University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Addressing systemic challenges in elementary-school teacher preparation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

(USC Thesis Other)

Addressing systemic challenges in elementary-school teacher preparation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Addressing Systemic Challenges in Elementary-School Teacher Preparation in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics By Dieuwertje J. Kast Rossier School of Education University of Southern California A dissertation submitted to the faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education August, 2020 v © Copyright by Dieuwertje J. Kast 2020 All Rights Reserved vi The Committee of Dieuwertje J. Kast certifies the approval of this Dissertation Committee Member Dr. Patricia Tobey Committee Member Dr. Fred Freking Dr. Anthony Maddox, Committee Chair Rossier School of Education University of Southern California 2020 vii Abstract This study aimed to learn the best practices for teaching elementary school teachers how to teach science. This mixed-method study surveyed and interviewed both science teacher educators from varying educational contexts (formal, informal, non-formal) and elementary school teachers utilizing the conceptual framework from Athanassios Jimoyiannis’ (2010) called Technological Pedagogical Science Knowledge (TPASK). The surveys were analyzed, and the interviews were coded with a priori and emergent codes. Member checks and audit trials were conducted to triangulate the data between both populations. The data demonstrated that the participating elementary school teachers were prepared to integrate technology and science into their classrooms but that there were systemic barriers in their educational careers that prevented them from doing so effectively. The science teacher educators from varying educational contexts, (formal, non-formal, informal) worked to bridge the interdisciplinary nature of elementary school teachers by providing integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) curriculum and building science teacher identity of the elementary school teachers. Keywords: [STEM, Elementary Educators, Teacher Education, Formal Education, Non- formal Education, Informal Education, TPACK, TPASK] viii Dedication To my educational support system and my STEM education community, I could not have achieved this without your love and support. ix Acknowledgements I would like to thank my chair Dr. Anthony Maddox for supporting my STEM Education career since 2014. I am eternally grateful for the episteme exchanges and the opportunities to be a course assistant for the preservice science pedagogy courses with USC Rossier’s MAT@USC program. Furthermore, I would like to thank Dr. Patricia Tobey and Dr. Fred Freking for being on my committee. Dr. Freking provided another STEM education and pedagogical perspective to my dissertations and in conjunction with Maddox has always supported my STEM career from Noyce Fellowships and NIH SEPA partnerships. Dr. Tobey provided the phronesis needed to finish the dissertation. A special thank you to my family for supporting my educational endeavors over the years. I couldn't do this without the support of my communities: family (Roee Fung, Martin Kast, Sylvia Kast, Hinde, Harold Kast, Susan and David Fung) friends, fur babies, my YSP family, colleagues at the Joint Educational Project (JEP) and USC Leslie and William McMorrow Neighborhood Academic Initiative (NAI), STEM educators locally and abroad (PolarTREC, School of Rock, Nautilus, NOAA Teacher at Sea etc.). A special thank you to all the educators that I have worked with over the years that inspired me to become a scholar of STEM Education and I hope that as a team we can all work together to train the next generation of STEM Educators and consequently the next generation of scientists! I would be remiss if I didn’t thank all the mentors that have pushed me to this degree including Ms. Patty Compeau, Linda Chilton, and Lynn Whitley. I would like to thank the Center for Engineering in Education for providing the funding for the gift cards for the participants of the interviews of this study. x Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... vii Dedication .................................................................................................................................... viii Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ ix List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... xiii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xv Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1 Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 2 Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2 Importance of the Problem .................................................................................................. 3 Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 4 Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 5 Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 5 Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions of the Study ................................................ 6 Definitions of Terms ........................................................................................................... 7 Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 10 Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 11 Preservice Preparatory Programs for Multiple-Subject/ Elementary Teacher Candidates 11 Science Teacher Educators ............................................................................................... 12 Formal, Informal, Non-formal STEM settings ................................................................. 12 TPACK ............................................................................................................................. 20 TPASK .............................................................................................................................. 22 Integrated STEM at the Elementary Level ....................................................................... 24 xi Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 25 Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 27 Population and Sample ..................................................................................................... 27 Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 28 Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 29 Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 31 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 32 Validity, Reliability, Transferability ................................................................................. 33 Role of the Researcher ...................................................................................................... 34 Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 36 Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................... 36 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 37 Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................... 38 Elementary Teachers ......................................................................................................... 38 Science Teacher Educator ................................................................................................. 62 Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................ 108 Summary of the Findings ................................................................................................ 109 Implications for Practice ................................................................................................. 118 Implications for Innovation ............................................................................................. 121 Implications for Policy .................................................................................................... 122 Future Research .............................................................................................................. 123 References ................................................................................................................................... 125 Tables .......................................................................................................................................... 141 xii Figures......................................................................................................................................... 177 Appendix A: IRB Study Info Page ............................................................................................. 180 Appendix B: Consent to Participate in the Study ....................................................................... 181 Appendix C: Survey Protocol ..................................................................................................... 183 Appendix D: Interview Protocol: Elementary Teachers ............................................................. 187 Appendix D: Interview Protocol for the Science Teacher Educators ......................................... 189 Appendix F: Codebook for Science Teacher Educators ............................................................. 192 Appendix G: Theoretical Alignment Matrix ............................................................................... 193 Appendix H: TPASK Questions ................................................................................................. 200 Appendix I: Elementary School Teacher Document Submissions ............................................. 202 Appendix J: Science Teacher Educator Document Submissions ............................................... 204 Appendix K: Original TPACK Survey ....................................................................................... 209 Appendix L: TPACK Instrumentation Usage Approval ............................................................. 216 xiii List of Tables Table 1: Differences Between Formal, Informal, and Non-Formal ............................................ 141 Table 2: Alignment Between the Phases .................................................................................... 142 Table 3: Pedagogical Science Knowledge .................................................................................. 143 Table 4: Technological Science Knowledge ............................................................................... 145 Table 5: Components of the Science Technological Pedagogical Science Knowledge ............. 146 Table 6: Demographics of the Elementary School Teacher Survey Participants ....................... 148 Table 7: Elementary School Teacher Experience in Years ........................................................ 149 Table 8: Elementary School Teachers’ Educational Context Setting ......................................... 150 Table 9: Elementary School Teacher Preparedness in Science .................................................. 151 Table 10: Pre-service Preparatory Program ................................................................................ 152 Table 11: Challenges in Teaching Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics .......... 153 Table 12: Participating in a Next Generation Science Standards Development Session ........... 154 Table 13: Elementary School Teacher Technology Knowledge Survey Responses .................. 155 Table 14: Technological Pedagogical Knowledge Survey Responses ....................................... 156 Table 15: Survey Respondents to Science Content Knowledge ................................................. 157 Table 16: Survey Respondents to Science Content Knowledge ................................................. 158 Table 17: Survey Respondents to Technological Pedagogical Science Knowledge .................. 159 Table 18: Elementary Teachers Response to Feeling Unprepared ............................................. 160 Table 19: Educational Context of the Science Teacher Educators ............................................. 162 Table 20: Demographics of the Science Teacher Educators ...................................................... 163 Table 21: Open Ended Survey Responses from Science Teacher Educators ............................. 164 Table 22: Survey Quotes From Science Teacher Educators ....................................................... 166 xiv Table 23: Pedagogical Science Content Knowledge Teaching .................................................. 167 Table 24: Technological Pedagogical Science Content Knowledge Teaching .......................... 168 Table 25: Technological Pedagogical Science Content Knowledge of Educators ..................... 169 Table 26: Science Identity in the Formal Educational Context 1 ............................................... 172 Table 27: Science Identity in the Formal Educational Context 2 ............................................... 173 Table 28: Science Identity in the Non-formal Educational Context 3 ........................................ 174 Table 29: Science Teacher Educator’s Building of a Science Teacher Identity ......................... 175 xv List of Figures Figure 1: Informal and Non-formal learning 176 Figure 2: Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Intersectionalities 177 Figure 3: The Framework of Technological Pedagogical Science Knowledge 178 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 1 Chapter One: Overview of the Study Preservice elementary education programs provide extensive training in math and reading but miss the mark when it comes to Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM). These programs traditionally focus on literacy and numeracy and all other subjects including science take a backseat (Appleton, 2007). Science is a subject area that elementary school teachers must teach, but the extent to which they become proficient in this subject is limited by the exposure they’ve had to these content areas. Consequently, many elementary teachers simply teach what they remember from science classes they took when in their own kindergarten through twelve (K-12) schooling (Nadelson et al., 2013). Only 30% of elementary education programs at the undergraduate level require preservice teachers to take a science course (Greenberg, McKee, & Walsh, 2013) and 56% of the graduate level elementary teacher education programs do not require candidates to have taken a science course at the graduate level (Greenberg et al., 2013). The system is rigged against elementary school teachers that cause them to not have the background knowledge, confidence, and efficacy for teaching STEM that can impede student STEM learning (Nadelson et al 2013). Part of the lack of background knowledge in STEM concepts can be linked to preservice preparatory programs for elementary school educators pursuing a multiple subject credential. Most elementary education teacher certification programs require preservice educators to complete two college level science classes (Fulp, 2002; NRC, 2011), which is seemingly not adequate preparation for increased efficacy, confidence or background knowledge in STEM concepts. Elementary teachers should learn how to address their own STEM misconceptions and hold accurate knowledge of STEM concepts to have increased confidence and efficacy within their own classrooms (Ginns & Watters, 1995). High-quality STEM instruction at the elementary STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 2 school level is crucial and elementary school teachers should be adequately trained during their preservice preparatory programs or during in-service professional development on the intricacies of STEM pedagogical strategies. Statement of the Problem Preservice preparatory programs do not adequately prepare elementary school educators to teach science, technology, engineering, math (STEM) content and integrate technology into their classroom instruction. Institutionally, many preservice elementary educators do not receive adequate training in STEM content and methods or technology pedagogy which may be a disservice to their future students when it comes to the acquisition of vital STEM skills. Preservice elementary teachers have not been exposed to sufficient STEM content, pedagogy, and assessment and consequently, they tend to be uncomfortable teaching science in their classrooms. Background of the Problem Research has shown that preservice elementary education programs do not provide sufficient training on STEM content knowledge or technology integration. For example, Fulp (2002) reported that a majority of elementary teachers have had fewer than 15 hours of science- specific professional development in their careers. Many preservice teachers lack pedagogical expertise in how to teach STEM concepts including scientific inquiry (Bencze, 2010). Many elementary teachers lack science-based content knowledge, hold negative attitudes toward science teaching, and have low science teaching self-efficacy (Bleicher, 2007; Cantrell, Young, & Moore, 2003; Rice & Roychoudhury, 2003). Elementary teachers tend to have limited science subject matter knowledge, limited science pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) (Shulman, 1986), low confidence and self-efficacy in science and science teaching and consequently avoid STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 3 teaching science (Appleton, 2007). Elementary teachers structurally face accountability measures that focus heavily on reading and math, often to the detriment of instructional time allotted for science (Dani, Hartman & Helfrich 2018; Schneider et al., 2007). There is a need for higher education institutions to provide elementary preservice teachers with content and science experiences to improve their interest, attitude, and self-efficacy toward science teaching. (Bracey et al., 2013). This recommendation required preservice preparatory programs to hire formal professors who have more science and technology knowledge and experience in their repertoire. Preservice teacher candidates “learn much about technology outside both the development of their knowledge of subject matter and the development of their knowledge of teaching and learning” (Neiss, 2005, p. 510). While there is no doubt that there is a plethora of factors that contribute to a lack of technology integration in a classroom, such as increasing access to technology, time, and technology skills, preservice technology training does not seem to be enough to adequately prepare preservice teachers to successfully integrate technology into their future classrooms (Kirschner & Selinger, 2003). Furthermore, a variety of factors have been identified to justify why teachers do not feel prepared to use technology in their classrooms: including insufficient access to technology (e.g., Dawson, 2008), lack of time (Wepner et al., 2003) and lack of technology skills (e.g., Teo, 2009). I focused on the interface between technology-enhanced pedagogy content knowledge (Neiss, 2005) and science content knowledge at the elementary educator level. Importance of the Problem Ross (1998) reports that teachers with low self-efficacy in inquiry-based STEM projects tend not to use it in their curriculum with their students and consequently their students tend to have lower achievement. Low self-efficacy in STEM is especially true for elementary teachers STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 4 who have had less formal science education in their academic careers. Banilower, Weiss, McMahon, and Smith (2013) concluded that many elementary teachers do not feel comfortable teaching science. The researchers found: “in science, elementary teachers are less likely than middle and high school teachers to feel prepared to develop their students’ conceptual understanding of science (Baniflower et al., 2013). Many elementary school teachers lack pedagogical expertise in how to teach STEM concepts including scientific inquiry and technological design (Bencze, 2010). Swift and Watkins (2004) stress that STEM instruction must be introduced in the early grades. By introducing elementary students to a STEM-integrated curriculum, based on interactive problem-solving activities, interest in STEM career fields will increase (Katehi et al., 2009). As a society, we must be promoting a scientifically and technologically literate citizenry. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to identify trends in how elementary school teachers are taught to teach science and integrate technology. Both science teacher educators from varying educational contexts and elementary school teachers were surveyed and interviewed for the study. Understanding these patterns informed the creation of a STEM pedagogy course for preservice multiple subject credential programs. Two main research questions were developed to understand from varying perspectives the best practices of teaching STEM to elementary school teachers. 1. How do elementary teachers integrate science and technology into their classrooms? 2. What are the perceived best-practices of <formal, non-formal, and informal> science teacher educators for training elementary school teachers in science and technology integration? STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 5 These research questions focused on two varying audiences as to be able to triangulate the data from varying stakeholder’s points of view as to increase the credibility and accuracy of the study. By having these two varying populations, I incorporated both the teacher educator and teacher perspective when it came to approaching STEM concepts at the elementary level. I added additional educational settings (formal, nonformal, and informal) for the science teacher educators because I wanted to value additional perspectives to science teacher training, and I was worried in particular about the bias that formal educators may have in their academic spheres of influence. This study utilized a survey that was adapted from the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework, interviews, and document analysis of varying items to better understand the experiences of elementary school teachers and their science teacher educators (Schmidt et al., 2009). Significance of the Study I think it was important to understand the perspectives of those that have a vested stake in the future of science literacy and twenty-first century skills for elementary school students which include elementary school teachers and science teacher educators so that the products I develop incorporate those themes. The ultimate goal of this study was to better prepare elementary school teachers to incorporate STEM into their classrooms and required a systematic look at how elementary school teachers are prepared in their credentialing programs and in professional development. These findings could be used in the curriculum development of a university-level STEM pedagogy course but can also be delineated into a professional development series. Methodology I had planned to create two surveys and two sets of interview protocols around two main audiences: elementary teacher educators and elementary school teachers. To access a sample of STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 6 both of these populations, I sent the surveys to both formal and informal science educators in STEM education groups like the National Science Teaching Association (NSTA), Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE), STEM Teacher Tribe, and others that focus on informal educators. At the end of the survey, I placed a request for an interview if they met a set of criteria. I had planned to interview nine individuals from each population and that equated to eighteen interviews total. Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions of the Study Limitations The limitations of the study include the participation in the study was voluntary for both the surveys and interviews. To address this, I had informed consent from everyone that participated in both the surveys and interviews within this study. The data collected was limited due to the short time frame for data collection. There was a sole researcher bias, and this was combated with member checks with the constituents. Delimitations The delimitations of the study included the construct of scalability. The interviews were only performed on 19 individuals specifically 10 science teacher educators and nine elementary school educators. The data analysis is described as a pattern recognition from the interviews but may not apply to all elementary school teachers or teacher educators since the total number for the interviews is only 19. This would effectively make this a case study. Assumptions Overarching assumptions of the study is that the data is accurate and that the objectivity for me as the researcher is assumed. Ultimately, the validity and reliability of this study is determined by the ethical stances of the researcher. The researcher as instrument (Merriam & STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 7 Tisdell, 2016) as it were is crucial to understanding how the research is being designed, executed and analyzed. Additionally, that means one needs to understand the role as a researcher and how it can affect the dynamics of the relationship between researcher and subject. Ultimately, when working with your participants one has a responsibility to them and the community of researchers at large. Additionally, objectivity on the part of the researcher was assumed (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To further ensure the ethics of the study, the confidentiality of the participants was assured, and pseudonyms were created for all of the data that was collected and analyzed. According to Glesne (2011), “you must assure confidentiality to participants and also prevent readers from recognizing their respondents” (p. 237). Lastly, informed consent was confirmed for the participants of the study. Each participant received an information sheet describing their voluntary participation in the study and the choice to remove themselves or myself from either the interview or observation should they feel so inclined. This information sheet was included in a written format at the beginning of the survey and was verbally iterated at the beginning of each of the interviews. I utilized components of Patton’s twelve ethical issues checklist to use while engaging as a researcher. Definitions of Terms CCC: Crosscutting Concepts: “Crosscutting Concepts help students explore connections across the four domains of science, including Physical Science, Life Science, Earth and Space Science, and Engineering Design. When these concepts, such as “cause and effect,” are made explicit for students, they can help students develop a coherent and scientifically- based view of the world around them.” (Next Generation Science Standards, n.d.) Content Knowledge (CK): The subject matter knowledge such as scientific knowledge (Schmidt et al., 2009, p. 125) STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 8 Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCI): “DCIs are the fundamental ideas that are necessary for understanding a given science discipline. The core ideas all have broad importance within or across science or engineering disciplines, provide a key tool for understanding or investigating more complex ideas and solving problems, relate to societal or personal concerns, and can be taught over multiple grade levels at progressive levels of depth and complexity. These core ideas build on each other as students’ progress through grade levels and are grouped into the following four domains: Physical Science, Life Science, Earth and Space Science, and Engineering.” (Next Generation Science Standards, n.d.) Formal education: the institutionalized, chronologically graded and hierarchically structured educational system, spanning lower primary school and the upper reaches of the university aka K-12 (Coombs and Ahmed, 1974) Informal Education: informal education is the lifelong process by which every person acquires and accumulates knowledge, skills, attitudes, and insights from daily experiences and exposure to the environment; These environments can include science centers, museums, aquariums and more (Coombs and Ahmed, 1974). NGSS: Next Generation Science Standards: These are the kindergarten through twelve science standards that are based on a three-dimensional approach to science instruction (Next Generation Science Standards, n.d.) Non-formal education: non-formal education is 'any organized, systematic, educational activity carried on outside the framework of the formal system. (Coombs and Ahmed, 1974) Pedagogical Knowledge (PK): The general knowledge of instruction, including instructional principles, psychology of students, classroom management, and teaching strategies (Schmidt et al., 2009, p. 125). STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 9 Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK): The knowledge of transforming specific content knowledge into a comprehensible and accessible form for learners via a pedagogical approach, such as the knowledge of how to teach certain scientific concepts (Schmidt et al., 2009, p. 125). SEP: Science and Engineering Practices: “Science and Engineering Practices describe what scientists do to investigate the natural world and what engineers do to design and build systems. The practices better explain and extend what is meant by “inquiry” in science and the range of cognitive, social, and physical practices that it requires. Students engage in practices to build, deepen, and apply their knowledge of core ideas and crosscutting concepts” (Next Generation Science Standards, n.d.). STEM: STEM is an acronym for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. Technology Knowledge (TK): The general knowledge of emerging technologies, such as using blogs and multiple-touch mobile devices (Schmidt et al., 2009, p. 125). Technology Content Knowledge (TCK): The knowledge of applying emerging technologies to represent specific subject matter knowledge, but independent from pedagogical purpose. For instance, the knowledge of employing simulation to represent the growth and decline of an animal population can be categorized as TCK (Schmidt et al., 2009, p. 125). TPACK: Technological pedagogical content knowledge refers to the knowledge required by teachers for integrating technology into their teaching in any content area. Teachers have an intuitive understanding of the complex interplay between the three basic components of knowledge (CK, PK, TK) by teaching content using appropriate pedagogical methods and technologies. This instrument is different from others in that it measures preservice STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 10 teachers' self-assessment of their development of TPACK rather than teachers' attitudes or teachers' technology use and integration" (Schmidt et al., 2009, p. 125). TPASK: “Technological Pedagogical Science Knowledge: Technological pedagogical content knowledge refers to the knowledge required by teachers for integrating technology into their teaching in any content area” (Jimoyiannis, 2010, p.1260). Organization of the Study This study has been partitioned into five chapters. The first chapter provides the context of the problem of practice and the anticipated aims of the research. Chapter two is the literature review relating to the conceptual framework that drove the rest of the study. Chapter three provides the methodology of the research study, which included the instruments of data collection and an analysis of the data collected. The final chapter constructed meaning from the data trends in chapter four and lay down the framework to support elementary school teachers and science teacher educators in varying educational contexts. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 11 Chapter Two: Review of the Literature This study is a conglomerate of what elementary school educators require to teach science effectively in their context. This chapter discusses the current state of elementary school educators and how they are trained in their preservice preparatory programs. This chapter also focuses on specific STEM-based pedagogical, content and conceptual frameworks that are recommended for elementary school educators from formal, informal, and non-formal contexts. These categories were chosen to address components of each of my research questions. The data from this study laid the foundations needed to construct a STEM pedagogy course that focuses on integration and to meet the needs of future elementary school educators. Preservice Preparatory Programs for Multiple-Subject/ Elementary Teacher Candidates U.S.-based elementary teachers are often described as generalists because they teach all core content areas, rather than having a specific area of expertise (Li, 2008; Ma, 1999). Elementary teacher candidates can obtain a multiple-subject license without taking a rigorous college-level STEM class such as biology or chemistry, and without demonstrating a solid grasp of scientific knowledge, or the nature of scientific inquiry (Epstein & Miller, 2011). As a result, many preservice programs provide elementary teacher candidates with few courses in STEM, leading to limited content knowledge in these disciplines (Gerstein, 2015; Li, 2008) and therefore limited expertise. As a result of the limited STEM exposure and training, elementary teachers may experience anxiety and lack confidence when teaching these subjects (Murphy, 2011). These limitations cause shifts in the pipeline of students that go into STEM careers. It is elementary school science that lays the foundation for future STEM learning, but it is elementary school teachers who are often unprepared to set students on the path to higher-level success in STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 12 the STEM field (Epstein & Miller, 2011). To improve STEM teaching, we must strengthen the selection, preparation, and licensure of elementary school teachers (Epstein & Miller, 2011). Science Teacher Educators Science teacher educators need to facilitate the growth of elementary teachers in science. To do so, science teacher educators must understand the level of comfort and preparedness that teacher candidates bring into their methods courses and what problems the elementary school teacher encounters when teaching elementary level science. Smith (2000) mentioned that a science methods course for elementary teacher candidates should include the following four steps 1. Conceptions that teacher candidates bring to the science methods course (if there is one) 2. Strategies for teaching elementary teacher candidates science 3. Curriculum materials and activities that are effective in helping construct knowledge in their elementary students 4. Representations of the science content to help them learn (p. 30). Science teacher educators should have a “strong science-content knowledge base; understand science pedagogy, curriculum, instruction and assessment; and know about learning and cognition” (Lederman, Kuerbis, Loving, Ramey- Gassert, and Spector, 1997, p. 234). Formal, Informal, Non-formal STEM settings There are many educational settings in which STEM teaching occurs and those include: formal, informal and non-formal contexts. Coombs and Ahmed (1974) identify three main education settings: informal, non-formal, and formal education. They define it as follows: "informal education is the lifelong process by which every person acquires and accumulates knowledge, skills, attitudes, and insights from daily experiences and exposure to the STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 13 environment; non-formal education is “any organized, systematic, educational activity carried on outside the framework of the formal system. The third or formal mode of learning is defined by the authors as the “institutionalized, chronologically graded and hierarchically structured educational system, spanning lower primary school and the upper reaches of the university" (p. 8). Each of these settings has varying advantages for teaching STEM to teachers and students. Table 1 shows the defining features of each setting and Figure 1 described where informal and non-formal education occurs. Formal learning usually occurs at school in a structured, compulsory, prearranged, teacher-led and sequential manner where learning is evaluated (Eshach, 2007). Non-formal learning usually occurs at an institution related to school in a structured, voluntary, guide or teacher-led manner (Eshach, 2007). Informal learning occurs everywhere in a supportive, unstructured, voluntary and learner-led way (Eshach, 2007). Formal Education Formal education is essentially the stereotypical K-12 academic setting and is typically a teacher-directed, curriculum-based classroom structure. In the formal setting school leaders are recognizing that the STEM curricula has the biggest impact at the elementary school level. The research demonstrates that aspirations in STEM areas are largely formed by the time they are 10–14 years old (ergo by elementary) and does not change much after that (Archer et al., 2012; Murphy & Beggs, 2005; Tai, Qi Liu, Maltese, & Fan, 2006). Keeley (2009) stressed the importance of science in the early grades to increase the cumulative science learning processes. If more students are to enter STEM disciplines, then teachers in early elementary grades need to be prepared to provide engaging lessons that focus on developing children’s problem-solving while encouraging their intrinsic interest in STEM (Habashi et al., 2008; Daugherty et al., 2014). Teachers should create science learning opportunities for their students and be able to relate STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 14 science language and learning to real-life events (Michaels et al., 2008). In a formal context, teachers must learn to cultivate science talent in their students, and they must know how to teach science and how students learn science. Non-formal STEM Non-formal learning occurs in a structured but highly adaptable manner in institutions, beyond the spheres of formal or informal education (Eshach, 2007). Non-formal education is defined as any organized educational activity outside the established formal system – whether operating separately or as an important feature of some broader activity – that is intended to serve identifiable learning clienteles and learning objectives (Combs & Prosser, 1973). Figure 1 demonstrates the difference between non-formal and informal science learning where they occur and what types of products, they result in. One of the reasons that non-formal science institutions were incorporated into the study is because my full time job as a STEM programs manager is considered a non-formal science institution and I wanted to see if there were other non-formal programs that were separate from formal and informal institutions that were also supporting elementary school teachers. Informal STEM Informal educational contexts approach STEM education in a very different way from the formal settings. Falk and Dierking’s research that in one’s lifetime, nearly 95% of all science learning happens within informal settings (aka educational opportunities that occur outside of a school’s walls) including museums, parks, and libraries (2010). Informal science learning experiences are intrinsically hands-on and interdisciplinary and provide play-based, real-world, authentic learning experiences (Bell et al., 2009). Feder et al. (2009) define six strands of informal science education: STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 15 Students should (1) experience excitement and motivation to learn about their natural and physical world; (2) generate and use concepts, explanations, and models related to science (3) manipulate, question, and observe their natural and world; (4) reflect on science as a way of knowing; (5) participate in scientific activities with others; and (6) think about themselves as science learners and contributors to science (p.4). The strands of informal science education are similar to the constructs of inquiry-based science teaching methods. Inquiry Inquiry has been tokened the ideal pedagogical teaching strategy for science instruction. It engages students in tasks like active learning, questioning, data analysis, and problem solving when it comes to science instruction (Jarrett, 1997). An essential part of a science curriculum includes engaging students in inquiry, having authentic real-world science applications, and creating student driven environments where the teachers play the role of facilitators (NRC, 2000; NSTA, 2002b). Inquiry instruction is defined as a complex mixture of skills, creativity, and knowledge driven by a student's natural curiosity and inquisitive nature (Settlage, 2007). Crippen and Archambault (2012) report that inquiry-based instruction is a hallmark of science education and increasingly of integrated content areas (STEM) education. It includes structures that engage students to think and act like scientists and is consequently labeled as the signature pedagogy of science education (Crippen & Archambault, 2012). For elementary teachers to facilitate STEM education in their classrooms, they would need to have a basic understanding of inquiry and incorporate it into their instructional strategies. Elementary school teachers’ must acknowledge STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 16 the criticality of inquiry-based science teaching and incorporate it into their daily teaching practices (McDonald & Songer, 2008). In science education, the main goal for teacher candidates is to understand and implement inquiry-based science practices while also increasing their science knowledge (DiFrancesca et al., 2014). Furthermore, it should also include an overview of the nature of science. The nature of science is the philosophy and history of science and it provides a “rich description of what science is, how it works, how scientists operate as a social group and how society itself both directs and reacts to scientific endeavors” (McComas & Olsen, 1998, p. 4). Kubicek (2005) reinforced that inquiry-based learning improves science teaching by focusing on the authentic views of scientific endeavors and supporting the teaching of the nature of science. Inquiry-based approaches in a STEM-based curriculum has been shown to best develop the skills of students to do science in the real world (Robinson et al., 2007; Yoon, 2009). Additionally, research has found a statistically significant increase in elementary student science content knowledge and science achievement scores when teaching a science curriculum utilizing an inquiry approach (Granger et al., 2009; Banilower et al., 2010). It is crucial that elementary school teachers are trained in inquiry-based pedagogical strategies during professional development sessions or in their preservice preparatory programs. This criticality needs to be addressed systematically in local and national contexts and reinforced with inquiry-based science standards. Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) The dilemma for elementary school teachers' preparedness in science is compounded when it comes to the new incoming science standards- the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). Beginning in the elementary grades (K-5), students are now being asked to think STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 17 critically and to think like a scientist by developing models, analyzing and interpreting data, engaging in argument from evidence, and evaluating information (Aaron, 2017) and the new science standards reflect this idea. NGSS has three main components: (1) disciplinary core ideas (constructs that span many STEM disciplines), (2) scientific and engineering practices (authentic STEM-based skills that transfer between STEM fields) , and (3) crosscutting concepts (universal science ideas meant for integration) (NGSS, 2012; Bybee, 2014). A key dimension in the NGSS is the concept of science process skills, which is referred to in the NGSS as science and engineering practices or simply practices (Aaron, 2017). Process skills have consistently played an integral role in the teaching of science. In fact, most inquiry-based science curricula used in Grades K–12 are often referred to as skills-based curricula (Colvill & Pattie, 2002a). The standards integrate content and application and simulates how science is practiced in real life (Bybee, 2014). As students conduct science experiments to answer questions about scientific phenomena and solve engineering problems, the performance expectations are meant to serve as observable outcomes from classroom experiences (Bybee, 2014). Furthermore, the new standards specify grade-by-grade expectations for Grades K–5 and make connections to the reading and math standards; both of these aspects of the NGSS are unprecedented (Aaron, 2017). This integrated and interdisciplinary connection to science, reading is ideal especially for an elementary school teacher and a teacher educator of elementary teacher candidates. 5 E Format Teacher educators are utilizing components of the 5E learning cycle when they teach new science teacher candidates and those 5E’s are: Engagement, Exploration, Explanation, Extension, and Evaluation (Trowbridge et al., 2000). Wilder and Shuttleworth (2005) define each stage: STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 18 ● The Engagement phase is used to motivate students by tapping into familiar real– life situations. The interest generated leads students into the Exploration stage in which they use direct concrete experiences to make observations, collect data, test predictions, and refine hypotheses. This information enables them to begin answering questions initiated in the Engagement phase. ● During the Exploration stage, the teacher should facilitate safe, guided or open inquiry experiences and questioning so students might uncover their misconceptions about the concept. ● During the Explanation stage, the teacher uses students’ observations and data to create a scientific explanation for their results. At this time, appropriate scientific vocabulary is introduced and is related to the students’ experiences. ● The Elaboration stage is designed to give students additional problems, which allow them to apply their new knowledge, propose solutions, make decisions and/or draw reasonable conclusions. ● The Evaluation stage is essential to determine if students obtained a scientifically correct understanding of the concept and if they were able to generalize to other contexts. Evaluations can be done formally or informally. (p. 37) The alignment of the 5E phases to the next generation science standards and the scientific engineering practices and elaborated in table 2. The teacher’s role during these stages vary. For example, during the exploration stage, the teacher acts as a facilitator, providing materials and directions, guiding the process of the actual experiment (Settlagh, 2000). The teacher promotes a discussion during which students share their observations with each other (Settlagh, 2000). During this time, the teacher connects student’s lived experiences to the intended science concept STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 19 including the usage of scientific vocabulary (Settlagh, 2000). Once the scientific concept has been identified, students engage in additional activities in which they apply their new skills and knowledge to new situations (Settlagh, 2000). Dass (2015) has aligned the phases of the 5E model to the scientific and engineering practices of NGSS as seen in the table 2. Science education researchers have emphasized how crucial it is to support professional development of pre-service teachers for technology integration especially in science (Flick & Bell 2000; Jang 2008; Kim et al. 2007; Jang & Chen, 2010). The ideal preservice preparatory program focused on training elementary teacher candidates should include ties to NGSS, the 5E Learning cycle, inquiry-based pedagogical strategies, and is to be driven by the conceptual framework of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), but more specifically Technological Pedagogical Science Knowledge (TPASK). STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 20 TPACK The conceptual framework of the study focuses overarchingly on the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) of elementary school teachers with specific emphasis on science content knowledge or Technological Pedagogical Science Knowledge (TPASK). TPACK is an instrument designed as a self-assessment on how teachers integrate technology into their teaching, but I focused specifically on science and technology integration into their classroom (Schmidt et al., 2009). TPACK is the intersection of technology knowledge (TK), Content knowledge (CK), and Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) and is normally visualized as intersecting circles as Figure 2 demonstrates. Within those intersecting circles, there is also overlap of technology content knowledge (TCK) and technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK). Schmidt et al., (2009) described the definitions for each of the components: Technology knowledge (TK): Technology knowledge refers to the knowledge about various technologies, ranging from low-tech technologies such as pencil and paper to digital technologies such as the Internet, digital video, interactive whiteboards, and software programs. Content knowledge (CK): Content knowledge is the "knowledge about actual subject matter that is to be learned or taught" (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1026). Teachers must know about the content they are going to teach and how the nature of knowledge is different for various content areas. Pedagogical knowledge (PK): Pedagogical knowledge refers to the methods and processes of teaching and includes knowledge in classroom management, assessment, lesson plan development, and student learning. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 21 Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): Pedagogical content knowledge refers to the content knowledge that deals with the teaching process (Shulman, 1986). Pedagogical content knowledge is different for various content areas, as it blends both content and pedagogy with the goal being to develop better teaching practices in the content areas. Technological content knowledge (TCK): Technological content knowledge refers to the knowledge of how technology can create new representations for specific content. It suggests that teachers understand that, by using a specific technology, they can change the way learners’ practice and understand concepts in a specific content area. Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK): Technological pedagogical knowledge refers to the knowledge of how various technologies can be used in teaching, and to understanding that using technology may change the way teachers teach. Technological Pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): Technological pedagogical content knowledge refers to the knowledge required by teachers for integrating technology into their teaching in any content area. Teachers have an intuitive understanding of the complex interplay between the three basic components of knowledge (CK, PK, TK) by teaching content using appropriate pedagogical methods and technologies. This instrument is different from others in that it measures preservice teachers' self-assessment of their development of TPACK rather than teachers' attitudes or teachers' technology use and integration" (p. 125). The framework of TPACK is multifaceted because of the overarching concepts it encompasses. While their instrument tool was primarily created for preservice candidates' self-assessment of their development in TPACK, I would like to use it to assess what elementary school teachers understand about incorporating science and technology into their classrooms and how prepared STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 22 they are to do so. While the TPACK framework is effective, it was limited in the generality of its content section especially when the focus of this study is science, leading me to delve deeper into the literature and find the researchers that developed TPASK. TPASK TPASK filled the gap that was missing content-wise in the general TPACK framework. Developing TPASK for science teacher’s education requires a curriculum that would reveal the relationships by treating all three components in an epistemologically and integrated manner for teachers and should be applied to elementary school classrooms as well (Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Cox, 2008). New teachers should be equipped with the ability to integrate and design the curriculum and technology for innovative science content-based teaching (Jang 2006; National Research Council 1996). Figure 3 demonstrates the conceptual framework of TPACK but with the content focused specifically on science (Jimoyiannis, 2010). Furthermore, pedagogical science knowledge or (PSK) is also a component of TPASK and was itemized in Table 3 with the knowledge and descriptive components that pedagogical science knowledge entails. Pedagogical science knowledge encompasses scientific knowledge, curriculum, and science learning strategies and pedagogies (Jimoyiannis, 2010, p. 1263). The main components from TPASK specifically include technological science knowledge or (TSK) and science content knowledge (SK). Technological science knowledge (TSK) is defined as the combination of technology and science (Jimoyiannis, 2010). Technological science knowledge encompasses the resources and tools available for science subjects, operational and technical skills related to specific scientific knowledge, and the technological transformations of scientific knowledge and processes (Jimoyiannis, 2010). Table STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 23 4 (Jimoyiannis, 2010 demonstrates how science subject matter is defined and how to transform them by the application of technology including: The changes in the nature of science technology brings new methods and tools used to solve problems in science disciplines, new modeling methods in science, the use of simulation representations in a specific physics subject, concept mapping techniques in biology etc. (p. 1270). Furthermore, Table 5 demonstrates the components of a science TPASK curriculum which include the design and development of complete learning scenarios and simulations, by participating science teachers using information and communications technology (ICT) tools and incorporates revisions based on feedback and microteaching (Jimoyiannis, 2010). It is important to define these terms and provide examples of what the TPASK related terms entail so that when the open-ended responses from the surveys and the responses from the interviews were coded for TPASK, there is an understanding behind the coding choice thereby increasing transferability to other researchers and assisting with triangulation of the data. Cultural relevant STEM pedagogy TPASK as a conceptual framework for the study, it is intrinsically colorblind and biased to the ivory tower of academia. The framework does not focus on cultural competency or incorporates aspects of critical race theory (Delgado, 1995) or critical technology literacy (Lemke, 2006). This issue is a representation of a systemic equity issue in science that is reinforced by the fact that the underrepresented minority (URM) only represent 15% of people working in STEM fields (NACME). This is also the case for low-income settings. Museus, Palmer, Davis, and Maramba (2011) conducted a study demonstrating that: STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 24 White fifth graders were 51% more likely to be taught by a teacher with a master’s degree or better compared to an extremely lower number of URM students. Other studies have shown that students attending predominantly URM schools were twice as likely to be taught by teachers with three years or less experience; however, teachers from predominantly White schools have an average of three years or more experience. If funding was distributed evenly then URM schools could provide their students with more qualified teachers and possibly the students’ interest in STEM would increase (p.33). The conceptual framework utilized should be intentional about incorporating culturally relevant pedagogy when teaching URM students in science, instead of teaching URM students from a Eurocentric point of view (Khimm, 2011). I adapted the TPACK survey with my own questions relating both to culturally relevant pedagogy and science content questions that are currently lacking. Integrated STEM at the Elementary Level Elementary school teachers are constrained to focus primarily on math and reading throughout their preservice preparatory program but also within their classroom settings as well. Educators—both school administrators and elementary teachers—need support in considering how to effectively integrate STEM learning while still meeting the math and literacy expectations for their students (Honey et. al, 2014). Research has shown that an interdisciplinary or integrated curriculum provides students with a relevant, and comprehensive experience in the classroom (Bybee, Powell, & Ellis, 1991; Furner & Kumar, 2007; LaPorte & Sanders, 1993; Loepp, 1999; Satchwell & Loepp, 2002). Stohlman, Moore, and Roehrig (2012) endorsed an integrated approach to STEM education to inspire students’ future success in STEM disciplines. Stohlman et al. (2012) also reported that “effective STEM education is vital for the future STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 25 success of students. The preparation and support of teachers of integrated STEM education is essential” (p. 32). The implementation of STEM education into elementary schools can connect students with opportunities in STEM fields. The problem is though that this idea of integrated STEM education content and methods are not included in preservice elementary preparatory programs” (Epstein & Miller, 2011); Daugherty, Carter, Swagerty (2014). Sanders and Wells (2006) define integrated STEM to “design-based learning approaches that intentionally integrate the concepts and practices of science and mathematics education with the concepts practices of technology and engineering education” (p.1). Integrative STEM education may be enhanced further with other school subjects, such as language arts and art (Sanders & Wells, 2006). By providing integrated STEM content and pedagogy for preservice teachers, future elementary teachers are prepared to deliver content-rich and standards-driven lessons and engaging problem-centered learning that will influence the interests and abilities of the next generation of students. These preservice elementary teachers are also able to gain confidence, experience the student enthusiasm that is built through project- based learning, and foster a deeper appreciation and willingness to deliver STEM content in the elementary classroom. Ultimately, these preservice teachers can come to the understanding that teaching integrated STEM is something that they are capable of successfully accomplishing. (Daugherty, Carter, Swagerty, 2014, p. 52). Integrated STEM provides a means of meeting the needs of elementary school teachers in a constructive and meaningful way. Conclusion Unfortunately, elementary teacher preparation generally does not focus on STEM. Even a preservice preparatory program that I am familiar with, provided only four sessions worth of STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 26 science related content out of the total 32 sessions and it is during a class focused on math and physical education. We need preparatory programs that include faculty that have STEM education expertise and incorporate STEM practices and pedagogical strategies. I want to assess both elementary school educators and science teacher educators to see what patterns and needs they have for training elementary school teachers. The recommendations for practice and policy in Chapter 5 are meant to create a bridge between the theory and the practice relating to STEM integration at the elementary level through the lens of TPASK. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 27 Chapter Three: Methodology This chapter outlined the steps of the research design for this study. It described the instrumentation being utilized to collect quantitative and qualitative data and how it is subsequently analyzed. It also discusses the population and the participant selection and how valid or reliable the study is. The conceptual framework of TPASK will guide the course of this study. The purpose of this study was to identify how elementary school teachers are taught to teach STEM concepts in varying educational contexts. The two research questions driving the study were: 1. How do elementary school teachers integrate science and technology into their classrooms? 2. What are the perceived best-practices of <formal, non-formal, informal> science teacher educators for training elementary school teachers in science and technology integration? Ultimately, the data from this study will be used to better prepare elementary school teachers to incorporate STEM into their classrooms by taking a systematic look at how elementary school teachers are prepared. The research design for this study is a mixed methods approach which incorporated quantitative and qualitative data collection methods which include two sets of surveys and two sets of interview protocols. Each one-time questionnaire will be sent to two populations. The surveys and interview protocols focused on two main audiences: science teacher educators and elementary school teachers. Population and Sample Population This study has two populations that it was investigating. These two are: teacher educators (formal, non-formal and informal) and elementary school teachers. To access a sample of both of STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 28 the educator populations, I sent the surveys to both formal and informal science educators in STEM education groups like the National Science Teaching Association (NSTA), Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE), STEM Teacher Tribe, Center for the Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE), and more. These educator networks have connections to both new in-service elementary teachers and science teacher educators. I wanted to be able to send a preliminary survey to a large population of individuals that met the needs of the populations that I am studying. Sample The sample was chosen from the responses to the survey described in the population section. There were specific criteria when assessing the survey responses so that I could gain insight on a specific group of educators’ experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The survey included a request to participate in an interview and the 10 sets of science teacher educators and nine sets of in-service teachers were chosen as a subset of this larger population. Conceptual Framework Schmidt, Baran, Thompson, Koehler, Mishra, and Tae Shin (2009) created a TPACK survey for preservice teachers and the survey was available to researchers as long as Denise Schmidt (dschmidt@iastate.edu) was contacted with a description of the intended usage (research question and populations). Denise Schmidt approved my intended usage of the survey and has added my study to their database. Her approval email is in Appendix L. I adapted their survey for in-service educators focusing specifically on science content and I took it a step further and also adapted it for the science teacher educators to understand they incorporate these science and technology practices when they teach teachers. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 29 Instrumentation This study utilized a survey to not only gather information on the two sets of populations being assessed in this study, but also to use the data to purposely sample the interviews needed for the study. The surveys and interviews were the primary methods of data collection. The secondary methods of data collection included document analysis like syllabi for preservice elementary methods courses or lesson plans. These methods of data collection were utilized to triangulate the data which is crucial because the internal validity needs to be verified using multiple sources of data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Survey Survey collected both quantitative and qualitative data and can be referenced in Appendix C. The survey was created using Qualtrics, an online “software for collecting and analyzing data for market research, customer satisfaction and loyalty, product and concept testing, employee evaluations and website feedback” (Qualtrics, 2020). This survey not only served as a data gathering method, but it also played as a recruitment tool for the interview participants if they met the appropriate criteria. The inclusion criteria included the following: participant was either a teacher educator or an elementary school teacher and had input their email address into the requested for being interviewed portion of the online survey. The survey questions were based on Fink’s Survey Handbook (2003), the background information from the literature review, and the application of the TPASK structure as the conceptual framework. The purpose of this study was to draw inferences from the general population of science teacher educators and new in- service teachers (Creswell, 2014). The survey questions were formulated to collect basic demographic information but also to receive initial input that were crucial for the scope of the interview questions. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 30 Interviews At the end of the survey, I placed a request for an interview. Interviews are the essential instrument for qualitative research when observations are not possible (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I planned to interview 9 sets of each population and that equated to 18 interviews total. The purpose of qualitative interviewing was to understand how those “being interviewed view their world, to learn their terminology and judgments, and to capture the complexities of their individual experiences” (Patton, 2002, p. 348). I utilized the interview to gather descriptive data in the subjects’ own words so that I as the researcher can develop insights on how subjects interpret their science education world (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). The interviews were semi-structured, which means that a subset of questions were prepared prior to the interview based on the survey responses. The leading questions were similar between the 18 interviews but the wording and order was not be determined ahead of time, which allowed me as the researcher to respond to the situation at hand, to the emerging worldview of the respondent, and to new ideas on the topic (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The subset of questions served as a basic checklist during the interview to make sure all relevant topics are covered (Patton, 2002, p. 342). This semi-structured interview guide kept the interview focused on specific topics and provided a framework within which the I as the researcher and interviewer would develop questions, sequence those questions, and make decisions about which information to pursue in greater depth (Patton, 2002, p. 344). The interview used probes to deepen the response to a question, increase the richness and depth of the responses, and give cues to the interviewee about the level of response that is desired (Patton, 2002, p. 372). A semi- structured approach to the interview was chosen because of the flexibility of questioning and the ability to delve deeper into specific questions. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 31 Document Analysis When documents are submitted by the surveys or interview protocols then a content analysis was performed. A content analysis is “an unobstructed technique that allows researchers to analyze relatively unstructured data in view of the meanings, symbolic qualities, and expressive contents they have and the communicative roles they play in the lives of the data sources” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 179; Krippendorff, 2013, p. 49). Some of the documents that were collected for this study include syllabi, itineraries, training protocols, workshop agendas, lesson plans to reiterate their interview points. Data Collection Survey The survey was generated using an online survey maker called Qualtrics. The survey in Appendix C consisted of both quantitative data gathering elements including Likert scales, Sliding Scales and open-ended qualitative questions to delve deeper into their specific responses to previous questions. The survey aimed to be cross-sectional so that all the participant data is collected around the same time which were during the months of September through December in the year 2019. The end of the survey had a designated recruitment question requesting interview participation for the study. This question was optional and voluntary and only required the input of an email address if the respondent was inclined to participate in the interview process itself. There was an added financial incentive for participating in the interviews and participating interviewees were given amazon gift cards for participating. Interviews The educators that agreed to participate in the interview section of this study were contacted through email for scheduling. The interviews were done virtually through a video- STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 32 conferencing software if the person lives outside the Los Angeles area and in person in a mutually agreed upon location with minimal noise or distractions. A description of the study was provided to the interview participants. Additionally, the interviews were recorded utilizing a “Voice Recorder” application on my cell phone which were placed on airplane mode to avoid interruptions. Participants were informed that the interview was recorded and that they were allowed to refuse any question in the interview protocol and that the audio recording could have been stopped whenever a participant wanted it to. If any proper names were utilized, a pseudonym was used to provide anonymity. This study was approved as an exempt study by the Human Subjects Institutional Review Board of the University of Southern California in September of 2019 and it has a study number of UP-19-00521. Data Analysis All the interview recordings were transcribed using the rev.com software. Each of the transcriptions were subsequently coded into separate categories. A code is a “word or short phrase that symbolically assigns a summative, salient, essence-capturing and/or evocative attribute for a portion of language based or visual data” (Saldana, 2013, p. 3). The first phase of this data analysis included open coding and that includes both a priori and emergent codes (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The conceptual framework for this study came with a list of key- terms and these terms became my a priori codes. A priori words are predetermined either from another researcher’s codebook or are based on the key concepts relating to one’s conceptual framework (Harding & Whitehead, 2013). An emergent code is a code that is derived from the data in terms of content, actions or meaning (Harding & Whitehead, 2013). A second phase of coding was performed, which includes axial or analytic coding through which you aggregate and STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 33 group the codes into constructs, and these codes originate from interpretation and a reflection of meaning (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 206). Validity, Reliability, Transferability Validity In this mixed methods study, it was crucial to make sure that the research is credible and valid. Multiple strategies were used to do so including triangulation, member checks, a reflection of my own bias, and a peer examination of my study. Triangulation is the “principal strategy to ensure validity and reliability” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 246) and it included: “multiple sources of data, methods, investigators, or theories to confirm emergent findings” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 244). This was especially important so that I can “counter the concern that a study’s findings are simply an artifact of a single method, a single source, or a single investigator’s blinders” (Patton, 2015, p. 674, as cited in Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 245). A member check was utilized to rule out the possibility of misinterpreting the meaning of participant input especially during the interview and worked to identify my own bias in what I have observed or recorded (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I wrote a researcher position section to this study in which I try to ascertain my own “biases, dispositions, and assumptions regarding the research to be undertaken” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 249) and “understand how a particular researcher’s values and expectations influence the conduct and conclusions of the study” (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 249). I utilized a peer examination by asking a colleague to “scan some of the raw data and assess whether the findings are plausible, based on the data” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, pp. 249-250). STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 34 Reliability To determine the reliability and replicability of the study, I created an audit trail. It included “a detailed account of how the study was analyzed and how the data were analyzed” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 253). The audit trail is used to “authenticate the findings of a study by following the trail of the researcher” and explain how the results were contrived (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Dey, 1993). Transferability External validity is “the extent to which the research findings of one study can be applied to other situations and that the burden of proof lies less with the original investigator than with the person seeking to make an application elsewhere ((Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 253); Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 298, as cited in Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 254). The use of rich, thick description were utilized and incorporated “a highly descriptive, detailed presentation of the setting, and in particular, the findings of a study” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 257). As the researcher, I provided “sufficient descriptive data” to make transferability possible (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 298, as cited in Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 254). This transferability was very important to me and I made sure to be as transparent through this research study as possible. Role of the Researcher The role of a researcher especially in a qualitative study is crucial to the data gathering and analysis process. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) discuss how identifying your own reflexivity and positionality as a researcher is an important addition to the research process. It aids the reader in understanding how a particular researcher's values and lived experiences influenced the conduct and conclusions of the study (Maxwell, 2013). Researchers need to explain their “biases, STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 35 dispositions, and assumptions in regard to the research undertaken” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 249). My name is Dieuwertje Kast and I am an immigrant from the Netherlands. I am a well- educated and middle-class White woman. I have a bachelor's degree in biology, a master’s in marine environmental biology, a master’s in arts and teaching with a single subject science credential and am currently working on an educational doctorate (EdD) focusing on teacher education in STEM. For my work, I have run K-12 STEM education programs (non-formal work) for low-income students for more than 10 years. Through my efforts, I have provided STEM instruction to over 26,000 underrepresented minority students in the Los Angeles Unified School District, 600 educators, 20 school principals, and countless community members. I coordinate STEM programming for K-5 students across a gamut of schools through the Wonderkids and Young Scientists Programs. I teach science classes to high school students through USC’s Neighborhood Academic Initiative (NAI), a college preparatory program for low- income youth. I have presented dozens of STEM and NGSS-based professional development sessions to pre-service and in-service educators both in schools and at local, national and international conferences. This passion for STEM education is reflected not only in my work but also with my science-themed wardrobe that I wear to all my teaching and community events. My lived experience in STEM education is a bias I have towards research. To counter this, I kept analytic memos that demonstrate my thought process behind the decisions I make in data collection and data analysis. Ultimately, my lived experience in STEM education combined with the data from this study helped to create curricular products and innovations for elementary school teachers that I want formal, informal and non-formal programs around the United States STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 36 to adopt and so I keep the objectivity piece at the forefront of my mind when researching for this study. Limitations The limitations of the study include that the participation in the study is voluntary and limited to those formally surveyed and interviewed (surveys and interviews) and that there is informed consent from the participants. Furthermore, the data collected is limited due to the short time frame for data collection. Also, there is some sole researcher bias and I would combat this with member checks specifically from the interviewees. The boundaries or delimitations of the study include scalability since there were 10 teacher educators and nine elementary school teachers interviewed. The surveys may reach larger numbers, but the interviews did not. Ethical Considerations There are many ethical considerations to this study. My own prior knowledge of the subject could influence the decision making to some extent in the study (Harding, 2013). I want to make sure that in my study I maintain a high code of ethics and make sure that I protect the participants of this study. I protected the “rights of participants to privacy, to reflect on and mitigate deceptive aspects of research, and to consider issues of reciprocity” (Glesne, 2011, p. 172). The research participants all had a right to privacy, have given an informed consent, and understood that their confidentiality is key in this research survey (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Glesne, 2011). Through informed consent, potential study participants are made aware “(1) that the participation is voluntary, (2) of any aspects of the research that might affect their well-being, and (3) that they may freely choose to stop participation at any point of the study” (Glesne, 2011, p. 166). The ethical issues checklist by Patton (2015) was utilized and accounted for in this STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 37 study. Patton’s checklist included: “(1) purpose and methods (2) reciprocity (3) promises (4) risk assessment (5) confidentiality (6) informed consent (7) data access and ownership (8) interviewer mental health (9) ethical advice (10) data collection boundaries (11) ethical and methodological choices (12) ethical versus legal” (Patton, 2015, p. 496-497). Conclusion This study will use surveys to gather both quantitative and qualitative data to target both of the populations that have been chosen for the study. The surveys were used as a recruitment tool for the 19 interviews that were conducted on both elementary school teachers and science teacher educators. I will be triangulating the data between the surveys, interviews and across the two populations to build credibility of my findings. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 38 Chapter Four: Results This chapter will encompass a presentation of the quantitative and qualitative findings of the study. The purpose of the study is to understand how elementary school teachers are integrating science and technology into their classrooms and how teacher educators are preparing them to do so. To reiterate, the research questions of the study include: ○ How do elementary teachers integrate science and technology into their classrooms? ○ What are the perceived best-practices of <formal, non-formal, informal> science teacher educators for training elementary school teachers in science and technology integration? A mixed methods approach was taken to answer these research questions, which encompassed utilization of surveys for quantitative and qualitative data gathering and interviews solely for qualitative data gathering. The survey was also used as a recruiting tool for the interviews. Out of the 92 responses, 52 of them were elementary school teachers and 40 of them were science teacher educators. The survey has 92 total respondents, and 74% of the respondents completed the entire survey, and 26% did not complete the entire survey. The survey questions responses have been converted into tables and have the corresponding number or (N=) at the top of the table to reflect who answered that specific question. Elementary Teachers The first research question of this study is focused on elementary school teachers. The following paragraphs describe the demographics of the participants, the survey results disaggregated for the elementary teacher, the coded interviews and the document analyses. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 39 Survey Results The demographics of the elementary school teachers were voluntarily collected. Out of the 52 total elementary teacher respondents, 24 of them responded to the demographic’s questions. Out of these 24, three of the teachers were African American/ Black, three were Hispanic/ Latinx, two were Asian/ Pacific Islander, 15 were Caucasian/ White, and one preferred not to answer (see Table 6). Out of the 24, 22 identified as female and two were male. In terms of educational background: four had a bachelor’s degree, 16 had a master’s degree, one had a professional degree, one had a doctorate, and two had other (2 Master’s Degrees, 1 STEM certificate and their master’s degree). Originally, I had a limitation on the elementary school teachers of five years or less and had only received about seven respondents. I removed this limitation to allow for a broader pool of in-service elementary school teachers to opt into the survey and 75.51% of elementary school teacher participants were in the five years and up category. The remaining 24.49% of teachers interviewed had 4 years of experience or less. See table seven for more specifics on the distribution of educational experience was allocated. When asked what school context they taught in, 50% of the elementary school teacher participants taught in Title 1 schools (reinforced by the selection of free and reduced lunches and low-income being chosen) as seen in Table 8. Teacher Preparedness in Science When polled about science teaching preparedness, 46.15% of the elementary school teachers said they felt prepared to teach science, 41.03% said maybe, and 12.82% said no (see Table 9). When asked if they felt their preservice preparatory program prepared them to incorporate STEM into their classroom 64% of teachers said no (see Table 10). The teachers who answered no to this question stated that the reasons they did not feel prepared to teach STEM STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 40 was because they were not offered science methods courses and had received little professional development in science. They also mentioned that their programs stated that mathematics and English language arts (ELA) was the sole focus of their program and integration with science content was not incorporated. When asked what challenges they faced teaching STEM concepts (with the option to check multiple responses), the two highest categories selected as obstacles were a lack of funding for materials and a lack of science curriculum. There was also a similar theme in the open-ended responses including a lack of time for science, and lack of training and professional development. Table 11 summarizes these challenges. Out of the 9% who chose the insert one not mentioned above option included “time and competing focus,” a “lack of professional development,” “limited teacher knowledge and experience, ” “lack of familiarity,” a “fully loaded ELA and math curriculum takes up 99% of my day,” “science is seen as optional,” “no time to plan or gather materials,” or “no district supported curriculum.” After asking about the challenges they faced with incorporating STEM into their curriculum, I inquired about their professional development specifically relating to the new science standards. Most notably, in Table 12, 33% of the respondents had not received an NGSS training within the last year. Slightly more than half of the teachers surveyed had received training relating to the new science standards. Without sufficient training or professional development, elementary school teachers are set up for failure when it comes to teaching science content and incorporating it effectively within their classroom contexts. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 41 TPASK-Based Survey Question Responses The TPASK-based survey question responses are based on each of the TPASK components that define it. The components include technology knowledge, technological pedagogical knowledge, science content knowledge, and pedagogical science knowledge. Technology Knowledge Teachers used a Likert scale to measure their own knowledge of technology. Table 13 summarizes how the elementary school teachers responded to the technology knowledge questions of the survey. The bolded and underlined responses were the ones that were significant and had the largest number of teachers vote for their response. The elementary teachers' responses weighed heavily on the positive side of the scale, indicating a general comfort with technology usage and incorporation into their classrooms. There were about 46.15% of the elementary teachers that strongly agreed with the idea that they can learn technology easily. Technological Pedagogical Knowledge Similar to the results of the technological knowledge, the technological pedagogical knowledge was also resoundingly on the ``agree” side of the scale. Most notable though, when the elementary teachers were asked if their teacher education program caused them to think more deeply about how technology could influence how to use technology in their classroom and 38.5% stated that they strongly disagreed with that construct meaning that their programs did not incorporate technology effectively during their preservice preparatory programs, see Table 14 for the specifics. Science Content Knowledge The Likert scale questions relating to science content knowledge are summarized in the Table 15. Contrary to the literature, the elementary school teachers rated themselves on the STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 42 “somewhat agree” and “strongly agree” on their own self-assessment of their own science content knowledge. In a self-assessment of their science knowledge about 30.77% of the elementary school teachers said they somewhat agree their knowledge is sufficient and 42.31% said they can use a scientific way of thinking. Furthermore, 53.85% of the elementary school teachers have strategies for developing their science content knowledge. However, most notably, 30.77% of the elementary teachers that were surveyed stated that they did not have the resources available to teach science in my classroom. Pedagogical Science Content Knowledge Similarly, to the science content knowledge, there was a positive trend of agreeing to the incorporation of science pedagogical strategies within their classrooms at a resounding 69%. Furthermore, cumulatively 88.5% stated that they agree & strongly agree that they use inquiry as a pedagogical tool with 61% saying that they somewhat agree (see Table 16 for details). A concerning trend with the pedagogical science content knowledge is demonstrated above when the data showed that 57% of the elementary school teachers said their school does not prompt science learning or is apathetic to it (this was a combination of the strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, and the neither agree or disagree categories). TPASK In the self-assessment of the elementary school teachers TPASK, there was also a seemingly positive trend to the “somewhat agree” subcategory. The elementary teachers somewhat agree that they know what technologies, resources and tools they need to incorporate for teaching science (see Table 17 for more details). The data showed that 34.62% of the elementary school teachers know about the technologies that they can use for understanding and STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 43 doing science and the same percentage of teachers are aware of the resources and tools available for teaching science. Interviews As part of this mixed methods study, interviews were used as part of the qualitative research tool. The interview protocol for the elementary school teachers has been placed in Appendix D and is the structured questions that guided the interview but there were also additional questions that dove deeper into their responses. The following sections describe the specifics of the elementary school teachers that were interviewed for the study. Demographics There were nine elementary school teachers that participated in the interviews. All of the interviewees identified as female. The racial demographics of those who were interviewed consisted of two Black individuals, three White individuals, and four Latinx/Hispanic individuals. Qualitative Coding All nine interviews were analyzed using the qualitative analysis method of coding. There were two main sets of codes (a priori and emergent) created for this analysis and that was determined by their alignment to the theoretical framework. The following paragraphs list the a priori codes (or those generated from the literature review) and those are followed the emergent codes, or the codes that developed as I delved deeper into the data analysis. The list of a priori and emergent codes and how often each one was referenced are included in Appendix E. The a priori codes are content knowledge, science content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, pedagogical science content knowledge, technology knowledge, technology content knowledge, technology science content knowledge, STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 44 technological pedagogical content knowledge, and technological pedagogical science content knowledge. Content knowledge (CK). Content knowledge is defined as the content background required to teach in a classroom (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). This study was specifically focused on their science content background and consequently there was a subcode of science content knowledge assigned to the interviews. Science content knowledge (SCK). There were 30 references to science content discussed during nine of the interviews and teachers focused on what science content they incorporate into their classrooms. One teacher had divided her SCK into three components specifically “we cover life, we cover physical science, and we cover Earth science.” Another teacher stated: So, some science topics that get taught, main things in fourth grade would be like rocks and minerals is a big one, weather and erosion, electricity, energy, this past language unit is science focused and so we're learning about a lot of green technology, fossil fuels, solar energy. The teachers focused their response to science content knowledge based on the grade levels they had associated with prior to the interview. Pedagogical knowledge (PK). Pedagogical knowledge is defined as the information needed on how to teach something to students. Some of the teachers described the process they took in creating lesson plans for their students. One teacher said, “I figured out the [science] standard and then I began to construct objectives that are palatable for my student making sure that they're differentiated but also making sure that I talk about academic vocabulary related to STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 45 science.” Others described holistically the pedagogical strategies they incorporated to facilitate science in the classroom, one teacher explained: I may be the teacher in that classroom, like a pilot, but they are my copilots with 25 kids in the class and without an aid, I teach it and the kids who get it faster will give me... I also group them accordingly where I can put a child who is stronger, heterogeneous with us, a child that needs more support, and they're able to reinforce what I've been teaching in the second investigation. An emerging theme that occurred under pedagogical knowledge was the idea of inquiry as a pedagogical strategy for teaching science. There were 19 references to inquiry across all the interviews. There were 5 references to essential questions and having students experience science through an inquiry-based model. One of the teachers described how this was implemented in her classroom: When I teach science, I usually get some type of a central question or focus for the students and then go from there to see what do the students, how do they respond to the question, what do they know, what do they want to know more about and how they're able to apply that knowledge to their skillset. Science instruction based in inquiry is defined as a complex mixture of skills, creativity, and knowledge driven by a student's curiosity and inquisitive nature (Settlage, 2007), which tied well into seeing how teachers incorporated the questioning aspect into the execution of their lesson plans. Another teacher delved deeper into this idea and described the pedagogical connections she was seeing to inquiry: I'm making connections to students' background knowledge and then letting them explore to connect those knowledges. The inquiry comes from questions that they have about STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 46 things in everyday life and it's my job to support them with the science content and then hopefully through their investigation they will make those connections. This teacher is modeling how she uses inquiry to engage her students within her classroom as her science related pedagogical strategy. Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). The TPACK authors defined pedagogical content knowledge as how to teach a particular content area (Shulman, 1986). This differs from pedagogical knowledge by being more specific to a particular subject or discipline. There were two references that were nonspecific to science as a discipline in terms of pedagogical content knowledge references. One teacher mentioned that “a teacher's job is to eventually take away as many scaffolds as possible, until they're able to do it on their own with very minimal scaffold and to show what they know, what they learned.” The idea of structure and scaffolding learning fit well into a generalized PCK. Another teacher stated, “my overall teaching philosophy in general is to equalize resources and understand that not everyone is going to have the same access to technology and resources to learn science in very explicit ways.” Issues of equity and access pervade all aspects of elementary education as well as how to teach specific content areas. Pedagogical Science Content Knowledge (PSCK). In relation to the specific content areas, this category was further subdivided into the PSCK subcode. There were 15 references to this in the interviews and an emerging theme of teacher facilitation as a pedagogical role materialized from the interviews. There were even nine references to how the teachers wanted the SCK to be student led and teacher facilitated. Two of the teachers mentioned the idea of elementary school students being “active participants” that can “explore and make their own discoveries, which I believe is the most powerful way of learning for children.” The idea of teacher facilitation of science content is an emerging theme in the field of STEM education. To STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 47 properly address student misconceptions in science, we want teachers to have a role as a “guide on the side” and not a sage on the stage” (King, 1993). Lecturing the content at students has shown to not be an effective pedagogical tool when it comes to teaching science. Another teacher reinforced this concept when she said: I'm just the facilitator, so I just act as a guide. If I'm doing all the talking, I know something's wrong. I want them doing all the talking, I want them coming up with discoveries and I just kind of validate and honor whatever work they're doing. They will often start expressing these ideas and they start to trust me, there were a lot of misconceptions there, but they're going to say that in my classroom. This idea of pedagogical strategies in an elementary science context was further described when one of the teachers described her ideal science teaching experience: I think when I'm looking at an ideal science class, I think the roles will switch, but we'll go back and forth. I think we start off with the teacher being the teacher. Again, also giving background knowledge and letting them know what we want to do. And I think it switches where I become the spectator or the facilitator and the students take over, and they start getting more engaged and they start teaching each other, not by giving answers, but by working together collaboratively. By being a co-investigator and facilitator of science content, the elementary school teacher is demonstrating her knowledge of how to teach science content to her students. Technology knowledge (TK). There were 24 references to technology knowledge made during eight out of the nine interviews. Every teacher included references to specific technologies they themselves had utilized within their classrooms. Their responses were divided into hardware and software subcategories. This idea was further reinforced by this quote from STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 48 one of the elementary teachers “Technology is hardware and software that helps you learn. That's how I would define it or solve a problem.” In terms of the hardware, teachers mentioned the following technological tools and in parentheses mention how many times that item was referenced between all interviews: Chromebooks (five references), iPads (seven references), projectors (three references), speakers (one reference), printer (one reference), scanners (one reference), apple TV (one reference) DVD/ VHS player (one reference), document cameras or ELMO’s (one reference), robots (ozobot/ makey makey) (one reference). In terms of the software, one of the elementary teachers had this to say: I understand that technology is software as well. Sometimes that's even more important because of just the educational resources that come from certain software like applications for students to have leveled reading or applications for students to get additional math practice has been helpful. The software that the elementary teachers said they had used in their classrooms were “Reading 5 for phonics” (one reference), “Spatial- Temporal (ST) Math” (two references), Zearn math (one reference), and Youtube (eight references). When asked how to define educational technology, there were four references to technology being a tool that would make classroom life easier. One of the teachers said, “technology: it's using science and tools to problem solve and to make our lives better.” Another teacher stated, “I usually think of technology as anything that's electronic.” While all of the teachers were able to identify how they defined technology and could describe what types of technological tools were present in their classroom their comfort level with the incorporation of technology ranged a spectrum from uncomfortable to extremely comfortable but were wary about being behind the times. One of the teachers divulged that “technology is probably my STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 49 weakest point.” Technology is such an abstract concept, it helped me to understand how they defined it as I asked more technology-based questions. Technological content knowledge (TCK). Technological content knowledge (TCK) is defined as “technological content knowledge refers to the knowledge of how technology can create new representations for specific content. It suggests that teachers understand that, by using a specific technology, they can change the way learners’ practice and understand concepts in a specific content area.” (Schmidt et al, 2009, p. 125). TCK was the umbrella code and technology science knowledge or (TSK) was the subcode. Technological Science knowledge (TSK). Technological Science knowledge (TSK) is defined as refers to the knowledge of how various technologies can be used in teaching science, and to understanding that using technology may change the way teachers teach science (Schmidt et al 2009; Jimoyiannis, 2010). There were 27 references to TSK in the interviews. There were six references to how teachers incorporated videos as their technological option of choice when teaching science. A few of them mentioned “exploring different videos that are already explaining science content.” Sometimes it does help me facilitate learning because there are certain things I can't teach without the technology. If I'm trying, well, not that I can't teach it, it's just easier to teach with technology. If there's already a Khan Academy video on civil engineering that has a lot of graphics and that is more engaging than me introducing the vocabulary word, then technology helps me facilitate that content. The teachers described how the technology they have available to them allows them to bring in visual supports and scaffolding in terms of teaching the science content within their educational contexts. Other technologies the teachers mentioned in teaching science content to their students STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 50 included a green screen. One of the teachers described “we'd take the green screen, they do report, and then we take the green screen and place somewhere where what they were researching or what they were looking at.” There were also five references to Mystery Science in the elementary teacher interviews. One teacher mentioned that “she teach[es] science in the afternoon to all of [her] students using [their] program Mystery Science.” Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). Technological Pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) had four code references in the interviews. TPACK is knowledge of each component mixed together, including knowledge of the content area, how to teach the content, how to apply technology to the content, and how to adapt the pedagogical strategies to accommodate technology use (Niess, 2005).This was the non-discipline specific version which is why it is not coded as frequently as the science content one in the paragraphs under TPASK. Two teachers talked about the incorporation of technology as an engagement strategy when teaching any type of content. One teacher said “technology helped me show them around the world and that was helpful in getting them engaged. Technology definitely is an engagement strategy for me.” On the flip side of that, another teacher talked about how “technology doesn't necessarily equal engagement” and that she was worried about her role in harming her students if she “introduced too much technology” to her students. The spectrum of technology usage in terms of engagement for various elementary school teachers seems dependent on their own level of comfort and training with the technology itself. Technological Pedagogical Science Content Knowledge (TPASK). TPASK is the culminating concept that describes how to teach science content utilizing technology (Jimoyiannis, 2010). It includes not only the pedagogical strategies relating to science instruction but also the integration of technology to do so. When asked how they as elementary school STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 51 teachers incorporated technology, their responses revolved around the idea that technology is a personal choice that a teacher makes for themselves and for their students and that it isn’t always the medium of choice when teaching science content. One of the teachers said I would have to say is, for teachers to teach science and for teachers to teach technology, it's a very personal decision. I feel like no teachers are really accountable for how much technology they're using in their classroom and how much science they're actually teaching, because it gets overshadowed by other subjects. Another mentioned that this “overall theme that we're doing with this technology, is trial and error because technology is not perfect and the humans behind technology are not perfect and I'm really trying to stress that in my class.” Teaching the concept of technology as human-made and infallible can demonstrate to students the impact of technology can have on their lives and future careers. One of the elementary teachers mentioned that “when you talk about technology and science, it really globalizes it. It connects them to a community greater than their immediate community that they [the students] know. It really connects them to people living in the other areas.” Technology and equitable access to it can provide an enriching learning experience in the classroom and bring in additional support from a local, national, and global community that can reinforce some of those science constructs. That same teacher went on to say that she intends to integrate science, technology and literacy all into one activity called “story time in space or story time in a space station, where they have videos of astronauts reading stories to the children.” Not only does that activity have a global connection to technology, but that activity will literally be out of this world. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 52 There were two main examples of TPASK that were coded from the interviews. One of them was the utilization of a quick response (QR) code into their elementary science instruction. The teacher stated that I can make a QR code of a science video that I want them to see and so they aim their iPad at the QR code, and a video will come up on how a tree grows or something. And then they take notes in their physical science notebook. The technology piece here was the combination of the QR code and the iPad but it was using it to demonstrate the science concept of photosynthesis. The teacher then took it a step further and also incorporated a physical science journal to tie both the science content and the technology piece together while reinforcing visual and auditory pedagogical strategies with the chosen videos. Another example that was referenced 3 times during the interviews was the utilization of Flipgrid. Flipgrid is an online platform that utilizes videos as a discussion board from both teachers and students (Flipgrid, n.d.). One of the teachers describes how she utilizes this technological construct when teaching science: I present an essential question, and after we're finished with all our science explorations, I will ask that question again and the children will write out or use a graphic organizer to answer their question and they know how to get on Flipgrid, push the record button and in pairs, ask each other the question and the other child answers, and they're recording their academic conversation on Flipgrid. Since the students are recording their own voices on that digital platform, the teacher is able to determine what students are understanding or misunderstanding about the science content that has been presented in a streamline way, an exemplar of the TPASK framework. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 53 Emergent Codes There were six main emerging themes that presented themselves during the interviews. There were the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), STEM integration with math and literacy, science teacher identity or lack thereof, preparedness to teach science at the elementary level, and connections and applications of STEM in the real world. Next Generation Science Standards Since this study is being conducted during the 2019-2020 school year, there are many states that are incorporating the new NGSS or adapting the framework that is based on NGSS. There were 25 references to the NGSS code between eight interviews. NGSS was further subdivided and coded into its three main categories: science and engineering practices (SEPs), cross cutting concepts (CCC) and disciplinary core ideas (DCI). A few of the teachers stated that during their planning phase, that they would “refer to the Next Generation Science Standards first and understand what [their] target focus is...and then think about what materials are accessible” to them like curriculum or materials. One teacher hopes that NGSS “with the next generation science standards, that our children have that introduction [to science] and that exposure to different science and engineering careers.” That same teacher went on to elaborate that it was their role was to: introduce the performance expectations for the next generation science standards for life, earth and physical science, teaching them or giving them the opportunities to explore science or to conduct the science or apply the science and engineering practices and for them to understand the science or the performance expectation to be able to actually do it via the cross cutting concepts. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 54 Whilst a subcode for Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCI) was created, there were only two references to the construct in the interviews. One of the teachers mentioned “we have three components that we do cover. We cover life, we cover physical science, and we cover Earth science.” The same occurred with the code of CCC. One of the teachers said the following about CCC’s: I incorporate the crosscutting concepts. So, there would be sequencing or comparing contrast, just for example. And then we move into engineering practices and the problem we have is, in this case for physical science is, we have a Chinese new year parade coming up and we want to create an instrument, and with material and optics that will create a sound and later we can explore high pitches or low pitches and sound. This teacher demonstrated how she implemented the crosscutting concepts with a cultural celebration that focused on the science of musical instruments. Furthermore, under the subcode of SEP, teachers recognized that they were trying to emulate how scientists and engineers think and construct meaning in their fields. STEM Integration One overarching new theme that was introduced was the concept of STEM integration. This included the idea that science as a content area could be integrated with other disciplines such as literacy, math and even social studies. There were over 20 references to this in eight out of the nine interviews. One teacher reinforced this when she said “in my elementary I integrate it across the curriculum. I don't teach science independently; I teach it with everything that I can.” Another demonstrated it also when she stated, “I teach science through the readings.” To subdivide this concept further, two subcodes were introduced: science literacy and STEM integration with math. There were over 19 references to literacy and four for math. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 55 Science and Literacy. When the interviews were coded for STEM integration and looking specifically at literacy, the teachers focused primarily on reading and writing materials. One teacher mentioned that they “had these beautiful textbooks with gorgeous pictures, and [she] started using them along with the science kits to supplement them.” Another teacher reinforced the scaffolding of literacy integration in STEM with “a science wall, in the physical environment [of her classroom]. [They] had all [their] vocabulary words posted” for their science content unit about sound. Another elementary teacher mentioned that she scaffolds and integrates literacy with science by using physical “science journals where they have inputs and outputs.” One of the teachers explained the importance to her about the integration of literacy and ELA principals into STEM content, she explained: They were using different materials and how they were able to, so every time that we read, and I think it's better because when we're doing reading, they can go back and make a connection with the experiment, and they kind of understand better. By providing multimodal reinforcements of the science content with literacy, students were able to delve deeper into their learning. Two of the teachers stated that they were not trained in how to effectively incorporate science content into their literacy curriculum. One teacher said: I don't think I'm doing enough science though, the way that it should be done. And I think it has to do also with, even though I do science the reading part, because it's part of reading, and to encourage students to read and do reading comprehension and text-based evidence, but I don't think I do enough though. She felt comfortable in terms of the reading and reading comprehension of her students but felt inadequate in the execution of science and literacy in the way she would like to be implementing it. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 56 STEM Integration with Math. Elementary school teachers tend to be the most comfortable with math and literacy instructional methods. One elementary school teacher described how she uses mathematics to further extend an interdisciplinary science and music activity. She said: I definitely have science... I definitely have videos, but I will turn to and show them string instruments and percussion instruments and woodwind instruments and brass instruments. And then I'm going to create a bar graph or a pictograph and ask the kids to create and say which one is your favorite. And then that's how I incorporate math into it. So, then it's reading charts data. Due to the limitations of time and planning, providing elementary school teachers with curricula that are multifaceted and interdisciplinary in multiple subjects is a best practice for integrating science. Elementary Science Preparedness. The construct of preparedness or lack thereof when it comes to elementary school teachers being trained to incorporate science into their educational contexts was the largest emerging theme from the interviews with a total of 38 references in all of the interviews, however, out of those 38, 37 of them were coded as feeling unprepared to teach science for a variety of reasons. A few of the teachers that were interviewed described feeling prepared but overwhelmingly, when it came to teaching science, most of the teachers felt unprepared. One of the teachers remarked a particularly poignant point: I would want to be prepared with a clear understanding of the NGSS standards, scientists and engineers wrote those standards. I'm a teacher. I need that to be translated on some of STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 57 that stuff because it's really like high up. And so, if I need it to be translated to me, obviously my kids are going to need a translation. Not being prepared to teach science increases the cognitive load that elementary school teachers feel especially when they do not have a contextualized basis of comparison for the new standards. Lack of Preparedness in STEM Education. Almost all of the elementary school teachers talked about not feeling prepared to teach science, there were 37 references to it between the interviews. Their reasons varied from lack of support, planning time, supplies, resources, professional development and training. At the elementary level, as one teacher noted “for most elementary teachers, science is an elective to them because they don't have time to teach it. And that's so wrong.” The Table 18 demonstrates how the elementary teachers are feeling unprepared to teach and incorporate STEM into their classroom and how quotes from the interviews reinforce this for a variety of reasons including the lack of resources, opportunities and training during their preservice preparatory program. One of the elementary teachers said “in the 15 years [she’d] been teaching, [her] science curriculum had never been updated. The textbooks are older than the children. The same textbooks for science that were here when [she] got here are still here.” Another teacher stated, “I don't think there was anything about science in my preservice teaching.” She continued to say that in her preservice program that she only had “one week designated to science and was encouraged to stay in ELA and history and not branch out to science.” The logistical infrastructure is set against elementary school teachers to succeed in implementing STEM into their curriculum. Both the survey and interview data demonstrated some of these systemic inequities in elementary teacher preparedness in STEM. Many of the interviewees stated that their preservice preparatory programs did not or minimally included how STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 58 to teach science content, that they have not received enough professional development, and don't have the support in terms of planning time, materials and curriculum to be successful. Science Teacher Identity The elementary school teachers that I interviewed ranged from having an avid science teacher identity to those who did not have a science teacher identity. Science teacher identity emerged as a new code and was subcoded to include the lack of science teacher identity. There were only three references for having a science teacher identity. One of the teachers talked about her experience “collaborating with the department of education on a video promoting science. Then [she] was seen as a science leader in [her] school and in [her] district.” She also discussed writing grants for her students to bring more resources directly to her classroom. On the other hand, there were seven references to these elementary teachers feeling like they did not feel like a science teacher. One of the teachers stated, “I have a background in education but not necessarily specifically science content.” Another teacher articulated this construct and how she overcomes it so that she can teach science to her students: For me, I was somebody that wasn't a science person or a tech person. I used to be that person and I still don't believe I am that person. It takes me a long time to understand science content because it's not my content of choice, but I choose to spend extra time planning and I choose to do a dish. I choose to take instructional time to teach this content because I know myself, it's important. The logistical infrastructure for science instruction has systemic inequities for elementary school teachers. This compounds into feeling like having a multiple subject degree is not sufficient in teaching science to their students and that they do not develop science teacher identities. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 59 Science Connections to the Real World Another emerging trend was elementary teachers describing how when they did teach science that they would try to make connections and applications to the real world and tie it more concretely into their prior knowledge. One teacher commented that I think number one makes science meaningful. It's got to be meaningful to their lives. If they can't see science and how it pertains to their life, they're just not going to have an interest in learning it. So that's why I take them to the... I find ways to teach the material within information that is right there in their own environment. So, number one, make science meaningful. There were two additional references that talked about how emulating the thinking process behind scientists and engineers would benefit their elementary students. One teacher noted “so I just support and honor what they're saying and go, "Oh, you're thinking like a scientist now you're trying to find patterns and you're observing the world.” Another stated “so understanding how science works and how engineers work really helps them to see the world differently in a good way.” The new science standards help to reinforce this concept of connecting authentically to real world science application with their science and engineering practices. Document Analysis The surveys also asked the elementary school teachers if they would like to share an example of how they taught science to elementary school students that they could submit a lesson plan, photos of an activity, graphic organizer, science journal format and more. This question received five responses, these are catalogued in Appendix I. Unfortunately, I made the mistake of not asking for caption information, so my analysis is based on my assumptions and interpretations of what the photos and lesson plans entail. Three of the submissions were photos STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 60 of activities the teachers had participated in and two of them were lesson plans. The first submission included a photo of what I presume is a teacher who brought some of their students to their local Aquarium. This aligns well to the new science standards and how to authentically connect science to the real world. It allows students to bridge connections between the concepts like ecosystems that they learn in their classroom and see the real-life version in person. The second photo included a toy truck on what looks like a bridge made out of tongue dispensers in a box that had what looked like a sandy beach environment. I presume that the elementary teacher asked their students to engineer a bridge to transverse the water and the sand part of the environment that they also created. I think that this was an example of what the student created during a science lesson that focused on both habitats and engineering design principles. This would also fall under the qualitative codes from the previous section called pedagogical science knowledge and I would subcode it to also include student led and teacher facilitated and hands- on activities as well. The third submission was a photo that included students engineering towers using marshmallows and uncooked spaghetti sticks. This is another example of how this teacher was utilizing her pedagogical science knowledge to include the design process where students create and build their own prototypes and then fix and rebuild when the structure was tested. The last two documents that were submitted were two copies of lesson plans from the elementary teachers that filled out the survey. The first lesson plan looks like it was based on the interests of her vegan students and compared gelatin versus non-gelatin gummy bears and how they dissolved in acid and compared that to how the human stomach would dissolve that. The lesson plan includes photos of the experimental setup and formative assessments from the students demonstrating what they learned and how it was relevant to their lives. The real-world connection was very strong here and it seems like this educator wanted to offer experiential STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 61 science learning experiences for their students so that the students could be active participants of their own science content learning. I would further code this lesson plan under a few of the similar codes from above specifically, pedagogical science knowledge (PSK), and science content knowledge. The last submission was also a lesson plan that was called “Sun-Sational Observations.” It was a “lesson plan created to address the following content standard: NGSS: Space Systems—Patterns and Cycles 1-ESS1-1.” The author said that they were using “observations of the Sun to describe patterns that can be predicted” and wanted to address misconceptions that it is the earth that rotates not the sun even though it appears to be the sun that moves. The lesson plan stated: Students will demonstrate understanding of the vocabulary word “rotation” through kinesthetic movements. Students will spin their body in a fixed position. Students will demonstrate understanding the Earth rotates in front of the Sun through kinesthetic movements in pairs as they hold the flashlight and globe. This lesson plan could be coded a variety of ways for this study. The utilization of videos and flashlights could fall under the technological science pedagogical knowledge code. Furthermore, the demonstration of her knowledge of astronomy science content knowledge is demonstrated by the depth and complexity of the lesson plan that this teacher had created. Observations No observations were utilized for this study. Elementary Teacher Conclusion The elementary school teachers that were surveyed, interviewed and had provided documents for analysis demonstrated the major variability that comes with teaching science at the elementary level. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 62 Science Teacher Educator This mixed method study wanted to have input not only from elementary school teachers but also from science teacher educators from various educational contexts including the formal, non-formal and informal science education worlds that work with elementary school teachers in their science and technology integration. The science teacher educators were also surveyed, interviewed and in total also submitted five documents for analysis. Surveys There were 20 science teacher educators that provide services to elementary school teachers that completed the survey. This total population was subdivided into three main identifiers: formal, non-formal and informal. There were 40% formal, 40% informal, and 20% non-formal science educators that participated in the survey (see Table 19 for more details). Demographics The survey collected voluntary demographics data from 17 out of the 20 science teacher educators. The voluntary demographics were provided by 17 science teacher educators who identified as the following: one African American/ Black, two Latinx/Hispanic, two Asian/ Pacific Islander, three others (Arab, Italian, & Hispanic/White), and 10 Caucasian/ White (see Table 20). Whilst there were 17 participants, the last column does not equal to 100% since there are a total of 18 entries. My presumption for this is that one of the science teacher educators checked multiple boxes for their race. Furthermore, out of the 17, 14 were female and three were male. In terms of their job descriptions in the teacher education field these were ones that were: professor, program manager, executive director, director of professional development, science coach, and aquarium/museum educator. Their educational experience included 3 Bachelor’s Degree (B.A.; B.S.), 5 Master’s Degree and 9 Doctoral Degree. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 63 Survey Open-Ended Responses The survey asked science teacher educators (STE) a combination of open-ended questions and quantitative Likert scale questions about how they teach elementary school teachers. One of the first questions asked STE which strategies they used to teach elementary school teachers science. The responses ranged from pedagogical strategies they were using themselves to model how science should be taught to students to partnerships between the STE, teachers, schools and districts. Many of the responses from this question talked about NGSS, inquiry, modeling, experiential learning, phenomena based learning, and hands-on science teaching strategies. One formal STE remarked on her five strategies of teaching to elementary school teachers: 1. Academic Discourse: We use the 80:20 rule and encourage teachers to shift their science instruction with students doing 80% of the talking and teachers doing no more than 20%. 2. Claim-Evidence-Reasoning: We teach teachers to shift away from the generic lab reports focused on the scientific method and incorporate claim-evidence-reasoning reports whereby students organize their pieces of evidence throughout the unit and make a claim to an essential question they are investigating. 3. Question Formulation Technique (QFT): We use QFT to encourage teachers to have students generate their questions versus using teacher-driven questions. This makes the questioning and investigating more student centered. 4. Do-Know-Think: We use the frame do-know-think instructional planning sequence to guide instruction using the three dimensions of the NGSS (SEPs, DCIs, and CCCs) STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 64 5. Culturally Responsive Phenomena: We teach teachers to look at case study students and interview students at a deeper level to craft culturally responsive phenomena that drives student instruction with a lens for social justice issues happening in the community. This promotes civic engagement. This formal STE has demonstrated multiple pedagogical strategies and lenses for science teaching practices at all levels but specifically how she curtails it for elementary school teachers. This is also grounded in the theoretical framework that is currently present in the field of formal science education. An informal STE described their strategy to engage elementary school teachers as the “it's my job to make science fun, exciting and accessible.” Another self-identified informal STE said their institution uses the reflecting on practice (ROP) method to train their team and focuses on “inquiry instruction and some of the engineering practices and how that can be adapted into science instruction.” ROP is a “professional learning program that lets informal educators dive into the latest science on learning” and specifically ROP works to “build participants’ understanding of, experiences with, and integration of best practices in informal science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) learning environments” (Reflecting on Practice, n.d.). Each educational field has its own internal guidelines and training sessions and ROP is a staple of the informal science world. Non-formal educators have a lot of freedom with how they present science content to their constituents. They do tend to embed their content into templates that best support their audience. A non-formal educator stated We focus on increasing teacher comfort and confidence with science before anything else. We structure our training the same way we want teachers to structure a lesson, by STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 65 exploring a concept through hands-on activities first and allowing them to construct their own understanding, then giving them the resources to deepen their knowledge. This applies to both science content and pedagogical content, like the three dimensions of NGSS. We try to limit the number of minutes we spend talking and aim for 80% teacher talk/activities vs. 20% PD provider talk. This non-formal educator is describing adherence to similar content that the elementary school teachers are already familiar with, but they also build in engagement with their 80/20 rule for participation with their teachers during their professional developments. When the science teacher educators were prompted in the survey with how they encourage elementary teachers who believe they cannot teach science, there were a variety of different quotes and Table 21 summarized how the quote aligned to my list of qualitative codes and the corresponding connections to the theoretical framework. A non-formal educator stated, “one way that we encourage elementary teachers who believe they can't teach science is by showing them how they use strategies from literacy, social studies, and math teaching to teach science as well.” Another one also encouraged the interdisciplinary nature of the science workshops their site offered for elementary school teachers and went into to details about it when they said: An example of a program series we developed is teaching science through picture books. In a way, these picture book science workshops also help teachers who believe they can't teach science (even if we haven't identified those participants as such) because it starts with something the teacher is already comfortable with and doing (ELA) and layers in science on top of that. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 66 The science teacher educators described aspects of elementary school teacher science identity, the integration of STEM, pedagogical science strategies (including modeling) and levels of preparedness of their audiences in each of their educational contexts. The survey also asked the science teacher educators how they incorporate technology into their educational setting and how it supports elementary school teachers specifically. The pertinent technology incorporation quotes were captured in Table 22 and is categorized by the qualitative code and aligned to the theoretical framework. The lack of technology access was sub-coded for in the all of the teacher educator survey responses and one of the teacher educators summarized this when she said “it is difficult to incorporate technology into our professional learning [setting] because that would exclude teachers who do not have access to that technology”. Another teacher educator interview quote was coded for technology pedagogical science content knowledge and she discussed that with her elementary school teachers they are “one-on-one and have a robotics curriculum. We use the PICRAT framework so if it’s just being a replacement, we try to think about how it can amplify the lesson. If technology doesn’t fit, then we don’t use it.” Some of the overarching themes were lack of access to technology, resource distribution, technology knowledge, and technology pedagogical science content knowledge. TPASK Survey Responses for Science Teacher Educators. The TPASK based questions were adapted from the TPACK questions that are meant for K-12 teachers so that they would collect meaningful information about similar TPASK themes from science teacher educators. Unbeknownst to me, when drafting this question in Qualtrics, a seven part Likert scale (strongly agree, disagree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat agree, agree, and strongly agree) was input with the TPASK question instead of the five part one (disagree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat agree, and agree). Consequently, the STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 67 strongly disagree was collapsed and added into with the disagree column as was the strongly agree with the agree. Pedagogical Science Content Knowledge. The science teacher educators were resoundingly more positive about their incorporation of pedagogical science content knowledge within their context of supporting elementary school teachers. Most of their responses seen in Table 23, state that they agree (50% or more) that their training (preservice preparatory program and professional development workshops) incorporate pedagogical science content knowledge that includes the nature of science, structure and history of science, etc. Furthermore, 84.21% of the science teacher educators discussed teaching elementary school teachers about the nature of science within their learning context. The most notable response in this table was their mindset when it comes to what they think about their elementary school teachers, specifically 37% said that they do not think that elementary school teachers have strong science teaching skills, which is presumably why they integrate so much of the pedagogical science content knowledge into their trainings. Technology Pedagogical Science Content Knowledge. The consensus that the science teacher educator community had for their science pedagogical science content knowledge incorporation is not as strong when it came to technology incorporation. As the Table 24 shows, whilst the trends are mostly on the somewhat agree or agree side of the spectrum but only between the 20-42% ranges and not the 57-85% range. The data shows that science teacher educators are as confident in their technology incorporation as they are with their pedagogical science content knowledge. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 68 Science Teacher Educator Interview Data The second research question of this study aims to look at the perceived best practices of science and technology integration for elementary school teachers from the perspectives of educators from varying educational contexts including the formal, informal and non-formal realms. The demographics of the science teacher educators that were voluntarily inputted with the survey were one Black individual, two Latinx/ Hispanic individuals, two Asian/ Pacific Islander individuals, four White individuals, and one who selected Other and inputted Arab. This component of the study covers the data from the interviews from these various educator perspectives and how their words were coded using a priori and emergent codes. All 10 of the science teacher educators' interview responses were coded primarily with a list of a priori codes that were based out of the theoretical framework. These codes and their respective subcodes are included in Appendix F: Science Teacher Educator Codebook. Furthermore, I added a code of the teacher educator’s context with subcategories of formal, informal and non-formal. Each of the codes for the Science Teacher Educators have at least one quote from each educational context (formal, informal, and non-formal) unless otherwise noted. Content knowledge (CK). Unlike the elementary school teachers’ responses, the science teacher educators focused only on science content knowledge. There were zero mentions of general content knowledge but there were 18 references specifically to its subcode of science content knowledge (SCK). Science Content Knowledge (SCK). Science content knowledge (SCK) was brought up in each educational context but varied on the depth and complexity of the SCK they provide elementary school teachers in each of their educational settings. In the formal science teacher STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 69 educator setting, and in this case, a professor teaching a preservice preparatory program and specifically teaching elementary science methods course stated: I make them do a science autobiography. That's something that I started when I started teaching the elementary methods class a long time ago, at teacher's college. I started having them write a science autobiography as the first assignment for the class and I always wanted to do research on that actually because it's very interesting because it makes them go back and think about their science experiences and what was meaningful and helps them situate their learning, their own learning with the course. And it's very instructive for me as a professor to see who's coming in with what. This formal STE understands that the teachers she educates bring in various backgrounds and misconceptions with science and so consequently she has them chronologize their own science experiences through their science autobiographies. It also helps her place the science methods content that follows this assignment within her teachers’ zone of proximal development. The informal STE, who works at a science museum, said that when it comes to science content, they have to pick and choose the content in which the elementary school teachers need the most support. She explained: The science content comes along with that naturally, but we decided early on that we can't try to cover every scientific fact that they're going to need to teach in each grade level. So, we had to pick and choose what we're doing. And then actually this year, because we're in the third year of the program with some of our teachers, we have been trying to focus a little bit more on content if there are areas that they're feeling less confident about. But overall, I wouldn't say that the teaching of science itself is the crux of what I do. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 70 Informal science teacher educators tend to offer professional development to elementary teachers at their respective educational sites. Some institutions are able to build lasting relationships with the teachers they provide services like this informal science institution, but others provide highly specific short-term professional development. They are limited in the amount of face time they have with teachers and focus the science content knowledge on very specific areas where they know elementary school teachers are struggling the most. The non-formal science teacher educators were very specific with some of the science content knowledge they present to elementary school teachers. One of the non-formal science teacher educators asserted: One of the main pieces of content that we've been looking at is chemical reactions. So, we look at dissolving as assessor and water versus Sprite. We also had to use content that can lead us to very easy lessons that don't require a lot of materials or they have very cheap materials. Because again, a lot of teachers have to buy and purchase their own materials. So, we want to make sure we're keeping that content accessible to as many teachers as possible. Non-formal science institutions provide support to teachers in a variety of different ways. In the example above, this non-formal STE is demonstrating that they have to make the science content knowledge accessible to an elementary teacher audience. This non-formal educator understands the dynamics of the elementary teacher classroom and has translated abstract concepts like a chemical reaction into a science lesson plan that one can buy materials for at the grocery store, which increases its accessibility in both materials and content to the elementary level. Pedagogical knowledge (PK). Pedagogical knowledge is a demonstration of how to teach a particular subject. Three main subcodes were created for pedagogical knowledge in STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 71 relation to the three main concepts that span various subject areas but also present themselves in the science field. These subcodes were phenomena, hands-on, and inquiry. Phenomena. The definition of phenomena is an observable event that can be chosen to facilitate inquiry in a classroom. Phenomenon has been chosen by the science education community as the context in which STEM should be taught. Unfortunately, before NGSS, phenomena had been missing in the STEM education fields, which usually resulted in students not being able to apply their knowledge to real world contexts (Phenomena, n.d.). There were eight references to phenomena in five interviews for this study. The formal science teacher educator discussed that elementary school teachers should start with the phenomena when it comes to teaching science at the elementary level. She stated, “instead of holding the really cool things to the end, you start with the really cool phenomenon that happens, and then asking higher level questions with students.” It's important for elementary teachers to start with the engagement and experiential components of a science lesson so that students can dig deeper into content as active learners. The same is true when teaching elementary school teachers, which is what she was trying to illustrate with her quote about phenomena. One of the informal science teacher educators talked about how they incorporated the concept of phenomena into their professional development. This educator declared: I guess on the day when we're talking about phenomena after we've obviously played with some phenomena for the activity part and it gives some content about what phenomena are and why we use them. Then when we get to the part about resources for finding phenomena, there's a document on those Google drive that we give them to give their instructions to the group where each person picks a number basically and then STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 72 follows the direction to go to a specific website, and to find the specific phenomena that they think will work for whatever standards group of children and share with them and then post the link in this Google doc. That could be a trial, but eventually it happens. This is an example of us rather than handing out a piece of paper or give verbal directions, we prompt them to do it all online in a shared document to the entire group because we see the work. That’s the only thing I can think of, but other than showing videos and whatever, we do everything on Google. This informal educator uses phenomena as an anchor for her elementary school teachers during the professional development she taught. She was using that idea to create a community of learners between all of the elementary teachers present. She was giving the elementary school teachers ownership of their ideas around phenomena and worked to have them partner to find phenomena that would be most applicable to their classrooms while also sharing these resources with the larger group of elementary school teachers. The non-formal educator worked to make phenomena tangible for her elementary teacher. She demonstrated how she introduces science phenomena by making connections between experiences she surmises most individuals have had or seen. She said: A launch is a way of taking a phenomenon and putting it in the form of like a question or task for the students that kind of becomes like the origin theme for the unit. So, for example the phenomenon might be that you go outside, you saw that there was a puddle of water, you come outside of water five hours later, you see that the puddle of water is gone. And then you launch might be for a unit that is discussing the water cycle or discussing properties of matter. It could be something like why that happened. So, you STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 73 could spend several class periods just learning things to support your understanding of evaporation for example. The non-formal educator demonstrated a phenomenon related to the science concept of the water cycle without a lot of jargon like evaporation, condensation, precipitation etc. She formulates discussions with her elementary teachers in a similar way to how she would want her teachers to instruct their own students. Hands-on Activities. Hands-on activities have been deemed another vital necessity in the field of science education in terms of pedagogical strategies. Hands-on activities were described in eight out of the ten science teacher educator interviews and referenced over 20 times. When asked how to best teach elementary school teachers how to teach science in their classrooms, one formal science teacher educator responded that it must be “hands on. They have to experience it because then they get an idea of how to run it in their own classroom by experiencing it. And they also have an opportunity to develop the content along the way.” This formal STE is describing more of the pedagogical knowledge that a teacher must have instead of the science content. Essentially, this means that teachers must know first how to teach science, and that the science content is secondary to knowing how to teach it. Fortuitously, one of the informal science teacher educators reinforced this concept directly when asked the same question. She responded: We try to structure our professional developments in the same way that we would want teachers to structure their lessons in the classroom. Meaning that we always start, our golden rule of teaching science and the professional development is ABC, Activities Before Content. But we always start with some sort of hands-on activity that is meant to help teachers to explore a concept that we're trying to teach. Starting with the hands- on STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 74 activity, whatever activity it is, is going to incorporate one of the science engineering practices as the teachers are actually doing something, whether it be planning and carrying out investigation or analyzing and interpreting data or asking your own questions about something. I would say that would be the backbone of everything we do. The pedagogical stance of activities before content describes the idea behind hands-on teaching strategies well. She frames all of her professional development sessions with elementary school teachers in this manner to have the teachers take ownership of their own science learning and provide working models of how to teach this way. One of the non-formal science teacher educators described how learning science for an elementary school teacher is an iterative process. She said that during her professional development sessions with in-service elementary teachers she “feel[s] out where they are and then instead of giving them some utopia of [what] a perfect science classroom might look like, [transitioning them] to adopting one hands-on activity at a time that could improve their practice.” She continued to say: A lot of teachers don't have a science background, so they had to essentially read the science book and explain the kid's context. But they didn't have the background to do any of the sciences. A good majority of my career had to do with just getting teachers to teach science based on the hands-on and by tying it into the concepts that they're teaching in their classroom and then having them do some hands-on activities. With her response, she is indicating that in her non-formal experience, she spends a lot of time connecting hands-on activities to elementary school teachers’ zone of proximal development. She worked to contextualize the science within hands-on activities that demonstrated not only the content, but the pedagogical strategies needed to teach it. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 75 Inquiry. Similarly, to the elementary school teacher's responses, every single science teacher educator mentioned inquiry during their interviews for a total of 39 inquiry-based references. Inquiry is a pedagogical strategy used in a lot of educational contexts but has been championed by the science education field as a pedagogical strategy of choice. One of the formal science teacher educators described her experience when she was contracted to spearhead a STEM program at a university affiliated school. She said, “so what I do is a lot of model teaching, because teachers don't have a lot of experience with inquiry, or the phenomena model, or technology.” The in-service elementary teachers that she works with in this context are not familiar with a few of the pedagogical strategies that are present in STEM education. An informal educator at an aquarium mentioned that her education team also incorporates inquiry into their professional development to strengthen this skill with the elementary school teachers she works with. She explained that: we're trying to get more inquiry based throughout these days. We've been working with some teachers outside of our mentors in this project to develop questioning or lines of questioning that can help us then see a phenomena or see an experience or have an experience and we can ask the question that would bring it back to maybe something that was in the kind of frames that's for NGSS. I think that building inquiry as a skill in a collaborative and iterative process in partnership with elementary school teachers is the best way to teach elementary school teachers to incorporate scientific inquiry. By doing it collaboratively, it increases the elementary school teachers’ self- efficacy for teaching in that manner in the future. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 76 Non-formal science teacher educators provide training through professional development for both preservice and in-service elementary school teachers. One of the non-formal science teacher educator participants of this study mentioned how he talks about inquiry during his professional development sessions with teachers. He explained: When I talk about inquiry, we have about four different levels of inquiry. What inquiry ultimately looks like is students pursuing their own investigation to answer their own questions or problems. That's my hardcore definition of inquiry...you have to scaffold, and scaffolding is building on each of those pieces of inquiry, for instance. When I say each of those pieces of inquiry, I'm talking about each of the science and engineering practices because most kids are not good at it, most teachers are not good at teaching it. We break it down, we give teachers instructional strategies, exercises for just one of those practices that they can do. He describes the four types of inquiry. (Banchi & Bell, 2008, p.27) defined the four types of inquiry: 1. Limited/Confirmation Inquiry – Students confirm a principle through an activity when the results are known in advance. 2. Structured Inquiry – Students investigate a teacher-presented question through a prescribed procedure. 3. Guided Inquiry – Students investigate a teacher-presented question using student designed/selected procedures. 4. Open Inquiry – Students investigate questions that are student formulated through student designed/selected procedure (p.27). STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 77 He states that his elementary school teachers tend to be stuck in the limited or structural inquiry stages and his programs push his teachers to feel more comfortable with the guided and open inquiry forms. He says: We went away from the more prescriptive way of doing things to more inquiry based where there are certain things that we have to instruct the students, like we have to teach them how to put a circuit together. So, they have to understand that there's a power source, there's a load and there's a switch. So, we have to build that. And then if we're building a car, we tell them that it has to have axles and wheels. So, these are the things that we have to communicate to them. But the goal is to get them thinking about, here are the elements. This non-formal educator is demonstrating his programs’ transition in structured inquiry to more guided and open-ended inquiry with a specific example of a circuit. The difference between structural inquiry where he used to tell teachers exactly how in a prescriptive way to make a circuit, now he leaves the materials in front of his teachers and tells them that they have a mission of making the lightbulb light up. By presenting the information in this manner, he has modeled the pedagogical strategies of using inquiry in a science subject area. Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Pedagogical content knowledge or PCK encompasses “what teachers know about how their students learn specific subject matter or topics and the difficulties or misconceptions students may have regarding this topic” (Van Driel, Berry, and Meirink, 2014, p. 849). Similarly, to the previous group of codes, the science teacher educators made zero references to general pedagogical content knowledge but were overly specific to the science content based pedagogical content also known as pedagogical science content knowledge or (PSCK). STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 78 Pedagogical science content knowledge or (PSCK). Pedagogical science content knowledge was further subdivided into an adaption of the elementary code of “student led, teacher facilitated” which was modeling how to teach this way ergo “modeling the student-led, teacher facilitates' ' roles. For the modeling of this instructional method in STEM, there were over 35 references in nine interviews and each educator context (formal, non-formal and informal) included references to this construct. One of the formal science teacher educators described how in her academic setting with elementary school teachers she provides support and scaffolding by demonstrating how to teach in a way that the teacher becomes a facilitator instead of a lecturer in the classroom. She said: We do science talks; we practice science talks and I showed them how to do science talks in a classroom. To show them that part of practicing science is also not just getting information but communicating or even arguing the information as well. And then they have to support their ideas from evidence. So, these are the science practices that naturally come up within the activities that I present them and then when we're debriefing. The STEM disciplines are filled with a lot of content but its most important for elementary school teachers to learn how to facilitate conversations around STEM content with their students. She has her preservice elementary school teachers learn how to talk about science in an evidence-based way in her academic setting that models how she would like to see taught when each of the multiple subject candidates. The non-formal educators also reinforced the idea that when they teach their teachers, they are training them to be more of a facilitator. One of the non-formal educators said that they use “the nine talk moves are ways of getting the students to lead the conversation and have the STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 79 teacher be more of a facilitator.” The nine talk moves are strategies that facilitate discussions and positive interaction between students and teachers (Michaels & O'Connor, 2012). The talk moves include “time to think, say more, so are you saying, who can rephrase or repeat, asking for evidence or reasoning, challenge or counterexample, agree/disagree and why, add-on, and explain what someone else means” (Michaels & O'Connor, 2012). These moves help to support scientific reasoning, argument and learning through talk in an educational context. Another non- formal science teacher educator stated that in their professional development session with elementary school teachers, they “modeled the 5Es so that teachers can experience it and then teach it in their own context.” This non-formal educator reinforces the need to model the facilitation of the science pedagogical strategies in their professional development sessions for elementary school teachers. The informal science teacher educators talked about teacher facilitation significantly more than any other educational context in our study. There were four informal science teacher interviews and all of them mentioned that this facilitation role in their training of elementary school teachers was of vast importance. One of the informal science teacher educators said helping the elementary school teachers to teach the science is just to give them the same experience that their students might have that gives them that same freedom and understanding nature in the way that they want and being able to translate that into an activity afterward. We just try to get the teachers in the mindset that their students may have ... and to see the world and maybe a different way or to open up how they are experiencing it. The informal science teacher educators are inferring that for an elementary school teacher professional development that is based in science needs to model this facilitation instructional STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 80 strategy by the teacher educators so that the teachers can translate this concept into their own classrooms. Essentially having the elementary school teachers in their sessions don their student mode hats during the session and emulating the same idea in their own classrooms. Another informal science educator described their golden rule for implementing this facilitation based instructional strategy within their professional development sessions with elementary school teachers. She stated: our golden rule is what we call 80/20, so it should be 80% the students talking or in our case the teachers talking and 20% the teacher/facilitator/us. So, we really try to fit the body and make sure that the students are doing the bulk of the actual talking. I would consider this a best practice for teaching both elementary school teachers but also elementary school students in STEM subjects. Another informal science educator described the way they teach elementary school teachers with a similar facilitation instructional strategy for their training sessions. She said: I think the keys are to make it accessible through those hands-on activities, through letting them experience it as a learner and think about how their kids might experience whatever they're doing as a learner. So, it's really letting them be the learner, letting them grapple with things on their own, letting them experience what those instructional shifts feel like for themselves and how those shifts impact their own learning. You can be a student but just like in our own classrooms, we need to empower our students to feel confident to share their ideas and build off one another and definitely still be a facilitator. The idea of a teacher being in both the student mode and teacher mode during a professional development session works to demonstrate and model how to effectively teach elementary school teachers how to teach science and technology. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 81 Technology knowledge (TK). The responses to the questions that were embedded with technology knowledge questions were very different compared to the elementary teacher responses. The elementary teacher responses were very contextualized into only what they were using in the classroom. By opening up the conversation to teacher educators that provide training for elementary classroom teachers, the answers were contextualized to each of their own educational context. There were in total 23 references to technology knowledge in nine out of the 10 interviews. The formal science teacher educators described their technology knowledge while focusing on what it would mean for the elementary school teachers that they serve. One of the formal teacher educators said: The teachers that I work with typically come from under resourced districts so they have very limited tools technology, they don't have robotics, they don't have iPad, they don't have a lot of tools in the classrooms that are fancy technology tools but they mostly all have a smart board, some of them do have some computers or tablets they can use with the kids and that's becoming more common that they have chromebooks or something, so the technology that I tend to include has to do with online resources This formal teacher educator spoke about issues of equity and access when it comes to technology and that each multiple subject teacher comes in with both different lived experiences with technology and varying degrees of access to what technology is available in their classroom. To prepare them she tries to be realistic with what technologies they most likely have access to like chromebooks and Wi-Fi and tends to stay clear of fancier and more expensive based educational technology that various districts may not be able to afford. On the flip side of STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 82 that, one of the other formal teacher educators was contracted to develop an app that focused on science for a younger age group. She explained that: I got approached by an educational technology company that was working on apps for young children, and the majority of apps are downloaded for young children in the app store. And they approached me about working to create science apps for young children. They wanted me to work on something that these children access in different parts of the world, and give them scientific knowledge, and I kind of was hesitant about it because we're kind of always taught that technology is the opposite of exploration and learning. Her response implies a similar spectrum of technology knowledge that the elementary school teachers described. She was originally trained to think that technology was not a proper instructional tool when it came to science instruction and teaching and had to move out of her comfort zone of that to develop an effective science themed iPad application for young children like elementary school students. The educational technology world presents this dilemma for a lot of educators and teachers. The informal science teacher educator crowd focused on educational technology and the wide range of purposes it has not only in their education contexts like aquariums and science centers but also the role it plays in the elementary classroom as well. One of the informal science teacher educators said: How do I define technology? First there are many different answers to that question. We define technology in our engineering way basically within your work history as anything that helps human beings to solve a problem or do a job or make life easier. So, it could be a spoon or a toothbrush or whatever. But in the context of an educational setting, I guess there is the computer and the iPads and there is the YouTube, the Chromebooks and all of STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 83 the things that are not paper and pencil that you try to incorporate into teaching. There's technology through the internet but there's also technology within classroom spaces, right. We have onsite programming that includes microscopes but attaching a document camera so we can all look. Her initial response of describing technology as a product designed to solve problems or make life easier is similar to the responses of the elementary school teachers. She also described a combination of both hardware and software to describe how an educational context may be incorporating technology and an example that increases the usability of a piece of technology like a microscope but makes it more accessible to all by attaching a document camera. Another informal science teacher educator focused more on how they were incorporating technology into their professional development sessions with elementary school teachers. She explained: Technology can be used as an assessment tool. Lately we've been doing ... We've been evaluating our educators through filming, so that we can assess our practice and we have an outside evaluator assessing our educators through these video recordings and that increases our practice. Technology can play such a versatile role in education from a passive role like a project to a more interactive one like the assessment tool she described, an indication of how technology can play such a varied role in the informal science education realm. The non-formal teacher educators reinforced this similar versatility of technology incorporation in their descriptions of their own technological knowledge. One of them lamented that she had “noticed that technology was a bit of a missing link when it came to the work that [they] did'' and that the interview caused an internal reflection of how they could better address technological needs of elementary school teachers moving forward. Another non-formal STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 84 educator discusses a similar gap but focused it on what she had experienced from the elementary school teachers themselves. She stated: Unfortunately, because there's a lot of teachers that are not comfortable with technology, it stays at that level. They can have all the computers in the world, but if they're using the computers as just simply a means, if they're just replacing what kids are already doing, it's not really deep technology. It's not that usable. We want to get them beyond that level. She demonstrated another way in which the technology usage could be more of a passive replacement like a word processor document on a computer replacing a hand-written journal entry and how that is the lowest bar an elementary school teacher could attain and that they should strive to incorporate more in a creative way. Another non-formal educator reinforced this idea as well she explained: I think there's really basic uses of technology that are more passive. So like examples that could be using a smart board to use a slide show, is that something that I could only do with technology, could I hand out a packet with things in it, absolutely. But if I set up an online forum that I'm having participants answer a question in real time then that might be... And then doing it unanimously then that might be a more helpful productive way of using technology in a workshop.” She described how you can take it a step further in your technology usage by trying to build a community of learners with her elementary school teachers. By modeling how to use an online forum, she can reinforce how to use a similar setup for the elementary classroom. Lastly, one of the non-formal educators provides solely online support and content for elementary school teachers. She is responsible for maintaining engagement and she describes her work with her platform as follows: STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 85 I mean most of our work is digital. We have that resource library. That houses a lot of videos that we've created, a lot of the infographics about NGSS, example lessons, and so on. It's, again, I call it a resource hub or a library because that's exactly what it is. Technology can also be used as a digital filing cabinet of lesson plan resources and opportunities that can further provide support for elementary school teachers. Technological content knowledge (TCK). The teacher educator participants had zero references to technology content knowledge but had more specific references to the technological science knowledge. Technological science knowledge (TSK). Unlike TCK, every single teacher educator discussed technological science knowledge and in total it was coded for 25 times. One of the formal science teacher educators was very specific about how she teachers her multiple subject candidates to incorporate technology. She explained: I talk to them about video conferencing with scientists, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) will get scientists for you to have in your classroom or we have a connection through [the] university, have a scientist that teaches from the rainforest, so she would like to zoom in the classroom as well, so like these kind of experiences. And also, I'm a huge proponent of online simulation, so I do a lot of online simulations with them, also videos of course, and then just using images and then other, kind of classroom tools, the Kahoot or BrainPOP, things like that.” She uses the online simulations, digital platforms and virtual interviews to provide elementary school teachers with more interactive technology opportunities for the classroom. The informal science teacher educators discussed both the limitations that they have for incorporating technology and the examples of how they teach science with it in their context. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 86 One of the informal science educators that works at an aquarium says, “we have a lot of limitations in our technology, how it functions here and also the availability of it here.” Another informal educator reinforced this when she said: As much as we'd like to incorporate more technology, we just always come up against this wall of elementary teachers, especially those who are just not really familiar with technology, and there's always a few that are. We really struggle with how much to force the use of technology on the teachers because if it's not something that they are already comfortable with, it ends up taking over everything we're doing” While both of them asserted they would like to incorporate technology, they were hesitant with overloading and overwhelming elementary teachers that had not been trained in how to effectively incorporate technology. Another informal educator commented on this construct in a similar way when she explained We also want to make sure that we don't want people to feel like they don't have access to technology. Especially when we work with groups that are under resource, we don't want that to be a reason for why they don't teach Science. Technology access is so varied between classrooms, schools, and districts that its incorporation into a science lesson cannot be guaranteed. The informal educator world works to make their science content accessible to elementary school teachers but provide alternatives when they know technology incorporation is an access and equity issue. Two of the informal science institutions described some of their technology offers to teach science concepts to elementary school teachers within their setting. One of the aquarium educators described: We have resources that are developed primarily for our elementary audiences, including our aquarium webcam kit...it's a wonderful opportunity to have students be able to watch STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 87 animals and make observations and ask questions and integrate something that, especially for elementary teachers. The technology involved here is a webcam that is set up on the various habitats but it's feed is accessible worldwide. This provides an opportunity for elementary school teachers to bring in ecological content and utilize scientific skills like observation in a unique way. Another educator talked about how during her professional development sessions teachers had to create a wave model out of straws and tape. She described that her teachers: capture the wave particles moving with the iPad and then they use the slow-motion camera. Then with the slow-motion camera they were able to see how the waves were moving up and down and not side to side. And so, I think that how we use technology is really dependent on how the lesson plays out. Waves are a very abstract subject in physics and so to be able to use technology like an iPad to slow down the movement of a wave pattern can help students visualize concepts like wavelength and amplitude and internalize them easily since they would be the ones manipulating the technology to help them understand. The non-formal educator described how technology usage had to be appropriate and related to the content that was being presented. She explained that in her professional development session they: show them how to use technology with the students in the classroom when it's appropriate, so sometimes there might be an interactive activity online or something along those lines that matches up with what we're teaching that we want to share as a resource. So, I think those are the basic ways that we're using technology. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 88 She was alluding to the fact that most schools nowadays have basic computer and internet access and that online resources like an interactive simulation can illustrate a science concept when properly aligned. Many of the educators talked about issues of equity and access when it comes to technology and the assumptions a teacher educator must make about their teachers’ technology knowledge to effectively be able to incorporate it during training and professional developments. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). Teacher educators went straight to the science content of their technological pedagogical content knowledge. There were zero references to general content knowledge focus but there were 33 references in nine interviews about the science specific content. Technological Pedagogical Science Content Knowledge (TPASK). The science teacher educators group described many examples of how they teach science and incorporate technology to do in an effective pedagogical way. Table 25 describes quotes relating to TPASK from each of the educational contexts. Online simulations were described in all educational contexts to demonstrate things too big or small to see with the human eye and facilitate inquiry. A formal educator said: My students have a hands-on learning experience even when they're not in front of me. So I do, do a lot of these online simulation in that way or you know just have them do something at home in their house and take pictures or something, but I think you did the online simulation as like a great way to do inquiry with the students and it modeled it for them and then they can do it with their students as well. Additionally, specific resources like PhET Interactive Simulations were named as an excellent resource for elementary school teachers (PhET Interactive Simulations, 2020). The non-formal STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 89 educators described particular examples of their technology usage to teach science with aligned pedagogical strategies are seen in Table 25. Most notably, there were two quotes from the formal teacher educators that described not only a theoretical construct but also how TPASK can be reinforced by parents and guardians. One of them described a model of technology integration for teachers that she uses to teach her elementary school teachers in training specifically the acronym PICRAT. The PICRAT model is defined by its acronym and the PIC stands for “passive, interactive, creative [and it] refers to the student’s relationship to a technology in a particular educational scenario. RAT (replacement, amplification, transformation) describes the impact of the technology on a teacher’s previous practice” (Kimmons, Graham & West, 2020, p. 176). Additionally, one of the formal educators also described how to use technology like iPads and mobile phone applications to reinforce science content within student households. While she was describing how to build this technology with parents, I think it would serve as an excellent bridge for elementary school teachers that may not be as familiar with the science content. Two of the informal educators described how they create science content based on real- life scientists that do research in various STEM disciplines and how they work to connect these scientists either virtually or with asynchronous video content for an elementary classroom. One of the informal educators described how the mental framework of science and technology needs to be taught instead of factual information that one can just instantly research online. Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). These surveys and interviews were conducted in the 2019-2020 academic year during which many states in the country have or are adopting the NGSS or are using it as a framework of standard alignment for their state. Not STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 90 surprisingly, all of the teacher educators mentioned NGSS with 33 references between all 10 interviews. The formal science teacher educators discussed how they incorporate NGSS into the preservice elementary curriculum. One of them said: I spend a lot of time actually talking about the standards in general. I say a lot of time, but I have a dedicated class session to the standards because I firmly believe that teachers need to know what they're supposed to teach and the NGSS The new science standards are the backbone of the content that elementary teachers should be teaching in their classrooms so it is crucial for formal teacher educators to demonstrate how one can best align instructional content to the new standards. Another formal science teacher educator described how she explicitly does this with her teachers: We look at the NGSS, the Next Generation Science practices, and engineering for the really big one, and we... I don't pinpoint every single one of the NGSS scientific practices, but I try to incorporate it and show them that they're naturally doing it anyway. So, asking questions is one, developing a model, anytime we're writing something, and we have data measuring and we're looking at the data. I'm seeing the best of science in practice that transfers over. This formal science teacher educator is demonstrating how she provides scaffolding and support for implementing not only the new standards but all of the instructional moves that come with it including the science and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas. Informal science teacher educators provide elementary school teachers with STEM support in a gamut of educational contexts like aquariums and science centers. Consequently, STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 91 when describing NGSS implementation within their professional development sessions with elementary school teachers, the informal science teacher educators are working to provide aligned content so that their constituents are benefiting from their experience in their location. One of the informal science teachers demonstrated this when she said: We've been looking a lot at the NGSS coming through and I'm trying to line up what our activities in here have been with some of the topics that teachers hopefully are being able to integrate in their classes. The intention of the NGSS was that you're not throwing their practices all at once and want performance expectation. There's some things as one or two that you can really grade in together? And so, for us, we really focus on developing and using models. Informal science institutions have two main roles with elementary school teachers, they provide spaces that elementary school teachers can bring their students for a field trip and they provide professional development sessions relating to specific elementary school science content. This informal teacher educator works to align their content in both settings to the standards while heavily focusing on specific models that the teachers can learn from. Additionally, if both the field trip and the professional development content are aligned to the standards, it facilitates the approval process by the administrators that work with the teachers. Non-formal educators that provide support to elementary school teachers talked how they supported teachers with understanding why these new standards are an upgrade to the previous standards and how it can better address both teacher and student misconceptions. One of the non- formal science teacher educators said Since the dawn of next generation science standards, the professional developments have centered around helping the teachers understand the purpose of next generation science STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 92 standards so that they know why they are the way that they are and even with common core to some extent with the math. Understanding the purpose of the standards helps instructors and teachers understand why this science mindset is so important to develop for themselves and with their students. Another non- formal educator iterated this construct when she said: When we talk about NGSS and how NGSS should be taught, it's about having kids expose their misconceptions in a safe space and then developing this line of evidence so that they can see that that's the misconception and then they change it. The competency piece is the same way. We have to expose some of these misconceptions, one of which is this, NGSS, is too hard and I don't have the science background to you don't understand, you don't need the science background, you just need to change up how you teach and hook into already how you feel about teaching and allow yourself to teach in those ways. The nature of science is being described here. Elementary school teachers do not need to know absolutely everything about science to be a good science teacher. As a teacher, one needs to understand how to think about STEM like a scientist and how to navigate the content effectively. Emergent Codes The emergent codes that materialized during the elementary school teacher interviews were almost identical to those that emerged from the science teacher educators in different contexts. These emergent codes included STEM Integration, Science Teacher Identity or lack thereof, elementary teacher preparedness or lack thereof and how science connects to the real world. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 93 STEM Integration Similar to the elementary school teachers interview responses, STEM integration was a popular code amongst the science teacher educators with 60% of them mentioning it during the interviews and in total referencing it 26 times. A professor of an elementary science methods course describes the integration of science and technology with English language arts (ELA) and math and how she does that with note booking. She describe it by saying: One of our big things, which I should have mentioned when you were talking about instructional strategies that we used to teach science is to... it wasn't actually planned, but it is kind of ended up this way because it works so well. It focus on integration of ELA and math, specifically ELA and that would be the note booking does for us because they note booking is so much about reading, writing, speaking and listening...as they go through it, not only are they constructing their own understanding of the file content, whatever the science is about, but they're also starting to see the power of the notebooks. We use a left right, like input, output model for notebooks. They're the last slide of the page or the left page of this kind of two-page spread is entirely the student's own thinking. Around science, it becomes something that the teachers really latch onto because they're already familiar and comfortable with teaching. It's like the charge, right? Teaching, reading and writing. They're not as comfortable as teaching science. If we show them how they can incorporate science into what they're already doing through the use of notebooks, maybe replacing the informational texts with something or whatever reading they're doing in their ELA curriculum. We have a science content reading that STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 94 connects to what they're doing in science, but that they could use their same ELA strategy for, it just makes it a little bit easier for that, more accessible for them. She is reinforcing that every aspect of an elementary school teacher’s preservice training and the following professional developments tend to be focused on either ELA or math, which is why they tend not to be comfortable teaching science since it is not a large component of their training or professional development. She recommends integrating instructional strategies from both ELA and math when teaching content relating to science content or pedagogy for elementary school teachers, and in her quote is specifically describing science notebook based instructional strategies. One of the informal science teacher educators that works at a science museum also talked about the lack of a comfort zone when it comes to teaching science. She said: They're not as comfortable as teaching science. If we show them how they can incorporate science into what they're already doing through the use of notebooks, maybe replacing the informational texts with something or whatever reading they're doing in their ELA curriculum. We have a science content reading that connects to what they're doing in science, but that they could use their same ELA strategy for, it just makes it a little bit easier for that, more accessible for them. They feel like, "Oh, okay, I could do this," it's just like teaching reading, but I'm reading about science and then we're doing this lab," or whatever it is. I guess those are two more strategies that we just, when designing our trainings to try to reach the teacher is by making sure that we have an elementary teacher's perspective on what's going to work best for them and really focusing on in a group we share of science of other content areas that they are STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 95 comfortable with. So that it's not siloed, and it doesn't seem that it's kind of scary, but nobody wants to do it. She also recommends the integration of ELA and math instructional moves to provide the support and scaffolding an elementary school teacher would need to teach science effectively in their classroom. She also discussed notebooks but brought in the idea of nonfiction texts to bring in the science content. STEM integration does not always have to be about math and ELA incorporation, but it can also include being interdisciplinary by also including social studies or concepts like equity and access. Two of the non-formal educators also spoke to the integration of STEM with elementary school teachers in a way that places the instructional strategies within their zone of proximal development. One of the non-formal educators stated that: you can increase the efficacy of STEM teaching, specifically science teaching, in elementary school teachers by showing them how science discourse in the classroom can sound a lot like literacy discourse...Talking science, doing science the elementary classroom can borrow some techniques from something that elementary teachers generally feel more comfortable with, like teaching literacy or math. Similar to the formal and informal educators above, this non-formal educator is also further reiterating the importance of contextualizing science content and pedagogical practices within a framework that elementary school teachers tend to be most familiar with which is ELA and mathematics. Another non-formal educator remarked: I think for whatever reason elementary teachers, when they're teaching science tend to step away from having these conversations because they're not sure how to moderate STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 96 them in the same way as they may have a literacy conversation, so pointing out these talk moves is really helpful. This non-formal educator is also talking about using instructional strategies that they are already similar with to help facilitate scientific discussions and science content integration into the classroom. STEM Integration- English Language Arts and Literacy. Elementary school teachers tend to feel like STEM content is not accessible to them for a variety of different reasons including the lack of training relating to STEM education in both their preservice training programs, but the lack of STEM based professional development they are offered when they become an in-service elementary teacher. An informal and a non-formal teacher educator made specific references to literacy when it comes to STEM integration with elementary school teachers. The informal science educator said: Making science feel accessible is a big one. It's the skill-based side. You don't have to know everything. It's not just the content. Science is more than the content, right. It's more about those skills that build literacy, science literacy. And I think helping teachers overcome that is a big part of what we're doing. You do not need to know everything, yes, I do not need ... I do not ... I do not know everything about science." Science as a field is vast and overwhelming for those who have not chosen it as a course of study. Teacher educators need to focus on what instructional skills are involved with teaching STEM to elementary school teachers. The non-formal educator also reinforced this when comparing the similarities between science and literacy discourse. She said: STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 97 It's called Kid Talk Teacher Talk, and the whole idea behind the program is that you can increase the efficacy of STEM teaching, specifically science teaching, in elementary school teachers by showing them how science discourse in the classroom can sound a lot like literacy discourse. Since elementary school teachers are so inundated with literacy and math content it is ideal to anchor the teaching of science content and pedagogy through a math and literacy lens and should be considered a best practice of the STEM education field when looking at elementary school teacher constituents. STEM Integration- Math. Each of the science teacher educator fields described very specific examples of how they demonstrate a math concept but within a science context. The formal science teacher educator who teaches a science methods course works to include not only math within science concepts but also integrate culturally relevant pedagogical principles. She said, “I show them different approaches to multiplication using different methods of ancient civilizations. It was just showing them this Indian method of multiplication, this lattice method, that was from the Mesopotamians.” By demonstrating how various cultures focus and practice STEM, you add an additional perspective that would not have been present otherwise. The non- formal educator discussed how she incorporated math into a unit on engineering design principles. She stated: We're working on a gingerbread makeover where I found a really great source for doing a math-led gingerbread house project. We're going to take that and now I'm going to talk about, okay, but realize when you do that, you're actually also addressing this science and engineering practice of creating a model. Then, you're also hitting ratios and proportions. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 98 It's a matter of showing teachers explicitly what that looks like using plenty of examples so that they can see it. By focusing on the math components of the gingerbread house design project, she puts teachers who were primarily trained in math more at ease. The informal science teacher educator wanted to demonstrate how math ideas like graphs could be contextualized within a science space Sometimes you have to build context for students. Just showing them the graph doesn't mean much to them but you adding an interview with a scientist who's actually collecting that work or having a video to build into the crops that rely on normal weather patterns and what does a drought mean to them? This informal educator was describing that math is usually done in a vacuum of seemingly irrelevant word problems and that if you had a science context especially for elementary school teachers that it increases the elementary school student engagement. Lack of Science Teacher Identity. As alluded to in the elementary school teacher responses, the science teacher educators surmised that elementary school teachers do not identify as science teachers or teachers of science. Nine out of the ten interviews referenced this construct of “lack of science teacher identity” and in total there were 31 references coded for it within the qualitative analysis. The coded data is separated by educational context. Formal Educational Context. The formal science teacher educators (Table 26) talked about how their elementary school teachers “do not identify as science teachers,” which is usually because they come into teaching with a limited science content understanding from their own undergraduate experience or “soft science experience.” Some of them even say that they “hate science.” Another set of teacher educators stated that they think elementary school teachers “generally don't identify as science educators or feel like they have anything to contribute, which STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 99 kind of feeds the cycle” and “there's just no way they're going to be able to get all the contents that they need before walking into a classroom.” Since the formal educators are the first barrier to entry for training elementary school teachers during their preservice preparatory program, they are part of the systemic problem of elementary school teachers not being prepared to teach science effectively, which is reinforced when they see their students as science deficient based on the context they came from. Informal Educational Context. The informal science teacher educators also discussed how their elementary school teachers are usually not confident in their science teaching ability see Table 27. They talked about their elementary school teachers not being “very familiar with teaching science in general” and that they visualize scientists as “some White guy standing in a lab figuring out things they can solve [and] they have this image of science practicing in isolation.” These informal teacher educators work increase the teachers comfort and confidence in their own science teaching ability while battling the stereotypes that science is not for them. Non-Formal Educational Context. The non-formal educators also perpetuated the image that elementary school teachers do not see themselves as science teachers. As demonstrated in Table 28, they talked about elementary school teachers not “see[ing] themselves as science teachers,” not having the proper “science background,” being overwhelmed by the science “jargon” and that they see their teachers as “not being good at it” and that it being science teaching instruction. Science Teacher Identity Each of the educational contexts talked about supporting elementary school teachers in building their science teacher identity during 90% of the interviews, for a total of 38 references. Table 29 summarizes how each educational context described they are trying to address and STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 100 create a science teacher identity for their elementary school teachers so that they can be empowered to bring STEM into their classrooms. One of the formal educators discussed how she does this in her methods course, she said: The first couple of weeks within the course, I'm actually teaching them some of the content through experiences that they have in the class, activities that I would do with the children, and then we debrief and I would go over, kind of try and redefine what they think science is and the nature of science, and showing them that science is practiced in the community, showing them that science is something that is always changing, showing them that science is also very playful and that nobody always knows the answer. This appeals to the generalist nature of the elementary school teachers by embedding the content within their zone of proximal development. The informal educators reiterated similar statements, one of them said: The first thing I'll say is that literally teaching science isn't necessarily our number one thing that we do, or our top priority. In terms of science content, it's more about getting them comfortable and confident with just teaching science in general, because it's not something they're very familiar with. The non-formal educators iterated this also. One of them said So, I think especially working with elementary teachers who are often not specialists, they're generalized classroom teachers who are teaching a variety of subjects. Making it seem tangible to them and showing them how skills that they already have can be utilized for teaching science is really helpful. So, a lot of it is saying, you already have lots of teaching skills and lots of experience that can allow you to be a successful science teacher, we just need to tap into that, and then apply science skills and content to that. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 101 The formal educators discussed how they define science and work to shift their definition of science within their elementary methods courses. The informal educators described how they make the elementary teachers feel more confident in their science knowledge and their science pedagogical skills. The non-formal educators took it a step further to discuss that their elementary constituents are “generalists not science specialists” so they work to empower the teachers about how to teach science. Elementary Science Preparedness The elementary school teachers and the science teacher educators that work with elementary school teachers discussed levels of preparedness when it comes to science and technology integration. There were 16 references to it in six interviews. One of the formal educators described the benefits preparing elementary school teachers to teach science. She said: I want them to know from the beginning that the reason why they need to teach science is to benefit the student’s long term. It's not just about learning a subject, it's about developing reasoning, critical thinking and the tools to be good decision makers and then also develop a broader base of people who might be interested in STEM A non-formal educator reinforced this as well when they said, “I think especially working with elementary teachers [you need to make] it seem tangible to them and showing them how skills that they already have can be utilized for teaching science is really helpful.” An informal educator emphasized this point as well when they said “teachers don't have a whole lot of time to dig through the same resources that may come easy to us in an informal setting. Making sure that teachers have the resources to feel confident.” Pedagogical science knowledge is a crucial aspect of building an elementary school teachers’ confidence in their own science instruction. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 102 Lack of preparedness in STEM The problems that the elementary school teachers faced were also empathized by the teacher educators that train them, specifically the systematic ways that elementary school teachers are not prepared to integrate science and technology. There were 21 references to this in seven interviews. One of the professors in the study described this in her quote when she said: I don't feel like any teacher's really ready and prepared to teach anything when they leave. I think the focus of a preparation, teacher preparation program, is to kind of give them the foundations, the skills, the pedagogical skills and kind of launch them. Research shows that teachers don't get enough, they don't get enough science preparation. Since elementary school teachers are credentialed as multiple subjects, they have to demonstrate familiarity with more subjects then a single subject teacher would be implying that they are not able to dive as deep into all subjects in terms of content mastery as a single subject instructor would. The non-formal educator also talked about elementary school teacher competency. She stated: You have to believe, in order to get at something to reach a goal, you have to believe that you have the capability to do it, the intelligence to do it, the skills to do it. If you have those skills, that capability and that belief, you're going to continue to pursue those goals. Oftentimes, when it comes to NGSS, if people are not from science and they don't have a science background, the person they see is three dimensions and they quit Preparation for teaching science to elementary school students can come in so many different forms whether it is through a methods course during a preservice preparatory program, a professional development workshop, and build upon one’s K-12 and college experience in STEM. If those experiences are minimal or non-existent it can be a steep and overwhelming STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 103 learning curve to feeling like one is prepared to teach science. The informal educator said it best she stated “we also want to make sure that we don't want people to feel like because they don't have access to technology. Especially when we work with groups that are under-resourced, we don't want that to be a reason for why they don't teach science.” There are so many systemic barriers for elementary school teachers to teach science and each of the various educators are working to level the playing field in terms of equity and access to increase the opportunities and resources elementary school teachers in their areas need to thrive. Science Connections to the Real World The last emerging theme in this study with the teacher educators was how they made authentic connections to the real world. There were 16 references in eight interviews. The more authentic and locally relevant a science teacher educator could make science instruction, the more buy-in comes from the elementary school teacher. The formal science teacher educator described how she does that: I do always emphasize the idea of doing community science projects with the elementary kids. And we used to be called citizen science and now they call it community science. And if I'm teaching a class in the spring semester, I always do the green backyard bird count with them and we connect that to bat graphing you down and telling you about. There's lots of community science opportunities and I think it is important to share this with the elementary science teachers so they can feel like they're part of adding to the data and the knowledge of science and for the students to, to feel part of that, to be something bigger. And that science is really for everyone. By making science tangible and related to your community, it increases the relevance and ownership of the science content and the formal professor does so by talking about how to find STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 104 the local community science opportunities. Another one combined this local science component with culturally relevant pedagogy. She said: The university had a really strong partnership, that they worked with the elders, and developed some engineering and STEM curriculum. So, we have Snow Snakes, which is a game, an Ojibwa game where you're engineering your own snow snake stick, and things like that. I would consider integrating STEM with local and culturally relevant pedagogy connections as a best practice for teaching science to elementary school teachers. There were zero quotes from non-formal science teacher educators. The informal science educators reinforced this idea as well. One of them stated: We are trying to create resources that give teachers and students context into real world situations. And so, for example, we are creating a career series. We really make it feel authentic and the goal is for teachers and students to see how science is being implemented in these different careers and how it impacts our daily lives. When science is meaningful, authentic and connected to the real world, it provides a meaningful context for elementary school teachers to base their science content from. Document Analysis The surveys also asked the science teacher educators if they would like to share an example of how they taught science to elementary school teachers that they could submit a lesson plan, photos of an activity, graphic organizer, science journal format and more. This question received five responses, they are catalogued in Appendix J. An informal educator submitted a placemat about how they structure professional development for elementary school teachers. It includes a section on how they split up the NGSS STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 105 framework into digestible components for elementary school students. They have a section on “DO” for the science and engineering practices, a section on “KNOW” for the disciplinary core ideas, “THINK” for crosscutting concepts but also includes integration various pieces like phenomena, social emotional learning, culturally responsive teaching, academic discourse, English language development and an environmental principle. By scaffolding the breakdown of a lesson plan in this way the elementary teachers can lower their anxiety with a science themed lesson and become more explicitly aware of what science content should look like in their classroom. A formal science teacher education included a syllabus for a “Science Curriculum & Instruction for the Diverse K-8 Classroom course.” The themes of the course include “NGSS, equity and diversity in STEM education, science literacy, misconceptions in science, three- dimension learning” and more. They also pair each themed week of the course with hands-on activities that illustrate that theme. There are examples of the episteme or theoretical backings being explained but it is paired with the phronesis of how each theme should be implemented in a classroom. Another formal science teacher educator submitted a PowerPoint for an elementary science methods class that asks elementary teacher candidates “What is Science?” and “What is the nature of science?” This professor scaffolds this by providing intermittent pedagogical science content knowledge like “practices of science” with engagement from the audience. The professor tests the students’ knowledge of the elementary school teacher pedagogical science knowledge in a discussion question that was posted on the last slide. The slide asks the elementary school teachers “Give an example for each practice of science and how you would imagine that would play out in a Kindergarten classroom.” By facilitating this conversation in this way during their preservice preparatory program, it puts ownership and empowerment back STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 106 onto the elementary school teacher. The fourth submission was also a PowerPoint from a formal science teacher educator class that talks about “science and diverse learners.” This person worked to address elementary school teacher misconceptions in science and paralleled them to misconceptions an elementary school student may face. The fifth submission was a PowerPoint from an informal science center’s NGSS professional development for elementary school teachers. The informal science teacher educator broke down NGSS into smaller bite size components and incorporated a lot of analogies and science content examples that would fall within an elementary school teachers’ zone of proximal development. They were modeling the facilitation role as teacher educators for the teachers as a science pedagogical strategy that they could take back to their classrooms. One example was comparing the three strands of NGSS to a cake and stating that the science and engineering practices are like the baking tools and techniques, the disciplinary core ideas are like the cake itself, and the crosscutting concepts are the flavor or frosting added to the cake. Another example from this presentation was a slide that was demonstrating how the science and engineering practices could be translated and modified to a kindergarten to second grade audience. For example, the science and engineering concept was “asking questions and defining problems,” which could be simplified into “wondering about science” and “deciding the rules: engineering.” By contextualizing NGSS in this way, they lower the threshold of fear and anxiety when it comes to science and increases their confidence in their science teacher identity. Observations No observations were utilized for this study. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 107 Science Teacher Educator Conclusion The science teacher educators that were surveyed, interviewed and had provided documents for analysis demonstrated that each educational context has its own unique ways that it supports elementary school teachers but that there was also a lot of overlap between the formal, informal and non-formal contexts. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 108 Chapter Five: Discussion This dissertation examined the systematic issues facing elementary school teachers when it comes to incorporating science and technology. The purpose of the study is to understand these systemic inequities from both the perspective of an elementary school teacher and the teacher educators that train them in varying educational contexts including the formal, informal and non- formal science education fields. There were two research questions that this study addressed: 1. How do elementary teachers integrate science and technology into their classrooms? 2. What are the perceived best-practices of <formal/ non-formal/ informal> science teacher educators for training elementary school teachers in science and technology integration? The methodologies used to answer these research questions were embedded in a mixed methods approach which included a survey with both quantitative and qualitative requests for information and interviews that were also coded in a qualitative manner based on the theoretical framework from the literature review. The survey had a total of 92 respondents, 74% of the respondents completed the entire survey, and 26% did not complete the entire survey. Out of the 92, 52 of them were elementary school teachers and 40 of them were science teacher educators. Furthermore, there were a total of 19 total interviewees for the solely qualitative portion of this study- the interviews. Specifically, nine elementary and 10 science teacher educators were interviewed for this study. Originally, I had planned nine interviews for each category, nine total elementary school teachers and three educators from each educational context (three formal, three informal, and three non-formal). However, I found an informal educator in an educational context that I had not seen before and thought it was important to include her as a fourth informal educator interview. Whilst my survey respondents were predominately White, I worked to STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 109 diversify my interview candidates from the survey pool. Although all the elementary school teacher interviewees were not as diverse when it came to gender (they were all female), the racial demographics of those who were interviewed consisted of two Black individuals, four Latinx/ Hispanic individuals and three White individuals. The data analysis and findings of this study provided insights about science and technology integration for elementary school teachers at different phases of their careers and with support from varying educational contexts. Summary of the Findings Research Question #1: Elementary School Teachers The first research question focused on how elementary school teachers are integrating science and technology into their classrooms. Integration of Science My study found that the elementary teachers that I surveyed have a general comfort with technology usage and incorporation into their classrooms and specifically about 50% of the survey participants felt prepared to teach science. Contrary to the literature, the elementary school teachers rated themselves on the “somewhat agree” and “strongly agree” on their own self-assessment of their own science content knowledge. This study did not measure attitudes or anxiety towards science but the literature shows that elementary school teachers usually have a negative attitude towards science and that those feelings can stem from a lack of knowledge, interest, or training in STEM, which gives elementary school teachers the sense that they are not prepared to teach science content (Tilgner, 1990; Westerback, 1982; Abell, 1990; Weiss et al., 2001). The literature demonstrates that even elementary teachers that are enthusiastic about teaching science end up not devoting time to science presumably because they lack materials, STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 110 preparation time, or the pressure to focus on content areas that are tested on more regularly like math and literacy (Banilower, Smith, Weiss, Malzahn, Campbell, & Weis, 2013; Century, Rudnick, & Freeman, 2008; Diamond & Spillane, 2004; McMurrer, 2008). This compounds into feeling like having a multiple subject degree is not sufficient in teaching science to their students and that they do not develop science teacher identities, which was demonstrated in the interviews. One of the elementary school teachers said “I have a background in education but not necessarily specifically science content demonstrating that elementary school teachers are trained as generalists and not as specialists like at the secondary level. This compounds into feeling like having a multiple subject degree is not sufficient in teaching science to their students and that they do not develop science teacher identities. Another teacher articulated this construct and how she overcomes it so that she can teach science to her students: For me, I was somebody that wasn't a science person or a tech person. I used to be that person and I still don't believe I am that person. It takes me a long time to understand science content because it's not my content of choice, but I choose to spend extra time planning and I choose to do a dish. I choose to take instructional time to teach this content because I know myself, it's important. My interpretation of the data is presuming that a large proportion of the elementary school teachers I surveyed and interviewed leaned in to participating in the study because they are enthusiastic about incorporating science and technology already and were inclined to participate to demonstrate that. Integration of Technology When asked how the elementary school teachers incorporated technology into their classrooms, their responses revolved around the idea that technology is a personal choice that a STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 111 teacher makes for themselves and for their students and that it is not always the medium of choice when teaching science content. One of the elementary school teachers stated “I would have to say is, for teachers to teach science and for teachers to teach technology, it's a very personal decision. I feel like no teachers are really accountable for how much technology they're using in their classroom and how much science they're actually teaching, because it gets overshadowed by other subjects.” The literature reinforces this as well, Polly (2014) says the reason technology has not yet transformed teaching and learning in K-12 school settings is because of “teachers’ limited knowledge related to integrating technology (Niess, 2005), lack of effective professional learning opportunities (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007; Polly & Hannafin, 2011), and teacher beliefs that there is conflict with expected enacted pedagogies and uses of technology” (Ertmer et al., 2012; Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Glazewski, Newby, & Ertmer, 2010). Furthermore, comfort level with technology takes training time, usage and support to be able to effectively incorporate new technologies into the classroom and teachers struggle with pragmatic ways of using technology in one-to-one- environments (Ertmer, 1999; Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007; Polly & Hannafin, 2011; Harper and Milman, 2016; Weston and Bain, 2010). TPASK is the culminating concept that describes how to teach science content utilizing technology (Jimoyiannis, 2010). It includes not only the pedagogical strategies relating to science instruction but also the integration of technology that is required for teaching in the classroom. Technology and equitable access to it can provide an enriching learning experience in the classroom and bring in additional support from a local, national, and global community that can reinforce some of those science constructs. Elementary school teachers need to see pragmatic incorporates of technology that are embedded within the ideals behind TPASK to successfully integrate technology during science instruction. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 112 Due to the limitations of time and planning, providing elementary school teachers with curricula that are multifaceted and interdisciplinary in multiple subjects is a best practice for integrating science. Many of the interviewees stated that their preservice preparatory programs did not or minimally included how to teach science content, that they have not received enough professional development, and don't have the support in terms of planning time, materials and curriculum to be successful. Both the survey and interview data demonstrated some of these systemic inequities in elementary teacher preparedness in STEM. The logistical infrastructure is set against elementary school teachers to succeed in implementing STEM into their curriculum. Challenges in Science and Technology Integration Science and technology integration is difficult to incorporate into the elementary school classroom if as a teacher, the structures do not support you and that can include the site you are working at or the training that brought you into the teaching field aka the preservice preparatory program. The data I collected demonstrated this. For example, 57% of the elementary school teachers said their school does not promote science learning or is apathetic to it (this was a combination of the strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, and the neither agree nor disagree categories). Furthermore, 38.5% stated that they strongly disagreed with that construct meaning that their programs did not incorporate technology effectively during their preservice preparatory programs. The literature states that preservice elementary teachers need explicit examples of effective and ineffective technology usage for them to develop a meaningful understanding of technology integration (Schmidt & Fulton, 2016). Elementary school teachers are usually a product of the lack of own science education (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Appleton, 2006) and the science content knowledge shortage is not only a result of their own K-12 science education, but is also the problem of unresolved aspects of their teacher education programs STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 113 (Kelly, 2000). With these systemic issues facing elementary school teachers, we need teacher educators to provide support and advocate for teacher-centered change at all levels. Limitations The limitations of the study include the participation in the study was voluntary for both the surveys and interviews. The data collected was limited due to the short time frame for data collection; data was only collected for six months. There was a sole researcher bias, and this was combated with member checks with the constituents. The delimitations of the study included the construct of scalability. The interviews were only performed on 19 individuals specifically 10 science teacher educators and nine elementary school educators. The qualitative data was collected and analyzed from nine elementary school teachers and 10 science teacher educators interviews, which is a small number of interviews. Furthermore, there were 52 elementary school teachers that responded to the survey and they may be more willing to take the survey because they were more science and technology focused which could have skewed the data and potential transferability to the elementary school teacher population at large. To increase internal validity, I performed one-member check with one teacher in regard to the coding of the interview. Research Question #2: Science Teacher Educators Partnerships with Elementary School Teachers Science teacher educators in each of the educational contexts (formal/ non-formal, informal) must work in partnership with elementary school teachers when working to integrate science and technology. Professional development in STEM content areas can take make forms for elementary school teachers coming from a variety of educational contexts. It could look like summer workshops, on-site workshops, off-site workshops at non-formal and informal institutions, as well as involvement of STEM professionals in the classroom (Duncan, Diefes- STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 114 Dux, & Gentry, 2011; Guzey, Roehrig, Tank, Moore, & Wang 2014; High, Antonenko, Damron, Stansberry, Hudson, Dockers, & Peterson 2009; Douglas, Rynearson, Yoon, & Diefes-Dux, 2016; Fralick, Learn, Thompson, & Lyons, 2009). Teachers develop their subject matter knowledge in their formal environments of their preservice teacher preparation programs and during in-service professional developments and they also develop that knowledge in the informal environments (Abell, 2007; Nixon, Smith & Sudweeks, 2019; van Driel, Berry & Meirink, 2014). Pedagogical Science Content Knowledge (PSCK). The formal interviews and survey results discuss a major focus on pedagogical science content knowledge that a teacher must have instead of the science content knowledge ergo they need to know how to teach science not as much the science content itself. The informal interviews reinforced this idea as well. One of the interviewees said: Our golden rule of teaching science and with professional development is ABC, Activities Before Content. But we always start with some sort of hands-on activity that is meant to help teachers to explore a concept that we're trying to teach. Teaching science with these pedagogical science content knowledge strategies has been deemed effective by the formal, non-formal and informal educators that participated in the study. One of informal educators talked about this construct as well and the informal science literature backed her up when it stated that in teaching there should be a ‘80/20’ rule that dictates that activities be at least 80% hands-on with no more than 20% of the time spent on lecture or passive learning (Todd & Zvoch, 2019). A non-formal educator stated during the interview that: building inquiry as a skill in a collaborative and iterative process in partnership with elementary school teachers is the best way to teach elementary school teachers to STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 115 incorporate scientific inquiry. By doing it collaboratively, it increases the elementary school teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching in that manner in the future. Pedagogical science content knowledge was further subdivided into an adaption of the elementary code of “student led, teacher facilitated” which was modeling how to teach this way ergo “modeling the student-led, teacher facilitates' ' roles. For the modeling of this instructional method in STEM, there were over 35 references in nine interviews and each educator context (formal, non-formal and informal) included references to this construct. Prior research states that the process of teaching learning is similar to student learning and that science subject matter knowledge needs to be actively constructed in both informal and formal contexts (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Piaget, 1978; Vygotsky, 1978).The idea of a teacher being in both the student mode and teacher mode during a professional development session works to demonstrate and model how to effectively teach elementary school teachers how to teach science and technology. I would consider integrating STEM with local and culturally relevant pedagogy connections as a best practice for teaching science to elementary school teachers, but it must be demonstrated using pragmatic and phronesis based examples. If elementary teachers could integrate strategies and experiences from various educational sectors, it would help them integrate science and technology into their classrooms more effectively. Technological Pedagogical Science Knowledge (TPASK). Each of the various educational contexts talked about the various examples of how they utilized technology pedagogically to teach science content knowledge to their elementary school teachers that they work with. Online simulations were described in all educational contexts to demonstrate things too big or small to see with the human eye and facilitate inquiry. The non-formal educators described particular examples of their technology usage to teach science with aligned STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 116 pedagogical strategies are seen in Table 25. One of them described a model of technology integration for teachers that she uses to teach her elementary school teachers in training specifically the acronym PICRAT that I would recommend incorporating when teaching with elementary school teachers. It describes identifying how you use technology in a passive, interactive or creative way and if one is using technology to replace, amplify or transform the science instruction they are doing. An Elementary Science Teacher Identity Since the formal educators are the first barrier to entry for training elementary school teachers during their preservice preparatory program, they are part of the systemic problem of elementary school teachers not being prepared to teach science effectively, which is reinforced when they see their students as science deficient based on the context they came from. The most notable response from the survey was the science teacher educator mindset when it comes to what they think about their elementary school teachers, specifically 37% said that they do not think that elementary school teachers have strong science teaching skills, which is presumably why they integrate so much of the pedagogical science content knowledge into their trainings. The literature confirms this when it describes the science content background of elementary school teachers. One study state: “one percent of elementary teachers have taken coursework in engineering and 68% of elementary teachers are missing coursework in one or more of the three major science domains (earth/ space, life, and physical science) (Banilower et al., 2018). Each educational context needs to figure out how to effectively support the development of an elementary school teacher’s science teacher identity. By supporting elementary school teachers, Chen & Mensah (2018) one has to be able to STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 117 address challenges of low self-efficacy, self-confidence, and pedagogical content knowledge in science. Meaningful teaching experiences in student teaching placements and field-based science methods courses provide opportunities for teachers to develop their identities as science teachers and deepen their understanding of social justice issues in science. (p.420) This recommendation was not learner-centered, it was teacher-centered and building a science teacher identity for elementary school teachers increased their efficacy and confidence. Limitations for the Science Teacher Educators The limitations that were present in the science teacher educator population of the study include that the n or numbers were smaller than the elementary school teachers with only 40 individuals filling out the survey. In terms of the interviews, whilst there were more interviews holistically (10 total), this was subdivided into three formal, three non-formal, and four informal interviews to reflect each of the subpopulations of teacher educators. To increase internal validity, I could have performed more interviews with each of the subcategories and further triangulated it between educational context. An additional limitation is the sole researcher bias, which I addressed using member checks with one of the non-formal interviewees. In terms of external validity and transferability, I think this study would have been significantly different if it was started after the coronavirus pandemic of the year 2020. I think many elementary school teachers have been thrust into the online and virtual teaching spaces and that their responses to both my survey and my interviews would vary greatly if this study was conducted a year later. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 118 Implications for Practice Recommendation #1: Integrate STEM Through Interdisciplinarity One overarching new theme that was introduced during this study in both the surveys and the interviews was the concept of STEM integration into the elementary classroom. This included the idea that science as a content area could be integrated with other disciplines such as literacy, mathematics and even social studies. Since mathematics and literacy are heavily tested at the elementary level, it is recommended to link science and literacy specifically and intertwine mathematics in embedded STEM content. Romance & Vitale (2012) has eight principles that it recommends specifically for linking science and literacy instruction at the elementary level: 1. Use the logical structure of concepts in the discipline as the basis for a grade articulated curricular framework. 2. Ensure that the curricular framework provides students with a firm prior knowledge foundation essential for maximizing comprehension of ‘new’ content to be taught. 3. Focus instruction on core disciplinary concepts (and relationships) of a domain and explicitly address prior knowledge and cumulative review. 4. Provide adequate amounts of initial and follow-up instructional time necessary to achieve cumulative conceptual understanding emphasizing ‘students learning more about what they are learning’. 5. Guide meaningful student conceptual organization of knowledge by linking different types of instructional activities (e.g. hands-on science, reading comprehension, propositional concept mapping, journaling/writing, applications) to those concepts. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 119 6. Provide students with opportunities to represent the structure of conceptual knowledge across cumulative learning experiences as a basis for oral and written communication (e.g. propositional concept mapping, journaling/writing). 7. Reference a variety of conceptually oriented tasks for the purpose of assessment in order to distinguish between students with and without in-depth understanding (e.g. distinguishing positive vs. negative examples, using IF/THEN principles to predict outcomes, applying abductive reasoning to explain phenomena that occur in terms of science concepts). 8. Recognize how and why in-depth, meaningful, cumulative learning within a content- oriented discipline provides a necessary foundation for developing proficiency in reading comprehension and written communication. (p. 1359) I am reiterating that elementary school teachers need to see concrete examples of effective and ineffective pedagogical practices when it comes to STEM integration and the list of eight principles above is a great set of guidelines for elementary school teachers to get started with. “in order for such in-depth science instruction to be adopted as a primary means for developing student reading comprehension, schools must have an evidence-based rationale as a foundation for justifying increased time for science instruction...all of the instructional strategies for engendering the development of science students’ in-depth understanding (e.g. hands-on activities, inquiry-oriented questioning, journaling), therefore, are also applicable to building student proficiency in reading comprehension” (Romance & Vitale, 2012, p. 1351). Science content integration is important but so is technology integration. Schmidt & Fulton (2016) said “quality STEM education hinges on the utilization of advanced technologies both for facilitating the learning process as well as to foster students’ technological literacy” (Schmidt & Fulton STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 120 2016). I understand that the technology issue will be much harder than the science content issue because if the issues relating to not only access and equity, but with the constant paradigms shifts in the field of educational technology with new technologies emerging faster than teachers can be trained on how to effectively incorporate them (Howard, 2019). Recommendation #2: Build Partnerships Since systematically, we do not prepare elementary school teachers to integrate STEM, they need support from many educational contexts. Partnerships with non-formal and informal institutions for both on-site and off-site professional development. Prior research from McGinnis, Hestness, Riedinger, Katz, Marbach-Ad, and Dai (2012) has shown that the inclusion of informal science education institutions during a formal preservice preparation program has reported a: number of perceived benefits in developing positive attitudes (the value, interest, and excitement of science and the environment – including a respect for life, toward an open mind for change, confidence in teaching), pedagogy (the use of theory in practice, collaboration, teaching for all, classroom management, resource management), science skills (explore, observe, inquire, plan, evaluate, think critically and creatively, work both independently and socially, solve problems), and understandings (explanations for how the world works and the relationship between science and technology). (p. 1100) By making these connections between informal, non-formal and formal institutions, one can better develop confidence in an elementary school teacher’s science teacher identity while supplementing what they learn not only in the preservice preparatory program but in their own in-service classrooms. Previous studies demonstrate that informal and non-formal settings “shift the focus away from performance-based measures [for elementary school teachers] in science STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 121 content to a focus on developing aspects of the affective domain,” which can increase their own involvement in science education (McGinnis, Hestness, Riedinger, Katz, Marbach-Ad, & Dai, 2012, p. 1100). Another study in informal science education stated that the partnership with an informal science institution made the science fun and relevant to their lives and the elementary school teachers reported that a science center-based teaching practicum had a very high impact on their curiosity and interest in science (Ferry, 1995). Follow-up studies indicated that most elementary school teachers entered their preservice preparatory programs with conceptions of science as boring and difficult to master. However, after participating in a science methods course, which included a practicum experience at a science and history museum, more than 90% of the preservice teachers indicated an increased interest in science on post-course questionnaires Kelly (2000). By bridging the gap between informal, non-formal and formal institutions, elementary school teachers benefit in terms of their own science instruction and increase their self-efficacy, self- confidence, and identity as a science teacher. Implications for Innovation The architecture of the study is based on my own experience navigating the formal, informal, and non-formal realms. I wanted to make sure that this study included not only direct voices of elementary school teachers but also the voices of formal, informal, and non-formal fields that support elementary school teachers. There are so many constraints and restrictions on elementary school teachers and their practice and they need to be supported in building their science expertise, identity and beyond. This study was based on my own experience in this field. To make systematic changes to elementary school teacher education and professional development, innovative and creative practices must be demanded to bridge the gap with STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 122 elementary school teachers. I have implemented the recommendations of the study within my non-formal science education program and created STEM based curricular apprenticeships with preservice elementary school teachers to create an interdisciplinary and innovative STEM lesson plan writing experience. Implications for Policy STEM Education is a Civil Rights Issue I believe that access to high-quality STEM education is a civil rights issue and should be at the forefront of educational policy change and should be taught from a social justice and antiracist lens. I agree with Mensah (2008, 2009) when they said: constructing a social justice science teacher identity involves believing that every child has the right to learn and have free access to science, providing quality science learning opportunities to all students, and identifying with others committed to teaching science in elementary classrooms. Becoming a social justice science teacher requires an openness to change, self-awareness, and self-reflexivity. (p. 599) Both teacher educators and elementary school teachers will need to be able to focus on the needs diversity, equity, and inclusion lenses of science that specifically impact underrepresented and underserved students in STEM while also being able to examine their own positionality and biases and responding with action (Chubbuck, 2010; Mensah, 2008; Rivera Maulucci, 2013; Chen & Mensah, 2018). Until this self-reflection with the authority figures of various educational contexts occurs, radical change to STEM-ify the education field will not occur. Curricular Policy Changes Formal preservice preparatory programs for elementary school teachers should embed their content instruction in STEM and teach reading, math, and social studies through that STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 123 interdisciplinary lens. Formal educators need to model how to do that pedagogically whilst including the nature of science, incorporating inquiry and providing settings for elementary school teachers to be able to try out the STEM content like a STEM methods course. These curricular policy changes are needed because preservice elementary teachers do not have opportunities to observe experienced teachers engaging in science teaching and that they are being guided by mentors who do not engage in science teaching themselves (Travers and Harris 2008). Furthermore, prior research by Romance & Vitale (2012) has shown that by replacing traditional reading/language arts with in-depth science learning results in substantial student achievement acceleration in science, reading comprehension and writing...Building on a foundation of interdisciplinary research perspectives and findings, science education researchers and practitioners alike could have an opportunity to argue for systemic changes in present curricular policy to increase substantially the instructional emphasis on in-depth science instruction in grades K–5. (p. 1368) I am one of those science education researchers and practitioners that would like to argue for systematic changes in curricular policy and advocate for a substantial increase in in-depth science and technology instruction in grades K-5. Future Research While conducting study, there were various areas of potential research that can be investigated in the future. This study was conducted during the 2019 to 2020 academic year. The data was being analyzed during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, which brought a barrage of tangentially related questions. Educators globally had to adjust to a virtual teaching setting almost overnight with very little training or experience. One area of future research would be looking at the TPASK framework and how this has shifted for elementary school teachers STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 124 during the pandemic. Questions arise around comfort about this technology integration and within it are elementary school teachers still trying to teach science in this new virtual landscape. Additionally, another area of research that I would recommend is in the implementation of the new standards. The standards are being fully implemented in some states in the United States, adapted to that state’s framework in others, and not being incorporated in some other states. It would be interesting to see how both students and teachers are adapting to these changes. Two potential areas for more research arose from the emerging themes in the interview data. Specifically, I would recommend delving further into interdisciplinary integration of science and technology combined with literacy and math. Since this emerged as a theme within my data and became a suggested best practice science teacher educator, I would recommend a further exploration of just this topic with similar audiences. The second area would look into science teacher identity or the lack of it at the elementary level. I would recommend doing science autobiographies for the elementary school teachers to better understand their own science experiences. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 125 References Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers' conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International journal of science education, 22(7), 665-701. Abell, S. (1990). A case for the elementary science specialist. School Science and Mathematics, 90(4), 291–301. Abell, S. K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. Handbook of research on science education, 1105-1149. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & education, 52(1), 154-168. Appleton, K. (2006). Elementary Science Teacher Education: International Perspectives on Contemporary Issues and Practice. Routledge Ltd. Appleton, K. (2007). Elementary science teaching. In S. K. Abel & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 493–535). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence. Aaron, I. D. (2017) STEM Is Elementary: Challenges Faced by Elementary Teachers in the Era of the Next Generation Science Standards, The Educational Forum, 81:1, 83-91, DOI: 10.1080/00131725.2016.1242678 Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and children, 46(2), 26. Banilower, E. R., Fulp, S. L., & Warren, C. L. (2010). Science: It’s elementary. Year four evaluation report. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.horizon-research.com/reports/2010/sieyr4.php STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 126 Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weis, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc. Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Malzahn, K. A., Plumley, C. L., Gordon, E. M., & Hayes, M. L. (2018). Report of the 2018 NSSME+. Horizon Research, Inc. Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W., & Feder, M. A. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits (Vol. 32, No. 3, p. 127). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Bencze, J. (2010). Promoting student-led science and technology projects in elementary teacher education: Entry into core pedagogical practices through technological design. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, v. 20 (1). p. 43-63. Bleicher, R. (2007). Nurturing confidence in preservice elementary science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 40, 841-860. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, Mass: Pearson A & B. Bracey, G., Brooks, M., Marlette, S., & Locke, S. (2013). Teachers’n training: Building formal STEM teaching efficacy through informal science teaching experience. In ASQ Advancing the STEM Agenda Conference, Grand Valley State University, Michigan. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. National Acad. Pr. https://doi.org/10.17226/6160 Bybee, R. W., Powell, J. C., Ellis, J. D., Giese, J. R., Parisi, L., & Singleton, L. (1991). Integrating the history and nature of science and technology in science and social studies curriculum. Science Education, 75(1), 143–155. doi:10.1002/sce.3730750113 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 127 Bybee, R. W. (2014) NGSS and the Next Generation of Science Teachers, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25:2, 211-221, DOI: 10.1007/s10972-014-9381-4 Cantrell, P., Young, S., & Moore, A. (2003). Factors affecting science teaching efficacy of preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(3),177-192. Century, J., Rudnick, M., & Freeman, C. (2008). Accumulating knowledge on elementary science specialists: A strategy for building conceptual clarity and sharing findings. Science Educator, 17(2), 31–44. Chen, J. L., & Mensah, F. M. (2018). Teaching contexts that influence elementary preservice teachers’ teacher and science teacher identity development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29(5), 420-439. Chubbuck, S. M. (2010). Individual and structural orientations in socially just teaching: Conceptualization, implementation, and collaborative effort. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 197–210. doi:10.1177/0022487109359777 Combs, H., & Prosser, R. (1973). C-Ahmed, M-New paths to learning for rural children and youth. International Council for Education development. Publications Essex, Connecticut–New York. Coombs, P. H. and Ahmed, M. Attacking Rural Poverty: How Nonformal Education Can Help. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cox, S. M. (2008). A conceptual analysis of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Dani, Danielle E., Hartman, Sara L. & Helfrich, Sara R. (2018) Learning to Teach Science: STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 128 Elementary Teacher Candidates Facilitate Informal STEM Events, The New Educator, 14:4, 363-380, DOI: 10.1080/1547688X.2017.1356413 Dass, Pradeep. (2015). Teaching STEM Effectively with the Learning Cycle Approach. K-12 STEM Education. 1. 10.14456/k12stemed.2015.17. Diamond, J., & Spillane, J. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality? The Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1145– 1176. Daugherty, Michael K.; Carter, Vinson; and Swagerty, Lindsey (2014) "Elementary STEM Education: The Future for Technology and Engineering Education?," Journal of STEM Teacher Education: Vol. 49: Iss. 1, Article 7. DOI: doi.org/10.30707/JSTE49.1Daugherty Dawson, V. (2008). Use of information and communication technology by early career science teachers in Western Australia. International Journal of Science Education, 30 (2), pp. 203-219 Dejarnette, N.K. (2012). America’s Children: Providing early exposure to STEM Initiatives. Education, 133(1), 77-84. Delgado, R. (1995a). The imperial scholar revisited: How to marginalize outsider writing, ten years later. In R. Delgado (Ed.), Critical race theory: The cutting edge (pp. 401-408). Philadelphia: Temple University Press. DiFrancesca, D., Lee, C., & McIntyre, E. (2014). Where Is the" E" in STEM for Young Children? Engineering Design Education in an Elementary Teacher Preparation Program. Issues in Teacher Education, 23(1), 49-64. Douglas, K. A., Rynearson, A., Yoon, S. Y., & Diefes-dux, H. (2016). Two elementary schools' STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 129 developing potential for sustainability of engineering education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(3), 309-334. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1007/s10798-015-9313-4 Duncan, D., Diefes‐dux, H., & Gentry, M. (2011). Professional Development Through Engineering Academies: An Examination of Elementary Teachers’ Recognition and Understanding of Engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(3), 520–539. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00025.x Epstein, D., & Miller, R. T. (2011). Elementary school teachers and the crisis in STEM education. The Education Digest, 77(1), 4. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59, 423–435. Eshach, H. (2007). Bridging in-school and out-of-school learning: Formal, non-formal, and informal education. Journal of science education and technology, 16(2), 171-190. Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2010). The 95 percent solution. American Scientist, 98(6), 486-493. Ferry, B. (1995). Science Centers in Australia Provide Valuable Training for Preservice Teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(3), 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02211840 Flick, L., & Bell, R. (2000). Preparing tomorrow's science teachers to use technology: Guidelines for science educators. Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 1(1), 39-60. Flipgrid. (n.d.). Retrieved July 03, 2020, from https://info.flipgrid.com/ STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 130 Fralick, B., Kearn, J., Thompson, S., & Lyons, J. (2009). How middle schoolers draw engineers and scientists. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(1), 60-73. Fulp, S. L. (2002).The status of elementary school science teaching. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research. Retrieved from http://www.horizon- research.com/reports/2002/2000survey/elem sci.php Furner, J. M., & Kumar, D. D. (2007). The mathematics and science integration argument: A stand for teacher education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology, 3(3), 185–189. Gerstein, J. (2015). STEM for Elementary School Students–How to Instill a Lifelong Love of Science. Education Insider. Ginns, I. S., & Watters, J. J. (1995). An analysis of scientific understandings of preservice elementary teacher education students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,32, 1098–2736. Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. London, United Kingdom: Pearson. Granger, E. M., Bevis, T. H., Saka, Y., & Southerland, S. A. (2009 April). Comparing the efficacy of reform-based and traditional/verification curricula to support student learning about space science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, CA: Garden Grove Greenberg, A. McKee, K. Walsh. (2013). Teacher prep review 2013 report. National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Teacher_Prep_Review_2013_Report STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 131 Guzey, S., Tank, K., Wang, H., Roehrig, G., & Moore, T. (2014). A High-Quality Professional Development for Teachers of Grades 3-6 for Implementing Engineering into Classrooms: Engineering Integration. School Science and Mathematics, 114(3), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12061 Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Harper, B. and Milman, N.B. (2016), “One-to-one technology in K-12 classrooms: a review of the literature from 2004 through 2014”, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 129-142, doi: 10.1080/15391523.2016.1146565. High, K., Antonenko, P., Damron, R., Stansberry, S., Hudson, G., Dockers, J., & Peterson, A. (2009). The effect of A teacher professional development integrated curriculum workshop on perceptions of design, engineering, and technology experiences. Atlanta: American Society for Engineering Education-ASEE. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest- com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/2317963118?accountid=14749 Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, A. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington: National Academies Press. Howard, N. R. (2019). EdTech Leaders’ Beliefs: How are K-5 Teachers Supported with the Integration of Computer Science in K-5 Classrooms?. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24(2), 203-217. Jang, S. J. (2006). The effects of incorporating web‐assisted learning with team teaching in seventh‐grade science classes. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 615- 632. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 132 Jang, S. J. (2008). The effects of integrating technology, observation and writing into a teacher education method course. Computers & Education, 50(3), 853-865. Jang, S. J., & Chen, K. C. (2010). From PCK to TPACK: Developing a transformative model for pre-service science teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(6), 553- 564. Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers professional development. Computers & Education, 55, 1259-1269. Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education. Committee on K-12 Engineering Education, National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council of the National Academies, 1-14. Kelly, J. (2000). Rethinking the elementary science methods course: a case for content, pedagogy, and informal science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 755–777. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690050044080 Kim, M., Hannafin, M., & Bryan, L. (2007). Technology‐enhanced inquiry tools in science education: An emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science Education, 91(6), 1010-1030. Kirschner, P., M. Selinger. (2003) The state of affairs of teacher education with respect to information and communications technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 12 (1) (2003), pp. 5-18 Kimmons, R., Graham, C. R., & West, R. E. (2020). The PICRAT model for technology integration in teacher preparation. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 20(1), 176-198. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 133 King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College teaching, 41(1), 30-35. Krippendorff, K. (2013) Content Analysis. An Introduction to Its Methodology. 3rd ed. Los Angeles et al.: Sage. Kubieck, J. (2005). Inquiry-based learning, the nature of science, and computer technology: New possibilities in science education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 31(1) LaPorte, J., & Sanders, M. (1993). The T/S/M integration project: Integrating technology, science, and mathematics in the middle school. Technology Teacher, 52(6), 17–21. Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575–614. Lederman, N. G., Kuerbis, P. J., Loving, C. C., Ramey-Gassert, L., Roychoudhury, A., & Spector, B. S. (1997). Professional knowledge standards for science teacher educators. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(4), 233-240. Lemke, J. (2006). Toward critical multimedia literacy: Technology, research, and politics. International handbook of literacy and technology: Volume two, 3-14 Li, Y. (2008), Mathematical Preparation of Elementary School Teachers: Generalists versus Content Specialists. School Science and Mathematics, 108: 169-172. doi:10.1111/j.1949- 8594.2008.tb17825.x Loepp, F. L. (1999). Models of Curriculum Integration. Journal of Technology Studies, 25(2), 2–11. Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JOTS/Summer-Fall- 1999/Loepp.html Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. W. (2003). Designing STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 134 professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers' understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Routledge. Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3 rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. McComas, W.F. & Olson, J.K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Kluwer Academic Publishers: The Netherlands. McGinnis, J. R., Hestness, E., Riedinger, K., Katz, P., Marbach-Ad, G., & Dai, A. (2012). Informal science education in formal science teacher preparation. In Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1097-1108). Springer, Dordrecht. McMurrer, J. (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes for specific subjects. Washington, D.C.: Center on Education Policy Mensah, F. M. (2008). Agency, identity, and social justice education: Preservice teachers’ thoughts on becoming agents of change in urban elementary science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 38, 589–610. Mensah, F. M. (2009). Confronting assumptions, biases, and stereotypes in preservice teachers’ conceptualizations of science teaching through the use of book club. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 1041–1066. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2012). Talk science primer. Cambridge, MA: TERC. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 135 Mouza, C., & Lavigne, N. (2013). Emerging technologies for the classroom: A learning sciences perspective. New York: Springer. Murphy, T. (2011). STEM education—It’s elementary. US News & World Report, 1. Museus, S., Palmer, R., Davis, R., & Maramba, D. (2011). Special issue: Racial and ethnic minority students’ success in STEM. ASHE Higher Education Report, 36(6), 1-140. Nadelson, L.S., J. Callahan, P. Pyke, A. Hay, M. Dance, J. Pfiester. (2013). Teacher STEM perception and preparation: Inquiry-based STEM professional development for elementary teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 106 (2) pp. 157-168 National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards’’. National Academy Press. Washington: DC. National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (2011).A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Science Teachers Association. (2002b). An NSTA position statement: Scientific inquiry. Arlington, VA: Author Next Generation Science Standards. (n.d.). Retrieved July 04, 2020, from https://www.nextgenscience.org/ Niess, M.L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, Volume 21, Issue 5, Pages 509-523, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.006. Nixon, R. S., Smith, L. K., & Sudweeks, R. R. (2019). Elementary teachers’ science subject STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 136 matter knowledge across the teacher career cycle. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(6), 707-731. Ottenbreit-Leftiwch, A., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student needs. Computers & Education, 55, 1321–1335. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. PhET Interactive Simulations. (n.d.). Retrieved July 03, 2020, from https://phet.colorado.edu/ Phenomena. (n.d.). Retrieved June 21, 2020, from https://www.nextgenscience.org/resources/phenomena Piaget, J. (1978). Success and understanding. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Polly, D. (2014). Elementary School Teachers’ Use of Technology During Mathematics Teaching. Computers in the Schools, 31(4), 271–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2014.969079 Polly, D., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Examining how learner-centered professional development influences teachers’ espoused and enacted practices. Journal of Educational Research, 104, 120–130. Qualtrics XM - Experience Management Software. (2020, June 11). Retrieved July 03, 2020, from https://www.qualtrics.com/ Reflecting on Practice (n.d.). Retrieved July 04, 2020, from http://reflectingonpractice.org/about/ Rice, D. C. & Roychoudhury, A. (2003). Preparing more confident preservice elementary STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 137 science teachers: One elementary science methods teacher’s self-study. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(2), 97-126. Rivera Maulucci, M. S. (2013). Emotions and positional identity in becoming a social justice science teacher: Nicole’s story. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(4), 453–478. doi:10.1002/etc. v50.4 Robinson, A., Shore, B. M., & Enersen, D. L. (2007). Best practices in gifted education: An evidence-based guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2012). Interdisciplinary perspectives linking science and literacy in grades K–5: Implications for policy and practice. In Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1351-1373). Springer, Dordrecht. Ross, J.A. (1998). The antecedents and consequences of teacher efficacy. In J. Brophy (Ed.) Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 7, p. 49-74). Greenwich, CN: JAL. Sanders, M. & Wells, J.G. (2006). Integrative STEM education. Retrieved from http://www.soe.vt.edu/istemed/ Satchwell, R. E., & Loepp, F. L. (2002). Designing and implementing an integrated mathematics, science, and technology curriculum for the middle school. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3). Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v39n3/satchwell.html Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson A. D., Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P. & Shin, T. (2009-10). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The Development and Validation of an Assessment Instrument for Preservice Teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123-149. Schmidt, M. & Fulton, L. (2016). Transforming a Traditional Inquiry-Based Science Unit into a STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 138 STEM Unit for Elementary Pre-service Teachers: A View from the Trenches. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(2), 302–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015- 9594-0 Schneider, S., Dorph, R., Goldstein, D., Lee, S., Lepori, K., & Venkatesan, S. (2007). The status of science education in the Bay Area: Research brief. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California. Retrieved from http://static.lawrencehallofscience.org/ rea/bayareastudy/pdf/final_to_print_research_brief.pdf Settlage, J. (2007). Demythologizing science teacher education: Conquering the false ideal of open inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 461–467 Settlagh, J. (2000) Understanding the learning cycle: influences on abilities to embrace the approach by preservice elementary school teachers, Sci. Educ. 84, 43–50. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. Smith, D., (2000) Content and Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Elementary Science Teacher Educators: Knowing our Students, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11:1, 27-46, DOI: 10.1023/A:1009471630989 Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28–34. Swift, T. M., & Watkins, S. E. (2004). An engineering primer for outreach to K-4 education. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 5(3/4), 67-76. from http://skillfulthinking.org/stem/research/item2 _engr_k4_outreach.pdf. Teo T., Modelling technology acceptance in education: a study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 52 (2009), pp. 302-312 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 139 Tilgner, P. J. (1990). Avoiding science in the elementary school. Science Education, 74(4), 421–424. Todd, B., & Zvoch, K. (2019). The effect of an informal science intervention on middle school girls’ science affinities. International Journal of Science Education, 41(1), 102–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1534022 Travers, K. A., & Harris, C. J. (2008, April). Contributions of the mentor teacher: Opportunities for pre-service science teacher learning during the methods semester. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Baltimore, MD. Tzu-Chiang Lin, Chin-Chung Tsai, Ching Sing Chai, & Min-Hsien Lee. (2013). Identifying Science Teachers’ Perceptions of Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(3), 325–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9396-6 van Driel, J. H., Berry, A., & Meirink, J. (2014) Research on science teacher knowledge. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on science education (Vol. II, pg 848-870). New York, NY: Routledge. Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press. Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York, NY: Maxwell Macmillan International. Weiss, I. R., Banilower, E. R., McMahon, K. C., & Smith, P. S. (2001). Report of the 2000 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 140 Wepner, S.B., N. Ziomek, L. Tao (2003). Three teacher educators’ perspectives about the shifting responsibilities of infusing technology into the curriculum. Action in Teacher Education, 24 (4), pp. 53-63 Westerback, M. E. (1982). Studies on attitude toward teaching science and anxiety about teaching science in preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(7), 603–616. Weston, M.E. and Bain, A. (2010), “The end of techno-critique: the naked truth about 1:1 laptop initiatives and educational change,” Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 5-10. Wilder, M., Shuttleworth, P. (2005) Cell Inquiry: A 5e Learning Cycle Lesson, Science Activities, 41:4, 37-43, DOI: 10.3200/SATS.41.4.37-43 Yasar, S., Baker, D., Robinson-Kurpius, S., Krause, S., Roberts, C. (2006). Development of a Survey to Assess K-12 Teachers' Perceptions of Engineers and Familiarity with Teaching Design, Engineering, and Technology. Journal of Engineering Education, v. 95 no. 3 p. 205-16. Yoon, C. H. (2009). Self-regulated learning and instructional factors in the scientific inquiry of scientifically gifted Korean middle school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 203–216 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 141 Tables Table 1 Differences between formal, informal and nonformal learning Formal Non-formal Informal Usually at School At Institution Out Of school Everywhere May be repressive Usually supportive Supportive Structured Structured Unstructured Usually prearranged Usually prearranged Spontaneous Motivation is typically more extrinsic Motivation may be extrinsic, but it is typically more intrinsic Motivation is mainly intrinsic Compulsory Usually voluntary Voluntary Teacher-led May be guide or teacher-led Usually learner-led Learning is evaluated Learning is not evaluated Learning is not evaluated Sequential Typically, not sequential Non-sequential Note. Adapted from Eshach, 2007, p. 174. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 142 Table 2 Alignment between the phases of the Learning Cycle and Scientific and Engineering Practices Phases of the 5E Model of the Learning Cycle Essential Scientific and Engineering Practices (Based on A framework for K-12 Science Education) Engagement Phase ● Asking Questions ● Defining Problems Exploration Phase ● Developing and Using Models ● Devising Testable Hypotheses ● Planning and Carrying Out Investigations ● Collecting, Analyzing, and Interpreting Data ● Using Mathematics and Computational Thinking Explanation Phase ● Analyzing and Interpreting Data ● Constructing Explanations and Critiquing Arguments Based on Evidence ● Designing Solutions ● Communicating and Interpreting Scientific Information Elaboration Phase Applying and Using STEM Knowledge Evaluation Phase Applying and Using STEM Knowledge Note. Adapted from Dass, 2015, p. 6. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 143 Table 3 Pedagogical Science Knowledge Knowledge Components Descriptive Components Scientific knowledge ● Structure of Science ● Facts, theories, and practices ● History and Philosophy of Science ● Nature of Science ● Relationships among Science, Technology and Society Science curriculum ● General Purposes of Science Education ● Specific learning goals for various units ● Philosophy of Science Education Curriculum ● Resources available Transformation of scientific knowledge ● Organizing scientific knowledge (facts, theories, practices) ● Multiple representations of scientific knowledge ● Teaching nature of science ● Teaching science, technology, and society Students’ learning difficulties about specific scientific fields ● Students’ prior knowledge ● Students’ misconceptions ● Students’ cognitive barriers ● Students’ scientific method skills ● Students’ learning profile Learning Strategies ● Promoting student motivation and engagement ● Using student experimental-practical work ● Use of scientific inquiry ● Use of scientific explanation ● Use of constructivist approaches ● Use of cognitive conflict situations General Pedagogy ● Knowing basic pedagogy ● Developing pedagogical philosophy ● Knowing pedagogical strategies STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 144 Educational Context ● Educational purposes ● School culture ● Practical knowledge ● Classroom organizational knowledge Note. Adapted from Jimoyiannis, 2010, p. 1263. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 145 Table 4 Technological Science Knowledge Knowledge Components Descriptive Components Resources and tools available for science subjects ● Simulations ● Modeling tools ● Spreadsheets ● Conceptual mapping tools ● Multimedia, encyclopedias ● Applications on the web ● Scientific web resources ● Web 2.0 application Operational and Technical Skills related to Specific Scientific Knowledge ● Effective use of simulation software to model specific content ● Effective use of conceptual mapping software to model specific content Transformation of Scientific Knowledge ● Dynamic representation of specific scientific knowledge ● Simulations of specific scientific knowledge ● Virtual experimentation ● Conceptual mapping in specific areas ● Geospatial technologies in Geography ● Changes in Nature of Science Transformation of Scientific processes ● Information and communications technology-based problem-solving approaches in science ● New methods used to solve problems in science ● New methods used to analyze experimental data ● Modeling and simulation methods of specific content in physics, chemistry and biology Note. Adapted from Jimoyiannis, 2010, p. 1263. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 146 Table 5 Components of the science TPASK curriculum. Curriculum Components TPACK framework Teacher Learning Strategies Introduction to basic technical skills on using Information and communications technology (ICT) tools in science education TK Practical training, learning by doing, collaboration Introduction to the affordances and the added value of ICT in science education TSK Classroom presentation, practical training, discussion, collaboration Introduction to student- centered approaches pedagogical approaches PSK Classroom presentation, discussion Introduction to science education, including student pre-existing knowledge issues, misconceptions, and learning barriers, cognitive conflict examples. PSK Classroom presentation, discussion, teacher practical knowledge, selected papers from the literature Use of ICT- based existing educative curriculum materials TPASK Educative curriculum materials; debate and collaboration Discussion of materials on practicality for classroom use TPASK Grounding learning in classroom practice, collaboration Development of simulations for specific content by participating science teachers TSK Learning by design simulations Study of how ICT can support specific pedagogical strategies and goals in the classroom TPK Classroom presentations, discussion, selected papers from the literature Discussion on specific TPK Grounding learning in STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 147 software and environments and their uses as cognitive tools that enhance student learning in science classroom, practice and collaboration Design and development of complete simulation-based learning scenarios by participating science teachers TPASK Learning by Design Design and development of complete learning scenarios, by participating science teachers using ICT tools TPASK Learning by Design Science teachers’ debating their own educational materials with colleagues and their educators TPASK Grounding learning in classroom, practice and collaboration Revision of the developed lesson materials based on feedback TPASK Feedback; debating with colleagues, educators’ comments Experimental teaching using their own lesson materials to their colleagues and the coordinator (micro-teaching) TPASK Feedback; debating with colleagues, educators’ comments Note. Reproduced from Jimoyiannis, 2010, p. 1264. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 148 Table 6 Demographics of the Elementary School Teacher Survey participants Race/Ethnicity Number of Respondents Percentage of Respondents African American/ Black 3 12.50 Latinx 3 12.50 Asian 2 8.33 White 15 62.5 Prefer Not to Answer 1 4.17 Total 24 100 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 149 Table 7 Elementary school teacher experience in years How many years have you been a teacher? Number of Respondents (N= 49) Percentage (%) of Respondents 1 5 10.21 2 3 6.12 3 1 2.04 4 1 2.04 5 2 4.08 5 or more 37 75.51 Total 49 100 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 150 Table 8 Elementary School Teacher’s Educational Context Setting Educational Context Setting Number (N=52) Title 1 26 Free or Reduced Lunch 22 Urban 17 Rural 5 Low-income 24 Middle-income 7 High-income 3 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 151 Table 9 Elementary School Teacher Preparedness in Science Do you feel prepared to teach science? Number of Respondents Percentage of Respondents (%) Yes 18 46.15 Maybe 16 41.03 No 5 12.82 Total 39 100 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 152 Table 10 Preservice Preparatory Program STEM incorporation Do you feel like your preservice preparatory program prepared you to incorporate STEM (specifically science and technology) into your classroom? Number of Respondents Percentage of Respondents (%) Yes 6 15.38 Maybe 8 20.51 No 25 64.11 Total 39 100.00 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 153 Table 11 Challenges in Teaching STEM What Challenges do you face? Number of Respondents (N= 52) Lack of funding for STEM supplies 27 No science curriculum 18 Students lack science knowledge 15 No access to a Science room, Makerspace, STEM lab space etc. 15 No access to STEM books 13 Not enough tech available per student 13 Insert one that is not mentioned above* 12 Lack of administration support 11 Lack of tech support 5 No internet 1 *The insert one that is not mentioned above submissions are in the paragraph following Table 11. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 154 Table 12 Participation in a Next Generation Science Standards Professional Development Session Have you been to a STEM or Next Generation Science Standard (NGSS) related professional development session? Number (N=39) Percentage of Respondents Yes 22 56.41 Maybe 4 10.26 No 13 33.33 Total 39 100.00 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 155 Table 13 Elementary School Teacher Technology Knowledge Survey Responses Question Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree Total I can learn technology easily 0.00% 3.85% 11.54% 38.46% 46.15% 26 I keep up with important new technologies 0.00% 7.69% 11.54% 69.23% 11.54% 26 I frequently play around with technology 0.00% 7.69% 15.38% 53.85% 23.08% 26 I know a lot of different technologies 0.00% 19.23% 19.23% 42.31% 19.23% 26 I have the technical skills I need to use technology 0.00% 15.38% 3.85% 53.85% 26.92% 26 I have had sufficient opportunities to work with different technologies 0.00% 11.54% 23.08% 38.46% 26.92% 26 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 156 Table 14 Technological Pedagogical Knowledge Survey Responses Question Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree Total I can choose technologies that enhance the teaching approaches for a lesson 7.69% 3.85% 23.08% 50.00% 15.38% 26 I can choose technologies that enhance students, learning for a lesson 7.69% 0.00% 19.23% 50.00% 23.08% 26 My teacher education program caused me to think more deeply about how technology could influence how to use technology in my classroom 38.46% 23.08% 19.23% 7.69% 11.54% 26 I am thinking critically about how to use technology in my classroom 7.69% 3.85% 19.23% 30.77% 38.46% 26 I can adapt the use of the technologies that I am learning about to different teaching activities 7.69% 0.00% 15.38% 42.31% 34.62% 26 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 157 Table 15 Survey Respondents to Science Content Knowledge Question Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree Total I have sufficient knowledge about science 7.69% 23.08% 11.54% 30.77% 26.92% 26 I can use a scientific way of thinking 7.69% 3.85% 11.54% 34.62% 42.31% 26 I have various ways and strategies of developing my understanding of science 7.69% 7.69% 3.85% 26.92% 53.85% 26 I can select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning in science 7.69% 0.00% 19.23% 34.62% 38.46% 26 I can address students‚ learning difficulties about specific scientific fields 7.69% 7.69% 7.69% 50.00% 26.92% 26 I can transform/translate scientific knowledge into systems they understand 7.69% 11.54% 7.69% 42.31% 30.77% 26 I have the scientific knowledge to be able to teach science effectively in my classroom 7.69% 15.38% 3.85% 46.15% 26.92% 26 I have the resources available to teach science in my classroom 15.38% 30.77% 19.23% 23.08% 11.54% 26 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 158 Table 16 Survey Respondents in relation to Pedagogical Science Content Knowledge Question Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree Total I incorporate science pedagogical strategies 7.69% 11.54% 11.54% 50.00% 19.23% 26 My school culture promotes science learning 7.69% 23.08% 26.92% 26.92% 15.38% 26 I use inquiry as a science pedagogical strategy 7.69% 0.00% 3.85% 61.54% 26.92% 26 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 159 Table 17 Survey Respondents to TPASK Questions Question Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree Total I know about technologies that I can use for understanding and doing science 3.85% 11.54% 26.92% 34.62% 23.08% 26 I am aware of the resources and tools available for science subjects 3.85% 11.54% 30.77% 34.62% 19.23% 26 I understand how to transform scientific knowledge into technological platforms 15.38% 19.23% 26.92% 26.92% 11.54% 26 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 160 Table 18 Elementary Teachers Response to feeling unprepared to teach STEM How Elementary Teachers are Feeling Unprepared to Teach STEM Quotes from the Elementary Teachers Lack of Support ● “So, in the 15 years I've been teaching, our science curriculum has never been updated. The textbooks are older than the children. The same textbooks for science that were here when I got here are still here” ● “We have outdated science books and no real plan for science education and when I first got here, we actually didn't have any science materials, which was difficult” Lack of Planning Time ● “We don't have enough time to plan. It's not giving us enough time to plan.” Lack of Science Content Reinforcement at Elementary Level ● “Figuring out how to read the standards was not taught either. It was very voluntary if you wanted to choose to create science standards or science lessons or not” Lack of Training ● “I don't think there was anything about science in my pre-service teaching.” ● “We only had one week designated to science. We were encouraged to stay in ELA and history and not branch out to science because we hadn't covered that topic yet.” ● “I don't know a lot of things that are very relevant in science right now. I had to go and learn a lot of that content on my own time and it makes it very difficult to plan. I feel like if we would've had a class that at least covered more science content, it would be helpful, kind of like that ELA class.” Lack of Professional Development ● “We don't have that many PDs in science” ● “Most of the professional development at the school site is everything but science, we'll get maybe one or two in the entire school year” ● “We don't necessarily always revisit our teaching strategies of science. We're constantly revisiting math. We're constantly revisiting reading and writing, different strategies and techniques and STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 161 models of how students learn best from that and different supports for students to excel in those areas, but not necessarily science instruction.” Lack of infrastructure to incorporate science ● “So, it wasn't so much whether or not the program prepared me to teach science, but the logistics of it prevented a lot of teachers from incorporating science into their classroom.” Lack of Resources ● “Right now, teaching science at the elementary school level is a challenge with the change in NGSS and the lack of materials that are NGSS compliant” ● “We cannot find this stuff in order to conduct experiments” ● “I don't have access to fancy materials” Lack of Confidence in Science Teaching Ability ● “I don't think I'm doing enough science though, the way that it should be done.” ● “I think that happens with a lot of teachers if they weren't necessarily big on science as a student sometimes that translates as an educator to where they didn't necessarily have a lot of science exposure as a student” STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 162 Table 19 Educational Context of the Science Teacher Educators Identifier Number Percentage of Respondents Formal 8 40 Informal 8 40 Non-formal 4 20 Total 20 100 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 163 Table 20 Demographics of the Science Teacher Educators Race/Ethnicity Number of Respondents Percentage of Respondents African American/ Black 1 5.88 Latinx 2 11.76 Asian 2 11.76 White 10 58.82 Other 3 17.65 Total 18 105.87 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 164 Table 21 Open Ended Survey Responses from Science Teacher Educators Qualitative Code & Theoretical framework alignment Open ended Survey Quotes from Science Teacher Educators Science Teacher Identity “I don't often encounter elementary teachers who believe they can't teach science.” Lack of Preparedness (Time) “Instead, I encounter a lot of elementary school teachers who say they don't have enough time to teach science (and "can't" teach it as a result). These are two very distinct scenarios. For the teachers who don't have enough time.” Pedagogical Science Knowledge “We try to make it as easy and "doable" as possible. We demonstrate and experience multiple activities together while discussing options for making it work in classrooms. We try to use easily available and cheap materials to avoid the perception that they have to have expensive equipment to teach science. Elementary Teacher Preparedness We provide at least one full lesson sequence (unit) to each grade level, with all lesson plans written out and all necessary documents/worksheets, along with any harder to find materials so they can go back and teach it right away. We also recommend teachers start with Mystery Science, which we call the "gateway drug" to teaching science since they make it so easy for teachers, which helps to build their confidence.” STEM integration with literacy “We also train them to use interactive science notebooks with their class, which integrate language arts with the science and helps teachers feel more comfortable since they are more confident in their ELA teaching abilities.” Science Teacher Identity “I try to really hammer home the idea that, especially at a younger age, developing skills, habits, and practices is most important. A science teacher, especially at an elementary level, does not need to be the most well-versed person in all sciences, but rather be able to lead students through thoughtful discussions, inquiry activities and skill development in their students.” Pedagogical Science Knowledge “They get to experience science as learners as they are also learning to teach science” STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 165 Science Content Knowledge “Small, doable steps and activities. We talk a lot about how you don't need a degree in science to teach science, what science is, and how it looks like in the classroom. Teachers need to see plenty of examples of how science is done, which helps a lot.” STEM Integration “I've expanded on our interdisciplinary science workshop offerings. An example of a program series we developed is teaching science through picture books. In a way, these picture book science workshops also help teachers who believe they can't teach science (even if we haven't identified those participants as such) because it starts with something the teacher is already comfortable with and doing (ELA) and layers in science on top of that.” STEM Integration “One way that we encourage elementary teachers who believe they can't teach science is by showing them how they use strategies from literacy, social studies, and math teaching to teach science as well.” STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 166 Table 22 Survey Quotes from Science Teacher Educators in incorporating technology Qualitative Code & Theoretical framework alignment Survey Quote from various Science Teacher Educators focused on incorporate technology Lack of Technology Access “We actually don't incorporate too much technology since there are no guarantees that teachers and students have access to reliable technology in their classrooms. That said, our trainings are almost entirely paperless, as we keep everything on Google Drive and share with teachers.” Resource Distribution “This enables us to constantly update resources, as well as provides a convenient way for them to collaborate on planning documents, etc. We also recommend resources for online simulations that support their standards and other online resources.” Technology Knowledge “We use iPads to access photo printing software and track visitor data while on the floor. A laptop with connection to the Internet and a projector help students participate in school programs, view supporting videos, and access community science projects. The Science on a Sphere program is regularly incorporated into our programming.” Lack of Technology Access “It is difficult to incorporate technology into our professional learning because that would exclude teachers who do not have access to that technology. Technology Pedagogical Science Content Knowledge “As a way to upcycle, I do use outdated smartphones from our lost and found or donated from staff/parents to do physical science activities that can be measured using apps and smartphone sensors like accelerometers, barometers, etc. One of my favorite activities is to modify the standard egg drop challenge and replace the egg with a smartphone. The sensors on the phone then pick up the acceleration and deceleration, which can be graphed and used to represent the effectiveness of each design.” “We are 1-1 and have a robotics curriculum. We use the PICRAT framework so if it’s just being a replacement we try to think about how it can amplify the lesson. If technology doesn’t fit then we don’t use it.” STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 167 Table 23 Pedagogical Science Content Knowledge teaching to elementary school teachers Question Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Total I teach elementary teachers about the nature of science 5.26 0.00% 0.00% 10.53% 84.21% 19 I teach elementary teachers about the structure of science 10.52 0.00% 5.26% 26.32% 57.90% 19 I teach elementary teachers about the history of science 26.31 10.53% 15.79% 36.84% 10.53% 19 I teach elementary teachers to create science learning goals 5.26 0.00% 0.00% 15.79% 78.85% 19 I teach elementary teachers to find science curriculum resources 5.26 0.00% 5.26% 15.79% 73.69% 19 I teach elementary teachers to differentiate for varying educational settings 5.26 5.26% 5.26% 10.53% 73.68% 19 I think that elementary school teachers have strong science teaching skills 36.85 10.53% 10.53% 31.58% 10.53% 19 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 168 Table 24 Technology Pedagogical Science Content Knowledge teaching to Elementary School Teachers Question Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Total I help elementary school teachers utilize technologies that enhance the teaching approaches for a lesson 5.26% 5.26% 21.05% 31.58% 26.32% 19 I teach teachers to choose technologies that enhance students‚ learning for a lesson 10.53% 0.00% 21.05% 21.05% 21.05% 19 I teach teachers to think more deeply about how technology could influence how to use technology in their classrooms 15.79% 0.00% 21.05% 15.79% 31.58% 19 I teach teachers to think critically about how to use technology in their classrooms 5.26% 0.00% 26.32% 10.53% 31.58% 19 I teach teachers to adapt the use of the technologies to differentiate varying teaching activities 15.79% 10.53% 15.79% 5.26% 42.11% 19 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 169 Table 25 Technological Pedagogical Science Content Knowledge (TPASK) from Science Teacher Educators Educational Context (Formal, Informal, Non-formal) Quote Formal Teacher Educator “One side is the teacher and one side is what the technology is doing. So, R is, you're just straight replacing it, A is to amplify, T is to transform. And then, P-I-C, so P is that students are passive, I is that it's interactive and C is that it's creative.” Formal Teacher Educator “A lot of what we do in science is either on such a big scale, or such a small scale, that you can't really understand it with the human eye. But a lot of the set simulations now that we have, are so phenomenal, that we can see things that are so big or so small.” Formal Teacher Educator “My students have a hands-on learning experience even when they're not in front of me. So I do, do a lot of these online sims in that way or you know just have them do something at home in their house and take pictures or something, but I think you did the online simulation as like a great way to do inquiry with the students and it modeled it for them and then they can do it with their students as well.” Formal Teacher Educator “Their company is called MarcoPolo Learning if you want to look into it, and our flagship app is the one called World School which gives children 1 to 2 minute videos on different scientific content, science videos, the children get to self-select, it's all picture based, they don't need to read, to navigate it....Each video kind of gives you a content overview, but it also has a little character in the video that models the scientific practice. So, within it, they're like, oh, what's that? As they're asking questions, designing experiments, they model curiosity, model physical thinking, and research shows that whenever they see somebody modeling something and respecting them, that they're more likely to practice themselves. There's also a feature of the app where they press a little dot that sends a message to their parents to tell them that their child is watching something, to tell them what their child STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 170 is watching and it gives the parent two questions to ask the child, a prompt, so they can engage the child in conversation...So the way the model's drawn reaches the parent should show interest in something that the child is learning about, then their child is more likely engage and think that science is not just exclusive to a different group of people who are practicing it. So, the app kind of has a child reach, international, has millions of downloads so far so we've given children access to that material, and new content is added each week.” Informal Teacher Educator “We created a series of videos that are only three to five- minute videos that encourage kids to, "Hey, you can think like a scientist with us." Informal Teacher Educator “The video conference is another one. We had a lot of meetings with scientists. The same concept as the career connection but we do that real time. We had as part of the grant, teachers that would connect with us in our studio and we'd invite a scientist to come in and before the connection, we give them materials so that they can be a little bit more familiar with whatever that scientist's studying. They've had a couple discussions.” Informal Teacher Educator “One of the things we say to them about this new way of teaching science is that if the kids can Google the answer to something in two seconds from the internet, we shouldn't be teaching it in the classroom. Because what we should be teaching is a way of thinking and a way of doing science, the nature of science, the process of science. Using Google or whatever as a tool to help us obtain information about something, but we shouldn't just be teaching facts that can be easily looked up on the internet” Informal Teacher Educator “To help ease understanding we have them get online and do some sort of online simulations. Do at PhET or something like that, just to help get us a rounder picture using technology.” Non-formal Teacher Educator “ I once taught a professional development about the orientation of trees. And so, what I had the teachers do, is we went outside, and we looked at the tree and I said, that's not a random arrangement of leaves. That tree is specifically designed itself to maximize the exposure to the sun and so then I have them use a; it's called sevencalc.org. I had them look at where we were in the STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 171 angle of the sun and where the sun traversed over our specific location and then I had them design a tree and then after they designed the tree I had him go outside and compare their tree to the tree that was sitting outside and they were surprised that they weren't able to design the tree without looking at the tree first, that really matched the tree that was outside.” Non-formal Teacher Educator “They used the ring of fire and they projected the ring of fire just as smartboard as then students were able to draw out the ring of fire and then use that to predict where else a volcano would occur.” STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 172 Table 26 Science Identity in the Formal Educational Context Formal Educational Context Quote Formal Teacher Educator “They generally don't identify as science educators or feel like they have anything to contribute, which kind of feeds the cycle.” Formal Teacher Educator “There's just no way they're going to be able to get all the contents that they need before walking into a classroom” Formal Teacher Educator “They only really get that one master's level class and the elementary methods for science. And in my experience, a lot of the students have very soft science backgrounds, like the science they took in their undergrad but health or drugs and nutrition or ... Random science, it's not one of the hard sciences. It's not a traditional science.” Formal Teacher Educator “They're always telling me how much they hate science” Formal Teacher Educator “Once they get to me, it's like I know that they don't like it. Even if they do like it, they like it like they think it's interesting, but they don't feel like they have anything to do with it. It's not for them and they're mostly just taking this course because it's a requirement obviously. They don't really understand what science is. They see it as chemistry and biology and all the things they revert back to thinking about how science is talked about in high school. So, this science is rarely taught in school. Or it's taught sporadically, or it's not given as much time or care as the other subjects because obviously there is not, there's no effort in order to focus on math and the reading exams.” STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 173 Table 27 Science Identity in the informal educational context Informal Educational Context Quote Informal Teacher Educator “It's more about getting them comfortable and confident with just teaching science in general, because it's not something they're very familiar with” Informal Teacher Educator “It also at the elementary level sciences very much oftentimes not addressed and not taught because of the focus on Math and ELA.” Informal Teacher Educator “In their minds they had described to me in the beginning of the course that science is some White guy standing in a lab figuring out things they can solve. They have this image of science practicing in isolation. And what they were engaged in, clearly going back and forth was in a community and sharing their ideas and drawing certain conclusions about finding out they're wrong and revisiting it. So, they also start seeing science as something that's not a typical class as well, and the amount of talking that they have to do, the amount of guessing that they have to do, and observation that they have to do.” STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 174 Table 28 Science Identity in the non-formal educational context Non-formal Educational Context Quote Non-formal Teacher Educator “It's an identity piece, hugely so. One, they don't see themselves as science teachers.” Non-formal Teacher Educator “When I say each of those pieces of inquiry I'm talking about each of the science and engineering practices because most kids are no good at it, most teachers are not good at teaching it” Non-formal Teacher Educator “A lot of teachers don't have a science background, so they had to essentially read the science book and explain the kid's context. But they didn't have the background to do in any of the sciences.” Non-formal Teacher Educator “I think sometimes when you use a lot of jargon, which there's plenty of in the science education world, or you talk a lot about things in an abstract way, that the teachers tend to get intimidated. I used a lot of, kind of science teaching jargon, and most of the teachers were familiar with it, but one of the teachers who didn't really have any science teaching experience at all, actually started to cry because they were so overwhelmed, which is awful” STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 175 Table 29 Science Teacher Educators Building Science Teacher Identity Educational Context (Formal, Informal, Non- formal) Quote Formal Teacher Educator “I focus on making sure that I'm redefining what science is to them and making them love science.” Formal Teacher Educator “The first couple of weeks within the course, I'm actually teaching them some of the content through experiences that they have in the class, activities that I would do with the children, and then we debrief and I would go over, kind of try and redefine what they think science is and the nature of science, and showing them that science is practiced in the community, showing them that science is something that is always changing, showing them that science is also very playful and that nobody always knows the answer.” Formal Teacher Educator “We do science talks; we practice science talks and I showed them how to do science talks in a classroom. To show them that part of practicing science is also not just getting information but communicating or even arguing the information as well and then they have to support their ideas from evidence.” Informal Teacher Educator “The first thing I'll say is that literally teaching science isn't necessarily our number one thing that we do, or our top priority. In terms of science content, it's more about getting them comfortable and confident with just teaching science in general, because it's not something they're very familiar with.” Informal Teacher Educator “And the science content comes along with that naturally, but we decided early on that we can't try to cover every scientific fact that they're going to need to teach in each grade level.” Informal Teacher Educator “They understand how important science is and building some of that science literacy, so they feel confident that even if they're not doing it as a career, they still feel that science is something for them. And so, there's those dual goals in a lot of our resources, even our teacher resources that we provide. Teacher workshops as well. Some of our teacher workshops are that same thing and to building confidence so STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 176 that students feel that science is for them...Especially for, again, for elementary school teachers, we want to make sure that they also feel confident in science, which in my career, realizing that I maybe had this misconceived notion that many teachers felt confident in science and that's not true. And even though they're excited to be teachers, they need support just as much as anybody else who is reaching student audiences. We're supporting the teachers to feel confident; we're supporting the students to feel confident in science. And then hopefully by bringing in the families in as well, they're talking about science at home.” Non-formal Teacher Educator “So, our emphasis now is teaching teachers how to teach STEM... So, when we do professional development now our goal is for the teacher to walk out, being able to teach whatever it is that we've covered and then evaluate it.” Non-formal Teacher Educator “This way the teachers are developing their own power, their own empowerment of learning how to look up things online, learning how to put together a lesson so that when they want to do the next lesson, they develop that skill of creating a lesson around science. The best way to get a teacher to be able to teach STEM is to have them create a lesson in whatever format they're used to.” Non-formal Teacher Educator “So, I think especially working with elementary teachers who are often not specialists, they're generalized classroom teachers who are teaching a variety of subjects. Making it seem tangible to them and showing them how skills that they already have can be utilized for teaching science is really helpful. So, a lot of it is saying, you already have lots of teaching skills and lots of experience that can allow you to be a successful science teacher, we just need to tap into that, and then apply science skills and content to that.” STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 177 Figures Figure 1 Informal and Non-formal learning (Eshach, 2007, p. 174) STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 178 Figure 2 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Intersectionalities. (Schmidt, Baran, Thompson, Mishra, Koehler, & Shin, 2009, p. 124) STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 179 Figure 3 The framework of technological pedagogical science knowledge (Jimoyiannis, 2010, p.1261) Figures title: 180 Appendix A: IRB Study Info Page STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 181 Appendix B: Consent to Participate in the Study INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH STUDY TITLE: Utilizing the TPASK framework to understand effective pedagogical strategies in STEM for elementary school teachers PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Dieuwertje J. Kast FACULTY ADVISOR: Dr. Anthony Maddox PURPOSE This study aims to learn the best practices for teaching elementary school teachers how to teach science. This mixed-method study will survey and interview both science teacher educators from varying educational contexts (formal, informal, non-formal) and elementary school teachers utilizing the conceptual framework from Athanassios Jimoyiannis’ (2010) called Technological Pedagogical Science Knowledge (TPASK). The surveys will be statistically analyzed, and the interviews will be coded with a priori and emergent codes. Member checks and audit trials will be conducted to triangulate the data between both populations. The data will be utilized to create the scope and sequence for a STEM pedagogy course for elementary school teachers in training. The study is an exempt study and has been approved by the University of Southern California's Institutional Review Board. This survey should take about 15 minutes to complete. PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT This survey is collecting data for Dieuwertje Kast's dissertation study titled: "Utilizing the TPASK framework to understand effective pedagogical strategies in STEM for elementary school teachers." You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. Participants will be asked to answer a series of questions in the survey and if they are STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 182 so inclined can be recruited for the interview component of the study. The survey will take about 15 minutes. Interviewees will be recruited from the survey and their interviews will be recorded but only with participant consent. If a participant wants something to not be recorded, they will let the interviewer know to turn off the recording and the interviewer will do so. PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION Compensation for participating in the survey is not applicable. Participants recruited from the survey and interviewed for the study will receive a $10 Amazon gift card for participating. CONFIDENTIALITY The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects. When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable information will be used. Pseudonyms will be assigned to the interviewees and survey participants. INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION If you have any questions about this study, please contact Dieuwertje Kast, dkast@usc.edu. IRB CONTACT INFORMATION If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email irb@usc.edu. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 183 Appendix C: Survey Protocol STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 184 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 185 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 186 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 187 Appendix D: Interview Protocol: Elementary Teachers Introduction: Good afternoon, my name is Dieuwertje Kast and I will be interviewing you today. Thank you for taking the time to meet with me. I am interested in understanding how you teach science to your students. I will be asking you questions about science teaching methodologies and how you incorporate technology into your teaching practice. Before we begin the interview, I would like to remind you that participating in this study is voluntary and that your responses are completely confidential. Would you mind if I use this tape recorder to tape the interview? I don’t want to misinterpret your words and I think it’s important that I voice your words accurately. If you want me to turn the tape recorder off at any time for any reason, please let me know and I will do so. I also plan on taking notes on our conversation to track details of the responses to the questions. Interview Script with Questions: 1. How do you teach science within your elementary school context? a. Probing Questions: i. What are some science topics you teach to your students? ii. Describe to me how you teach science concepts. 2. What science practices do you incorporate into your classroom? 3. Tell me about your learning experience during your pre-service training program that focused on science? a. Probing question: i. How prepared did your pre-service training program make you feel in teaching science concepts in your classroom? Could you elaborate on that? ii. What science content or science methodology classes if any, did you take? 4. What is your teaching philosophy when teaching science? a. Probing Questions: i. What role does a teacher play during science instruction? ii. What role does a student play during science instruction? 5. In your opinion, what is the best way to teach science to elementary school students? 6. Suppose I was present in your classroom now, what would I see going on in terms of science? Walk me through it. 7. How do you use inquiry methodologies (if any) to teach science in your classroom? 8. Describe how you facilitate inquiry in your classroom? 9. How does your pre-service experience influence how you use technology in your classroom? a. Probing Question: i. Tell me about your learning experience during your pre-service training program that focused on technology. 10. How do you define technology in your classroom? STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 188 a. Probing questions: i. Give me an example of items that you consider technology in your classroom ii. Could you explain how you use this technology to teach science concepts? 11. Describe to me how you use technology to facilitate inquiry in your classroom? 12. Share a recent lesson plan/activity with me that incorporated technology. Walk me through that lesson plan. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 189 Appendix D: Interview Protocol for the Science Teacher Educators Introduction: Good afternoon, my name is Dieuwertje Kast and I will be interviewing you today. Thank you for taking the time to meet with me. I am interested in understanding how you teach science to elementary teachers. I will be asking you questions about science educator teaching methodologies and how you integrate technology into your teaching practice and in that of your elementary teacher candidates or elementary teachers. Before we begin the interview, I would like to remind you that participating in this study is voluntary and that your responses are completely confidential. Would you mind if I use this tape recorder to tape the interview? I don’t want to misinterpret your words and I think it’s important that I voice your words accurately. If you want me to turn the tape recorder off at any time for any reason, please let me know and I will do so. I also plan on taking notes on our conversation to track details of the responses to the questions. Formal version ● Define your educational context- ex. University ● How do you teach science content and pedagogy to teacher candidates in an elementary school context? ○ Probing Questions: ■ What are some science topics you teach to your teachers? ■ Describe to me how you teach science concepts to them. ● What science practices do you incorporate into your educational context? ● Tell me about how you create an environment in your pre-service training program that focuses on science? ○ Probing question: ■ How prepared do you think your teacher candidates are teaching science concepts in their classroom? Could you elaborate on that? ■ What science content or science methodology classes do you teach? ● How do you differentiate your science instruction for varying educational contexts? ○ Probing question: ■ How do you differentiate for low-income and underrepresented minority contexts? ● What is your teaching philosophy when teaching science? ● In your opinion, what is the best way to teach science to elementary teacher candidates? ● How do you encourage elementary educators that don’t believe they are equipped/prepared to teach science? ● How do you use inquiry methodologies (if any) to teach science in your educational context? ● Describe how you facilitate inquiry in your classroom? ● How do you incorporate technology in your educational setting? ● Describe to me how you use technology to facilitate inquiry in your classroom? STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 190 ● Share a product that demonstrates how you teach science and integrate technology into your educational context. (ex. Lesson plans, syllabus, agenda). Informal version ○ Define your educational context and how does it relate to elementary school teachers? Ex. educator professional development sessions; field trips etc. ○ How do you teach science to elementary school teachers? ■ Probing Question ● What strategies do you use to teach elementary school teachers? ○ What science practices do you incorporate into your educational context? ○ What is the best way to teach science to elementary teachers? ○ How do you use inquiry methodologies (if any) to teach science in your educational context? ○ Describe how you facilitate inquiry in your educational context? ○ How do you incorporate technology in your educational setting? ○ Describe to me how you use technology to facilitate inquiry in your classroom? ○ Share a product that demonstrates how you teach science and integrate technology into your educational context. (ex. Lesson plans, syllabus, agenda). ○ ● Non-formal version ○ Define your educational context and how does it relate to elementary school teachers? Ex. educator professional development sessions; field trips etc. ○ How do you teach science to elementary school teachers? ■ Probing Question ● What strategies do you use to teach elementary school teachers? ○ What science practices do you incorporate into your educational context? ○ What is the best way to teach science to elementary teachers? ○ How do you use inquiry methodologies (if any) to teach science in your educational context? ○ Describe how you facilitate inquiry in your educational context? ○ How do you incorporate technology in your educational setting? ○ Describe to me how you use technology to facilitate inquiry in your classroom? ○ Share a product that demonstrates how you teach science and integrate technology into your educational context. (ex. Lesson plans, syllabus, agenda). STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 191 Appendix E: Codebook for Elementary School Teachers Nodes Files References Content Knowledge (CK) 2 5 Science Content Knowledge (SCK) 8 25 Elementary Teacher Preparedness 8 38 Lack of Preparedness 8 37 Under Resourced 4 9 Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) 7 25 Cross Cutting Concepts 2 7 Disciplinary Core Ideas 4 5 Science Engineering Practices (SEP's) 6 10 Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) 4 8 Pedagogical Science Content Knowledge (PSCK) 6 17 Student Led- Teacher Facilitated 7 9 Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) 4 11 Hands-on 3 5 Inquiry 7 19 Pedagogical Science Knowledge (PSK) 6 15 Phenomena 2 2 Science Connections to the Real World 3 5 Place Based Learning (PBL) 2 3 Science Teacher Identity 2 8 Lack of Science Teacher Identity 5 7 STEM Integration 6 20 Literacy 6 19 Math Connections 2 4 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge 2 4 Technology Pedagogical Science Content Knowledge 7 24 Technological Science Knowledge (SK) 8 27 Technology Knowledge (TK) 8 24 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 192 Appendix F: Codebook for Science Teacher Educators Name Files References Content Knowledge (CK) 0 0 Science Content Knowledge (SCK) 9 18 Elementary Teacher Preparedness 6 16 Lack of Preparedness 7 21 Under Resourced 1 1 Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) 10 33 Crosscutting Concepts 1 1 Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCI) 1 1 Science Engineering Practices (SEPs) 7 13 Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) 0 0 Pedagogical Science Content Knowledge (PSCK) 1 1 Modeling the Student-led, Teacher Facilitated Roles 9 35 Modeling the Student Led- Teacher Facilitated 9 35 Pedagogical Science Knowledge (PSK) 10 49 Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) 0 0 Hands-on 8 20 Inquiry 10 39 Phenomena 5 8 Science Connections to the Real World 8 16 Place Based Learning (PBL) 4 4 Science Teacher Identity 9 38 Lack of Science Teacher Identity 9 31 STEM Integration 6 26 Literacy 4 10 Math Connections 6 7 Teacher Education Context 2 2 Formal 3 7 Informal 4 6 Non-formal 3 13 Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) 0 0 Technological Science Knowledge (TSK) 10 25 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge 0 0 Technology Pedagogical Science Content Knowledge (TPSCK) 9 33 Technology Knowledge (TK) 9 23 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 193 Appendix G: Theoretical Alignment Matrix Elementary School Teachers - TPACK Adapted (Schmidt et al., 2009) Technology Knowledge Question Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree/ Disagree Agree Strongly Agree I can learn technology easily I keep up with important new technologies I frequently play around with the technology I know a lot of different technologies I have the technical skills I need to use technology I have had sufficient opportunities to work with different technologies Science Content Knowledge (SCK) Question Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree/ Disagree Agree Strongly Agree I have sufficient knowledge about science I can use a scientific way of thinking I have various ways and strategies of developing my understanding of science Pedagogical Science Knowledge (PSK) Question Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree/ Disagree Agree Strongly Agree I can select effective STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 194 teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning in science *I can address students’ learning difficulties about specific scientific fields *I can transform/translate scientific knowledge into systems they’ll understand *I have the scientific knowledge to be able to teach science effectively in my classroom *I have the resources available to teach science in my classroom *I incorporate science pedagogical strategies *My school culture promotes science learning * I use inquiry as a science pedagogical strategy Technological Content Knowledge (TSK) Question Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree/ Disagree Agree Strongly Agree I know about technologies that I can use for understanding and doing science *I am aware of the resources and tools available for science subjects *I understand how to transform scientific STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 195 knowledge into technological platforms *I understand how to transform scientific processes into technological platforms Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) Question Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree/ Disagree Agree Strongly Agree I can choose technologies that enhance the teaching approaches for a lesson I can choose technologies that enhance students’ learning for a lesson My teacher education program caused me to think more deeply about how technology could influence how to use technology in my classroom I am thinking critically about how to use technology in my classroom I can adapt the use of the technologies that I am learning about to different teaching activities Survey Question Conceptual Framework- TPASK 1. Demographics a. Race, Gender, Educational Context STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 196 b. School site demographics? c. Undergraduate or graduate level teacher preparatory program d. Specializations 2. Experience: a. How many years have you been a teacher? i. Qualtrics- Number specific- if over 5- survey will end. If under, will continue onto the next one. b. Which grades have you taught? c. K d. 1 e. 2 f. 3 g. 4 h. 5 Do you feel prepared to teach STEM concepts in your elementary classroom? Yes, no maybe so Educational Context Do you feel like your preservice preparatory program prepared you to incorporate STEM (specifically science and technology) into your classroom? Yes No If yes, describe how: If not, what would you have liked to have seen? Educational Context What challenges do you face teaching STEM in your classroom? Check all that apply Lack of admin support Students lack science knowledge Lack of tech support Lack of funding for STEM supplies Not enough tech available per student Educational Context STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 197 No science curriculum No internet Science Teacher Educators How do you encourage/equip teachers who believe they can’t teach science? Survey Question Conceptual Framework Demographics: - Race, Gender, Location - Experience - Job title/ job description - Educational background - Is your job considered formal, informal, non-formal (Include definitions) Educational Context What strategies do you use to teach elementary school teachers how to teach science? Pedagogical Science Content How do you differentiate your science instruction for varying educational contexts? Pedagogical Science Content How do you incorporate technology in your educational setting? Technology Knowledge Optional: If you would like to share an example of how you teach elementary school teachers, feel free to attach a document that illustrates this- for example, a lesson plan, syllabi, workshop agenda, professional development etc. *To preserve anonymity in the research, the researcher will keep all documents confidential and will not be shared with other entities. Document Analysis Science Teacher Educator Survey TPASK based questions and TPACK adapted survey points Question Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree/ Disagree Agree Strongl y Agree STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 198 I teach elementary teachers about the nature of science I teach elementary teachers about the structure of science I teach the elementary teachers about the history of science I teach teachers to create science learning goals I teach teachers to find science curriculum resources I teach teachers to differentiate for varying educational setting I think that elementary school teachers have strong science teaching skills Technological Pedagogical Knowledge Question Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree/ Disagree Agree Strongl y Agree I help elementary school teachers utilize technologies that enhance the teaching approaches for a lesson I teach teachers to choose technologies that enhance students’ learning for a lesson I teach teachers to think more deeply about how technology could influence how to use technology in STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 199 their classrooms I teach teachers to think critically about how to use technology in their classrooms I teach teachers to adapt the use of the technologies to differentiate varying teaching activities STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 200 Appendix H: TPASK Questions Question Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree Total I can learn technology easily 0.00% 3.85% 11.54% 38.46% 46.15% 26 I keep up with important new technologies 0.00% 7.69% 11.54% 69.23% 11.54% 26 I frequently play around with technology 0.00% 7.69% 15.38% 53.85% 23.08% 26 I know a lot of different technologies 0.00% 19.23% 19.23% 42.31% 19.23% 26 I have the technical skills I need to use technology 0.00% 15.38% 3.85% 53.85% 26.92% 26 I have had sufficient opportunities to work with different technologies 0.00% 11.54% 23.08% 38.46% 26.92% 26 I have sufficient knowledge about science 7.69% 23.08% 11.54% 30.77% 26.92% 26 I can use a scientific way of thinking 7.69% 3.85% 11.54% 34.62% 42.31% 26 I have various ways and strategies of developing my understanding of science 7.69% 7.69% 3.85% 26.92% 53.85% 26 I can select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning in science 7.69% 0.00% 19.23% 34.62% 38.46% 26 I can address students‚ learning difficulties about specific scientific fields 7.69% 7.69% 7.69% 50.00% 26.92% 26 I can transform/translate scientific knowledge into systems they understand 7.69% 11.54% 7.69% 42.31% 30.77% 26 I have the scientific knowledge to be able to teach science effectively in my classroom 7.69% 15.38% 3.85% 46.15% 26.92% 26 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 201 I have the resources available to teach science in my classroom 15.38% 30.77% 19.23% 23.08% 11.54% 26 I incorporate science pedagogical strategies 7.69% 11.54% 11.54% 50.00% 19.23% 26 My school culture promotes science learning 7.69% 23.08% 26.92% 26.92% 15.38% 26 I use inquiry as a science pedagogical strategy 7.69% 0.00% 3.85% 61.54% 26.92% 26 I know about technologies that I can use for understanding and doing science 3.85% 11.54% 26.92% 34.62% 23.08% 26 I am aware of the resources and tools available for science subjects 3.85% 11.54% 30.77% 34.62% 19.23% 26 I understand how to transform scientific knowledge into technological platforms 15.38% 19.23% 26.92% 26.92% 11.54% 26 I can choose technologies that enhance the teaching approaches for a lesson 7.69% 3.85% 23.08% 50.00% 15.38% 26 I can choose technologies that enhance students, learning for a lesson 7.69% 0.00% 19.23% 50.00% 23.08% 26 My teacher education program caused me to think more deeply about how technology could influence how to use technology in my classroom 38.46% 23.08% 19.23% 7.69% 11.54% 26 I am thinking critically about how to use technology in my classroom 7.69% 3.85% 19.23% 30.77% 38.46% 26 I can adapt the use of the technologies that I am learning about to different teaching activities 7.69% 0.00% 15.38% 42.31% 34.62% 26 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 202 Appendix I: Elementary School Teacher Document Submissions These are the photo submissions from three elementary school teachers. This is a graphic demonstrating how one elementary school teacher was trying to engage student interactions. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 203 The screenshot demonstrates how one teacher and how they facilitated inquiry with their students. This is a lesson by a first grade teacher named sun-sational observations. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 204 Appendix J: Science Teacher Educator Document Submissions Non-formal science teacher submission Submission from an informal science teacher educator discussing NGSS. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 205 A snapshot of a formal science teacher educators’ syllabus. STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 206 A second snapshot of a formal science teacher educators’ syllabus STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 207 A PowerPoint slide of an informal science educators training PowerPoint about NGSS A PowerPoint slide of non-formal science educators training PowerPoint about NGSS STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 208 A PowerPoint slide of a teacher educator training PowerPoint about NGSS for elementary school teachers STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 209 Appendix K: Original TPACK Survey STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 210 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 211 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 212 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 213 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 214 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 215 STEM PREP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS 216 Appendix L: TPACK Instrumentation Usage Approval

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study aimed to learn the best practices for teaching elementary school teachers how to teach science. This mixed-method study surveyed and interviewed both science teacher educators from varying educational contexts (formal, informal, non-formal) and elementary school teachers utilizing the conceptual framework from Athanassios Jimoyiannis’ (2010) called Technological Pedagogical Science Knowledge (TPASK). The surveys were analyzed, and the interviews were coded with a priori and emergent codes. Member checks and audit trials were conducted to triangulate the data between both populations. The data demonstrated that the participating elementary school teachers were prepared to integrate technology and science into their classrooms but that there were systemic barriers in their educational careers that prevented them from doing so effectively. The science teacher educators from varying educational contexts, (formal, non-formal, informal) worked to bridge the interdisciplinary nature of elementary school teachers by providing integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) curriculum and building science teacher identity of the elementary school teachers.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The perception of teachers’ pedagogy of technology integration: a case study of second‐grade teachers

PDF

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

PDF

Preservice teacher preparation for engineering integration in K-5

PDF

Teachers' experiences implementing social and emotional learning in the elementary classroom

PDF

Understanding science and math teacher retention in Hawai‘i public schools

PDF

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

PDF

Examining mathematics anxiety and mathematics teaching self-efficacy of elementary school teachers in a Hawaii school district

PDF

Transformational technology in K-12 schools: an elementary case study

PDF

Transformational technology: a case study of a public middle school

PDF

Elementary teachers’ perceptions of gender identity and sexuality and how they are revealed in their pedagogical and curricular choices: two case studies

PDF

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

PDF

Effective implementation of technology in elementary schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Leveraging the principalship for instructional technology equity and access in two urban elementary schools

PDF

Teachers' pedagogy and perceptions of technology integration: a mixed‐methods case study of kindergarten teachers

PDF

Challenging stigmas and perceptions in alternative high schools through mentorship: an innovation study

PDF

Promoting STEM integration, interest and identity among elementary school students

PDF

Women of color: self-efficacy and sustainability as administrators in education

PDF

Best practices general education teachers implement to foster a positive classroom environment

PDF

Transformational technology practices in K-12 schools: a case study

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Kast, Dieuwertje J. (author)

Core Title Addressing systemic challenges in elementary-school teacher preparation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 08/02/2020

Defense Date 07/09/2020

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

Tag elementary educators,formal education,informal education,non-formal education,OAI-PMH Harvest,STEM,Teacher Education,TPACK,TPASK

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Maddox, Anthony (committee chair), Freking, Fred (committee member), Tobey, Patricia (committee member)

Creator Email dj.kast.usc@gmail.com,dkast@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-355957

Unique identifier UC11666165

Identifier etd-KastDieuwe-8861.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-355957 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KastDieuwe-8861.pdf

Dmrecord 355957

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Kast, Dieuwertje J.

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