Teachers’ reflections on STEM students
Alpaslan sahin & namik top
15. Teachers’ reflections on STEM students on the Stage (S.o.S.) Model
Sense Publishers
This chapter examines a novel teaching method, the STEM Students on the Stage (S.O.S.) model, in whichteachers receive regular training and implement a well-developed project-based learning curriculum. Specifically, we investigatedthe STEM S.O.S. model teachers’ reflections and experiences with the model. Seven teachers volunteered to participate in the study. The subjects taught by teachers included physics, mathematics, chemistry, and biology. The methodology used in this study was consistent with the principles of the phenomenological approach in which each participant experienced the same phenomenon (Creswell, 2007). The common phenomenon in this study was that all teachers taught with STEM S.O.S. model. Within the analysis, emerging significant statements formulated the participants’ feelings. After grouping those formulated statements, common themes and sub-themes were identified. We found that teachers focused on two fundamental themes: how the STEM S.O.S. model works and benefits gained fromimplementing the STEM S.O.S. model. Teachers described their teaching in two groups, as the things happening within and after school. The within group had two sub-themes: teacher and student. The after-school groupalso had two sub-themes: talking about chapter projects and rigorous Level II and III projects. Benefits of the STEM S.O.S. model were grouped under benefits for teachers and students, with a total of 7 sub-themes. Themes and implications are discussed in this chapter.
introduction
STEM education has become critical to the professional success of our children and the economic well-being of our nation. Research has estimated that nearly 80% of future careers will require STEM knowledge and awareness (Afterschool Alliance, 2011). Thus, it is necessary to provide rigorous and stimulating STEM education to our children in order for them to develop the basic analytical, problem-solving, and critical thinking skills that are central to academic achievement and workforce readiness in an innovation-driven 21st century (Afterschool Alliance, 2011).
Project-based learning (PBL) has been seen as a way to provide a high-quality STEM education (e.g., Markham, 2014; Wayne RESA, 2014). Current research on project-based learning shows that PBL projects can increase student interest in STEM subjects because they engage students in solving real-life problems, working with others and coming up with products that have real-world connections (Fortus, Krajcikb, Dershimerb, Marx, & Mamlok-Naamand, 2005, as cited by Laboy-Rush, 2011). Other research has found that PBL instruction helps close the achievement gap by engaging lower-achieving students (e.g., Penuel & Means, 2000). Although there has been a myriad of positive news supporting project-based learning, there are some limitations of the model in terms of research and application. David (2008) pointed out that because project-based learning doesn’t have one standardized definition, it is difficult to research its effectiveness; that is why there have been few studies on the effect of project-based learning on student achievement. Another limitation of the model is that it has no commonly shared norms for what constitutes an acceptable project (David, 2008). Moreover, many teachers find it difficult to implement because of limited school support and a lack of ready-to-teach materials. In this study, we investigated another STEM education model, STEM S.O.S., and examined what teachers who have been using the model think about it in terms of teaching and its benefits and challenges.
Conceptual Framework and Review of Relevant Literature
This section provides a literature review on the history of project-based learning, research on project-based learning, and the STEMS.O.S.modelto develop the “skeletal structure of justification” (Eisenhart, 1991) that will serve as a guide for data collection, analysis and interpretation of the results.
The History of Project-based Learning
It is believed that Confucius and Aristotle were early advocates of learning by doing (Boss, 2014). Socrates was another pioneerin the use of different learning methods with his students, such as questioning and inquiry (Boss, 2014), which are considered components of critical thinking (Wagner, 2012). The role of John Dewey,an American educational theorist and philosopher, cannot be underestimated because he believed and showed that students should be active participants in their learning endeavor; i.e.,project-based learning goes back to the time of experiential education and the philosophy of John Dewey (Coffey, 2010).
In the mid-twentieth century, problem-based learning was introduced as a practical teaching strategy in medicine, engineering, economics and other subjects. Problems were complex and had more than one right answer. Problem-based learning helpedmedical students learn to diagnose and treat actual patients. They also had opportunities to ask questions and discover answers (Boss, 2014). This was considered a precursor to project-based learning (Coffey, 2010).
More recently, K-12 education adopted a new teaching and learning strategy, project-based learning, whichis more open-ended than the problem-based approach and gives students greater freedom to come up with their own solutions and products. Projects that are assigned to students have to be solved within a given time frame and with a limited budget (Sahin, 2012). For example, problems might include,“How can we reduce our school’s carbon print?” or“How do we measure the impact of disasters?” (Boss, 2014).
A number of factors have contributed to the popularity of project-based learning in the 21st century. These factors include developments in cognitive research, which have advanced our understanding of how we learn and develop interests in the subjects we study (Boss, 2014; Coffey, 2010), and the change in the educational environment (especially with the advent of the Internet and mobile technology).
Research on Project-based Learning
Project-based learning is an instructional approach whereby students are challenged with real-world problems that capture theirinterest and engage them by giving them responsibility for their own learning in a problem-solving context. The role of teachers is facilitating students’ learning. Students work in groups and try to solve an open-ended real-world problem (David, 2008;Sahin, 2012).
Although research on project-based learning has yielded a number of benefits for students ranging from deeper learning of academic content to stronger motivation to learn (Buck Institute for Education, 2013), there has been limited research measuring itseffectiveness due to the lack of a unified definition (David, 2008). For instance, Boaler (2002) studied students’ mathematics achievement in two similar British secondary schools where one used traditional instruction and the other used project-based learning instruction. Three years of data showed that students who were taught with project-based learning outperformed the students taught with traditional instruction in mathematics skills and conceptual and applied knowledge (cited in David, 2008). In another study, Fortus et al. (2005) (as cited by Laoy-Bush, 2011) found that students taught with the project-based approach developed greater interest in STEM subjects because theywere involved in solving authentic problems, working with others and building artifacts. Overall, it appears that just a handful of studies have examined the effectiveness of project-based learning.
These research studies imply that project-based learning works when it is fully implemented (David, 2008). However, implementation of project-based learning is not easy because it requires school support and access to ready-to-teach full curriculum including assessment materials, and continuous teacher training (David, 2008).
STEM S.O.S. Model
Research on active learning methods has shown that PBL projects can increase students’ interest in STEM and content matter by engaging them in solving authentic problems, collaborating with others and building products that have real-life connections and applications (Fortus, Krajcikb, Dershimerb, Marx, & Mamlok- Naamand, 2005, as cited by Laboy-Bush, 2011). With those findings in mind, Harmony Public Schools (HPS) developed their own STEM curriculum that incorporates project-based and inquiry-based learning. This curriculum was codified and named “STEM Students on the Stage (S.O.S. TM)” (Sahin & Top, 2014) (read Chapter 3 for an explanation of the full model). The development of the STEM S.O.S. model was funded by a Race to the Top grant through the U.S. Department of Education with the goal of increasing students’ STEM knowledge and interest and also producing self-motivated and self-regulated learners (Harmony STEM Program, 2013).
The primary purpose of the STEM S.O.S. model is “to maintain the focus on standards-based and student-centered teaching while enriching and extending the learning of students through PBL projects. The goal is to promote collaborative skills, student ownership of learning and student success in meeting state and national standards” (Harmony STEM Program, 2013, p.x) through student projects: Levels I, II, and III. All students must complete a Level I project followed by either a regular Level II or advanced Level III project (Sahin & Top, in press; Sahin, Top, & Vanessa, 2014)
This study examines a novel teaching method, STEM Students on the Stage (S.O.S.), in whichteachers receive regular training and utilize afull and well-developed project-based learning curriculum. Specifically, we investigated STEM S.O.S. model teachers’ reflections and experience with the model.
Method
Participants
11teachers were invited to be interviewed for the study. Seven teachers volunteered to participate in the study. The seven teachers represented a range of STEM subjects, including: twophysics, twomathematics andtwo chemistry teachers and onebiology teacher. There was only one female teacher in the study.
Selection Criteria
All participants were selected from a group of teachers who have a minimum of two years experience using the STEM S.O.S. model. They all have experience teaching with STEM S.O.S. model in Harmony schools. We used criterion sampling based on the belief that “when all individuals studied represents people who have experienced the phenomenon” (Creswell, 2007, p. 128).
Research design
The methodology used in this study was consistent with the principles of the phenomenological approach in which each participant experienced the same phenomenon (Creswell, 2007), that being that all teachers used the STEM S.O.S. model in their teaching. The Advocacy/Participatory orientation was the paradigm in the study. Participatory research should provide an agenda for altering the lives of participants (Kemmis & Wilkinson, 1998). This study could yield a better understanding of the experiences of teachers using the STEM S.O.S model, which may provide benefits for teachers and students.
Data Collection
The first author conducted face-to-face, semi-structured interviews with five teachers. Interviews were conducted between September 2-21, 2014 and each face-to-face interview lasted approximately 50 minutes. Two teachers returnedtheir responses to the first author via e-mail.
Data Analysis
Participants’ transcripts were analyzed using the phenomenological method developed by Colaizzi (1978). This method helped us “obtain an overall feeling for them” (Creswell, 2007; p. 270) by reading the transcripts several times. Through the analysis, emerging significant statements formulated the participants’ feelings. After grouping those formulated statements, common themes and sub-themes emerged. An in-depth description of the phenomenon will be available with the outcomes of the process.
Results
From the six verbatim transcripts of teachers, 70 significant statements were obtained. After the formulated meanings were arranged into clusters, twofundamental themes and multiple sub-themes emerged. The two fundamental themes on which the teachers generally focused were how STEM S.O.S.model works and benefits from STEM S.O.S. model (see Figure 1).
1
Teachers’ reflections on STEM students
1
Teachers’ reflections on STEM students
How the STEM S.O.S. ModelWorks
One of the chief categories concentrated on duringinterviews was comprised of the components of the STEM S.O.S. modelbywhich it contributesto the process of education. Teachers described their teaching in two groups: as the things happening within and after school. The within group had two sub-themes: teacher and student. The after-school group had two sub-themes: talking about chapter projects and rigorous Level II and III projects (see Figure 1).
Within School. Teachers described the initial step in teaching with the STEM S.O.S. model as lecturing. This is where they lay the framework for the class, model how and what to teach and provide students with expectations for when they prepare their chapter and Level I projects. All of this happens within the classroom.
Lecturing. Lecturing or teacher-directed teaching is the start of any STEM S.O.S. instruction. Although the term “lecturing”does not generally have positive connotations,lecturing in the STEM S.O.S. model is intended to be vivid and engaging. For example, one teacher stated, “It is not just lecturing on the board. I try to have a demonstration for each class, but of course it is not easy to have a demo for every single class. I also use videos, but interesting videos that are related to the topic and pictures sometimes. We don’t just watch and say, “Oh it is cool.” I ask questions from those videos and pictures so it is not just lecturing on the board.”
Another teacher described how his lecture style utilizes different hands-on and multimedia tools to engage students: “I try to have a video, picture, demo and an activity. And kids wonder what they are going to learn. It is not like, ‘It is another boring physics class!’ They always ask questions and they are engaged by the demonstrations.”
Another physics teacher emphasized the importance of lecturing, stating, “But of course, I also have lecturing time because physics is not an easy subject that students can read from the book and understand.” One of the mathematics teachers who uses the STEM S.O.S. model also reported that he starts lessons with a short lecture that includes engaging material with real-life connections and addresses the objective of the lesson.
Every day, I try to bring new projects to class that catch their interest and make connectionsbetween real life and math. If I would do the lecture in 90 minutes, students would get bored and ignore.To learn math objectives, I prepared a new way to teach math. I’ve started with a lecture for 10-15 minutes at the beginning of the class. Without real-life connections or STEM S.O.S. PBLs, my students had a hard time solving questions from ALEKS and Odyssey [mathematics learning software] but when they see that math is in their real lives, they had impressive progress on these online resources. It depends on the objective, but after my lecture, the remaining time they start to do their self-assessment or group work activities.
The content of lectures variesby teacher. All teachers reported that they began their instruction with a short lecture. Onephysics teacher indicated that he starts his teaching with a bell-work assignment and then starts lecturing. He stated, “I do start with a bell-work assignment and then lecture around 15-20 minutes associated with demonstrations.”
A chemistry teacher described her lecturing as being somewhat different;instead of spending 20 minutes of class time lecturing, she has students watch a movie of a lecture she made as homework. She spends the first part of class answering students’ questions about the lecture. Then they continue with students’ demonstrations and experiments.
I have “flipped” my PAP Chemistry classes, meaning students get their first introduction [lecturing] to new material at home at their own pace and at their own place. I have my students take notes on my Prezi website, which I check the next time I see the students in class.With note taking out of the classroom and assigned as homework, my class time is spent doing hands-on activities, labs and practice problems. I find the “flipped” classroom works extremely well. It helps students understand topics faster and more in-depth and it results in less confusion with the math in chemistry, since I am there to answer any questions they may have.
Student presentations. This is one of the central parts of the STEM S.O.S. model because the name of the model, Students on the Stage (S.O.S.) comes from the fact thatstudents come on the “stage” and act like a teacher. Teachers reported that their students do two types of presentations: chapter projects and/or Level II and III yearlong projects during class. It seems that the teacher decides to whom and which projects he/she needs for the class ahead. This might be a simple chapter demo or a more advanced yearlong project, as one teacher explained:
Along with our teaching [lecturing], we include student presentations that are related to the content I am teaching. Students either do demonstrations as part of simple chapter projects or Level II or III yearlong projects.Teachers decide how many students he or she will use for the class.