To better understand integrated STEM education, this work explored scores on the STEM Observation Protocol (STEM-OP), a newly developed observation protocol for use in K-12 science and engineering classrooms. The goals of this work were to better understand how integrated STEM might look throughout an integrated STEM unit and identify limitations of the instrument when examining daily scores and full unit implementation scores. The work takes a mixed methods approach to first examine what scores may be typically seen with daily and unit implementations. After identifying an exemplar integrated curriculum unit with consistently high daily scores, the authors qualitatively explore the fluctuations in protocol scores over the course of a curriculum unit implementation. Our work reveals that some items on the protocol may vary throughout implementation, while also demonstrating that achieving the highest scores on all items during one lesson or even throughout a full curriculum unit is challenging.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Baldinger, E. D., Staats, S., Covington-Clarkson, L. M., Gullickson, E., Norman, F., & Akoto, B. (2021). In Returning voice to the silent M: A review of conceptions of mathematics in integrated STEM education, J. Anderson, & Y. Li (Eds.), Integrated approaches to STEM education: An international perspective, (pp. 67–90). Springer.
Bartels, S. L., Rupe, K. M., & Lederman, J. S. (2019). Shaping preservice teachers’ understandings of STEM: A collaborative math and science methods approach. Journal of Science Teaching Education, 30(6), 666–680.
Berland, L. K., & Steingut, R. (2016). Explaining variation in student efforts towards using math and science knowledge in engineering contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 38(18), 2742–2761.
Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C. & Koehler, C.M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3–11.
Bryan, L. A., Moore, T. J., Johnson, C .C., & Roehrig, G. H. (2015). Integrated STEM Education. In C. C. Johnson, E. E. Peters-Burton, & T. J. Moore (Eds). STEM Road Map, (pp. 21–37). Routledge.
Bryan, L.A. & Guzey, S.S. (2020). K-12 STEM education: An overview of perspectives and considerations. Hellenic Journal of STEM Education, 1(1), 5–15.
Capobianco, B. M., DeLisi, J., & Radloff, J. (2018). Characterizing elementary teachers’ enactment of high‐leverage practices through engineering design‐based science instruction. Science Education, 102(2), 342–376.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. SAGE.
Crotty, E. A., Guzey, S. S., Roehrig, G. H., Glancy, A. W., Ring-Whalen, E. A., and Moore, T. J. (2017). Approaches to Integrating Engineering in STEM Units and Student Achievement Gains. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 7(2), 1–14
Dare, E. A., Ellis, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2018). Understanding science teachers’ implementations of integrated STEM curricular units through a phenomenological multiple case study. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(4), 1–19.
Dare, E.A., Ellis, J. A., Roehrig, G. H., Ring-Whalen, E. A., & Rouleau, M. D. (2022, June). Current practices in K-12 integrated STEM education: A comparison across science content areas and grade levels (Fundamental). In Proceedings of the 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. Minneapolis, MN.
Dare, E. A., Hiwatig, B., Keratithamkul, K., Ellis, J. A., Roehrig, G. H., Ring-Whalen, E. A., Rouleau, M. D., Faruqi, F., Rice, C., Titu, P., Li, F., Wieselmann, J. R., & Crotty, E. A. (2021, July). Improving integrated STEM education: The design and development of a K-12 STEM observation protocol (STEM-OP) (RTP). In Proceedings of the 2021 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. Virtual Conference.
Dare, E. A., Ring-Whalen, E. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2019). Creating a continuum of STEM models: Exploring how K-12 science teachers conceptualize STEM education. International Journal of Science Education, 41(12), 1701–1720.
Djonko-Moore, C., Leonard, J., Holifield, Q., Bailey, E., & Almughyirah, S. (2018). Using culturally relevant experiential education to enhance urban children’s knowledge and engagement in science, Journal of Experiential Education, 41(2) pp. 137–153.
Dringenberg, E., Wertz, R., Purzer, S., & Strobel, J. (2012). Development of the science and engineering classroom learning observation protocol. In proceedings of ASEE 2012 Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, San Antonio, TX: ASEE.
English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–8.
Frykholm, J. & Glasson, G, (2005). Connecting science and mathematics instruction: pedagogical context knowledge for teachers. School Science & Mathematics, 105(3), 127–141.
Herschbach, D. R. (2011). The STEM initiative: Constraints and challenges. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 48(1), 96–112.
Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–11.
Labov, J. B., Reid, A. H., & Yamamoto, K. R. (2010). Integrated biology and undergraduate science education: A new biology education for the twenty-first century? CBE Life Science Education, 9, 10–16.
Lachapelle, C., & Cunningham, C. (2014). Engineering in elementary schools. In S. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices (pp. 61–88). Purdue University Press.
Martín-Páez, T., Aguilera, D., Perales-Palacios, F. J., & Vílchez-González, J. M. (2019). What are we talking about when we talk about STEM education? A review of literature. Science Education, 103(4), 799–822.
Mathis, C. A., Siverling, E. A., Moore, T. J., Douglas, K. A. and Guzey, S. S. (2018). Supporting engineering design ideas with science and mathematics: A case study of middle school life science students. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 6, 424–442.
Mathis, C. A., Siverling, E. A., Glancy, A., Guzey, S. S. and Moore, T. J. (2016). Students’ use of evidence-based reasoning in K-12 engineering: A case study (Fundamental). In proceedings of ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, New Orleans, LA: ASEE.
Mehalik, M., Doppelt, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Middle school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 71–85.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2019). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed). Sage.
Miller, E., Manz, E., Russ, R., Stroupe, D., & Berland, L. (2018). Addressing the epistemic elephant in the room: Epistemic agency and the next generation science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(7), 1053–1075.
Moll, L., Luis, C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141.
Moore, T. J., Glancy, A. W., Tank, K. M., Kersten, J. A., & Smith, K. A. (2014). A framework for quality K-12 engineering education: Research and development. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 4(1), 1–13.
Moore, T. J., Johnston, A. C., & Glancy, A. W. (2020). STEMintegration: A synthesis of conceptual frameworks and definitions. In C. C. Johnson, M. J. Mohr-Schroeder, T. J. Moore, & L. D. English (Eds). Handbook of research in STEM education (pp. 3–16). Routledge.
Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M. S., Wang, H.-H., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. In J. Strobel, S. Purzer, & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in precollege settings: Research into practice. Sense Publishers.
National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
Ong, Y. S., Koh, J., Tan, A. L., & Ng, Y. S. (2024). Developing an integrated STEM classroom observation protocol using the productive disciplinary engagement framework. Research in Science Education, 54(1), 101–118.
Peterman, K., Daugherty, J. L., Custer, R. L., & Ross, J. M. (2017). Analyzing the integration of engineering in science lessons with the Engineering-Infused Lesson Rubric. International Journal of Science Education, 39(14), 1913–1931.
Radloff, J., & Guzey, S. (2016). Investigating pre-service STEM teacher conceptions of STEM education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25, 759–774.
Ring, E. A., Dare, E. A., Crotty, E. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2017). The evolution of teacher conceptions of STEM education throughout an intensive professional development experience. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(5), 444–467.
Rinke, C. R., Gladstone-Brown, W., Kinlaw, C. R., & Cappiello, J. (2016). Characterizing STEM teacher education: Affordances and constraints of explicit STEM preparation for elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 116(6), 300–309.
Ring-Whalen, E. (2017). Teacher Conceptions of Integrated STEM Education and How They Are Reflected in Integrated STEM Curriculum Writing and Classroom Implementation. Dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Ring-Whalen, E. A., Dare, E. A., Roehrig, G. H., Titu, P., & Crotty, E. A. (2018). From conception to curricula: The role of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in integrated STEM units. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 6(4), 343–362.
Roehrig, G., Dare, E. A., Ellis, J. A., & Ring-Whalen, E. (2021). Beyond the basics: A detailed conceptual framework of integrated STEM. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 3(11).
Roehrig, G. H., Ellis, J. A., Dare, E. A., & Sheldon, T. D. (2016, April). Evaluation of STEM-integrated lessons using the modified RTOP. National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST). Baltimore, MD.
Roehrig, G. H., Rouleau, M. D., Dare, E. A., & Ring-Whalen, E. A. (2023). Uncovering core dimensions of K-12 integrated STEM. Research in Integrated STEM Education, 1, 1–25.
Sanders, M. E. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 1, 20–26.
Sawada, D., Piburn, M. D., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol. School Science and Mathematics, 102(6), 245–253.
Siverling, E. A., Suazo-Flores, A., Mathis, C. A. and Moore, T. J. (2019). Students’ use of STEM content in design justifications during engineering design-based STEM integration. School Science and Mathematics, 119, 457–474.
Upadhyay, B. (2005). Using students’ lived experiences in an urban science classroom; An elementary school teacher’s thinking. Science Education, 90(1), 94–110.
Walker, W. S., III, Moore, T. J., Guzey, S. S., & Sorge, B. H. (2018). Frameworks to develop integrated STEM curricula. K-12 STEM Education, 4(2), 331–339.
Wendell, K. B., Wright, C. G., & Paugh, P. (2017). Reflective decision‐making in elementary students’ engineering design. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(3), 356–397.
Wheeler, L. B., Navy, S. L., Maeng, J. L., & Whitworth, B. A. (2019). Development and validation of the classroom observation protocol for engineering design (COPED). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(9), 1285–1305.
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 279 | 279 | 61 |
Full Text Views | 6 | 6 | 1 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 14 | 14 | 4 |
To better understand integrated STEM education, this work explored scores on the STEM Observation Protocol (STEM-OP), a newly developed observation protocol for use in K-12 science and engineering classrooms. The goals of this work were to better understand how integrated STEM might look throughout an integrated STEM unit and identify limitations of the instrument when examining daily scores and full unit implementation scores. The work takes a mixed methods approach to first examine what scores may be typically seen with daily and unit implementations. After identifying an exemplar integrated curriculum unit with consistently high daily scores, the authors qualitatively explore the fluctuations in protocol scores over the course of a curriculum unit implementation. Our work reveals that some items on the protocol may vary throughout implementation, while also demonstrating that achieving the highest scores on all items during one lesson or even throughout a full curriculum unit is challenging.
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 279 | 279 | 61 |
Full Text Views | 6 | 6 | 1 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 14 | 14 | 4 |