Action Reserch Proposal

STEM Implementation Action Research Proposal

            At the conclusion of last year, I was concerned about the achievement of the students at my school; primarily because in the past they have scored below proficient on standardized tests, especially math.  As a fifth grade math and science teacher I was wondering how we could help to improve student achievement.  The school had just changed the set up of their fifth grade classes by implementing a departmentalized block format; where there is a two hour block for math and science, and a two hour block for English language arts and social studies.  The district also just piloted a STEM Education (the integration of science, technology, the engineering design process and mathematics) and had initiated plans to implement STEM throughout the district.  Schools were to pilot the program within their own settings, and our administration concluded that 5^th grade would take on this responsibility the first year.  This project will examine “In what ways will the implementation of STEM Education affect my 5th grade students in science and mathematics?”

            A theoretical framework that best supports the research I want to conduct is social constructivism.  “Social constructivists posit that knowledge is constructed when individuals engage socially in talk and activity about shared problems or tasks” (Driver, Asoko, Leach, & Mortimer, 1994).  STEM is a process that allows a cooperative group of students to collaborate on a posed problem and develop a solution.  With the posed problem being real-world investigation and the students being able to work together using higher order thinking skills, one believes that learning with retention has a much better chance of occurring.

            The action research will be gathered from my two fifth grade classrooms, which combined, total 33 students. The age range is 10-12 years, with demographics of 10 African American, 12 Caucasian, 10 Hispanic and 1 Asian.  To protect the identity of my students, they have received student numbers in addition to the first letter of their homeroom teacher’s last name. For example; C4 would be a student from my teammate’s homeroom, with a student number of 4.  I will also be incorporating data from last year’s students.  These students have also been given student numbers combined with the first letter of their former homeroom teacher’s last name, with the addition of the letter L placed first to reference last year.  For example; LD12 is a student that was in my homeroom last year, with a student number of 12.

            The action research study that I have created is a descriptive design, quantitative study.  I have chosen to collect quantitative data because I want to answer a specific question; “In what ways will the implementation of STEM Education affect my 5th grade students in science and mathematics?”   Quantitative research questions are stated in the onset of the research, and seldom change during the course of the study.  In order to resolve an answer to a specific question, the question must not change throughout the study (Mertler, 2009).  To resolve this question, I have created a triangulation of data collection consisting of: (1) a questionnaire of student’s interest in the implementation of STEM Education teaching strategies, (2) administration of Learning Link tests that assess student growth in mathematical thinking and then compare last year’s students (control group) and this year’s students (experimental group), and (3) administration of benchmark 3 and comparison of math and science benchmark achievement data from last year’s students (control group) and this year’s students (experimental group). This research design is a descriptive design because I am examining the phenomenon as it exists (Mertler, 2009).  STEM Education has already been implemented; therefore, I must conduct my research by making interpretations about the phenomenon already in place.   In order to keep the data reliable, I intend on using the Kuder-Richardson formula 21 to determine the internal consistency of the tests because they are only administered to the students once (Mertler, 2009, p. 127).  With the conclusion of my action research study, I intend on coming to a conclusion of how the implementation of STEM affects my students’; attitudes toward the new teaching strategy, growth in mathematical thinking skills, and their achievement scores on standardized tests in science and math.

            With all three aspects of my data I intend on using descriptive statistics.  I have chosen to use descriptive statistics so that I can simplify, summarize, and organize my data (Mertler, 2009).  More specifically, I plan on evaluating my data using measures of central tendency.  By using measures of central tendency, I can compare this year’s students with last year’s students.  In doing this I can determine to what extent STEM teaching strategies have on my students’ attitude, achievement scores and growth in mathematical thinking during fifth grade.  Although I am unable to give questionnaires to last year’s students, I can gather and appraise the attitudes of my current students, as they pertain to STEM Education.  I will make a statement about STEM implementation and have students rate the statement whether they strongly agree, agree, have no opinion, disagree, or strongly disagree with that particular statement.  In doing this, I can quantify the data and use central tendency to measure the statistics. 

            One limitation to running a quantitative research study is that I am unable to investigate the “hows” and “whys” of the research data.  With quantitative research one should not deviate from the intended research question, however, I am doing a quantitative study so I can get answers to my question.  I also think that my sample size of only 33 students is small considering that STEM has been implemented throughout the district.  On the other hand, incorporating the previous students scores strengthens any conclusions I come to because I can compare my results to a group of students who were not exposed to STEM based learning. 

The following timeline was created based off the school’s testing schedule.  My students have been moved to be tested first for Learning Link so that I can assess the data for my research.  I have added an extra week for analysis while students are on spring break. 

• March 12^th -15^th  – Administer Benchmark 3 tests; 13^th  -  Math assessment, 14^th  – Science assessment
• March 12^th -23^rd  Analysis of last year’s and this year’s benchmark tests
• March 19^th -23^rd  – Administer STEM interest survey
• March 19^th -23^rd  – Analysis of interest survey
• March 26^th -30^th - School’s spring break.  Additional analysis conducted here; where needed
• April 2^nd -6^th  – Administer Learning Link test
• April 2^nd -6^th  – Analysis of Learning Link data

References

Driver, R.; Asoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., Mortimer, E. (1994). "Constructing scientific

knowledge in the classroom". Educational researcher 23 (7): 5.

Mertler, C. (2008). Action research: Teachers as researchers in the classroom (2nd edition). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.