The Effects STEM Implementation had on 5th
graders
Achievement, Growth, and Attitude in Math and
Science
Brianne Doolittle
Michigan State University
Abstract
Action research and
reflective practice were conducted to gauge how STEM affected fifth grade students. A treatment group of 33 fifth grade students,
composed from two classrooms, was investigated.
The effectiveness of STEM was based on triangulation of data that was
then compared to the previous year. Interwoven
throughout this study is the social
constructivism theoretical framework, stating students are more apt to
construct knowledge in a socially cooperative learning situation that focuses
on a common theme. A
descriptive design, quantitative study
was completed so that the specifics of STEM education’s effectiveness could be
answered. Through the administration and
analysis of interest surveys, Learning Link, and Benchmark tests; students’
overall attitudes and average proficiency rates were analyzed then compared to
the previous years. The conclusion of
the study indicated that STEM had positive effects on students’ overall
attitudes regarding science and STEM; and furthermore, showed impressive gains
in the percentage of students who were proficient in math and science and the
percentage of students able to perform at grade level in math. STEM is an effective teaching method that can
be taught dynamically, while allowing students to apply their knowledge of the
content in a meaningful real-life situation and has the potential to make
dramatic impacts on students’ educations.
The Effects of STEM Implementation
As I continued my own higher education, and began this online class
of the processes through which action research follows; my thoughts naturally
turned to my fifth grade students and their education. It was my utmost desire to provide my
students with learning opportunities that stimulated their curiosity, motivated
their creative thinking, and differentiated effectively so as to relate to
their individual strengths and weaknesses.
I believed the implementation of STEM Education would
assist in this lofty goal. While it
focused on student led, hands-on, investigative learning, I felt STEM would
fill a void that has been long neglected at our school.
At the beginning of last year, I was concerned about the
achievement of the students at my school, primarily because in the past, they
had scored below proficient on standardized tests, especially in math. As a fifth grade math and science teacher, I
was left with the task of using the data available to develop a new approach to
teaching this special population, so as to have a greater number of proficient scores
on the mathematics’ portion of the assessment.
Meanwhile, our school just implemented a departmentalized block format,
where there was a two-hour block of math and science instruction and a two-hour
block of English Language Arts and Social Studies. The district had also piloted STEM Education
(the integration of science, technology, the engineering design process, and
mathematics,) in a few schools, and had initiated plans to implement STEM
throughout the district. Schools were asked
to pilot the program within their own settings, and our administration
concluded that 5th grade would take on this responsibility the first
year. Therefore, this project will
examine, “In what ways will the implementation of STEM Education affect my 5th
grade students in science and mathematics?”
Definitions
·
Engineering design thought
process: Students are faced with a
real-world problem solving situation, and are to (1) ASK themselves what do
they need to know, (2) IMAGINE a solution to the problem, (3) PLAN out the
solution, (4) CREATE (design) a solution to the problem, the action stage, and
(5) IMPROVE, determine how the solution can be improved. Then following the process once again,
students improve the solution to their problem.
·
Norm Reference Test: Yields an estimate of the position of the tested
individual in a predefined population, with respect to the trait being
measured.
·
Prototyping: Students create their own solution; it is often done as an
example.
·
STEM: A teaching strategy that integrates science, technology,
engineering design, thought process, and mathematics.
·
TCAP: Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program. This is Tennessee’s state standardized test.
Theoretical Framework
A theoretical
framework that best supports the research I want to conduct is social
constructivism. Social constructivism is the theory that students
generate knowledge and meaning of the content from an interaction between their
experiences and their ideas (Dewey, 1929).
This type of learning is problem-based adaptive learning that integrates
new knowledge with existing knowledge, and allows for creation of original work
or innovative procedures (Dewey, 1929). Therefore,
for students to generate a connection with the content, they need an
environment where they can thoughtfully interact with the content. STEM is a process that does just this. Students are to take what knowledge base they
have and apply it to a problem solving situation where they create their own
solution to the problem they face.
Through this process students must take what they know and apply it to a
new situation, which in turn they create their own meaningful connections to
the content. By creating their own connections
to the content, students are making the content personally relevant and more
academically accessible.
“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. This is a
challenging task because all students in the group have their own ideas and
solutions to the shared problem; in the end they need to work together by
socially communicating to come up with one collaborative solution that
encompasses a multitude of ideas. Not
only are students faced with the task of creating a single, functional
solution, they must also tap into their higher order thinking skills to create
meaning through the content they are working with. With the posed problem being a 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 following is a
literature review which provides insight to the effects of STEM
implementation.
Literature Review
STEM is the integration of science, mathematics, and technology in
a problem-based learning environment using the engineering design thought
process. As lessons blossomed into
inquiry and problem-based investigations, a group of educators coined the
acronym STEM. This action research
project will aim to measure to what extent STEM affects student achievement in
math and science in my classroom. I will
also investigate how STEM affects students’ attitudes toward math and science.
Issues in our world arise and require demanding
solutions. Citizens are asked for a multiplicity
of pathways to offer plausible solutions; which have created the power of
prototyping. Rarely have our classrooms
offered children the chance to engage in higher level questioning and
processes. Now, through STEM Education, we have the chance to invite our
children to look at their schoolwork as important to the world. They
create a solution to the real-world problem they are presented with, carry out
their solution plans, then evaluate its effectiveness and improve their
design. Upon the conclusion of their
challenge, students have gone through relevant higher level thinking to
synthesize and evaluate their knowledge of the content at hand.
The elementary school where I am currently a 5th grade
Math and Science teacher is Title 1, and historically low performing on the
state standardized assessment (TCAP) in reading and math. Administration and Staff have worked
diligently to turn around this trend, improve scores, and attain growth in students,
and to some extent have been successful.
Initiatives have been implemented, some with success and some with
needed revamping, but always with a continual focus on student achievement and
yearly growth. The newest of these
initiatives is STEM Education, with the district piloting the program last year
in a few schools, and then spreading it throughout all schools this year. One grade level per school was to incorporate
the program this year, and my school chose to implement STEM into the fifth grade
math/science curriculum. To meet this expectation, I have integrated it into my
current course scope and sequence and am in the process of examining the
research question: “In what ways will the implementation of STEM Education affect my 5th
grade students in science and mathematics?”
After reviewing ten articles that describe empirical research and
theoretical insights, I was able to sort them into three categories. The three common themes reoccurring in the
literature were: (1) reform of science
education is needed, (2) students tend to gain a more solid scientific and
mathematical knowledge through STEM learning, and (3) STEM has been found to
generate student interest toward math and science.
The Need for Educational Reform
It is well documented that there is a deficiency in clear core
standards for science education.
Rutherford and Ahlgren (1991) stated, “the necessity for strengthening
science education in the United States has been widely acknowledged in numerous
education studies.” Concerning trends
consist of low test scores, students’ avoidance of math and science classes,
and the fact that the United States is ranked near the bottom in studies of
students’ knowledge of science and mathematics (Rutherford & Ahlgren,
1991). All of the studies that relate to
this theme reiterate the fact that “a large majority of students still fail to
reach adequate levels of proficiency” (Kuenzi, Matthews & Mangan, 2006, p.
3). Students are failing to reach
proficiency and are inadequately performing at the grade level in which they
are being tested.
On the other hand, being unable to produce students who are
competent in mathematics and science is greatly affecting our economy. One of the studies went further to emphasize
that the economy requires a highly educated workforce, especially in science,
technology, engineering and math fields; and it projected a 17% growth of jobs
in STEM related fields in the next decade (BHEF, 2011). Research has shown that students who graduate
from high school proficient in math and science, are more likely to pursue a
STEM related career (BHEF, 2011). These studies
show a need for reform due to low student achievement and projections for an
increase in jobs in STEM related fields.
Although these studies clearly defined a need for educational
reform due to low achievement, they fail to discuss how education should be
reformed; however, Akinoglu and Tandogan attempt to make suggestions for
use. They suggest that students need to
be in an active learning environment that promotes problem-solving skills;
which develops students’ higher level thinking skills and increases their
achievement (Akinoglu & Tandogan, 2006).
When students feel successful and accomplished, they are confident and
will enjoy the task at hand (Akinoglu & Tandogan, 2006). Students who are confident when completing
math and/or science activities/problems/investigations, are more likely to find
enjoyment in these areas and may eventually choose a STEM related career.
STEM Positively Affects Student Achievement
STEM related activities are highly motivating and are geared
towards hands on learners. When
effective, researchers’ evidence supports STEM as having a positive impact on
student achievement. Also, the studies have
made reference to higher order thinking.
Akinoglu and Tandogan (2006) wrote that problem based learning “develops
students’ higher level thinking, critical thinking, and scientific thinking
skills” by creating challenges that are student-centered instead of being
teacher-centered (p. 73). Moreover,
students can actively apply engineering and science knowledge while they tend
to gain a solid understanding of science and mathematics through STEM learning
(Lou, Shih, Diez & Tseng, 2011).
STEM Education can create a solid knowledge base, while it enhances
students’ abilities and provides them with real-life experiences through
content integration and application (Lou, Shih, Diez & Tseng, 2011). With a solid understanding of the content,
students are more prepared to apply their knowledge on a norm-referenced test,
which in turn, increases proficiency rates.
One study differs in that it elaborates on the technology component
of STEM. Just incorporating technology
is not enough, but “using computers to help students work through complex
problems; thus activating higher-order thinking skills, produced greater
benefits than when using computers to drill students on a set of rote tasks.”
(Wenglinsky, 2006, p. 30). When using
technology to help problem solve in a STEM challenge, students’ higher level
thinking skills are activated, therefore, it is beneficial to students’
achievement to incorporate technology into STEM.
While it appears that computers are successful in promoting student
achievement, computers also foster a great deal of interest for students. Students are naturally curious about
technology, therefore, by incorporating it into the classroom by promoting
higher level thinking strategies, students will be more interested in science
and mathematics content (Wenglinsky, 2006).
When students’ interests are peaked, they tend to have a better attitude
when asked to complete a task (Shepardson & Pizzinni, 1994). By incorporating computers so that students
have a more willing attitude, they will be more successful completing STEM
related activities.
STEM Fosters Students’ Positive Attitudes toward
Mathematics and Science
A final theme found while researching was the apparent connection
between STEM investigations and the heightening of students’ attitudes towards
math and science instruction. The studies
agree that a love for science and science related fields begins in elementary
school and that it must be nurtured in order to continue (Farenga & Joyce,
1997). One study suggested that to keep
interests high, science must be taught dynamically and should incorporate the
interests of the students (Shepardson & Pizzinni, 1994). Moreover, studies support STEM by showing the
benefits that cooperative learning and active learning settings have on
positive attitudes in the classroom (Thom, 2001).
An unexpected theme I encountered, and one of which I found oddly
surprising was how many of the studies suggested that girls lack interest in
science. Farenga and Joyce suggest that
girls bring different experiences to the classroom due to the different roles
they have in their home lives (1997).
Vanmali and Abell offered an explanation as to why boys tend to be more
interested in science opposed to girls (2009).
They stated that while engaged in science activities, boys tend to “tinker”
with the tools, such as balances and beakers, while girls tend to follow the
teacher’s directions and only do what they are told to do with the tools
(Vanmali & Abell, 2009). Therefore,
when teachers do not create active, hands-on learning opportunities, girls tend
to lose interest. While students may
bring different interests to the table, as teachers, we can align ideas, use
real-world connections, and provide projects that emphasize collaboration and
communication to pique the interests of all involved in my class.
Two of the studies differed in that they incorporated students’ “prior”
knowledge in to the mix which should always be taken into consideration when
planning, so interests are not overlooked (Farenga & Joyce, 1997). By showing students how their prior
experiences align with scientific ideas and by using real-world connections to
emphasize societal relevance, students should be more interested in science and
mathematics related concepts (Vanmali & Abell, 2009). By valuing and incorporating what students
already know into the lesson, and letting them experience math and science in real-world
and relevant situations, their interests will naturally be piqued.
Students are naturally curious about
science related phenomena. Many of the studies
agree that students have a natural love of science and science related fields; however,
that love needs to be nurtured in order to continue (Farenga & Joyce,
1997). It is implied by students’
current lack of interest in science related fields that science education needs
to be reformed. Reform in science
education depends on changing existing curricula from kindergarten through high
school (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1991).
By reforming science education, we can create guidelines that cater to
students’ natural curiosity in science related phenomena.
Summary
Lou, Shih, Diez, and Tseng believed that STEM Education can lead to
positive results on students’ math and science assessments and that problem-based
learning can enhance students’ attitudes toward STEM Education (Lou, Shih, Diez
and Tseng, 2011). Positive learning
environments promoted usefulness of the content and interest in science related
fields (Shepardson & Pizzinni, 1994).
Enhancing students’ attitudes toward STEM leads to an exploration of
future STEM related careers (Lou, Shih, Diez and Tseng, 2011). It is projected that a 17% growth in STEM
related careers is to be expected in the next decade (BHEF, 2011). Therefore, it is a benefit that science
education be reformed to incorporate STEM learning experiences.
The studies above support the implementation of STEM
Education. Upon completion of this
literature review, I understand the rationale my school district used to make
the decision to reform science curriculum.
By incorporating problem based learning strategies and real-world
investigations, students activate and use higher order thinking to enrich,
motivate, and enhance their science, technology, engineering, and math
curriculums. STEM Education has also
shown the ability to improve the attitudes of students about participating in
science and math classes. When
comprehension and application are achieved, students share that they feel more
confident and enjoy the learning investigations. The majority of the literature supported
curriculum changes that include STEM.
However, it is still unknown as to what extent STEM Education is more
beneficial than traditional science and math teaching.
Research Method
This action research
project investigated the effects of STEM Education on two fifth grade
classrooms with a total number of 33 students. The age range was 10-12 years,
with demographics of 10 African American, 12 Caucasian, 10 Hispanic, and one Asian. Of the 33 students participating in the
study, six students were in the ELL program with two in transitional stages; in
addition, two students had IEPs, all of which received testing
modifications. To protect the identity of
the students, they 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. Data from last year’s students has also been
incorporated. These students were also
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 was conducted was a descriptive design, quantitative
study. Quantitative data was used because
the intent was 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, a triangulation of data collection was created consisting of: (1) a
questionnaire of student’s interest in the implementation of STEM Education
teaching strategies, (2) administration of Learning Link tests that yielded an estimate of the position of the tested
individual in a predefined population, and (3) administration of three standardized
benchmark tests in both mathematics and science content areas. This research design is a descriptive design
because the data was examined as the phenomenon exists (Mertler, 2009). STEM Education has been implemented; therefore,
the research is conducted by making interpretations about the phenomenon
already in place. In order to keep the
data reliable, the Kuder-Richardson formula 21 was used to determine the
internal consistency of the tests because they are only administered to the
students once (Mertler, 2009, p. 127). In
conclusion of this action research study, it was determined how STEM affected
students’; attitudes toward the new teaching strategy, growth in mathematical
thinking skills, and their achievement scores on standardized tests in science
and math.
Descriptive
statistics was used to analyze all forms of data collection. The descriptive statistics simplified,
summarized, and organized the data (Mertler, 2009). More specifically, the data was evaluated using
measures of central tendency. By using
measures of central tendency, data from this year’s students was compared to
last year’s students. This was done to
determine the extent STEM teaching strategies had on students’ attitude and
achievement scores in math and science during fifth grade. Although the questionnaires were not
administered to last year’s students, questionnaires were given to this year’s
students to appraise their attitudes as they pertain to STEM Education. The survey contained statements about STEM implementation
and students rated the statements according to whether they strongly agreed,
agreed, have no opinion, disagreed, or strongly disagreed with each particular
statement. In doing this, the data can
be quantified and measures of central tendency can be applied to measure student’s
attitudes statistically.
One
limitation with a quantitative research study is that the “hows” and “whys” of
the research data are unable to be investigated. With quantitative research one should not
deviate from the intended research question, however, quantitative study has
been completed to answer the intended question.
A sample size of only 33 students was small considering that STEM has
been implemented throughout the district.
On the other hand, by incorporating the previous students’ scores
strengthened any conclusions because the results were compared to a group of
students who were not exposed to STEM Education.
Findings
This action research project was
focused around a triangulation of data collection methods including: (1) a questionnaire of students’ interests on
the implementation of STEM Education teaching strategies, (2) administration of
Learning Link tests that yields an
estimate of the position of the tested individual in a predefined population, and (3)
administration of three standardized benchmark tests in both mathematics and
science content areas. All of the data
was quantified and compared using descriptive statistics including measure of
central tendency and percentages.
Students,
in the treatment group only, took an interest survey consisting of seven
statements about math, science, STEM, and technology. Students were to rank how true they felt a
statement was for them on a scale from 1 to 5.
A 5 indicated that the student thought the statement was very true, a 3 it
was somewhat true, and a 1 indicated it was completely false. The most common ranking for each statement
was 5. Students were asked to rank statements that they liked math, science,
STEM, and technology, the average results were as follows: math 4.14, science
4.21, STEM 4.93, and technology 4.66.
Students were then asked to use the same scale to rank the statements
that they liked math and science more when STEM was involved. The average results included: “I like math
better when STEM is involved” 4.03, and “I like science better when STEM is
involved” 4.52. The final statement of
the questionnaire was “I like this year better because I get to do STEM,” the
average rating was 4.72. Measures of
central tendency of the questionnaire statements can be found in Table 1 of
Appendix A.
Learning
Link data at a fifth grade level produces a quantile measure that ranges from
0-1050. Students who received scores
ranging from 550-815 were defined as performing within 5th grade
level, students who received scores ranging from 765-815 had mastered 5th
grade content, furthermore, students who received a score higher than 816 were
defined as advanced and were performing above 5th year grade level
expectations. The treatment group had an
average quantile measure of 896;100% of students performed within 5th
year level, 76% mastered 5th grade content, and 72% exceeded 5th
year grade level expectations. The
standard deviation of scores was 178.
Last year’s control group had an average quantile measure of 793;86% of
students performed within 5th year grade level, 59% mastered 5th
grade content, and 55% exceeded 5th year grade level
expectations. The standard deviation of
scores was 210. Learning Link data can
be found in tables 2 and 3 of Appendix A.
In
the state of Tennessee standardized Benchmark testing was administered three
times a year. Students received a
percentage score of correct answers out of 35.
These 35 questions were composed from seven different state standards in
the respectful content area. The state
considered students who score 80% or higher to have mastered the content. The treatment group’s average scores on Math
Benchmark 1 was 78, with 63% of the students proficient, Math Benchmark 2 was
71, with 34% of the students proficient, and Math Benchmark 3 was 85, with 77%
of the students proficient. Furthermore,
the treatment group’s average scores on Science Benchmark 1 was 78, with 50% of
the students proficient, Science Benchmark 2 was 80, with 61% of the students
proficient, and Science Benchmark 3 was 79, with 58% of the students
proficient. On the other hand, last
year’s control group’s average scores on Math Benchmark 1 was 55, with 15% of
the students proficient, Math Benchmark 2 was 54, with 11% of the students
proficient, and Math Benchmark 3 was 83, with 66% of the students
proficient. Moreover, last year’s control
group’s average scores on Science Benchmark 1 was 60, with 24% of the students
proficient, Science Benchmark 2 was 67, with 16% of the students proficient, and
Science Benchmark 3 was 76, with 41% of the students proficient. Standard
deviations for the treatment groups’ above tests are as follows: Math Benchmark
1, 14, Math Benchmark 2, 17, Math Benchmark 3, 11, Science Benchmark 1, 10, Science
Benchmark 2, 10 and Science Benchmark 3, 11.
Standard deviations for last year’s control groups’ above tests are as
follows: Math Benchmark 1, 20, Math Benchmark 2, 21, Math Benchmark 3, 14, Science
Benchmark 1, 18, Science Benchmark 2, 14 and Science Benchmark 3, 11. Benchmark data can be found in tables 4 and 5
of Appendix A. The following section expands upon the findings to interpret the
meaning behind the data.
Discussion
Upon completion of the triangulation
of data, I was able to internalize and reflect on the data, and synthesize the
outcomes. The question that was being
investigated: “In what ways will the implementation of STEM Education affect my 5th
grade students in science and mathematics?”
STEM had some surprising, yet enlightening, affects on students’
interest levels regarding math and science.
Learning Link results yielded
significant gains in students’ abilities to perform at or exceed 5th
grade math level expectations. The benchmark data from the study that was
analyzed showed a positive statistical difference in student’s achievement
levels on all three benchmark tests in math and science.
The
majority of the students indicated they liked math and science, with mean
scores of 4.14 and 4.21; students liked being in math and science class. The statement about STEM yielded a mean score
of 4.93 indicating that students really liked STEM. When students were asked if they liked
science more when STEM was incorporated, their mean score increased by 0.31; implying
they prefer science be incorporated in STEM.
On the other hand, when students were asked if they like math more when
it was incorporated with STEM, their mean score decreased by 0.11; indicating
they preferred math alone, opposed to applying it in a STEM investigation. Farenga
and Joyce (1997) make the point that love for science and science related
fields comes naturally in elementary school; however, it must be nurtured in
order to continue. Therefore, to keep
interests high, science must be taught dynamically (Shepardson & Pizzinni,
1994). Social constructivists suggest that if we
teach science dynamically through STEM while letting students engage socially
in talk and activity about shared problems or tasks, they will have a higher
interest in science and math content knowledge (Driver, Asoko, Leach, & Mortimer,
1994).
Learning
Link data from the treatment group showed a significant increase in the
percentage of students who were able to perform within and above grade level
expectations for mathematics (Table 3 in Appendix A). The treatment group’s average score of 896
exceeded grade level expectations. In
addition, the standard deviation had decreased by 32, indicating that student’s
scores were closer to the mean score compared to the year before. 100% of the students in the treatment group
were able to perform mathematics with in a 5th year grade level;
this was up 14% from the control group.
Furthermore, 72% of students in the treatment group were able to perform
mathematics above grade level expectations; this was up 17% from the control
group. This data indicated significant
improvement in mathematics performance. Social
constructivism theory supported the
treatment group’s success with mathematics because it stated that knowledge is
constructed when individuals engage socially in STEM challenges when they
collaborate about the solution to the shared problem (Driver, Asoko, Leach,
& Mortimer, 1994). By creating a solid understanding of the content, students are more prepared to
apply their knowledge on a norm-referenced test; this is proven with the
treatment group’s success on the Learning Link test.
Benchmark
data showed a significant statistical difference in the treatment group’s ability
to proficiently apply their math and science knowledge on all three benchmark
tests. The treatment group yielded
average scores on all three tests that were significantly higher than the
control group’s average scores. With an
increase in the treatment groups mean scores and a smaller standard deviation,
the treatment group was displaying that they were more capable of achieving
mastery than the control group (Table 4 in Appendix A). Of the six benchmark tests given, students in
the treatment group produced a higher percentage of proficient scores on all
tests, yielding improvements anywhere from an 11%-48% increase in the number of
students who received a score of 80% or higher (Table 5 in Appendix A). Improved
achievement on benchmark tests was a result of STEM implementation and was
supported by the social constructivism theory, which stated students generate
knowledge and meaning of the content from an interaction between their
experiences and their ideas (Dewey, 1929).
With a strong meaningful connection to the content the treatment group
was able to better apply their knowledge on benchmark tests compared to the
control group. STEM Education can create a solid knowledge base, while it enhances
students’ abilities and provides them with real-life experiences through
content integration and application (Lou, Shih, Diez & Tseng, 2011).
This action research study has
uncovered a positive change in student achievement. Incorporating STEM this year has brought
success for my students. The amount of
students that were able to apply their knowledge of the content and show
mastery level skills has increased significantly. In conjunction with successful test scores,
my students have also shown interest in math and science education. Moreover, students revealed that they prefer
science when it is incorporated into a STEM project. For me, this information provided to be, not
only informative, but productive and crucial for my STEM planning. In the future, I think it goes without saying
that STEM will continue to be a major area of focus. This year STEM has led to dramatic success, which
I believe will continue in the following years.
From this study I have learned that the social constructivism theory
carried a lot of weight when incorporating STEM. The collaborative aspect of STEM piqued the
students’ interests and allowed for a
collection of creative original work through innovative procedures. This will be the basis for continuing STEM
education in my classroom.
Conclusion
Throughout this study I have
continually reflected upon my teaching practices. I have discovered that the old school “lecture”
style teaching strategy of the phenomena of scientific theory is ineffective in
helping students retain information and/or have a desire to embrace the subject
of science. Through this study, I have reinforced
the fact that inquiry teaching practices coupled with student collaboration are
the most effective ways for students to construct meaning of the content. If students are going to apply the knowledge
they gain from STEM Education, teaching needs to be dynamic. STEM is a method in which one can teach
dynamically and allow students the opportunity to experience the phenomena and
make their own connections to the material that builds upon their prior
knowledge.
One fact that cannot be ignored when
examining the effects STEM had on my students, was that this is my second year of
teaching, whereas, the control group was my first year. I think further study needs to be conducted
to determine how much success was attributed to STEM and how much to an
additional year of teaching. When
looking at Table 5 in Appendix A, I noticed there was less of a discrepancy
between benchmarks as we moved throughout the year. I feel the third benchmark was the most
accurate in terms of success with STEM because I became more experienced as my
first year was underway (control group, Benchmark 3).
I have two recommendations for
further research in regard to the effects STEM has on students. First, I believe that my study should
continue so there is a chance for a pattern to emerge. If the study were to continue, as years pass,
and positive results are still experienced, then there would be no question as
to how beneficial STEM has been. With
this being my second year of teaching, some of the success was attributed to my
gaining of experience and some to the implementation of STEM; however, in order
to determine how much is attributed to STEM, the study needs to continue. Secondly, I believe a direct comparison model
would also be a beneficial way to illustrate the effects STEM has on students. The control group would be composed of
students who have never experienced STEM and the treatment group could be
introduced to STEM implementation; furthermore, the data collected would
illustrate the raw effects of STEM implementation.
References
Akinoglu,
O. & Tandogan, R. (2006). The effects of problem-based active learning in
science
education on students’ academic achievement, attitude and concept
learning. Eurasia
Journal of Mathematics,
Science & Technology Education, 3(1),
71-81.
Creating
the workforce of the future: The STEM interest and proficiency challenge.
(2011,
August). BHEF Research Brief.
Dewey, J (1929). "My pedagogic creed". Journal
of the National Education Association,. 9 18:
291-295.
Driver, R.; Asoko,
H., Leach, J., Scott, P., Mortimer, E. (1994). "Constructing scientific
knowledge in the classroom". Educational researcher 23 (7): 5.
Farenga,
S. & Joyce, B. (1997). What children bring to the classroom: Learning
science from
experience. School Science and Mathematics, 97(5),
248-252.
Kuenzi,
J., Matthews, C., & Mangan, B. (2006).
Science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education issues and legislative options. CRS Report for Congress,
1-31.
Lou, S.,
Shih, R., Diez, C., & Tseng, K. (2011). The impact of problem based
learning strategies
on STEM knowledge integration and attitudes: An exploratory study
among female Taiwanese senior high school students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 1-21.
Mertler, C. (2008). Action research:
Teachers as researchers in the classroom (2nd edition).
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Rutherford,
J. & Ahlgren, A. (1991). Reforming Education. Science for All Americans (chap.
14). Retrieved January 22, 2012, from http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/chap14.htm
Shepardson,
D. & Pizzinni, E. (1994). Gender, achievement, and perception toward
science activities. School
Science and Mathematics, 94(4), 188.
Thom, M.
(2001). Young women’s progress in science and technology studies:
Overcoming remaining barriers. National Association of Secondary
School Principals.
NASSP Bulletin, 85(628), 6-19.
Vanmali,
B. & Abell, S. (2009). Finding a place for girls in science. Science and Children, 62-
63.
Wenglinsky,
H. (2006). Technology and achievement:
The bottom line. Educational
Leadership, 29-32.
Appendix
A
Table 1:
Interest Survey Data
|
Interest
Survey
|
Like
Math
|
Like Science
|
Like STEM
|
Like Technology
|
Like Math More w/ STEM
|
Like Science More w/ STEM
|
Like This Year More because of STEM
|
|
Mean
|
4.14
|
4.21
|
4.93
|
4.66
|
4.03
|
4.54
|
4.72
|
|
Median
|
5
|
4
|
5
|
5
|
4
|
5
|
5
|
|
Mode
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
|
Standard Deviation
|
1.06
|
0.94
|
0.26
|
0.67
|
1.05
|
0.74
|
0.53
|
Table 2:
Learning Link: Descriptive Statistics
|
Learning Link
|
Number of Students
Tested
|
Mean
|
Median
|
Mode
|
Standard Deviation
|
|
Control Group (2010-2011)
|
29
|
793
|
850
|
1050
|
210
|
|
Treatment Group (2011-2012)
|
29
|
896
|
945
|
1050
|
178
|
Table 3:
Learning Link: Percentage of Student’s Performance
|
Learning Link
|
Number of Students
Tested
|
Amount Ranging
Below Grade Level
550-815 (%)
|
Amount Ranging
At Grade
Level
765-815 (%)
|
Amount Ranging
Above Grade Level
816-1050 (%)
|
|
Control Group (2010-2011)
|
29
|
25 (86%)
|
17 (59%)
|
16 (55%)
|
|
Treatment Group (2011-2012)
|
29
|
29 (100%)
|
22 (76%)
|
21 (72%)
|
Table 4:
Benchmark Data: Descriptive Statistics
|
Benchmark Testing
|
Math Benchmark 1
|
Math Benchmark 2
|
Math Benchmark 3
|
Science Benchmark 1
|
Science Benchmark 2
|
Science Benchmark 3
|
|
Control Mean
|
55
|
54
|
83
|
60
|
67
|
76
|
|
Treatment
Mean
|
78
|
71
|
85
|
78
|
80
|
79
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Control Median
|
53
|
51
|
86
|
57
|
69
|
77
|
|
Treatment Median
|
83
|
75
|
86
|
79
|
80
|
83
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Control Mode
|
51
|
57
|
91
|
46
|
63
|
74
|
|
Treatment Mode
|
86
|
47
|
89
|
80
|
86
|
89
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Control Standard
Deviation
|
20
|
21
|
14
|
18
|
14
|
11
|
|
Treatment Standard Deviation
|
14
|
17
|
11
|
10
|
10
|
11
|
Table 5:
Benchmark Data: Percent Proficient
|
Benchmark Testing
|
Math Benchmark 1
|
Math Benchmark 2
|
Math Benchmark 3
|
Science Benchmark 1
|
Science Benchmark 2
|
Science Benchmark 3
|
|
Control
#
Proficient (%)
|
4
(15%)
|
3
(11%)
|
19
(66%)
|
6
(24%)
|
4
(16%)
|
12
(41%)
|
|
Treatment
#
Proficient (%)
|
19
(63%)
|
10
(34%)
|
24
(77%)
|
15
(50%)
|
17
(61%)
|
18
(58%)
|
Appendix B
March 12th,
2012
Dear Parents,
As you know, this is
the first year that STEM is being implemented at Minglewood Elementary. STEM is the process of integrating science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics, and it is added into our current
mathematics and science curriculums.
STEM is where students are faced with a real-world problem, and through
the engineering design thought process students develop a solution to the
problem by applying their math and science knowledge.
STEM is a new concept
to the school; therefore, I am conducting an action research study to determine
the effectiveness of STEM on students’ academic achievement, academic growth,
and overall attitude toward STEM. In
order to gauge STEM’s effectiveness, I will be collecting data from students’
benchmark tests and Learning Link tests, as well as, having the students
complete a survey on their attitudes toward STEM.
Your child will remain
anonymous during this study, and will be referred to as a number in my written
report. If you choose to allow me to
include your child in this study, you will be assisting me in determining the
effects of STEM implementation on my students.
If you choose not to allow your child to participate in this study, I
will still be assisting your child in their learning and they will still be
allowed to participate in ALL
STEM activities.
Thank you, and if you
have any questions feel free to contact me by email:
brianne.doolittle@cmcss.net, or you may call the school and request to speak to
me.
Sincerely,
Brianne
Doolittle
______________________________________________________________________________
Please complete the bottom portion of this letter and return it to
me by 3/23/12.
Student’s name ____________________________________
Parent’s signature __________________________________
My child can participate in this research project.
YES ____ NO ____
No comments:
Post a Comment