STEAM (SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, ART, AND MATHEMATICS) EDUCATION AND TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGICAL DISCONTENTMENT LEVELS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2018.43.496518Keywords:
K-12 STEAM Education, Teachers’ Pedagogical Discontentment, Coaching STEAM TeachersAbstract
Literature focused on the emerging implementation of STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Mathematics) education within K-12 education programs in the USA emphasizes the need for researchers to address the potential for disrupting the pedagogical contentment of teachers assigned to teach in STEAM disciplines who have no backgrounds in the fields represented by STEAM and/or who have no prior teaching experience in the areas of STEAM. Research objectives for the current study focused on examining the influence of intensive professional development on K-12 teachers’ pedagogical discontentment levels relative to the implementation of STEAM in all classrooms within a rural school district in the southeast region of the United States. Data sources included: (a) pre-post assessments of 93 teachers’ pedagogical discontentment levels; (b) classroom observation data collected by external observers; and (c) teachers’ perceptions of STEAM coaching. Data retrieved were analyzed using quantitative analyses. Study findings indicated teachers’ pedagogical discontentment levels decreased over time. Future research must support teachers new to STEAM activities.
References
Cloutier, S. E. (2016). Learning about teaching science: Teachers’ practices through collaborative professional learning. Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 3831. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd./3831.
Eger, J. M. & Deerlin, V. (2015). Recognizing model STEAM programs in K-12 education: Inn Ovation STEAM grant awards. The Ovation Foundation; The President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities, and the Americans for the Arts. http://www.theovationfoundation.org/innovation-stem.
Felicia, P. M. & Innocent, E. C. (2017). Project-based learning and solar energy utilization using locally designed solar concentrator: Encouraging sustainable development practices among Nigerian science students. Pupil: International Journal of Teaching, Education and Learning, 1(1), 28-50. DOI: 10.20319/pijtel.2017.11.2850.
Ferrer, F. P. (2016). Investigating students’ learning difficulties in integral calculus. People: International Journal of Social Sciences, 2(1), 310-324.ISSN 2454-5899. http://dx.doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2016.s21.310324
Fishman, B. J., Penuel, W. R., Allen, A.-R., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. (2013). Design-based implementation research: An emerging model for transforming the relationship of research and practice. In B. J. Fishman & W. R. Penuel (Eds.), National society for the study of education: Design-based implementation research, Vol. 112, 136-156.
Ge, X, Ifenthaler, D. & Spector, J. M. (eds). (2015). Moving forward with STEAM education. For Emerging technologies for STEAM education, Chapter X. Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations: Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-02573-5_20.
Habegger, S. & Hodanbosi, P. (2011). Embedded instructional coaching: What works, Principal Leadership, 11(6), 36-41. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ916324.
Kahveci, M. & Kahveci, A., Mansour, N.,& Alarfaj, M. M., (2016). Construct validity and reliability measures of scores from the Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Discontentment (STPD) Scale. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science, & Technology Education, 12(3), 549-558. DOI: 10. 12973/eurasia.2015.1417a
Kahveci, A., Kahveci, M., Mansour, N., & Alarfaj, M. M. (2017). Exploring science teachers’ affective states: Pedagogical discontentment, self-efficacy, intentions to reform, and their relationships. Research in Science Education, Online First. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-01609606-y
Knight, J. (2007). Chapter 3: Seven Principles of the Partnership Approach to Coaching. Instructional Coaching: A Partnership Approach to Improving Instruction, Corwin Press. ISBN-13: 978-1412927246.
Krueger, N. (2014). Stop talking tech: 3 tips for pedagogy-based coaching. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). Blog. https://www.iste.org/explore/articleDetail?articleid=38.
Livingston, K., Schweisfurth, M. Brace, G., & Nash, M. (2017). Why pedagogy matters: The role of pedagogy in education 2030: A policy paper. Education 2030 Framework for Action. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002456/245656E.pdf
Mansfield, J. (2017). Exploring the nature of science teachers’ pedagogical equilibrium when organizing for teaching. European Science Education Research Association, August 21-27, 2017, Dublin, Ireland.
Maeda, J. (2012). Stem to STEAM: Art in K-12 is key to building a strong economy. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/blog/stem-to-stem-strengthens-economy-john-maeda
McDonald, S. P. (2016). The transparent and the invisible in professional pedagogical vision for science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 116(2), 1-16. DOI:10.1111/ssm.12156
Meschede, N., Fiebranz, A., Moller, K., & Steffensky, M. (2017). Teachers’ professional vision, pedagogical content knowledge and beliefs: On its relation and differences between pre-service and in-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66(2017), 158-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.04.010.
Newell, J. A., Marchese, A. J., Ramachandran, R. P. Sukumaran, B., & Harvey, R. (1999). Multidisciplinary design and communication: A pedagogical vision. International Journal of Engineering Education, 15(5), 1-7. http://users.rowan.edu/~ravi/journal/jour_1999_01.pdf
Reider, D., Knestis, K., Malyn-Smith, J. (2016). Workforce education models for K-12 STEM education programs: Reflections on, and implications for, the NSF ITEST Program. Journal of Science Education Technology, 25 (6), 847-858 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9632-6.
Southerland, S. A., Nadelson, L. Sowell, S., Saka, Y., Kahveci, M., & Granger, E. (2012). Measuring one aspect of teachers’ affective states: Development of the science teachers’ pedagogical discontentment scale. School science and mathematics, 112, (98), 483-494. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00168.x/full
Southerland, S. A., Granger, E. M.., Hughes, R., Enderle, P., Ke, F., Roseler, K. Saka, Y., & Tekhumra-Kisa, M. (2016). Essential aspects of science teacher professional development: Making research participation instructionally effective. AERA Open, 2(4). 1-16.DOI: 10.1177/2332858416674200. http://ero.sagepub.com
Southerland, S. A., Sowell, S., & Enderle, P. (2017). Science teachers’ pedagogical discontentment: Its sources and potential for change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(5), 437-457. DOI: 10.1007/s10972-011-9242-3.
Taylor, P. C. (2016). Why is a STEAM curriculum perspective crucial to the 21st century? Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Research Conference 2016 Proceedings, 89- 92. https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=research
Taysever, G. J. (2016). The effects of online professional development on teacher behavior and perceptions of science, technology, engineering, art, and math teaching efficacy. All Capstone Projects. 233. https://opus.govst.edu/capstones/233
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
