University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

STEM teacher education: An evaluation study

(USC Thesis Other)

STEM teacher education: An evaluation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: STEM TEACHER EDUCATION 1

STEM TEACHER EDUCATION
AN EVALUATION STUDY
by
Katherine Pilkinton

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

August 2018

Copyright 2018
Katherine Pilkinton
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

2
Dedication

To Christopher and Emily, my hope and inspiration twenty-four seven.

To the faculty and staff at Los Feliz STEM Magnet School. Your dedication to our
students and families inspires and encourages me to persevere in building a great school
community.
To the students at Los Feliz STEM Magnet School, you are the hope for the future, and it
is a pleasure and joy to serve you.

STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

3

Acknowledgements

My completion of this dissertation has been three-years in the making. As I reflect on the
process from start to finish, I’m amazed how much I’ve learned and how it has changed the way
I view the world. I would like to acknowledge all those who supported and encouraged me every
step of the way.
I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Mora-Flores, my dissertation chair for her
guidance, patience, encouragement, and great sense of humor. Throughout process she was
always positive and supportive. I admire Dr. Mora-Flores for doing the work she does while
raising a family and being a role model for educators. It has been a pleasure to work with her
during this three-year journey.
I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Angela Hasan and Dr. Kimberly
Ferrario for taking the time to serve on my committee and for their positive feedback and
suggestions. I took my first writing class at USC with Dr. Ferrario and with her guidance,
feedback, and support, I gained the confidence to realize I could write a “scholarly paper” and
continue on this arduous undertaking.
Throughout my years of being a student and educator, I’ve had so many supporters
who encouraged me to keep going to pursue the highest levels of education. I want to thank
my family and friends for their loving support, especially my aunt Ruth Drye for being an
immeasurable role model and whose courage inspires me every day. Most importantly, I’d
like to express my sincere gratitude to my Los Feliz STEM Leadership Team-Mario, Mariam,
Maikhanh, and Sara. I really couldn’t have done it without your patience, support, and
encouragement to keep on keeping on.
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

4

Table of Contents

Dedication ........................................................................................................................................ 2
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 3
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 4
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... 7
List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. 8
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ 9
Introduction to the Problem of Practice ......................................................................................... 10
Organizational Context and Mission ............................................................................................. 11
Importance of Addressing the Problem ......................................................................................... 11
Purpose of the Project and Questions ............................................................................................ 12
Organizational Performance Status ............................................................................................... 12
Organizational Performance Goal ................................................................................................. 13
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Performance Goal ................................................. 14
Review of the Literature ................................................................................................................ 15
STEM Education ........................................................................................................................ 15
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences………………………………....……....18
Knowledge Influences ............................................................................................................... 19
Motivation Influences ................................................................................................................ 23
Organization Influences ............................................................................................................. 26
Conceptual Framework…………………………………………………......……………………30
Data Collection and Instrumentation…………………………………………………………….31
Interviews ................................................................................................................................... 31
Surveys ....................................................................................................................................... 32
Results and Findings ...................................................................................................................... 32
Participating Stakeholders ......................................................................................................... 33
Knowledge Influences ............................................................................................................... 34
Teachers Knowledge of STEM Education ............................................................................. 34
Highest Level of Math Taken in College ............................................................................... 35
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

5
Knowledge of the CCSS and the NGSS Standards ................................................................ 36
Planning with the Standards ................................................................................................... 37
Motivation Influences ................................................................................................................ 38
Challenges in Raising Student Achievement in STEM ......................................................... 38
Confidence in Teaching STEM Education ............................................................................ 40
Organizational Influences ......................................................................................................... 42
Experiences Implementing STEM Education ........................................................................ 42
Tools Used for Implementing STEM ..................................................................................... 43
What the School is Doing Well and How to Improve Implementation ................................. 44
Planning Time ........................................................................................................................ 46
Supports Provided and Needed .............................................................................................. 48
What the School Needs Overall to Become a STEM School ................................................ 49
Summary of Results and Findings ................................................................................................. 50
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ........................................................ 51
Knowledge Recommendations .................................................................................................. 51
Motivation Recommendations ................................................................................................... 55
Organization Recommendations ............................................................................................ 58
Cultural Models ..................................................................................................................... 59
Cultural Settings .................................................................................................................... 60
Sustainability .............................................................................................................................. 62
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 63
Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders with Sampling Criteria for Interviews, Surveys, and
Observations .................................................................................................................................. 64
Appendix B: Protocols .................................................................................................................. 65
Appendix C: Credibility and Trustworthiness ............................................................................... 67
Appendix D: Validity and Reliability ............................................................................................ 68
Appendix E: Ethics ........................................................................................................................ 70
Appendix F: Implementation and Evaluation Plan ....................................................................... 71
Implementation and Evaluation Framework .............................................................................. 71
Level 4: Results and Leading Indictors ..................................................................................... 71
Level 3: Behavior ....................................................................................................................... 72
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

6
Level 2: Learning ....................................................................................................................... 75
Level 1: Reaction ....................................................................................................................... 78
Evaluation Tools ........................................................................................................................ 78
Level 1 Evaluation Instrument ............................................................................................... 79
Level 2 Evaluation Instrument ............................................................................................... 80
Blended Evaluation ............................................................................................................... 81
Data Analysis and Reporting ......................................................................................................... 82
Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 83
References ..................................................................................................................................... 86

STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

7

List of Tables
Table
1. Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals ........ ……14
2. Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ........................................ ….18
3. Teachers’ Views and Role in Successful STEM Implementation……………..……....41
4. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations .......................... .………..51
5. Summary of Motivational Influences and Recommendations ...................................... 55
6. Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations ................................... 58
7. Outcomes, Metrics and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes ......................... 72
8. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Teachers…...………...….........73
9. Required Drivers to Support Teachers. ................................................................ …….74
10. Components of Learning for the Program ................................................................... 77
11. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program .................................................... 78

STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

8
List of Figures
Figure

1. Conceptual Framework………………………………………………………………..30

2. Average Years of Teaching Experience…………………………………………….....34

3. Highest Level of Math Taken in College……………………………………………..36
4. Challenges in Raising Student Achievement in STEM ………………..….…….……39
5. Tools Used for Implementing STEM………………….………………………...........44
6. What the School is Doing Well and Areas for Improvement.……….…………..........45
7. Number of Hours Spent Planning for STEM. …………………………………..........46
8. Schoolwide STEM Implementation Levels…………………...…………...………....82

9. STEM Classroom Implementation Checklist………..……………………….……....84

STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

9

Abstract

The focus of this study was to examine teachers’ knowledge and skills of science,
technology , engineering , and math (STEM) education and the challenges they face
implementing STEM in the classroom. The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework was
used to identify the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences impacting barriers to
STEM implementation. A mixed methods qualitative approach using telephone interviews and
an on-line survey was conducted. The results of the study found that overall, teachers have an
understanding of what STEM is, but vary in their levels of implementation and integration. The
results indicate that a focus on high-quality curriculum, professional development, planning time,
and adequate resources and materials can contribute to an increase in STEM pedagogy and
improved teacher practice. The study identifies recommendations and solutions to increase
teacher capacity in implementing STEM education to improve student achievement.

Keywords: STEM, Community STEM Academy (CSA), Project Lead the Way (PLTW), Project
Based Learning (PBL),Common Core State Standards (CCSS), Next Generation Science
Standards (NGSS)

STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

10
Introduction to Problem of Practice

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education has received
much public attention in the past few years with STEM occupations expected to grow at a faster
rate than other professions in the next decade (Vilorio, 2014). According to the President’s
Council on Science and Technology (PCAST, 2010), STEM education will determine if the US
will remain a leader in the world and be able to solve problems such as energy, health and
climate change. More STEM jobs will create a workforce that will generate more scientists,
engineers, mathematicians, and provide people with technical skills and better earnings (Holdren,
Lander, & Varmus, 2010). This growth expectation has led to an increase of STEM –focused
magnet schools throughout the U.S. (Slavit, Nelson & Lesseig, 2016).
STEM- focused schools are opening at a fast rate, but the U.S. falls short on preparing
teachers to implement STEM, and mathematics and science performance levels are low
compared to other countries, especially for low income and minority students. (Holdren, et
al.,2010). In order to implement a high-quality STEM curriculum, it is essential that teachers
have strong background knowledge in math and science (Nadelson, Callahan, Pyke, Hay, Dance
& Pfiester, 2013). They suggest that STEM education teacher training is marginal and leaves
teachers unprepared and lacking confidence in teaching STEM content. According to the 2015
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results, only thirty-nine percent of all
fourth graders scored proficient in math. The average science score for White students was 33
points higher than Black students and 27 points higher than their Hispanic peers. These
achievement gaps along with the need for building teacher capacity in STEM education indicate
that this is a problem (STEM Task Force, 2014).

STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

11
Organizational Context and Mission

Community STEM Academy (CSA) is a kindergarten through sixth grade STEM- based
school that offers a project- based curriculum, prepares students to be critical thinkers, and to be
college and career ready. The mission of CSA is to engage students in an innovative, rigorous,
and culturally relevant curriculum so they can be prepared for future STEM occupations.
Community STEM Academy was opened in August 2014 and is located in California. Students
of CSA reflect the diverse neighborhood. Currently there are 462 students enrolled in grades K-
6. Student ethnicities include 3 percent African-American, 9 percent Asian, 50 percent Latino,
and 38 percent White. Sixty-nine percent of the students come from socioeconomic-
disadvantaged families and thirty percent are English language learners. The staff includes the
principal, twenty fully credentialed teachers, seven paraprofessionals, and support staff including
an assistant principal, magnet coordinator, and English Learner coordinator. All of the
stakeholders collaborate to support the mission and to ensure students have the necessary skills
to achieve.
Importance of Addressing the Problem

It is important to evaluate the organization’s performance goal of implementation of a high-
quality STEM curriculum to close the achievement gaps in mathematics and science and to
prepare students to be college and career ready to compete in a global economy. If the
organization does not provide students with a strong STEM foundation, they will not be prepared
for middle and high school. Evaluating the effectiveness of STEM implementation at CSA will
enable the stakeholders to collect formative and summative data to assess its effectiveness.

STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

12
Purpose of the Project and Questions

The purpose of this project was to evaluate the degree to which CSA is achieving its goal of
100% implementation of high-quality STEM education to improve student achievement. The
analysis focused on the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences impacting teachers’
ability to implement STEM education and explored how teachers’ attitudes and perceptions
about STEM education influence student learning. While a complete evaluation project would
focus on all CSA stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholders of focus on in this analysis
were the teachers.
As such, the questions that guided this study are the following:
1.To what extent is Community STEM Academy (CSA) meeting its goal of implementing
integrated STEM education to improve student achievement?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences related to achieving this
organizational goal?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Organizational Performance Status

In 2014 teachers at CSA began implementation of STEM education using a Project Based
Learning approach (PBL) (Buck Institute, 2017). In PBL students develop a driving question to
solve a real-world problem or to find an answer to a question and use 21
st
century skills such as
inquiry, communication, collaboration, and technology. PBL focuses on the following 21
st

Century Competencies: In Depth Inquiry, Driving Question, Need to Know, Voice & Choice,
Critique and Revision, and Public Audience (Buck Institute, 2017). STEM concepts are not
taught in isolation, but instead integrated across the curriculum. Integrated STEM activities allow
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

13
teachers to focus on concepts that are connected to other subject areas (Stohlman, Moore &
Roehrig, 2012). However. the teachers at CSA felt they were not addressing STEM inclusively,
and in 2016 CSA started implementation of Project Lead the Way Launch (PLTW) (Project Lead
the Way, 2017) . Project Lead the Way (PLTW) is a research-based STEM K-5 curriculum and
teacher professional development program designed to prepare students for the STEM
workforce, develop a design thinking mindset and build teacher capacity in STEM education
(Tai, 2012). PLTW Launch elementary curriculum focuses on problem solving and provides
students in grades K-5 with STEM foundational skills . There are twenty-four interdisciplinary
modules in grades K-5 aligned to the CCSS Math and English and NGSS standards. Each
module provides 10 hours of instruct ion and is designed for flexibility.
Organizational Performance Goal

The performance goal at CSA is that by June 2018, 100% of CSA’s teachers will
participate in STEM professional development to build their content knowledge of integrated
STEM education to ensure full implementation. The achievement of CSA’s goal was measured
by teacher surveys, standardized tests, formative, and alternative assessments. It is important to
evaluate the organization’s performance goal of full implementation of STEM education as it
will enable stakeholders to gather formative and summative data that can be used to assess the
effectiveness of CSA’s professional development, curriculum, and programs to ensure continued
success for all students. Table 1 below describes the organizations’ mission, and performance
goal.

STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

14

Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goals, and Stakeholder Performance Goals

Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Performance Goal

Although all stakeholder groups contribute to the organizations’ mission of providing
opportunities for students to engage in science, technology, engineering and math, the
stakeholder group for this study will focus on teachers. According to Darling-Hammond (2000)
teacher quality is the most important influence in student achievement. Strong content
knowledge in math and science is necessary to implement a high-quality STEM program, thus it
is important to evaluate the teacher’s current knowledge and motivation toward STEM
education. Teachers who lack knowledge and motivation to implement a STEM curriculum
directly impact student achievement. In order to meet the performance goal of 100% STEM
implementation, it is critical to build teacher capacity in STEM education so that teachers are
Organizational Mission
The mission of Community STEM Academy is to educate all students in a safe and nurturing
environment with rigorous opportunities that emphasize science, technology, engineering, and
math.

Organizational Performance Goal
By June 2018, Community STEM Academy will implement a high quality STEM curriculum
to improve student achievement.

____________________________________________________________________________
Stakeholders Performance Goals

By June 2018, 100% of teachers will participate in
STEM professional development to build their content knowledge of integrated STEM
education.
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

15
prepared to meet the needs of their students. If the stakeholder goal is not met, student learning
will be adversely impacted.
Review of the Literature

This literature review examines the causes of achievement gaps in the implementation of
science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education at CSA. The review begins with
defining STEM education in the U.S., followed by the challenges teachers encounter when
attempting to implement a high quality STEM education program and math and science gaps in
teacher education. The last section will discuss the knowledge, motivation and organizational
influences of the ability of teachers to implement a high quality STEM education program at
CSA. The Clark and Estes framework will be used to examine the knowledge, motivation and
organizational gaps that impact CSA’s progress towards achieving its performance goal of
integrating STEM education throughout the curriculum to improve student achievement by June
2018. The first section will examine the conceptual, procedural and metacognitive knowledge
that teachers need to implement STEM education. The second section will discuss motivational
influences, such as teacher self-efficacy and attribution theory. The last section will explore
organizational factors including resistance, values, beliefs, and teacher workload and time
constraints. These three influences will be examined in the methods section to determine if
teachers have the knowledge, motivation and organizational factors needed to achieve CSA’s
performance goal.

STEM Education

Investment in STEM education is critical for the U.S. to remain competitive and
innovative in today’s global economy. With STEM-related careers projected to grow to more
than 9 million through 2022, it is important that students receive high-quality STEM education
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

16
and that teachers are prepared to integrate STEM education across the curriculum (Vilorio,
2014). While there are many different definitions of STEM education, the most widely used
definition was provided in 1990 by the National Science Foundation. They define STEM
education as an interdisciplinary approach combined with real world problem –based learning
(STEM Task Force, 2014). Similarly, Nathan & Nelson (2009) define STEM education as an
interdisciplinary approach whereby students apply science, technology, engineering, and math in
contexts that connect school, community, and industry while developing STEM literacy to be
able to compete in a global economy. They suggest that in order for the U.S. to compete for jobs
of the future, we must create a STEM-literate population who is knowledgeable in math and
science and who knows how to make informed decisions in a global society. While there are
many different approaches to implementing STEM education, an integrated approach using math
and science combined with inquiry-based learning is the most prevalent method (Slavit, et al.,
2016).
STEM education uses an integrated approach to learning where academic concepts are
joined with real-world lessons as students apply science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (Spuck & Jenkins, 2014; Nathan & Nilson, 2009). Many STEM-focused schools
use Project Based Learning (PBL) as a tool for implementing STEM education. In PBL students
develop a driving question to solve a real-world problem and use 21
st
Century skills such as
inquiry, communication, collaboration, and technology. These skills, coupled with STEM
education prepare students to be college and career ready and prepared for the STEM workforce
(Larmer & Mergendoller, 2010; Marshall, 2009; STEM Task Force, 2014). STEM concepts are
not taught in isolation, but instead integrated across the curriculum. Integrated STEM activities
allow teachers to center on concepts that are connected to other subject areas (Stohlman, et al.,,
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

17
2012). These approaches to implementing STEM require that teachers have the necessary skills
to teach STEM and that they have a strong background in math and science.
Teachers who have strong content knowledge in science and mathematics contribute to
student achievement and learning, and are more successful at integrating STEM across content
areas (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Pang & Good, 2000). Darling- Hammond (2000) suggests that
teacher quality is key to student achievement and learning. An important factor in implementing
STEM education is that teachers have the content knowledge needed to meet the demands of the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) ( STEM
Task Force, 2014). However, there is increasing concern that the U.S. is not adequately
preparing teachers to teach STEM education, and that achievement gaps in math and science
continue to persist among Hispanic and Black students compared to their White counterparts
(STEM Task Force, 2014). Mathematics and science scores on the National Assessment of
Education Progress (NAEP) indicate that only 19% of Black 4
th
graders and, 26% of Hispanic
students scored proficient or advanced in mathematics compared to their White counterparts at
51%. Science scores demonstrate that only15% of Black students scored proficient or advanced,
and Hispanic students scored 21% compared to their White counterparts at 51%. These gaps
contribute to underrepresentation in STEM fields, limit participation in high- paying STEM jobs
and lead to a lack of interest in STEM fields (Holdren, et al., 2010). Teachers who view
themselves as capable and who have strong content knowledge and quality pedagogy are more
confident in implementing STEM education and more likely to be successful in raising student
achievement (Stohlman, et al., 2012). The authors also found that most elementary school
teachers do not have a background in math and science, and teacher preparation programs do not
include enough math and science courses in content and pedagogy (Epstein & Miller, 2011;
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

18
STEM Task Force, 2014). Because teachers are not prepared for integrating STEM, ongoing
professional development in STEM is essential for ensuring teachers can meet the STEM needs
of their students (Nadelson, et al., 2013).
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences

The knowledge, motivational and organization influences identified in the literature
review are demonstrated in Table 2.
Table 2
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Organizational Mission
The mission of Community STEM Academy is to educate all students in a safe and nurturing
environment with rigorous opportunities that emphasize science, technology, engineering, and
math.
Organizational Global Goal
By June 2018, Community STEM Academy will implement a high quality STEM curriculum to
improve student achievement.

Stakeholder Goal
By June 2018, 100% of teachers will participate in
STEM professional development to build their content knowledge of integrated STEM education.
Knowledge Influence

Knowledge Type (i.e.,
declarative (factual or
conceptual), procedural, or
metacognitive)
Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Teachers need knowledge of
Common Core (CCSS) Math
and Next Generation Science
Standards (NGSS) for teaching
integrated STEM.

Declarative-
(Conceptual)

Teachers will be interviewed
to assess their knowledge and
understanding of CCSS Math
and NGSS standards.

Teachers need to know how to
use the standards for planning
and implementation.
Declarative (Factual) Teachers will be interviewed
to determine how they use the
standards for planning.

Teachers need to self-reflect on
their teaching practice and on
their knowledge of STEM
education.
Metacognition Teachers will be interviewed
to access their confidence
level in teaching STEM.

STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

19
Assumed Motivation Influences

Motivational Influence Assessment
Attributions-Teachers should feel that if
students succeed or fail in math and/or science,
it is a result of their efforts.

Teachers will be interviewed to determine the
highest level of math taken in college and to
share the challenges in raising student
achievement in STEM.

Self-efficacy- Teachers need to believe they can
implement a high-quality integrated STEM
curriculum, and feel confident in their
knowledge of the Common Core Math and
Next Generation Science Standards.
Teachers will be interviewed to determine
their confidence level in planning and
implementing STEM education.

Assumed Organizational Influences

Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1: There is resistance
to change by some teachers to fully implement
STEM education.

Interview questions to determine teachers’
experiences teaching STEM and any barriers to
implementation.
Cultural Model Influence 2: Some teachers do
not find value or believe in the task of
implementing STEM education (CM).

Survey teachers to determine their views on
STEM education and what their role is in
implementation.
Cultural Setting Influence 1: Teachers are
overstressed by time constraints and job
workload.

Survey teachers to determine what pressures
are causing them to feel overstressed and what
the barriers are to STEM implementation.
Cultural Setting Influence 2: Not all teachers
are proactive in taking responsibility for
student learning.

Interview teachers to determine what tools they
use to teach STEM and how they modify those
tools for student learning.

Knowledge Influences

One key factor in implementing a high-quality STEM program is that teachers must have
strong content knowledge in science and mathematics. Successful integration of math and
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

20
science depends on the teacher’s understanding of the subject matter (STEM Task Force, 2014;
Stohlmann, et al., 2012). Teachers’ knowledge and skills of the NGSS and CCSS standards are
important to achieving the organizations’ global goal of implementation of a high- quality
integrated STEM curriculum to improve student achievement. Research suggests when teachers
are able to transfer their skills and knowledge into the classroom, they become more committed
when they see evidence of student learning (Guskey, 2002). It is important to determine what
people need to know in order to achieve their goals because sometimes they are not always
aware of their own knowledge, skills or deficiencies (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
Knowledge influences. There are four types of knowledge influences: factual
knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge
(Rueda, 2011). Factual information is knowing bits of information that can be recalled easily,
such as knowledge of terminology or specific details and elements (Krathwohl, 2002). An
example of factual knowledge is students knowing their multiplication tables or being able to
recall vocabulary words. Conceptual knowledge is characterized by how concepts can be known
through connecting existing knowledge with new information. Research suggests that conceptual
knowledge is knowledge about classifications, generalizations, theories, and principals
(Baroody, Feil, & Johnson, 2007; Rittle-Johnson & Schneider, 2014). Procedural knowledge
applies to knowing how to do something, methods of inquiry, algorithms, and techniques.
Research suggests that the development of conceptual and procedural knowledge is iterative and
both types of knowledge can be strengthened to improve math ability (Rittle-Johnson, et al.,
2014).
Metacognitive knowledge refers to a person’s ability to use self-reflection to improve his
or her thinking and learning. When students learn strategies on how to think about their thinking,
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

21
they are able to learn better and self-regulate. Research suggests that students need metacognitive
strategies to monitor their progress and to build information into schemas in order to transfer
learning. Students who know strategies for thinking, learning, and solving problems are more
likely to use them (Pintrich, 2002). Teachers can foster cognitive engagement by scaffolding
instruction, modeling, providing feedback and by encouraging students to use learning and
metacognitive strategies (Blumenfeld, Solway, Marx, Krajcik, Guzdial, & Palinscar, 1991). This
study will assess the conceptual, procedural and metacognitive knowledge needed to achieve the
organizational goal of implementation of a high quality STEM curriculum.
Teachers’ knowledge of integrated STEM education. In order to implement a high-
quality STEM curriculum, it is essential that teachers have a strong understanding of science and
math concepts and academic knowledge of big ideas and themes. (Nadelson, et al., 2013).
Additionally, teachers must also understand the structure and design of the CCSS and NGSS
learning standards. Nadelson, Pluska, Moorcroft, Jeffrey, and Woodard (2014) found that
teachers have a moderate level of understanding of the CCSS, and as professional development
increases, so does the knowledge and perceptions of the CSSS. According to Rittle-Johnson, &
Schneider (2014) both conceptual and procedural knowledge of math and science are essential
for teachers to implement an integrated STEM curriculum.
Hiebert and Lefevre (1986) found that it is the relationship between conceptual and
procedural knowledge that leads to improvement in mathematics. Conceptual knowledge occurs
when students connect learning of new information to existing knowledge. For example, a
student might connect the learning of addition in base five to addition in base ten. In procedural
knowledge, the student understands the relationship between using an algorithm to solve a
multiplication problem. Research suggests that designing procedural lessons with core concepts
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

22
in mind can improve both procedural and conceptual knowledge (Rittle-Johnson, & Schneider
2014). Teachers must have a level of understanding of how these two types of knowledge work
in order to improve instruction and to achieve the organization’s goal of implementation of a
high quality STEM curriculum.
Teacher’s ability to self-reflect on their knowledge. Metacognitive knowledge plays an
important role in teachers’ ability to improve student learning. Knowing how to self-reflect on
teaching practice, and on the knowledge and skills used in the classroom contribute to how well
students learn. Research indicates teaching students metacognitive strategies has a positive
impact on student learning and that teachers who can evaluate their own strengths and
weaknesses are more likely to make changes to their teaching practice to improve
instruction.(Baker, 2006; Blumenfeld, et al.,1991; Pintrich, 2002). Students who know how to
use different strategies for problem solving are more likely to use and apply them in all subject
areas when facing challenging tasks. According to Mayer (2011) students who have
metacognitive awareness know what learning strategies work for them and take responsibility for
monitoring their own learning. He argues that student self-regulation is an essential goal in
education.
Research suggests metacognitive skills can be explicitly taught. Some strategies that
contribute to promoting metacognition improvement include having students identify prior
knowledge before introducing a new concept, providing feedback, scaffolding, and providing
opportunities for learners to engage in guided self-monitoring and self –assessment (Mayer,
2011; Baker, 2006). Teachers can also model their own cognitive processes by using talk alouds
to assess strengths and weaknesses. Teachers’ ability to self-reflect on their teaching practice and
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

23
to determine what skills and knowledge they need to improve student learning play a critical role
in achieving the organizational goal of implementing a high-quality STEM curriculum.
Table 1 below describes the organizational mission and goals related to the knowledge
influences, types, and assessments. These knowledge influences will be examined to determine
the gaps in achieving the organization’s goal. Table 1 below describes the knowledge influences.
Motivation Influences

Motivation is defined as an internal process that leads us to reach our goals through
persistence, mental effort and active choice (Clark & Estes, 2011; Rueda, 2011). These three
processes can be opportunities for success or lead to problems in an organization. Research
indicates teachers who are motivated by their work are more likely to contribute to student
achievement and demonstrate satisfaction with their jobs. Teachers with positive attitudes about
teaching also had students with higher self-esteem (Blumenfeld, et al.,1991). Teachers who lack
motivation are less likely to have the persistence and energy to accomplish academic goals. This
paper will examine the motivational influences of attribution and self-efficacy theories on
achieving the organization’s goal of implementing a high quality STEM program.
Attribution theory. Attribution theory refers to the beliefs about why an individual
succeeds or fails at a task (Rueda, 2011). Research suggests that a person’s attributions as to why
they succeed or fail at task determine how much effort a person will engage in the task in the
future (Anderman & Anderman, 2009). Attribution elements include stability, locus, and control
(Wiener, as cited in Rueda, 2008). The locus element relates to whether or not the cause of the
event is internal or external to the learner. If success or failure is attributed to ability and effort, it
results in increased self-esteem. Stability refers to whether or not the cause is stable or unstable
over time. When students attribute success or failures to unstable causes, their expectations can
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

24
change. Controllability relates to whether the cause is under the control of the learner.
(Anderman & Anderman, 2009). If a student thinks he or she can complete a task based on
ability or effort, self-esteem improves, and the student will most likely expect success in the
future. These three attributions influence behavior, cognition and emotions. If a learner attributes
his or her success to effort and through the use of effective learning strategies, it can enhance and
improve the academic achievement of the learner. How teachers communicate attributional
information can have a positive or negative impact on the students.
Attribution theory and teacher effort. Teachers directly influence the types of
attributions that students make and as to why students succeed or fail. Providing feedback,
praising students, and making comments all contribute to student learning and motivation
(Anderman, & Anderman, 2009). When teachers engage students in conversations about what
they attribute to their success and failures, they can better monitor and control students’
misconceptions about their learning. Teachers who believe that their efforts directly influence
student achievement, rather than students’ lack of ability, effort or luck can have a positive
impact on student motivation and learning (Anderman & Anderman 2009). Attribution theory
plays a significant role in teachers’ developing student’s beliefs about their ability to succeed.
Self-efficacy theory. The self-efficacy theory is rooted in social cognitive theory, which
emphasizes the idea that people have influence over their behavior (Bandura, 2005). Self-
efficacy is an individual’s beliefs in his or her own capabilities in producing a desired effect
(Bandera, 2005; Pajares, 2009). Research suggests that self-efficacy beliefs positively influence
motivation, confidence, and goal achievement. Individuals develop their self-efficacy beliefs
from experience, social influences and reactions; the more successes people have, the higher
their self-efficacy (Pajares, 2009). Research indicates that self-efficacy influences the choices
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

25
people make, how much effort they will spend on task, and their emotional reactions. Pajares
(2009) found that students who are more self-efficacious are more optimistic, have lower
anxiety, and achieve at higher rates. Individuals who have high self-efficacy also use self-
regulation strategies to monitor their learning.
Teacher self-efficacy. Teacher self-efficacy is a teacher’s belief in their own ability to
plan, organize, and follow through with tasks that are needed to achieve educational goals (Ross
& Bruce, 2007). Research indicates that teacher-self efficacy is a strong indicator of student
achievement and increases if teachers believe that student achievement and behavior can be
influenced by education (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2009). The study also found that teacher self-
efficacy decreases if external factors such as students’ abilities and home environment influence
learning. Teachers who provide goal directed practices, targeted feedback on progress, and
scaffold instruction increase students’ self-efficacy. Teachers who believe their students’ success
or failures are due to their efforts, set higher goals for themselves and persist in achieving those
goals (Ross & Bruce, 2007). Teachers with high self-efficacy view student failure as an
opportunity to reflect on their own practice rather than focusing on external causes, such as lack
of student ability, behavior or motivation. Collective efficacy beliefs also contribute to teacher
motivation (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2009).
Individual and collective efficacy beliefs contribute to whether or not teachers are
enthusiastic and motivated to accomplish learning goals. Schools characterized by high
collective teacher efficacy demonstrate persistence in achieving challenging goals (Skaalvik &
Skaalvik, 2009). Research suggests that efficacy beliefs are important for the implementation of
a successful STEM curriculum, especially for elementary teachers. Teachers with lower levels of
efficacy have more gaps in their understanding of the fundamental concepts of STEM education
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

26
(Nadelson, et al., 2013). Developing teachers’ competence in their knowledge and skills of
STEM curriculum positively influences individual and collective efficacy beliefs.
Organizational Influences

While knowledge and motivation gaps impact CSA’s goal of implementing a high quality
STEM curriculum to improve student achievement, organizational factors also contribute to
these gaps. Clark and Estes (2008) argue that knowledge, motivation and organizational factors
must be examined to determine gaps in the organization, and that they must be aligned with one
another in order to achieve performance goals. In order to understand the organizational
performance gaps at CSA, the cultural models and cultural settings of the school must be
examined. Cultural models are abstract, dynamic, and can be used to describe norms, practices,
beliefs, policies, behaviors, and rewards. Each contribute to how an organization is structured
and influence whether or not performance goals are met. Cultural settings are more concrete and
describe the daily routines in the organization and the impact they have on individual and group
behavior (Rueda, 2008). The following cultural models and settings will be examined to analyze
the organizational gaps at CSA: organizational resistance to change, beliefs and values, and
teacher workload and time constraints.
Attempting to implement new innovation or programs can be a challenge for teachers,
and fear of change is one of the primary barriers. Fullan (2001) argues that when schools are
trying to implement new innovation, they experience “implementation dips,” (p. 40). These dips
cause teachers’ confidence and performance to drop because they may lack the technical
knowledge to implement change or have a fear of the unknown, and if the environment for
change is weak, teachers will be less willing to try new innovations or to take risks. Similarly,
Moran & Brightman (2000) suggest that if the change is not aligned with a sense of purpose or
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

27
value, people will fear change and resist. Resistance within organizations can also result in a
refusal to implement initiatives and may include non-compliance, a refusal to collaborate,
disagreement, and cause problems between consistency and change (Agocs, 1997; Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Clark & Estes (2008) assert that opposition to change can stem from an environment that
lacks a balance between the need for stability and change. Individuals require a sense of
consistency within the organization, and when they have to implement changes, it can impact
their professional identity (Moran & Brightman, 2000). The authors contend that the need for
personal consistency is one of the main influences working against implementation and stability
when attempting to make changes within an organization. If people cannot integrate change on a
personal level, they will not able to maintain it within the organization. People also need to feel
confident that the organization is stable, and they are more likely to enact change if there is
transparency and security (Rath & Conchie, 2008). Fullan & Quinn (2016) suggest that if
teachers have not been part of the collaborative process in bringing about change or if they do
not have ownership, they are less likely to buy-in to any new programs or innovation. Change
can also impact symbolism in the organization.
Bolman & Deal (2013) posit that change is symbolic, and when people have to alter
traditional ways of doing things they experience a sense of loss of purpose and meaning.
Symbols can include the rituals, myths, vision, and values espoused in the organization. The
authors argue that when individuals are facing symbolic change, they will either hold on to the
past or embrace the changes. The values and beliefs in the organization also impact achieving the
performance goal.
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

28
Organizational culture is rooted in the values and beliefs people have in the organization.
According to Clark & Estes (2008) people value what they think helps them, and disregard what
prevents them from moving forward. Values can influence the choices people make and whether
or not they follow through on a task. The authors argue that it is important to understand the
connection between people’s values and beliefs in order to determine the barriers to achieving
performance goals and to close any gaps. They assert that differing cultural beliefs must be
examined to understand how people can be more effective in the workplace. According to Eccles
and Wigfield (as cited in Clark & Estes, 2008) people use interest, skill, and utility types of
values to make a connection to achieving performance goals.
Interest value relates to the choices people make based on what interest them. Skill value
provides challenges and opportunities for people to demonstrate their skills. Utility value
requires that people find finishing the task useful and focuses on a means to an end. Finding
value in a task is a way for people to make a commitment and to persist at achieving
performance goals. Individuals are more likely to value what interests them, and if the vision,
goals, policies and procedures of the organization are not aligned with the culture, performance
problems can occur. The beliefs people have about themselves influence whether or not they will
achieve their performance goals. Internal people believe they are responsible for what happens to
them in their lives and for their work performance, whereas external people believe that if things
happen to them, it is beyond their control (Clark & Estes, 2008). All individuals are internal and
external in different contexts, but the authors argue that it is important to recognize these belief
cultures in order to understand what makes people successful or unsuccessful in the organization
as well as to determine any deficiencies. Beliefs and values also have an impact on groups in the
organization.
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

29
Schein (2010) asserts that all group learning influences people’s beliefs and values.
People have their own expectations about “what is right or wrong or what works or does not
work,” (p.25). He argues that if values and beliefs are not meaningful to the group, performance
will be impacted. Bandura (1998) posits that people’s shared beliefs contribute to their collective
efficacy in attaining performance goals. He suggests that these beliefs determine how much
effort people will put into a task, how effectively they use their resources, and how well they
persist when faced with challenges. Similarly, Morgan & Brightman, (2000) assert that change
has to be a shared responsibility of everyone in the organization, and if the vision and mission
are unclear, sustainable change is less likely to occur. While the values and beliefs people have
in the organization create the culture, effective change will not occur unless organizational
practices and policies are addressed. Teacher workload and time constraints can have a direct
impact on whether or not performance goals are met.
In order to understand organizational gaps in an educational setting, it is important to
examine the organization’s practices and policies. According to Rueda (2008) organizational
structures, policies, and practices can influence whether or not performance goals are met. These
practices can get in the way of achieving the organization’s goal, even if people are motivated
and have the knowledge they need to be successful. Clark & Estes (2008) also suggest that if
work processes (interacting skills, knowledge and motivation) are not aligned with the goals of
the organization, and if the policies do not support the process, performance goals will not be
achieved. Teacher workload and time constraints directly impact performance goal achievement
in the educational setting.
While teachers are primarily responsible for student learning outcomes, they also have
many other professional responsibilities and challenges, such as planning for instruction and
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

30
implementing learning standards, dealing with disruptive students, participation in school-wide
events, attending parent conferences, performing adjunct duties, and district and school
compliance. Excess amounts of work, lack of planning time, poor working conditions, and
insufficient supplies and materials can cause teacher burnout and directly impact whether or not
performance goals are met (Ingersoll & Smith, 2003; Timperley & Robinson, 2000). In order to
improve instruction and to achieve performance goals, schools must provide materials,
equipment, time, training, and support for implementing new program initiatives or innovation
(Fullan, 2001). If people do not get the support, training and resources they need, or if they have
too many demands on their time and excess amounts of work, it is highly unlikely that
performance goals will be achieved.
Conceptual Framework
Figure 1. Stakeholder Conceptual Framework

STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

31
Figure 1. Presentation of Conceptual Framework. This figure describes the relationship between
the KMO influences in my study. In order for teachers to reach the organization’s goal of
integrating high- quality STEM education to improve student achievement, teachers must have
strong background knowledge in math and science, which contributes to their conceptual and
procedural knowledge and leads to whether or not they attribute student success or failure to
effort or ability (STEM Task Force, 2014;Stohlmann, et al., 2012). Self-efficacy influences
whether or not teachers believe they can positively influence student learning, which in turn
contributes to the need to self-reflect on teaching practice to be able to improve instruction as
well as to motivate students. The intersection of these ideas will lead to determining the teachers’
current knowledge of STEM education and will help identify any barriers to STEM
implementation.
Data Collection and Instrumentation

This study used a mixed method qualitative approach to collect and analyze information.
Telephone interviews and an online survey were used to determine the knowledge, motivation
and organizational barriers to STEM implementation. Using a mixed method qualitative study
approach allows the researcher to use a constructivist view to evaluate and gain an understanding
of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that impact teachers’ STEM
implementation practices and student achievement. Employing a qualitative study approach
induces emerging themes and patterns to support the data, allows for open-ended questions,
focuses on meaning, and presents a holistic account (Creswell, 2014; McEwan & McEwan 2003;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Interviews
Teachers in grades K-6 randomly volunteered for the telephone interviews and online
survey. Because I am the principal of my school, and I supervise the teachers, an IRB certified
representative conducted the telephone interviews to ensure no conflict of interest or risk to the
participants. Each participant was asked 15 standardized open-ended questions.
Open-ended interviewing seeks to identify shared patterns of behavior and themes related
to the problem of practice and results in more in-depth responses (Creswell, 2014). Each
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

32
question examined specific topics in order to gain different perspectives and to gain a deeper
understanding of the KMO influences.
Surveys
A 10-question online Google Likert-scale survey was sent to all teachers at CSA in
grades K-6 via e-mail. The purpose of the survey was to examine the phenomenology that
describes the KMO influences impacting the organizations’ performance goal of implementing
high-quality STEM education to improve student learning. The questions were used to gather
demographic data and to measure the thoughts and perceptions of the teachers in relation to their
knowledge of the CCSS and NGSS standards, their confidence level in implementing STEM,
and familiarity with the schools’ performance goals. Conducting the surveys allowed the
researcher to gather data from a larger sample at CSA to ensure triangulation in the study.
Twenty teachers completed the online survey. According to Patton (2015) triangulation increases
credibility and quality in a study and will ensure that findings are not based on a single method.
Results and Findings

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the knowledge, motivation and organizational
influences related to CSA achieving its goal of 100% implementation of high-quality STEM
education to improve student achievement. The analysis focused on the knowledge, motivation
and organizational influences impacting teachers’ ability to implement STEM education and
examined how teachers’ attitudes and perceptions about STEM education influence student
learning. Cultural models and settings were examined as well as knowledge of STEM education
and teacher motivation. The results and findings of the study are organized by themes identified
in the surveys and interviews as related to the knowledge, motivation and organizational
influences. They are presented together as the results were supported by the findings found in the
data. Common themes include teachers’ knowledge of STEM education and the Common Core
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

33
State Standards (CCSS) and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), challenges in raising
student achievement in STEM, confidence in teaching STEM, the teachers’ role in successful
implementation, needed supports, planning, and how to improve overall implementation.
Participating Stakeholders
The participating stakeholders in this study are the teachers at CSA. Ten teachers participated in
the telephone interviews and 20 teachers participated in the online Google survey. The telephone
interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed. The online survey information was
then collected, coded and analyzed. Some of the questions overlapped in the interviews and
surveys to increase teacher participation and to ensure triangulation in the study. Triangulation
increases both validity and credibility of the findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Figure 2 below
presents the average number of years of teaching experience.

STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

34

Figure 2. Average Years of Teaching Experience

Figure 2.The average level of teaching experience is between 8-20 years. Seven teachers had 3-7
years of teaching experience, and 3 teachers had 2 years or less. One teacher had more than 21
years of teaching experience.
Knowledge Influences
Teachers’ Knowledge of STEM Education
In order to gain an understanding of the knowledge, motivation and organizational
influences impacting STEM implementation at CSA, it was important to assess teachers’ current
knowledge of STEM education and to ask teachers what STEM means to them. Nine of the ten
interviewees stated that in its basic form STEM is science, technology, engineering and math.
Three of the ten interviewees stated that STEM is about integrating ideas throughout the
curriculum, as well as preparing students for college, careers and for the future workforce. One
participant stated:
I define STEM as science, technology, engineering, and math.
I see it as an opportunity to involve students in higher-level thinking
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

35
critical skills and preparing students for career readiness skills,
college and 21
st
century skills. It is more integrated and not taught
in isolation.
One teacher stated , “STEM is incorporating the sciences, technology, engineering and math into
our core subjects. Ideally, our language arts would revolve around STEM subjects. Engineering
and technology would be integrated as well.” Another teacher added, “ It’s an inclusive way of
approaching math. It’s integrated and doesn’t have to be taught in isolation.” According to
Lamberg and Trzynadlowski (2015) some teachers approach STEM education with apprehension
because they are not sure of the definition or they do not have an understanding of how to
integrate STEM into other subject areas. Overall, the participants had a strong conceptual
understanding of the basic definition of STEM.
Highest Level of Math Taken in College
The participants were asked to identify the highest level of math they took in college.
According to the results of the online survey, 45% took statistics , 20 % algebra., 15% calculus,
10% geometry, 1% trigonometry, and 1% took no math classes during college. The results
indicate that 95% of the teachers have taken some math in college. Research indicates that
teachers who have a strong background in math and science are more confident teaching STEM
and find it easier to implement and integrate STEM ideas (Nadelson, et al., 2013).
Figure 3 below describes the highest levels of math taken during college.

STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

36

Figure 3. Highest Level Of Math Taken in College

Figure 3. The highest level of math taken was trigonometry by one teacher. The majority of the
teachers took statistics, 20% took algebra, and one teacher took no math courses in college.

Knowledge of the CCSS and NGSS Standards
The teachers were asked how knowledgeable they were of the Common Core Math
Standards (CCSS) and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). Of the twenty respondents to
the online survey, 40% stated they were very knowledgeable, 50% were knowledgeable, and
10% were not that knowledgeable of the CCSS math standards. The interviews further supported
the results found in the surveys. Eight of the ten interviewees stated that they were familiar with
the math standards and that they understood what they were supposed to be teaching. One
teacher stated, “ Common core has a set of standards that teachers use to guide instruction;
curriculum is not as important as long as the standards are met.” Another teacher added,” I
understand what I’m supposed to be teaching; it’s not just about doing calculations; it’s also
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

37
about understanding math conceptually One participant stated, “The common core standards are
very explicit for my grade level—it’s clearer now then it used to be . I’m very knowledgeable for
what I need for my grade level. They are explicit and easy to understand.” The survey and
interview results indicate that teachers have strong knowledge of the CCSS math standards.
When asked how knowledgeable they were of the NGSS on the online survey, 10% were
very knowledgeable , 40% were knowledgeable, 25% were somewhat knowledgeable, and 25%
were not that knowledgeable. Additionally, the interviews supported the results found in the
surveys. Five of the ten interviewees stated they were only somewhat knowledgeable or not
knowledgeable of the NGSS. One participant stated,” Well, they’re fairly new and I’m still
seeing some information from the old science standards. “ Another teacher added, “ I’m aware of
them. I haven’t got them memorized. I know my grade levels, but not the other grade levels.”
One teacher shared, “They are new to me. I am still learning about the NGSS.” Overall, teachers
have a strong knowledge of the CCSS math standards, but are less familiar with the NGSS.
According to the research, having a strong understanding of the CCSS and NGSS is essential in
implementing high-quality STEM education ( STEM Task Force, 2014).
Planning with the Standards
Participants were asked how they use the standards for planning. Five of the ten
interviewees stated they use the standards for planning lessons and goal setting. One participant
stated, “ The standards are used in my planning always as the first step. The ultimate goal is to
reach those standards.” Another teacher added, “ The standards are at the core of planning for all
lessons. That’s pretty much our goal. We start with the NGSS and CCSS standards and then
build around them.” Two of the ten interviewees reported that they use the standards to guide
their planning and align them to the curriculum. One teacher stated:
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

38
The standards are used in my planning always as the first step. You always need to
look at the standards and from there align them to the lesson you are going to teach.
That’s the ultimate goal, to make sure you reach those standards and teach those
standards in the classroom and for planning on a daily basis.
Another teacher added, “ I use the standards to guide my planning and align them to the
curriculum.” The findings indicate that in general, teachers use the standards for planning
lessons and goal setting, but few teachers are familiar with how to align the standards to the
curriculum. Research indicates that in order to plan and implement STEM, teachers need to
know the structure and design of the CCSS and NGSS and how to align the standards to the
curriculum (Nadelson, et al., 2014; STEM Task Force, 2014).
Motivation Influences
Challenges in Raising Student Achievement in STEM
Teachers were asked what some of the challenges were in raising student achievement in
STEM. Of the 20 responses to the online survey, 70% stated not enough planning time, 70% said
lack of professional development , 55% said lack of resources and materials, 50% stated
teaching challenging concepts, and 10% stated not enough time during the school day. The
interviews further supported the results found in the surveys. Three of the ten interviewees stated
that lack of professional development, not enough time for planning, having to teach all the
subjects in the day, and planning for ELD were challenges in raising student achievement. One
participant stated “ Some of the challenges are inadequate time, planning and not having enough
professional development”. Another teacher shared:
Some of the challenges are the knowledge base of the teachers,
like teachers understanding how to teach it and what they’re teaching.”
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

39
Challenges, like time and planning time to figure out what STEM activities
and lessons can be taught. And having enough resources and materials and
supplies to teach it. Some students don’t have the background knowledge
and necessary vocabulary skills.
One teacher said, “Not having enough professional development because technology is always
changing so fast…keeping up with professional development and keeping up with what I
need to know in order to teach my students all the subject areas.” The findings indicate that in
general , the teachers attribute challenges in raising student achievement in STEM to the students
not having enough background knowledge and vocabulary, teaching challenging concepts, lack
of time and planning time, not enough professional development, and a shortage of materials and
supplies, rather than their own efforts. Anderman and Anderman (2009) suggest that peoples’
beliefs about why certain events happen are directly linked to succeeding motivation. If teachers
believe lack of ability and instruction are the causes of poor student performance, it is highly
likely their motivation in teaching STEM will be impacted, as well as that of the students who
are trying to learn STEM concepts. Figure 4 below describes challenges raising student
achievement in STEM.
Figure 4. Challenges in Raising Student Achievement in STEM
• Limited student background knowledge and
vocabulary skills

• Teaching challenging concepts

• Limited instructional and planning time

• Not enough professional development

• A shortage of materials and resources

STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

40
Figure 4. Some of the barriers to raising student achievement in STEM are students having
limited background knowledge and vocabulary, teaching challenging concepts, not enough
planning time and lack of materials.
Confidence in Teaching STEM Education
Teachers were asked how confident they were in their ability to implement STEM. Of the
20 responses to the online survey, 15 % said they were very confident, 60% were confident, 15%
were somewhat confident, and 10% were not confident. The interviews also supported the results
found in the surveys. The participants were asked during the interviews what it would look like
to say if STEM was implemented successfully. More than half of the interviewees reported that
if STEM was implemented successfully, students would be engaged in experiments and
activities, using technology, working on projects and solving problems. One participant stated:
If it was implemented successfully, there would be lots of artifacts of student
learning and engagement. Students would be interacting with the curriculum and
materials. They would reflect on their work and know the essential questions. They’ be
doing presentations in the community.
Another added, “You’ll see the students busy working, using technology and really focused on
their mathematical and engineering skills. They would be engaged and implementing
technology.” Another teacher shared,” STEM would be taught seamlessly across the curriculum,
so it wouldn’t be a block of time during the day.” The findings indicate that most of the teachers
are confident implementing STEM education and if it was implemented successfully, students
would be engaged in experiments and activities, interacting with the curriculum, and using
technology. According to Clark and Estes (2008) an individual’s beliefs about whether they
have the confidence and commitment to succeed in a task positively impacts work motivation.
Teachers were also asked what their role would be in successful STEM implementation.
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

41
Three of the ten interviewees stated that their role in successful STEM implementation
would be as a facilitator. One participant stated the following:
My role is to be more of a facilitator and frontload material. But then it’s
you guiding throughout and asking a lot of questions and having students
figure out what they need to accomplish. It’s also constant reflection to
get students thinking about how they can improve.
Another teacher added, “ My role in the success would be having the knowledge and just
teaching the students how to use the tools to help them in science, technology, engineering and
math. Similarly, another participant added, “ My role is to be more of a facilitator, to educate
them and give them practical aspects of STEM, but at the same time standing on the sidelines
and letting them make mistakes .” The findings indicate that more than half of the teachers are
confident implementing STEM and that they are aware of their role in that success. Parajes
(2006) suggests that learning and motivation are enhanced when learners have positive
expectancies for success. Table 3 below lists the teachers’ views on successful STEM
implementation and what their roles would be in that implementation.

Table 3

Teachers’ Views and Role in Successful STEM Implementation

Teacher Views

Role of the Teacher

Students engaged in experiments and
activities

Be a facilitator and frontload materials
Students use technology Have the knowledge and teach the
students how to use the tools to help
them in science, technology,
engineering, and math
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

42

Students work on projects and problem
solving
Educate students and give practical
aspects of STEM

Artifacts of student learning and
engagement

Allow students to make mistakes

Students interacting with the curriculum
and materials

Have more planning time
STEM would be taught seamlessly
throughout the day

Educate about STEM

Organizational Influences
Experience Implementing STEM
Teachers were asked to describe their experiences implementing STEM thus far. Three
out of the ten participants interviewed stated that their experiences have been positive. One
teacher stated, ” So far it’s been positive. It’s something that is new. We’ve been doing it for 2 to
3 years and we’re still learning as we go. It’s a positive learning experience for me and my
students.” Another participant added:
This is my 3
rd
year, and I’m growing in my pedagogy. I’m learning
how to teach STEM and how to integrate it into other subjects. It’s helped
me grow as an educator. It’s also given me an opportunity to see
growth in the students, so they don’t see the subjects in isolation. They
see it as integrated content that can be applied to their own lives.
One participant said,” My experience has been doing projects and trying to integrate STEM
education through projects and activities that solve real world problems.” As a whole, teachers’
have varying levels of STEM implementation and their experiences implementing STEM have
been positive and focused around doing projects and activities. According to Nadelson, et al.,
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

43
(2013) teacher confidence is an important indicator of ability to teach STEM lessons. Teachers
were also asked what tools they use to implement STEM.
Tools Used for Implementing STEM
The teachers were asked what tools they use for implementing STEM. More than half of
the interviewees stated they use PLTW and technology as a tool for implementing STEM. One
participant stated,” We are using PLTW and iPads. I have massive resources for English
Learners, such as pictures, charts and making sure I build vocabulary and background
knowledge.” Another participant stated,” We are using PLTW and so that curriculum is helpful,
and we use iPads. We are a one-to-one school and every student has an iPad. That’s been helpful
in integrating technology.” One teacher stated, “ We use PLTW curriculum. We have
technology and a science lab. Students use Google docs, share and do a lot with technology.
They use the technology lessons on a regular basis projector and laptop.” Teachers were also
asked how they adapt the tools they use to implement STEM.
More than half of the ten interviewees reported that they have to adapt the tools in order
to meet the needs of the students. One participant stated,” I modify for students who need extra
time or say need to work in pairs. I look at their strengths and then put them in groups and
modify their activities." Another teacher added, “ Modification happens all the time as we’re
learning and we’re doing the PLTW modules. With technology you have to really be flexible.”
One teacher stated, “ I definitely modify for those students who need extra time or say need to
work in pairs. I look at their strengths and try to pair them up or put them in groups and modify
their activities.” According to Fullan (2001) all new innovations worth implementing require
people to question their beliefs and to examine their skills and adapt in order to be able to
understand the new knowledge required for proficiency. The teachers were asked what the
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

44
school is doing well in terms of STEM implementation and how the school can improve. Figure
5 below lists the tools used for implementing STEM and who will use those tools.
Figure 5. Tools Used for Implementing STEM
Name of Tool User
PLTW Trainer of trainers, teachers, principal
Science lab Students, teachers
iPads Students, teachers
Google Docs Students, teachers
Projectors Teachers
Laptops Teachers
Online resources Students, teachers, principal
Apple TV Students, teachers

Figure 5. Teachers use PLTW, the science lab, iPads, Google Docs, projectors, laptops, online
resources, and Apple TV to implement STEM.

What the School is Doing Well and How to Improve STEM Implementation
When asked what the school is doing well in terms of STEM implementation, twenty of
the online survey participants listed the following: 75% resources, 65% materials, 60% teacher
support, 50% clear goals and expectations, 45% professional development, and 5% said getting
adequate materials is a struggle. The interviews further supported the results found in the
surveys. Six of the ten interviewees stated they believe the school is doing well at implementing
PLTW, collaborative planning, creating a culture of learning, and professional development
training. The participants stated that the school could improve by providing more professional
development, planning, time, support for new teachers and STEM resources. One teacher shared:
As far as I know all the grade levels are implementing PLTW and are teaching
and learning the engineering process with various projects in each grade level. We
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

45
do well in project- based learning and collaboration and group work. I think
we are doing a very good job with involving families in our STEM night. There’s
definitely room for improvement in math and more innovation.
One participant stated, “ I think what they do well is offer professional development , but we
need to focus more on the NGSS.” Another teacher shared, “ We’ve had planning time. I work
with two new teachers, and I have to catch them up with everything we’re doing. The school
needs to orientate and provide training for new teachers.” Overall, the results indicate that the
school is doing well implementing PLTW, providing collaborative planning time , creating a
culture of learning, and providing professional development. Some areas for improvement
include more focused professional development on the NGSS, providing support for new
teachers, training outside of the school , and more hands-on activities before teaching a lesson to
the students. According to Moran and Brightman (2000) organizational improvement that
focuses on improving work processes and opportunities for people to collaborate, leads to
sustained change in the organization. Figure 6 describes what the school is doing well and areas
for improvement.
Figure 6. What the School Is Doing Well and Areas for Improvement

What the School is
Doing Well
What the School
Can Improve On
Method of
Implementation
Who Will
Implement
- Offers
Professional
Development
- Focus on the
NGSS Standards
- Deconstruction
of NGSS
Standards
- Check for
curriculum
alignment
- Principal
- Teachers
- District Science
- Expert
- PLTW Lead
Teacher
- Offers Planning
Time
- Orient and
provide training for
new teachers
- Grade level
meetings
- Mentoring
- Lead Teacher
Support

- Teachers
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

46
- Provides
Resources

- Computers in the
lab are old and slow

- Purchase new
computers
- Principal
- District
- Hands-on
activities for
teachers
-Professional
Development
- Grade level
meetings to
explore PLTW
modules
- Lead Teacher
- Teachers
- Principal
- More planning
time
- Provide time
for grade level
meetings
- Professional
development
- Principal
- Teachers

Figure 6. Teachers listed professional development, planning time and providing resources as
what the school is doing well. Areas for improvement are to focus on the NGSS standards,
provide training for new teachers, purchase new computers, provide more hands-on activities,
and planning time.

Planning Time
Teachers were asked how much time they spend on planning for STEM and if anything
gets in the way of their planning. Figure 7 below represents the number of hours teachers spend
on weekly STEM planning
Figure 7. Number of Hours Spent Planning for STEM

STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

47
Figure 7. Most teachers spend between 3-5 hours per week planning STEM lessons. Seven
teachers spend 1-2 hours per week planning and one teacher spends 6-10 hours per week
planning STEM lessons.

Results of the online survey indicate that 12 of the 20 participants spend 3-5 hours per
week planning for STEM. Seven participants spend 1-2 hours per week planning, and one
teacher spends 6-10 hours per week planning. Similarly, the interviews supported the results
found in the surveys . The interview participants were asked how much time they spend on
planning and what gets in the way of planning. More than half of the interviewees stated they
spend on average 3-5 hours per week planning for STEM. Three of the ten interviewees stated
they spend one to five hours per week planning, and that not enough time during the school day,
lack of common planning time, and costs get in the way. One participant stated, “I spend about
one to two hours per week planning, and that’s on my own time as well as planning with my
grade level. It would be nice to have grade level planning time once a week.” Another teacher
added,
“ I spend an hour to three hours planning, and the school could provide weekly planning time
for grade levels to collaborate.” One participant shared:
Per week, I spend about two to three hours just on STEM. Time definitely gets in the way
because we would either have to stay after school or plan before school or be given time
during the day, which means we would need substitutes. So budget is always an issue.
There’s always a challenge to find common planning time with our peers.
The results indicate that overall, teachers spend 3-5 hours per week planning for STEM lessons
and not enough planning time during the school day, lack of common grade level planning time,
and lack of budgeting for substitutes get in the way of planning for STEM. The findings support
the research, which suggest that high-quality professional development that allows for common
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

48
planning time and collaboration is linked to an increase in teachers’ content knowledge and
improved instructional practice to support student achievement (STEM Task Force, 2014).
Supports Provided and Needed
The teachers were asked what supports they’ve received from the school, and what are
some needs that the school could provide. Of the twenty participant responses to the survey,
95% said they have received planning time and technology resources, 85% said they have
received grade level planning time, 75% listed professional development, 70% said they have
materials, and 65% said they have support from administration. The interviews further supported
the results found in the surveys. Half of the ten interviewees stated that they have received
professional development, planning time and resources and materials, but they added that they
needed more planning time, professional development from experts in the field, materials
delivered on time and more equipment. One participant shared:
We’ve been given professional development time; we’re also given time to meet with our
grade levels when we ask for it. There is some support for PLTW. Money, supplies and
having materials ready when we need them, instead of waiting until the last minute.”
Another teacher added, “ The supports we have are PLTW curriculum, resources, professional
development and being offered the chance to attend professional development. Having a
technology person on site full-time and more consistent planning-maybe once a week would be
nice.” One participant shared, “The school has purchased some equipment and things for science
implementation. They have provided some teacher planning time. More professional training is
needed from people outside of the school. I think we need more equipment and more planning
time. “ Overall, the teachers have received supports such as professional development, planning
time, resources and materials, but need more planning time, professional development training
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

49
from experts, materials delivered on time, and more equipment. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest
that in order for an organization to achieve its performance goals, work processes and material
resources must be in place. Teachers were asked what the school needs overall to become a
STEM school.
What the School Needs Overall to Become a STEM School
The teachers were asked what the school needs overall to become a STEM school. Five
of the ten interviewees stated that they needed more planning time, professional development
and more opportunities to learn from other teachers and experts. One participant stated, “We
need more opportunities to learn from experts. Training different people to come in and show us
how things work so that we’re better able and more knowledgeable to teach our kids.” Another
participant added, “More planning time, meaningful professional development from STEM
professionals and the tools to implement, such as technology and materials”. One respondent
stated:
I think we need to continue the path that we are on. Additional resources, which you
know-money-dividing up grants to support STEM education, giving more planning time
and to continue working with our grade level colleagues and more professional
development.
The findings indicate that the teachers need more time to implement STEM, common planning
time to collaborate, and professional development from experts in STEM fields to improve
student achievement. According to Johnson, (as cited in Donohoo & Velasco, 2016) providing
teachers with scheduled time to collaborate has a positive impact on collective teacher efficacy.

STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

50

Summary of Results and Findings

The data analysis from the online survey and telephone interviews indicate that teachers
have a basic understanding of the definition of STEM. They are knowledgeable of the math
CCSS standards, but not as familiar with the NGSS. The teachers use the NGSS and CCSS for
planning lessons and goal setting. Only some teachers are knowledgeable of how to align the
standards to the curriculum. The teachers attribute lack of student achievement in STEM to not
enough professional development, not enough planning time, lack of students’ background
knowledge, and not enough supplies and materials. Overall, teachers are confident implementing
STEM, and they have a good understanding of what it would look like if implemented
successfully, and what their role is in that success. The results indicate that teachers’ experiences
implementing STEM so far have been positive and include implementing PLTW and doing
projects and activities. Teachers also spend many hours planning for STEM.
On average, teachers spend 3-5 hours per week planning for STEM. Some things that get
in the way of planning include not enough time during the school day and opportunities to plan
with grade levels. Some of the tools teachers use to implement STEM include iPads, PLTW,
laptops and Google Docs. They adapt these tools based on the needs of students and provide
opportunities for students to work in small groups, pairs, and allow more time for students to
complete tasks. The teachers receive support for STEM implementation through professional
development, resources and materials, planning time, and technology. Overall, teachers believe
the school is doing a good job of providing supports, but in order to become a STEM school,
teachers need more of what the school is already doing. The section below identifies the
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

51
knowledge, motivation and organizational gaps identified in the findings and provides
recommendations for continued improvement.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
The knowledge influences in Table 4 represent a list of assumed knowledge influences
and their probability of being validated based on the knowledge influences found in Table 2, p.
18. These assumed influences are supported by the research found in the literature review and by
the data collected in the surveys and interviews. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that in order to
improve skills and knowledge to accomplish performance goals, people need information, job
aids or training. Table 4 below describes the specific recommendations for accomplishing the
organization's’ performance goal of implementing integrated STEM to improve student
achievement.
Table 4
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence: Cause, Need, or
Asset*

Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Teachers do not have strong
knowledge of Next
Generation Science
Standards (NGSS) for
teaching integrated STEM.
(C)

HP Y How individuals organize
knowledge influences how
they learn and apply what
they know (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).
Integrating auditory and
visual information
maximizes working memory
capacity (Mayer, 2011).
Provide information on
the NGSS standards to
build teachers’
conceptual knowledge
in math and science.
Not all teachers know how
to align the learning
standards to the curriculum
for planning and
implementation. (P)
HP Y To develop mastery,
individuals must acquire
component skills, practice
integrating them, and know
when to apply what they
know (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).
Provide training on
how to align the CCSS
and NGSS standards to
the curriculum for
STEM
implementation.
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

52

Teachers self-reflect on their
teaching practice and on
their knowledge of STEM
education. (M)
HP Y Use of metacognitive
strategies facilitates learning
(Baker, 2006). Research
indicates that teachers who
can evaluate their own
strengths and weaknesses
are more likely to make
changes to their teaching
practice to improve
instruction. (Baker, 2006;
Blumenfeld, et al., 1991;
Pintrich, 2002).
Continue to develop
learner self-
assessments for
teachers to reflect on
teaching practices.

Declarative knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Conceptual knowledge is
characterized by how concepts can be known through connecting existing knowledge with new
information. Research suggests that conceptual knowledge is knowledge about classifications,
generalizations, theories, and principles (Anderson Krathwohl, Airasian, Cruikshank, Mayer,
Pintrich & Wittrock ,2001). In order to implement a high-quality STEM program, teachers must
have strong content knowledge in science and mathematics (STEM Task Force, 2014). The data
showed that some CSA teachers had strong knowledge of the CCSS, but not of the NGSS
standards. Lack of a deep understanding of the math and science standards will continue to
impact teacher practice and overall student achievement.
According to Timperley (2008) the integration of teachers’ knowledge and skills fosters
deeper learning and leads to effective changes in teaching practice. Darling-Hammond (2000)
suggests that teacher quality is one of the most important factors in student learning and
achievement. Teachers need opportunities to learn new information and put it into practice. Clark
and Estes (2008) suggest that if people have limited knowledge and skill background they need
to be given the information, provided with opportunities to practice and supported with feedback
to ensure knowledge transfer. Providing teachers with information will help them gain a better
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

53
understanding of the CCSS and NGSS and improve content knowledge as a means of influencing
teaching practice.
Procedural knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Procedural knowledge
refers to knowing how to do something, methods of inquiry, algorithms, techniques, or certain
methods required to complete a task (Rueda, 2011). Teachers need to be able to align the
standards to the curriculum to integrate STEM education. The data showed that teachers had
minimal knowledge on how to use the CCSS and NGSS for planning and integrating STEM
lessons. Preparing teachers to plan and implement STEM lessons is critical for building teacher
STEM capacity and improving student achievement (Nadelson, et al., 2013). Clark and Estes
(2008) suggest that the best way to address lack of procedural knowledge is to provide people
with training, guided practice and corrective feedback.
According to Gusky (2002) high-quality professional development is key to improving
teachers’ knowledge and skills and is essential for improving education. Research suggests that
designing procedural lessons with core concepts in mind can improve both procedural and
conceptual knowledge (Rittle-Johnson, & Schneider 2014). Teachers must have a level of
understanding of how these two types of knowledge work in order to improve instruction and to
achieve the organization’s goal of implementation of a high quality STEM curriculum. Training
teachers and providing them with practice and feedback on how to align the standards to the
curriculum will lead to an increase in procedural knowledge and skills and improved teaching
practice. The knowledge recommendations will be implemented by providing professional
development training for teachers on PLTW, CCSS and NGSS and disaggregating student data
to increase teachers’’ knowledge of STEM education and to improve student achievement.
The teachers will plan lessons using PLTW modules, deconstruct the CCSS and NGSS to
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

54
align with the curriculum, and disaggregate student data to determine achievement gaps. The
training and planning will be lead by the principal, PLTW lead teacher, grade level teams, and
the district science coordinator during banked-time and grade level meetings. The training will
examine PLTW modules, STEM principles, project-based learning, and integration of the NGSS
and CCSS. A more detailed description of the knowledge recommendation can be found in
Appendix F.
Metacognitive knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Metacognition refers to
a person’s ability to use self-reflection to improve his or her learning (Mayer, 2011). It requires
a person to think about their thinking. Flavell (1979) suggests that people who have
metacognitive skills are able to regulate their cognitive processes, which is necessary for
understanding and learning. The data indicated that teachers do not consistently reflect on their
teaching practice and on their learning and behavior. Increasing teachers’ ability to evaluate their
learning will lead to improved self-efficacy, learning and performance (Denler, Wolters, &
Benson, 2009)
Research indicates that teachers who can evaluate their own strengths and weaknesses
are more likely to change their teaching practice to improve instruction (Baker, 2006). Knowing
how to self-reflect on teaching practice and on the knowledge and skills used in the classroom
contribute to how well students learn. According to Pintrich (2002), teachers can foster cognitive
engagement by encouraging students to use metacognitive strategies. Teachers’ knowing what is
needed for teaching and learning has a strong influence on their practice (Wilson and Bai, 2010).
Similarly, Mayer (2011) found that people who have metacognitive awareness know what
strategies work for them and take responsibility for monitoring and regulating their learning
(p.43). According to Denler, et al., (2009) providing teachers with opportunities to reflect on
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

55
their teaching practices will increase metacognition and enhance learning and performance .

Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. The motivation influences in Table 5 represent a list of motivation
influences and recommendations needed to achieve the performance goal of implementing a
high-quality STEM program to improve student achievement. These assumed influences are
supported by the literature review and in the findings of the interviews, surveys and artifacts.
Motivation plays a key role in teaching and learning and explains why people want to learn.
Mayer (2011) asserts that motivation is essential for meaningful learning to occur and that it can
promote goal achievement, foster persistence, build interest, and increase effort-based
attributions, and self-efficacy. Schunk, Pintrich and Meece (2009, as cited in Rueda, 2011)
suggest that the following factors are related to motivation: active choice, persistence and effort .
Active choice refers to choosing one activity over another. Persistence is not giving up when
trying to pursue a goal, even during distraction, and choice refers to the mental effort needed to
acquire new knowledge. All three factors influence motivation and goal achievement. Table 5
below describes the motivational influences and recommendations needed to achieve the
organization’s performance goal.
Table 5
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence: Cause, Need, or
Asset*

Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Teachers feel that if students
are not successful in STEM
it is not a result of their
efforts. (A)
HP Y Learning and motivation are
enhanced when individuals
attribute success or failures
to effort rather than ability.
Attribute success or
failures to effort.
Build supportive and
caring personal
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

56
(Anderman & Anderman,
2009).
Adaptive attributions and
control beliefs motivate
individuals (Pintrich, 2003).

relationships in the
community of learners.

Most teachers are confident
implementing STEM
education. (SE)

.
HP Y Feedback and modeling
increases self-efficacy
(Pajares, 2006).

Modeling to-be-learned
strategies or behaviors
improves self-efficacy,
learning, and performance
(Denler, Wolters, &
Benzon, 2009).
Continue to provide
goal-directed practice
coupled with frequent,
accurate, credible,
targeted, and private
feedback on progress
in learning and
performance.

Attribution. Attribution theory refers to the beliefs about why individuals succeed or
fail at a task and how much perceived control they have over outcomes and behavior (Pintrich,
2003; Rueda, 2008). Some teachers believe that if students are not successful in math and
science it is a result of students’ lack of ability and motivation and not their efforts. Anderman &
Anderman (2009) suggest that learning and motivation increase when individuals attribute
success or failures to effort rather than ability. The recommended actions then are to ensure
teachers attribute students’ successes and failures to effort and that they build supportive and
caring relationships among learners.
Attribution theory includes three dimensions: locus, stability and control. Locus refers to
whether the perceived cause is internal or external to the person. Stability is whether the cause is
permanent or temporary, and control refers to whether an event is perceived as being under
control of the person (Anderman & Anderman, 2009; Rueda, 2008; Weiner, 2006). According to
Weiner (2006) the locus aspect is related to feelings of pride and self-esteem. Research suggests
that a person’s attributions as to why they succeed or fail at an activity determine how much
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

57
effort a person will engage in the activity in the future. When teachers attribute student successes
or failures to effort and provide specific feedback and praise, students are more likely to choose,
persist and work harder at achieving a task (Anderman & Anderman, 2009; Rueda, 2008).
Students who believe they have more control over their learning are more likely to perform
better than students who do not have control (Pintrich, 2003). Attributing students’ successes to
effort rather than ability and establishing caring relationships can lead to improved student
performance and increased motivation.
Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is defined as the beliefs people have in their ability to
accomplish a task. These beliefs positively influence motivation, confidence, goal achievement,
and emphasize the idea that people have influence over their behavior (Bandura, 2005; Pajares,
2006; Nadelson, et al., 2014). Teacher self-efficacy refers to teachers’ beliefs in their ability to
plan, organize and deliver activities that are needed to attain educational outcomes (Skaalvik &
Skaalvik, 2009). Most teachers are confident implementing STEM education and use PLTW,
the CCSS and NGSS to integrate STEM. According to Pajares (2006) self-efficacy influences
whether or not teachers believe they can positively influence student learning and providing
practice, feedback and modeling can increase self-efficacy. Therefore, the recommendation is to
continue to provide teachers with professional development focused on PLTW, CCSS and NGSS
integration and to provide them with frequent, targeted and private feedback on learning and
performance.
Teachers will be supported through coaching and mentoring and will share their
successes during grade level meetings. The principal will reward teachers by highlighting their
achievements in the weekly bulletin, during professional development and staff meetings. The
principal will monitor instruction by conducting formal and informal observations and through
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

58
conferencing. In order to increase autonomy, teachers will be given choice during professional
development and grade level meetings.
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. The organization influences in Table 6 represent a list of influences and
recommendations based on results of the interviews and survey data. Clark and Estes (2008)
suggest that lack of resources, weak policies and procedures, and goals that are not aligned with
the structure of the organization contribute to performance gaps. In order to understand the
organizational performance gaps, the cultural models and cultural settings must be examined.
Cultural models are shared mental schema about how things are supposed to work in the world
and can be used to describe norms, practices, beliefs, values, and behavior (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural settings are more concrete and describe the daily practices in the
organization and the impact they have on individual and group behavior (Rueda, 2008). Both
contribute to how an organization is structured and influence whether or not performance goals
are met. Table 6 below summarizes the organizational influences and recommendations for
achieving the organization's goal of implementing high-quality STEM education to improve
student achievement.
Table 6
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization
Influence: Cause, Need, or
Asset*

Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Teachers vary in their levels
of STEM implementation
CM).

HP Y For an organization to
change, beliefs and values
must be addressed
(Schneider, Brief & Guzzo,
1996).
Continue to build
interpersonal
relationships with
staff.
Provide opportunities
for building mutual
sharing,
communication and
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

59
trust.
Most teachers find value in
the task of implementing
STEM education (CM).
HP Y Learning and motivation are
enhanced if the learner
values the task (Eccles,
2006).
Continue to provide
rationales about the
importance and utility
value of the task.
Teachers are overstressed by
time constraints, lack of
materials and job workload
(CS).
HP Y Organizational effectiveness
increases when leaders
insure that employees have
the resources needed to
achieve the organization’s
goals (Waters, Marzano &
McNulty, 2003).
Prioritize tasks, obtain
feedback from
teachers, offer choice,
and professional
autonomy.
Most of the teachers are
proactive in taking
responsibility for student
learning by modifying the
tools used for STEM
implementation(CS).

HP Y Change may be facilitated
through creative problem
solving where practitioners
gather information, collect
or disaggregate data, and
create an action plan for
further organizational
accountability (Davis, 1998;
Harris & Bensimon, 2007)
Continue to equip
teachers with tools to
disaggregate data to
determine gaps in
learning outcomes and
develop an action plan
to improve
accountability.

Cultural Models
Teachers vary in their levels of STEM implementation. Schneider, Brief, and Guzzo
(1996) suggest that changing the climate in any organization requires examining what people
believe and what they value. People’s values and beliefs influence how they interpret practices,
procedures and policies. In order to achieve the organization's goal of implementing high-quality
STEM education to improve student achievement, opportunities to build interpersonal
relationships, communication and trust need to be addressed.
Organizational culture is established in the values and beliefs people have in the
organization. According to Clark and Estes (2008) people value what they think helps them and
disregard what prevents them from moving forward. Values can influence the choices people
make and whether or not they follow through on a task. The authors argue that it is important to
understand the connection between people’s values and beliefs in order to determine the barriers
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

60
to achieving performance goals and to close any gaps. According to Schein, (2010)
organizational culture is created through shared experience, shared learning and stability of
membership. Creating interpersonal relationships and building trust within the organization is
also correlated with gains in student learning outcomes in schools ( Fullan, 2001;Waters,
Marzano & McNulty, 2003). Similarly, Clark & Estes (2008) found that clear and open
communication builds trust and increases the “commitment to change goals on all levels,”
( p.118). Thus, the literature supports the recommendation for building interpersonal
relationships, trust and communication in order to achieve the organization's’ performance goal.
Most teachers find value in implementing STEM education. Finding value in a task is a
way for people to make a commitment and to persist at achieving performance goals. Individuals
are more likely to value what interests them, and if the vision, goals, policies and procedures of
the organization are not aligned with the culture, performance problems can occur (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). The beliefs people have about themselves influence whether or not
they will achieve their performance goals. Internal people believe they are responsible for what
happens to them in their lives and for their work performance, whereas external people believe
that if things happen to them, it is beyond their control (Clark & Estes, 2008). The literature
supports the need to provide rationales for the value in implementing STEM education to
improve student achievement.
Cultural Settings
Teachers are overstressed by time constraints and job workload. According to Clark &
Estes (2008) effective change efforts ensure that people have the resources needed to achieve the
organization’s goals. The results of the interviews and surveys demonstrate that teachers lack
planning time and carry excessive workloads. According to Rueda (2008) organizational
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

61
structures, policies, and practices can influence whether or not performance goals are met. These
practices can get in the way of achieving the organization’s goal, even if people are motivated
and have the knowledge they need to be successful. This suggests that teachers need to prioritize
tasks, provide feedback to administration and be offered choice and professional autonomy in
order to meet the school’s performance goals.
In order to improve instruction and to achieve performance goals, schools must provide
materials, equipment, time, training, and support for implementing new program initiatives or
innovation (Fullan, 2001). If people do not get the support, training and resources they need, or if
they have too many demands on their time and excess amounts of work, it is highly unlikely that
performance goals will be achieved. According to Clark & Estes (2008) effective change efforts
utilize feedback to establish needs and to set priorities that are aligned with organizational goals.
They assert that actively choosing to pursue work goals can lead to increased motivation. Knight
(2009) suggests respecting teachers’ professional autonomy influences whether or not teachers
will implement new practices. The literature supports the need to prioritize tasks based on
feedback from teachers and to allow for professional autonomy and choice to achieve the
school’s performance goals.
Most of the teachers are proactive in taking responsibility for student learning. People are
more productive when goal setting and benchmarking are essential to evaluating progress and
driving organizational performance in accountability (Dowd, 2005; Levy & Ronco, 2012). This
suggests that teachers need to continue to analyze student data to determine achievement gaps
and to devise an action plan for improvement to achieve the organization's goal of implementing
high-quality STEM education to improve student achievement.
According to Fullan & Quinn, (2016) internal accountability is the idea that people are
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

62
accountable to themselves and to the group; whereby teachers take on collective responsibility
for ongoing improvement and student success. External accountability refers to standards,
expectations, selective interventions and transparency data. Elmore (2004) posits that the main
feature of successful schools is a collaborative culture incorporated with individual
responsibility, group expectations and corrective actions. Therefore, the literature supports the
need to disaggregate data to determine learning gaps and to create a plan of action. The
organization recommendations will be implemented by providing teachers with materials,
equipment, common planning time , and through professional autonomy and choice.
Teachers will complete a survey to determine materials and equipment needed. Monthly
grade level meetings will be provided to disaggregate student data to determine achievement
gaps and to monitor the progress of students. Teacher feedback will be utilized to establish needs
and set priorities aligned with the school’s goals. In order to achieve the organization’s
performance goals, an integrated evaluation plan was created.
An integrated implementation and evaluation plan was developed to ensure
accountability, relevance of the training, monitoring and sustained improvement. The evaluation
and integration plan utilizes the Kirkpatrick Four Level Model. The Kirkpatrick Model assesses
reaction to the training, learning, behavior, and results. These levels are adjusted for individuals
based on their performance and implementation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). While
accountability is important for improvement, sustaining the changes is equally significant.
Sustainability

In order to sustain the knowledge, motivational and organizational recommendations, a
continued measured cycle of improvement aligned with the organization’s vision, mission and
performance goals is necessary for long-lasting change. Moran & Brightman, (2000) suggest that
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

63
measurement is essential to successful and lasting change. They argue that “the more an
organization’s goals can be quantified and progress toward these goals linked to individual
performance, the more successful sustainable change is likely to be” (p.68). Creating STEM
professional learning communities and building teacher collective efficacy through continued
professional development and collaboration will ensure learning is sustained and that successful
STEM teaching practices are continued to improve and support student learning.
Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to determine the level to which Community STEM
Academy (CSA) is achieving its organizational goal of implementing a high-quality STEM
education to improve student achievement. The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework
was used to identify the knowledge, motivation and organizational gaps influencing STEM
implementation. This study found that teachers have varying levels of STEM implementation
and by building their skills and knowledge of STEM education through professional
development, planning time, an engaging curriculum, and resources and materials, it can
positively impact teacher self-efficacy and lead to improved pedagogy, teaching practice, and
improvement in student achievement.
The recommendations to achieve CSA’s performance goals are to provide more
professional development in STEM education, schedule common planning time for teachers to
collaborate and plan STEM lessons, provide more resources and materials, and offer
opportunities to learn from experts in STEM fields. The Kirkpatrick Four Level Model, which is
used to evaluate and monitor training was utilized to create an implementation and evaluation
plan to improve teachers’ STEM content knowledge, teaching practice, and to ensure all teachers
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

64
participate in STEM professional development. A full description of the recommended solutions
can be found in Appendix F.

Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders with Sampling Criteria
for Interview, Survey and Observation

Participating Stakeholders
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Teachers must work at CSA, teach in grades K-6, have experience
implementing STEM education, and knowledge of effective teaching practices. This study
attempts to find out teachers’ current knowledge of STEM education and any barriers to
implementation.
Criterion 2. Teachers should be familiar with the Common Core Math State Standards
and Next Generation Science Standards . The study will explore teachers’ conceptual and
procedural level of understanding in mathematics and science as evidence indicates that teachers
must have an understanding of how these two types of knowledge work to improve instruction
(Rittle-Johnson & Schneider, 2014).
Criterion 3. Teachers must have knowledge of how students learn. This study will seek
to determine teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and attributes about teaching STEM education and
how these motivation influences impact student learning.

STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

65

Appendix B: Protocols
I’d like to thank you for participating in the interview portion of my study. This study seeks to
explore any barriers to implementing STEM education as well as teachers’ attitudes and
perceptions about how STEM education influences student learning. The goal of this study is
to find out how to build teacher capacity in STEM education to improve student learning. Our
interview will be approximately 1 hour during which time I will be asking you about your
knowledge about STEM education and the motivation and organizational influences
impacting implementation.
Before we begin our interview, do you have any questions?

I’m going to begin by asking you some questions about your needs and challenges
implementing STEM education.

1. How many years of teaching experience do you have?
2. What was your college major?
3. What was the highest level of math you took in college?
4. How knowledgeable are you of the Common Core Math Standards?
5. How knowledgeable are you of the Next Generations Science Standards?
6. How can you or do you use these standards in your planning?
7.What does STEM mean to you? How do you define STEM?
8. Describe your experiences thus far implementing STEM education.
9. What tools do you use to teach STEM? How do you use them? Do you adapt or modify the
tools?
10. What are some of the challenges in raising student achievement in STEM?
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

66
11. What would it look like to say that STEM was implemented successfully? What is your role
in that success?
12. What is the school doing well in terms of STEM implementation? What can they do to
improve?
13. What are some supports you have received from the school in order to implement STEM
education? What are some needs you have that the school can provide?
14.How much time do you spend on STEM planning and implementation? Is there anything that
gets in the way of planning? What can the school do to help?
15. What would the teachers and school need overall to help us be a STEM school?

This concludes our interview. Is there anything else you would to add in relation to your
STEM teaching practices that we did not discuss?

STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

67
Appendix C: Credibility and Trustworthiness

I will work to maintain credibility and trustworthiness of the study by first clarifying any
bias I may bring to the study. According to Creswell (2014) being honest and open about any
biases is a strong characteristic of a good researcher. I will remain objective and consistent in the
methods I use during the surveys, interviews, and follow the protocols as written. To avoid
influencing the participants in any way, I will avoid asking leading questions. In order to ensure
my study findings are valid and reliable, I will triangulate the data by using the evidence from
the sources to build themes related to my research questions. Member checks will be used to
determine if the findings are accurate, and I will ask the participants for feedback to verify if they
believe the themes and descriptions are correct. Maxwell (2013) asserts that member checks are
the most important method of “ruling out the possibility of misinterpreting the meaning of what
participants say and do and the perspective they have on what is going on (p.127). If necessary, I
will ask my representative to conduct follow-up interviews with the participants in case of any
misinterpretations or incorrect analysis. To ensure the data is detailed and accurate, I will
transcribe the interviews verbatim and ensure that my representative takes detailed descriptive
notes during the observation. I will also consider any private information that may be observed
or disclosed during the interviews and adhere to the principles of ethical conduct at all times
while conducting my research.

STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

68
Appendix D: Validity and Reliability

To ensure validity in my qualitative survey, I will first identify any external or internal
threats. One potential internal threat is selection of the participants, where certain participants
could have more expertise in STEM education. I would ensure that the participants are selected
randomly to ensure equal distribution (Creswell, 2014). Another threat is mortality, in which
participants drop out of the study for various reasons. In order to ensure that teachers don’t
dropout of the study, I will stress the importance of the findings and their potential for
improvement in student achievement and for building teacher capacity in STEM education. I will
continue to use the research questions, KMO influences, literature findings, and the conceptual
framework to guide the data collection and findings. Salkind (2017) posits that if you don’t have
construct validity, then you need to review the theoretical rationale for the survey as you might
not have an understanding of the concepts in your study. To improve external validity, I will
choose the right participants, select a random sample and encourage the participants to provide
honest and accurate answers. Reliability is equally important to increase and maintain in the
study.
To ensure reliability, I will standardize the questions and not modify them in any way,
pilot test, and administering the survey exactly the same with all participants. According to
Salkind (2017) a test is reliable “ if it consistently produces whatever score a person would get
on average, regardless of what the test is measuring “(p.160). Confidence levels and response
bias must also be addressed in the study.
To assure the participants answer the questions truthfully or that they do not respond at
all, I will avoid using leading questions, keep the language simple, remain neutral in the format
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

69
of the questions, and be honest and open about how important receiving the feedback will be to
the overall outcomes of the study.

STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

70
Appendix E: Ethics
My responsibility as a qualitative researcher is to ensure respect for persons, autonomy
and confidentiality to the participants in my study. To honor the principle of respect for persons,
I will explain the benefits and risk (if any) of participation, ensure that no information will be
used to evaluate the participants and that no harm will occur. To respect the principle of
autonomy, I will give informed consent forms to the participants to apprise them of the purpose
of the voluntary study, to decide whether to participate and of the right to withdraw at any time
without penalty. Furthermore, I will guarantee that their privacy will be respected. (Orb,
Eisenhauer, Wynaden, 2001). To adhere to the principle of confidentiality, I will assure
participants that all information collected will be treated confidentially and kept in a locked file.
Prior to the study, I will seek approval from the institutional review board (IRB). Before
the surveys and interviews, I will seek the consent of the IRB in my school district to explain the
purpose and benefits of the study, to describe the activities that will occur and the benefits of the
study (Creswell, 2014). I will seek permission to record the telephone interviews and ensure the
participants they can stop the recording at any time. One assumption I must consider before
beginning the study is that my IRB certified representative has established a rapport with the
participants and that they feel comfortable sharing information.

STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

71
Appendix F: Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The model used in the implementation and evaluation plan is the Four-level Kirkpatrick
Model. This model is used to measure and improve workplace training and contributes to
meeting the performance goals of the organization. The Four Levels include: Reaction, Learning,
Behavior, and Results. Reaction measures how people react to the training and if it was
favorable, engaging and relevant. Learning assesses the knowledge, skills, commitment, and
confidence of the participants. Level 3 evaluates the degree to which participants transfer and
apply what they have learned. Level 4 analyzes whether or not the targeted outcomes have been
achieved as a result of the training. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) suggest starting with the
end in mind by examining the desired outcomes and determining leading indicators. Leading
indicators are short-term observations and measurements aligned with individual and
performance goals. The Kirkpatrick Model is a reliable and effective tool for evaluating and
improving training in order to meet the organization’s performance goals.
The study examined the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences impacting
teachers’ ability to implement STEM education and any barriers to STEM implementation. The
primary proposed solutions include coaching and feedback, professional development and data
analysis to improve organizational practice.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 7 demonstrates Level 4 external and internal leading indicators, outcomes, metrics,
and methods for analyzing, and improving training, which will yield high-level results and
contribute to achieving CSA’s performance goals. The stakeholder performance goal is by June
2018, 100% of CSA’s teachers will participate in STEM professional development to build their
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

72
content knowledge of integrated STEM education to ensure full implementation.
Table 7

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
The district will experience an
increase the number of high
caliber teachers.
Number of teachers demonstrating
effective practice.
Use district Teaching and Learning
Framework/Rubric to evaluate
instruction.
The district will experience an
increase in the number of
teachers utilizing its resources
and support structures.
Number of teachers who have access
and utilize supports.
District School Experience Survey
The district will experience a
decrease in its number of
underperforming students.
Percentage of students scoring
advanced or proficient on formative
and summative assessments.

State Smarter Balanced (SBAC)
assessment reports, District Dynamic
Indicators of Basic Early Literacy
Skills (DIBELS) reports.

Internal Outcomes
Ensure all teachers are
participating in STEM
professional development.
Number of teachers participating in
professional development.
Agendas, sign-ins, and feedback
forms.
Improve STEM content
knowledge and pedagogical
skills.

Number of teachers implementing
new learning from professional
development.
Monthly formal and informal
classroom observations.
Reduce teacher workload and
increase teacher autonomy.
Reduced number of meetings, events
and new initiatives.
Choice Planning Template, Monthly
Planning Time, Grade Level Meetings
Increase teacher accountability
to support student learning.
100% of teachers monitoring student
progress with integrity to close
achievement gaps.
Monthly progress monitoring data
worksheets, SMART goals, and
weekly classroom observations.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. Critical behaviors are the identified behaviors needed to achieve
CSA’s stakeholder goal of ensuring 100% of the teachers are participating in STEM professional
development to build STEM content knowledge. The first critical behavior is that teachers attend
professional development training. The second critical behavior is that teachers will meet with
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

73
grade level teams following professional development to plan STEM lessons. The third critical
behavior is that teachers complete a needs assessment to determine necessary resources and
supports. The fourth critical behavior is those teachers monitor the progress of student’s not
meeting grade level standards. The specific metrics, methods, and timing for each of the
behaviors are listed in Table 8 below.
Table 8
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Teachers
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing

Teachers attend
professional development
training.
Frequency of sign-ins,
agendas, completed
feedback and reflection
forms
Submit forms to principal
following training.
Weekly
Teachers will meet with
grade level teams
following professional
development to plan
STEM lessons.
Completed planning
template

Teachers submit planning
template to principal.
Quarterly
Teachers complete needs
assessment for resources
and materials.
Frequency of completed
needs assessments.
Submit needs assessment to
principal.
Monthly
Teachers monitor progress
of student’s not meeting
grade level standards.
Completed progress
monitoring data
worksheets.
Submit progress-monitoring
worksheets to principal.
Monthly

Required drivers. Required drivers are processes and systems used to reinforce,
monitor, encourage, and reward critical behaviors in the workplace (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). Teachers need ongoing reminders to turn in forms and notices. In order for teachers to
plan effectively, they need copies of the Teaching and Learning Framework planning rubric and
the CCSS and NGSS. Teachers need to know how to monitor the progress of students who are
not meeting grade level standards. They also need encouragement, support and feedback from
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

74
their administrator. Teachers will be supported through coaching and mentoring and share their
own successes during grade level meetings. The principal will reward teachers by highlighting
their achievements in the weekly bulletin and during professional development and staff
meetings. The principal will monitor by conducting informal and formal classroom observations
and through conferencing with teachers to provide feedback and support. These required drivers
will enhance both support and accountability for the teachers. Table 9 shows the recommended
drivers to support critical behaviors of teachers.

Table 9
Required Drivers to Support Teachers’ Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Reminders to turn in forms
posted in weekly bulletin.
Weekly 1,2, 3, 4

Provide copy of Teaching
and Learning Framework
standards for planning
Semester 1,2, 4
Provide copies of CCSS and
NGSS Standards
Semester 1,2,4
Provide a job aid for how to
step-by-step progress monitor
Quarterly 1,2,4

Provide laptop and PLTW
Teacher Kit
Beginning of Year 1,2,4
Encouraging
Teachers share successes
during grade level meetings
and post on website.
Monthly 1,2,3,4
Principal provides coaching
and mentoring to teachers.
On-going 1,2,3,4
Rewarding
Principal highlights teacher
successes in weekly bulletin.
Weekly 1,2,3,4
Principal publicly
acknowledges teachers’
achievements during staff and
professional development
As needed 1,2,3,4
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

75
meetings.
Monitoring
Principal will conduct formal
and informal observations.
Weekly 1,2,3,4
Informal and formal
conferences with teachers
As needed 1,2,3,4
Observe active participation
and collaboration in
professional development and
grade level meetings.
Weekly 1,2,3,4
Critical behavior specific
surveys of teachers.
As needed 1,2,3,4

Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following the completion of the recommended solutions, teachers will
be able to do the following:
1. Transfer and apply new learning to the classroom . (D-C)
2. Collaborate with grade level teams to plan and design PLTW and integrated STEM
lessons. (F)
3. Close achievement gaps through progress monitoring. (P)
4. Attribute student successes and failures to effort. (Attribution)
5. Value their work. (Task Value)
6. Implement STEM education with confidence. (Self-efficacy)
7. Deconstruct the CCSS and NGSS standards. (P)
8. Provide resources and materials.(P)
9. Analyze data to determine achievement gaps. (P)
10. Provide feedback on new learning. (D)

STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

76
Program. The learning goals listed in the previous section will be achieved through
professional development focused on PLTW modules, STEM integration, and data analyses. The
teachers will plan lessons using PLTW modules, design lessons around the CCSS and NGSS,
and disaggregate student data to determine achievement gaps. The training and planning will be
lead by the PLTW lead teacher, grade level teams, and the district science coordinator during
banked-time and grade level meetings. The training will examine PLTW modules, STEM
principles, project-based learning and integration of the NGSS and CCSS. The PLTW lead
teacher will present a 16 hour face-to-face hands-on professional development training on
developing an understanding of the PLTW Launch program and how to implement PLTW in the
classroom. This training will be held over a 2-day period during which teachers will develop an
understanding of PLTW Activity, Project, Problem-based (ABP) instructional approach and the
curricular resources used in the PLTW modules.
Teachers will choose one module to implement and be given grade level planning time to
plan and complete the 10-hour instructional module while they continue to build knowledge and
skills through the activities and projects. They will also develop strategies for formative and
summative assessment. The district science coordinator will present on-going professional
development on deconstructing the NGSS standards and how to align the NGSS with PLTW.
Throughout the school year teachers will continue to practice learning how to implement PLTW
and how to design lessons around alignment of the NGSS and CCSS. They also will disaggregate
student data to determine achievement gaps in math and science, progress monitor and develop
SMART goals for underachieving students.
Components of learning. It is important to evaluate whether or not learners can
demonstrate both declarative and procedural knowledge during and following training.
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

77
Declarative knowledge is knowing the facts and understanding concepts, whereas procedural
knowledge is having the skills and understanding of how to complete a task. Training is more
likely to transfer and be implemented if learners know the “why and how.” Learners must also be
confident they can apply and transfer new learning, have the right attitude and be committed to
the process for the training to be effective. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) suggest that in
good training programs confidence and commitment are built into the training and allow
opportunity to discuss expectations and time for practice. Table 10 describes the evaluation
methods and timing for these components of learning.
Table 10
Components of Learning for the Program.
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks through discussion and
participation.
During and after
Exit tickets After professional development.

Think, pair, share During professional development
Pretests and post tests Before and after
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Apply steps to complete progress monitoring
template
During professional development
Demonstrate alignment of CCSS and NGSS to
activities
During professional development and grade
level meetings
Analyze student data to determine gaps During professional development and grade
level meetings
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Principal’s observation of teacher participation,
enthusiasm and contribution to discussions.
During the workshop.
Post professional development assessment item After professional development
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Post professional development survey using
scaled items
After professional development
Grade Level Discussions

During
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

78
Pair, share During
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
List and share next steps During the workshop.
Create a grade level action plan.

During the workshop.
Lesson reflection and peer discussion Following professional development

Level 1: Reaction
Table 11
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Active participation during professional
development
During banked time.
Observation by the principal During the workshop
Attendance, sign-ins During the workshop
Professional development evaluations Following the workshop
Relevance
Discuss how they will apply new learning into
the classroom
After every module/lesson/unit and the
workshop

Professional development evaluation Ongoing
Customer Satisfaction
Pulse checks with teachers - Ask questions After every workshop

Professional development evaluation Ongoing

Evaluation Tools
Teachers will be given a link to complete online Likert scale surveys to evaluate
the professional development and implementation of PLTW modules.
Immediately following the program implementation. Following the training the principal will
conduct formal and informal classroom observations and individual conferencing to monitor
implementation. For Level 1, the principal will survey the teachers using both Likert scale items
and open-ended questions, which will assess their initial training experience including
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

79
engagement, relevance and overall satisfaction. For Level 2, a survey with Likert scale items and
open-ended questions will be used to measure teachers’ knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence,
and commitment.
Level 1 Evaluation Instrument
Please complete the survey below to assess your training experience.
My learning was enhanced by the knowledge of the facilitator.
1 2 3 4
◯ ◯ ◯ ◯
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
The training was engaging and held my interest.
1 2 3 4
◯ ◯ ◯ ◯
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
What I learned from the training is relevant to my teaching practice.
1 2 3 4
◯ ◯ ◯ ◯
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
I am clear of what I am expected to do.
1 2 3 4
◯ ◯ ◯ ◯
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
I will recommend this training to other teachers
1 2 3 4
◯ ◯ ◯ ◯
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Was there anything in the training that was not clear to you?

How could this training be improved?

STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

80
Level 2 Evaluation Instrument
Please complete the survey below to assess what you learned from the training.
What are main concepts that you learned during the training?

I am able to use the NGSS and CCSS as a tool for planning STEM activities.
1 2 3 4
◯ ◯ ◯ ◯
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
I have transferred and applied new learning to the classroom.
1 2 3 4
◯ ◯ ◯ ◯
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
I have the necessary knowledge and skills to implement STEM lessons.
1 2 3 4
◯ ◯ ◯ ◯
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
I am progress monitoring and analyzing student data to improve student achievement.
1 2 3 4
◯ ◯ ◯ ◯
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
I feel confident implementing PLTW and integrating STEM across the curriculum.
1 2 3 4
◯ ◯ ◯ ◯
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
What additional supports will you need to support STEM implementation?

What specific outcomes are you hoping to achieve as a result of your efforts?

Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Six weeks following
implementation of the training, the principal will administer an online survey using the Blended
Evaluation method. The survey will contain rated scale items and open-ended questions . Level 1
questions will assess teacher engagement and interest in the training, relevance and satisfaction.
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

81
Level 2 questions will measure the knowledge and skills learned as a result of the training and
whether or not the teachers have applied what they have learned in the classroom. Level 3
questions will examine how the teachers have applied their learning and whether or not it
changed their behavior. Level 4 questions will focus on the leading indicators and determine if
the teachers have the necessary knowledge and skills to implement PLTW , increased confidence
in implementing STEM, supports and resources needed to implement STEM, and increased
accountability to support student achievement.
Blended Evaluation
Please complete the survey below to determine how to plan for future professional development.
The information I have learned from professional development has improved my teaching
practice.
1 2 3 4
◯ ◯ ◯ ◯
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
The time spent on building teacher STEM capacity was valuable.
1 2 3 4
◯ ◯ ◯ ◯
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

My knowledge and pedagogical skills of STEM education have improved since the training.
1 2 3 4
◯ ◯ ◯ ◯
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
My confidence has increased as a result of PLTW and STEM professional development.
1 2 3 4
◯ ◯ ◯ ◯
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Student achievement has increased as a result of progress monitoring.
1 2 3 4
◯ ◯ ◯ ◯
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Describe any challenges you are currently experiencing in applying what you learned to your
classroom practice and possible solutions to overcome them.

STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

82
What impact is the professional development having on the school as a whole?

Please complete the survey below to determine how to plan for future professional development.

Data Analysis and Reporting
Level 4 is measured through weekly classroom observations, individual
conferences, participation in professional development, and data analyses of formative and
summative assessments. The principal will also collect classroom artifacts, lesson plans, meeting
sign-ins, and agendas. Monitoring and ongoing feedback will be provided to teachers in order to
document the quality of STEM implementation and any changes in teacher practice. The
principal will analyze the data to determine tiered support for teachers. The tiered support
triangle in Figure 8 below will report the data based on minimal, partial and full levels of STEM
implementation. Similar triangles will be created to monitor Levels 1, 2 and 3. Figure 8 below
describes the metric used to determine school wide STEM implementation levels.
Figure 8. School wide STEM Implementation Levels

Figure 8. The green section represents full STEM implementation, yellow partial
implementation and red minimal implementation. These measures will be used as a monitoring
and accountability tool.

STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

83
Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model was utilized in this study to plan, implement and
evaluate the recommendations and solutions for CSA to achieve its performance goals.
According to Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick (2016) there are three major reasons to evaluate a
training program: 1) to improve the program, 2) to maximize transfer of learning to behavior and
achieve organizational results, and 3) to demonstrate the value of training to the organization
(p.5). The Kirkpatrick evaluation model lends itself well to the educational setting because it
begins with planning outcomes first and allows for streamlining, monitoring and adjusting
throughout the process. Beginning with identifying the leading indicators and targeted outcomes
helped determine Levels 1,2, and 3.
Level 1 was used to determine if the participants found the training engaging, relevant to
their teaching responsibilities and whether or not they were satisfied with the training. Level 2
assesses their learning as a result of the training, including teachers’ knowledge and skills of
STEM education , confidence and commitment to participating in professional development, and
applying what they learned in order to achieve CSA’s performance goals. Level 3 focuses on the
critical behaviors. Attending professional development, planning with grade level teams to
develop STEM lessons and progress monitoring to determine achievement gaps were identified
as critical behaviors. The required drivers, which are used to support the critical behaviors focus
on reinforcing the behaviors, encouraging and rewarding the teachers for their efforts, and
monitoring performance.
Throughout the evaluation of the training and the data collection, there will be different
levels of STEM implementation based on the skills, knowledge and confidence level of each
teacher. Levels of implementation will be determined through ongoing classroom observations,
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

84
teacher conferences, document analysis, feedback, and formative and summative
assessments. The professional development training for teachers will need to be differentiated
for new teachers and for teachers who are at the minimal and partial implementation stages.
There are some teachers who will be “bright lights”, those who perform better than others
(p.126). Best teaching practices will be evaluated to determine if they can be implemented in
other classrooms. These success factors can be used to plan for future professional development.
The STEM classroom observation tool in Figure 9 was created to determine levels of
implementation. Consistent and on-going data analysis and feedback from teachers will lead to
continuous improvement and achievement of CSA’s performance goals, as well as an increase in
teacher’s confidence levels and content knowledge of STEM.
Figure 9. STEM Implementation Checklist

STEM CLASSROOM IMPLEMENTATION
CHECKLIST
Teacher
Name__________________________________

Rm.________ Grade________
Date__________
Minimal
Partial
Full
1. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math is
integrated into other subject areas.

2. Project Lead the Way (PLTW) modules are
implemented.

3. Students are engaged in discussions
around inquiry and how to solve real-world
problems.

4. Evidence of STEM grade level planning using the
CCSS Math and NGSS Standards.

STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

85

Figure 9. The classroom observation checklist will be used to determine levels of STEM
implementation.

Comments:

Suggestions:

Needs:

5. Involves student-to-student collaboration.

6. Teacher facilitating lesson.

7. Adequate materials and resources.

8. Opportunities for students to self-reflect.

9. Includes use of rubrics for peer, student and teacher
assessment.

10. Includes student and group presentations.

STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

86
References
Agocs, C. (1997). Institutionalized resistance to organizational change: Denial, inaction, and
repression. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 917–931.
Anderman, E., & Anderman, L. (2009). Attributions. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/attribution-theory/.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P. &
Wittrock, M. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of
Bloom’s taxonomy. New York. Longman Publishing. Artz, AF, & Armour-Thomas,
E.(1992). Development of a cognitive-metacognitive framework for protocol analysis of
mathematical problem solving in small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 9(2), 137-175.
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/metacognition/.
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt
(Eds.), Great minds in management (pp. 9–35). Oxford: Oxford University.
Bandura, A. (1998). Personal and collective efficacy in human adaptation and change. Advances
in psychological science, 1, 51-71.

Baroody, A. J., Feil, Y., & Johnson, A. R. (2007). An alternative reconceptualization of
procedural and conceptual knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education
38(2), 115-131.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991).
Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning.
Educational psychologist, 26(3-4), 369-398.
Bolman, L. and Deal, T. (2013). Fifth edition. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and
Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

87
Buck Institute for Education (2017) . Retrieved from www.bie.org
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). “Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review of State
Policy Evidence.” Education Policy Analysis Archives 8, no.1.
Davis, J. R., & Davis, A. B. (1998). Effective training strategies : A comprehensive guide to
maximizing learning in organizations. Berrett-Koehler Pub.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/.

Donohoo, J., & Velasco, M. (2016). The transformative power of collaborative inquiry:
Realizing change in schools and classrooms. Corwin Press
Dowd, A. C. (2005). Data Don't Drive: Building a Practitioner-Driven Culture of Inquiry to
Assess Community College Performance. Lumina Foundation for Education Research
Report. Lumina Foundation for Education.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from http://www.
education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance.
Harvard Education Press. 8 Story Street First Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138. Elmore, R.
F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Harvard
Education Press. 8 Story Street First Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138.
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

88
Epstein, D., & Miller, R. T. (2011). Slow off the Mark: Elementary School Teachers and the
Crisis in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education. Center for American
Progress.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–
developmental inquiry. American psychologist, 34(10), 906.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading In A Culture of Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence. The Right Drivers in Action for Schools, Districts,
and Systems. Corwin Thousand Oaks.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist, 36(1),
45-56.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching:
theory and practice, 8(3), 381-391.
Harris, F., & Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The equity scorecard: A collaborative approach to assess
and respond to racial/ethnic disparities in student outcomes. New directions for student
services, 2007(120), 77-84.
Hiebert, J. & Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge in Mathematics: An
Introductory Analysis. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge: The
Case of Mathematics (pp. 1-27). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Holdren, J. P., Lander, E. S., & Varmus, H. (2010). Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in
science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) for America's future. Executive
Report). Washington, DC: President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

89
Ingersoll, R. & Smith, T. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage, Educational
Leadership, 60(8), pp. 3
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Knight, J. (2009). What can we do about teacher resistance?. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 508-513.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice,
41(4), 212-218.
Lamberg, T., & Trzynadlowski, N. (2015). How STEM academy teachers conceptualize and
implement STEM education. Journal of Research in STEM Education, 1(1), 45-58.
Larmer, J., & Mergendoller, J. R. (2010). Seven essentials for project-based
learning. Educational leadership, 68(1), 34-37.
Levy, G. D., & Ronco, S. L. (2012). How benchmarking and higher education came together.
New Directions for Institutional Research, 2012(156), 5-13.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., & Hartley, K. (2006). The effect of general relevance
instructions on shallow and deeper learning and reading time. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 74(4), 291-310.
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

90
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moran, J., & Brightman, B. (2000). Leading organizational change. Journal of Workplace
Learning: Employee Counseling Today, 12(2), 66–74.
Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013). Teacher STEM
perception and preparation: Inquiry-based STEM professional development for elementary
teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(2), 157-168.
Nadelson, L.S., Pluska, H., Moorcroft, S., Jeffrey, A., & Woodword, S. (2014). Educators’
perceptions and knowledge of the common core state standards. Issues in Teacher
Education.23(2), 47-66.
Nathan, B. R., & Nilsen, L. (2009). Southwestern Pennsylvania STEM Network long range plan.
Pennsylvania: Southwest Pennsylvania Regional STEM Network.
Nation’s Report Card. Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard. /science_2015/.
Orb, A., Eisenhauer, L., & Wynaden, D. (2001). Ethics in qualitative research. Journal of
nursing scholarship, 33(1), 93-96.

Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Pang, J., & Good, R. (2000). A review of the integration of science and mathematics:
Implications for further research. School Science and Mathematics, 100(2), 73-82.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research and evaluation methods. (4
th
ed.) Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing.
Theory into practice, 41(4), 219-225.
President's Council of Advisors on Science Technology. (2010). Prepare and inspire: K-12
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

91
education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) for America's
future(Prepublication version. ed.). Washington, D.C.]: Executive Office of the President,
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
Project Lead The Way (2017) – retrieved from http://www.pltw.org/About/About-Us.cfm

Rath, T., & Conchie, B. (2008). Strengths based leadership: Great leaders, teams, and why
people follow. Simon and Schuster.
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Schneider, M. (2014). Developing conceptual and procedural knowledge
of mathematics. Oxford handbook of numerical cognition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press. doi, 10.
Ross, J., & Bruce, C. (2007). Professional development effects on teacher efficacy: Results of
randomized field trial. The Journal of Educational Research, 101(1), 50-60.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Tests & measurement for people who (think they) hate tests &
measurement. Sage Publications.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons.

Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational dynamics, 24(4), 7-19.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2009). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of
relations. Teaching and teacher education, 26(4), 1059-1069.
Slavit, D., Nelson, T. H., & Lesseig, K. (2016). The teachers’ role in developing, opening, and
nurturing an inclusive STEM-focused school. International Journal of STEM
Education, 3(1), 7.
STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

92
Spuck, T., & Jenkins, L. (Eds.). (2014). Einstein Fellows: Best Practices in Stem Education.
New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.

STEM Task Force (2014). Innovate:A blueprint for science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics in California public education. Dublin. Californians Dedicated to Education
Foundation, May. Print.
Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated
STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 2(1), 4.
Tai, R.H. (2012) An Examination of the Research Literature on Project Lead the Way. Retrieved
from http:// PLTW.org.
Timperley, H., & Robinson, V. (2000). Workload and the professional culture of
teachers. Educational Management & Administration, 28(1), 47-62.
U.S. Bureau of Statistics. (2013)
Vilorio, D. (2014). STEM 101: Intro to tomorrow’s jobs. Occupational Outlook Quarterly,
Spring 2014. Retrieved November 10, 2015, from
http://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2014/ spring/art01.pdf.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Mid-continent
Research for Education and Learning.
Weiner, B. (2006). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of
educational psychology, 71(1), 3.
Wilson, N., & Bai, S. (2010). The relationships and impact of teachers’ metacognitive
knowledge and pedagogical understandings of metacognition. Metacognition and Learning,
5(3), 269-288.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Transforming hardships into hope for juvenile justice-involved youth: a promising practice case study

PDF

Embedded academic support for high school student success: an innovation study

PDF

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

PDF

Increasing family engagement at Lily Elementary School: An evaluation model

PDF

Girls in cybersecurity: an evaluation study

PDF

Reconstructing the literary canon: an innovation study

PDF

Increasing the number of minoritized teachers in the Apex public schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Evaluating the implementation of 21st century skills and learning

PDF

Emerging adult peer provider specialists and successful college participation: An innovation study

PDF

Supporting teachers' mental health: an evaluation study

PDF

The academic implications of providing social emotional learning in K-12: an evaluation study

PDF

An evaluation study: quality contextual professional development

PDF

Developing a culture of teacher collaboration in middle school

PDF

Factors impacting the effectiveness of mentor teachers in a national teacher residency

PDF

Maximizing English learners' success in higher education with differentiated instruction

PDF

Exploring the development of micro-credentials for preparation for job attainment: an innovation study

PDF

Explicit instruction’s impact on the student achievement gap in K-12 English language learners

PDF

Understanding the factors that contribute to successful school reconstitution: A promising practice

PDF

The cyclic lack of female engineers in computer science: an evaluation study

PDF

Characteristics that create a quality early learning center: An evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Pilkinton, Katherine A. (author)

Core Title STEM teacher education: An evaluation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 07/27/2018

Defense Date 05/02/2018

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

Tag Common Core State Standards (CCSS),Community STEM Academy (CSA),Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS),OAI-PMH Harvest,Project Based Learning (PBL),Project Lead the Way (PLTW),STEM

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee chair), Ferrario, Kimberly (committee member), Hasan, Angela (committee member)

Creator Email kpilkie1@att.net,pilkinto@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-36589

Unique identifier UC11671432

Identifier etd-PilkintonK-6538.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-36589 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-PilkintonK-6538.pdf

Dmrecord 36589

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Pilkinton, Katherine A.

Type texts

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

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

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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