the
learning process that you would like to add?

16. From your experience, what advice (“Do’s and Don’ts”) would you give school
leadership teams preparing to implement an integrated STEM initiative at their site?

17. As we come to a close, do you have additional insights that you feel are pertinent to
mention in this interview?

Thank you for all of the information you have provided today. I am most appreciative of your
time. Your information will be very helpful in my research of middle school STEM integration.
May I contact you again should I need additional information?
Thank you again for your time and expertise.

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

155
Appendix E
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Teacher Information Sheet

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Middle School STEM Integration Study

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Joann Ferrara-Genao under the
supervision of Anthony Maddox at the University of Southern California because you are a
Teacher at a Southern California middle school, where Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics (STEM) curriculum is being integrated into the classroom. Research studies
include only people who voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information
about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This research study aims to understand the essential factors needed when implementing
integrative Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) at the middle school
level.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate in a classroom observation
at a time and date of your choosing. The length of time for this observation will be from the start
of your class period through the end of your class period. The researcher will take handwritten
notes according to an observation protocol, and will not be interacting with you or your students.

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

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential.
Your responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately.

The data will be stored on a password protected computer in the researcher’s office for three
years after the study has been completed and then destroyed.

De-identified aggregate data will be shared with the participating school sites and administrators
at the completion of the study.

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

156
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Principal
Investigator Joann Ferrara-Genao at 949-350-3650 or ferrarag@usc.edu.

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

IRB Template Version: 3-8-13
Last edits made on: 10/20/14– Information Sheet for Exempt Applications – Teachers
UPIRB#: UP-14-00457

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

157
Appendix F
Middle School STEM Integration Study
Middle School Classroom Observation Protocol

During my interviews, principals discussed their understanding of STEM integration, how to
incorporate integrated STEM into the learning process, and their perception of essential factors
needed when implementing an integrated STEM initiative.

The purpose of this observation is to document how teachers currently incorporate STEM
integration into lesson planning in order to better understand how the STEM initiative is being
implemented in the classroom setting.

I will observe a lesson objective and how it is communicated to students. Observations will
include the details of the activities taking place in the classroom and how the teacher facilitates
student learning. I hope to collect documents and artifacts during this process.

Date of Observation: __________ Observation Start Time: _________ Grade Level: ______
School District: _____________________________________________________________________________
School Name: ______________________________________________________________________________
Principal: __________________________________________________________________________________
Principal Phone Number: ____________________Principal Email: ___________________________________
Teacher Participant Letter Identification : _____
Subject Taught: __________ Class Period: _____ Class minutes: _____ Day of the week _____________
Topic of Lesson: ____________________________________________________________________________
Learning Objective: _________________________________________________________________________
Observation End Time: _________ Number of students in attendance: _____

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

158
Middle School STEM Integration Study
Middle School Classroom Observation Protocol

Research Question
RQ2: How do principals describe implementing integrated STEM at their school site and
what does the implementation look like in the classroom?

Integrated STEM Classroom Environment
• Description
• Number of student
seats/desks
• Seat arrangement
• Seat arrangement
impact on
participants
interactions,
movements, etc.

• Equipment
• Technology
available

• Documents
• Artifacts- view a
lesson plan of a
posted document

• Materials
• Print rich walls
• Projects displayed

• Other
• Added Notes

(Take a picture/video of classroom BEFORE students enter)

____Computer

____Projector

_____Document
Camera

____
Responders

____ipods

____ipads

____
Smart
Phones

____
Internet
Videos

____Visuals

____Audio

____
Internet

____Websites

____Power
Points

Other:_____________________________________________________

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

159

Integrated STEM Lesson / Activities / Interactions
I. A. Technology
Used

B. Who is using the
technology?
____Computer

____Projector

_____Document
Camera

____Responders

____ipods

____ipads

____
Smart
Phones

____
Internet
Videos

____Visuals

____Audio

____
Internet

____Websites

____Power
Points

Other:_____________________________________________________

____Teacher
____Student
_____
Teacher
Assistant

____Other

II. Strategies
• How is Technology
used? Purpose?

• Check for Student
Understanding:
Verbal & written
responses, etc.

• Use of organizers,
systematic
procedures, etc.
• Homework given is
relevant, inquiry
based, review,
written, reading,
discovery, etc.
Evident: ____ YES ____ NO

III. Student Interest
• # of Students

• Student-Student
Interactions
• Student-Teacher
Interactions

• Active participants:
conversations
• Passive participants
• Other
Evident: ____ YES ____ NO
IV. STEM Integration

When, Where, How

Evident: ____ YES ____ NO
Science Technology Engineering Mathematics
Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

160

Field Notes

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

161

Appendix G

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

162
Appendix H
Sixth Grade Program Description
School Brochure

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

163
Appendix I
Seventh and Eighth Grade Program Description
School Brochure

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

164

Appendix J
Course Descriptions

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

165

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM

166
Appendix K
Egg Drop Apparatus

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Forecasting the future global economy places requirements on the United States to focus developing a work force that is knowledgeable and astute in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). President Obama recognized the need to increase the capacity within our educational system to make the leap necessary to address STEM for all and close the educational achievement gap in the United States. The purpose of this study is to gain an understanding of the middle school principal’s perspective regarding the essential factors needed when implementing integrative STEM in middle school. The methodologies of qualitative research, in the form of interviews with three middle school principals who have implemented STEM integration and observations which followed each interview, were used for the purpose of answering the research questions: 1. What do principals understand about the importance of STEM integration? 2. How do principals describe implementing an integrated STEM program at their school site and what does the implementation look like in the classroom? 3. What do principals perceive to be essential factors, and of them, which do they feel are the most crucial when implementing an integrated STEM program? The interviews and observations provided insight and understanding of the importance middle school plays as the connector in the K-12 educational pipeline. The results indicated: the importance of passionate, innovative, transformational leadership

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Promoting STEM integration, interest and identity among elementary school students

PDF

Integrating STEM instruction through identifying interest and identity in STEM professionals

PDF

Preservice teacher preparation for engineering integration in K-5

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Integration of STEM and gardening for urban elementary youth

PDF

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

PDF

The successful implementation of STEM initiatives in lower income schools

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Effective leadership practices used by middle school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Building leadership capacity to support principal succession

PDF

Sustaining quality leadership at prep academy charter schools: promising practices for leadership development in public schools

PDF

STEM education in middle school: a promising practices study

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Ferrara-Genao, Joann C. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/07/2015

Defense Date 05/11/2015

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

Tag integrative STEM education,K-12 educational pipeline,OAI-PMH Harvest,transformational leader

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Maddox, Anthony B. (committee chair), Freking, Frederick W. (committee member), Sheehan, Richard M. (committee member)

Creator Email ferrarag@usc.edu,joannferraragenao@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-587899

Unique identifier UC11299857

Identifier etd-FerraraGen-3556.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-587899 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-FerraraGen-3556.pdf

Dmrecord 587899

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Ferrara-Genao, Joann C.

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