Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

Chinese Pioneering Educators’ Understandings and Practices of STEM Education

Qiu Zhong 1 2 3 * ,
Conghui Liu 1 2 3,
Adam Vincent Maltese 1 2 3,
Jing Yang 1 2 3
1 Indiana University Bloomington2 Department of Curriculum and Instruction3 Science Education* Corresponding Author
Download PDF
Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, Volume 7, Issue 3, September 2024, pp. 25-47
OPEN ACCESS VIEWS: 160 DOWNLOADS: 171 Publication date: 15 Sep 2024
ABSTRACT
The Chinese education system issued a series of policies to encourage educators to explore science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and selected a number of schools and educators as pioneers of STEM education. Through the education policy implementation framework, this qualitative study explores eight pioneering educators’ interpretations of STEM education, their knowledge of STEM education policies, and how they transform their understanding into practice. The results show that the pioneering educators hold a similar understanding of the definition of STEM education and how STEM education should be conducted. However, they adopted diverse STEM practices due to their different academic backgrounds, administration roles, school environment, available resources, and personal abilities and interests. They displayed tension and confusion over their own STEM practices and requested official guidance. The tension may have emerged from the conflicts between the top-down policy operation system and the place-based, bottom-up nature of STEM education. Further, STEM policies played a positive role in increasing educators’ openness and confidence in trying new STEM education strategies; however, they could not influence how educators performed their STEM practices. The educators proposed four kinds of policies to support STEM practices. This study highlights the importance of including teachers’ ownership and agency while drafting STEM education policies and proposing practices. The implications for better STEM education policy design and implementation are discussed.
KEYWORDS
STEM education, Chinese educational reform, STEM teacher understandings, Chinese STEM educator, STEM policy implementation
CITATION (APA)
Zhong, Q., Liu, C., Maltese, A. V., & Yang, J. (2024). Chinese Pioneering Educators’ Understandings and Practices of STEM Education. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 7(3), 25-47. https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.732
REFERENCES
  1. Aithal, P. S., & Aithal, S. (2019). Analysis of higher education in Indian National education policy proposal 2019 and its implementation challenges. International Journal of Applied Engineering and Management Letters (IJAEML), 3(2), 1-35.
  2. An, Z. L., Wang, N., Wan, W., & Fu, Q. (2020). The Enlightenment of Chinese Innovation Education—STEM. In 2020 International Conference on Social Science, Economics and Education Research (SSEER 2020) (pp. 85-87). Atlantis Press.
  3. Balsiger, P. W. (2004). Supradisciplinary research practices: history, objectives and rationale. Futures, 36(4), 407-421.
  4. 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 Teacher Education, 30(6), 666-680.
  5. Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. NSTA press.
  6. Cavendish, W., Morris, C. T., Chapman, L. A., Ocasio-Stoutenburg, L., & Kibler, K. (2020). Teacher perceptions of implementation practices to support secondary students in special education. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 64(1), 19-27.
  7. Chinese Ministry of Education. (2017). Compulsory education primary science curriculum standards.
  8. Chinese Ministry of Education. (2018). China STEM education white paper.
  9. 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.
  10. Das, A., & Adams, J. D. (2019). Critical transdisciplinary STEM: A critical numeracy approach to STEM praxis by Urban environments and education research coven. In Critical, transdisciplinary and embodied approaches in STEM education (pp. 291-306). Springer, Cham.
  11. Dimmock, C., Tan, C. Y., Nguyen, D., Tran, T. A., & Dinh, T. T. (2021). Implementing education system reform: Local adaptation in school reform of teaching and learning. International Journal of Educational Development, 80, 102302.
  12. El-Deghaidy, H., & Mansour, N. (2015). Science teachers’ perceptions of STEM education: Possibilities and challenges. International Journal of Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 51-54.
  13. Fan, J. W., & Li, Z. F. (2018). The Development of STEM Education in China. Ethnic Education of China, Z1,13-15.
  14. Haney, J. J., Lumpe, A. T., Czerniak, C. M., & Egan, V. (2002). From beliefs to actions: The beliefs and actions of teachers implementing change. Journal of science teacher education, 13(3), 171-187.
  15. Heil, D. R., Pearson, G., & Burger, S. E. (2013). Understanding integrated STEM education: Report on a national study. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings.
  16. Hess, F. (2013), “The Missing Half of School Reform”, National Affairs, Vol. Fall, http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-missing-half-of-school-reform (accessed on 24 February 2023), pp. 19-35.
  17. Hoffmann-Riem, H., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Hadorn, G. H., Joye, D., Pohl, C., & Zemp, E. (2007). Handbook of transdisciplinary. New York, NY: Springer Science.
  18. Hong Kong Education Development Bureau. (2016). Promotion of STEM education: Unleashing potential in innovation. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Education Development Bureau.
  19. Hoyle, P. (2016). Must try harder: An evaluation of the UK government’s policy directions in STEM education.
  20. Jamil, F. M., Linder, S. M., & Stegelin, D. A. (2018). Early childhood teacher beliefs about STEAM education after a professional development conference. Early Childhood Education Journal, 46(4), 409-417.
  21. Jiang, H., Wang, K., Wang, X., Lei, X., & Huang, Z. (2021). Understanding a STEM teacher’s emotions and professional identities: a three-year longitudinal case study. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 1-22. doi:
  22. Jones, J. M., & Barkhuizen, G. (2011). ‘It is two-way traffic’: teachers’ tensions in the implementation of the Kenyan language-in-education policy. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(5), 513-530.
  23. Jones, M. G., & Leagon, M. (2014). Science teacher attitudes and beliefs: Reforming practice. In Handbook of Research on Science Education, Volume II (pp. 844-861). Routledge.
  24. Johnson, C. C. (2012). Implementation of STEM education policy: Challenges, progress, and lessons learned. School science and mathematics, 112(1), 45-55.
  25. Kang, N. H. (2019). A review of the effect of integrated STEM or STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics) education in South Korea. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 5(1), 1-22.
  26. Karkouti, I. M., Abu-Shawish, R. K., & Romanowski, M. H. (2022). Teachers’ understandings of the social and professional support needed to implement change in Qatar. Heliyon, 8(1), e08818.
  27. Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co‐constructing inquiry‐based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 631-645.
  28. Kirkpatrick, R., & Bui, T. T. N. (2016). Introduction: The challenges for English education policies in Asia. English language education policy in Asia, 1-23.
  29. Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Wayne state university press.
  30. Lowell, B. R., Cherbow, K., & McNeill, K. L. (2021). Redesign or relabel? How a commercial curriculum and its implementation oversimplify key features of the NGSS. Science Education, 105(1), 5-32.
  31. Ma, Y. (2021). Reconceptualizing STEM Education in China as Praxis: A Curriculum Turn. Sustainability, 13(9), 4961.
  32. McLaughlin, M.W. (1998). Listening and Learning from the Field: Tales of Policy Implementation and Situated Practice. In: Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M., Hopkins, D. (eds) International Handbook of Educational Change: Part one, 70-84. Springer, Dordrecht.
  33. 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.
  34. Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of public administration research and theory, 5(2), 145-174.
  35. Mausethagen, S., & Granlund, L. (2012). Contested discourses of teacher professionalism: Current tensions between education policy and teachers’ union. Journal of education policy, 27(6), 815-833.
  36. Milne, E. (2017). Implementing Indigenous education policy directives in Ontario public schools: Experiences, challenges and successful practices. The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 8(3), 1-20.
  37. Nadelson, L. S., & Seifert, A. L. (2017). Integrated STEM defined: Contexts, challenges, and the future. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(3), 221-223.
  38. National Institute of Education Sciences. (2018). China STEM Education Action Plan 2029.
  39. National Institute of Education Sciences. (2018). STEM Teacher Competency Rating Standards pilot version.
  40. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academy Press.
  41. Ntho-Ntho, A. M., & Nieuwenhuis, J. (2016). Religion in education policy in South Africa: a challenge of change. British Journal of Religious Education, 38(3), 236-248.
  42. Ogunyinka, E. K., Okeke, T. I., & Adedoyin, R. C. (2015). Teacher education and development in Nigeria: An analysis of reforms, challenges and prospects. Education Journal, 4(3), 111-122.
  43. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage publications.
  44. Pearson, E., & Rao, N. (2006). Early childhood education policy reform in Hong Kong: Challenges in effecting change in practices. Childhood Education, 82(6), 363-368.
  45. Radloff, J., & Guzey, S. (2016). Investigating preservice STEM teacher conceptions of STEM education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25, 759-774.
  46. Ramli, N. F., & Talib, O. (2017). Can education institution implement STEM? From Malaysian teachers’ view. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(3), 721-732.
  47. 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.
  48. Ryu, M., Mentzer, N., & Knobloch, N. (2019). Preservice teachers’ experiences of STEM integration: Challenges and implications for integrated STEM teacher preparation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(3), 493-512.
  49. Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEM mania. Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.
  50. Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. Handbook of qualitative research, 1(1994), 118-137.
  51. Sharma, J., & Yarlagadda, P. K. (2018). Perspectives of ‘STEM education and policies’ for the development of a skilled workforce in Australia and India. International Journal of Science Education, 40(16), 1999-2022.
  52. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1997). Grounded theory in practice. Sage publications.
  53. Taylor, P. C., & Medina, M. (2011). Educational research paradigms: From positivism to pluralism. College Research Journal, 1(1), 1-16.
  54. Taylor, P.C., & Settelmaier, E. (2003). Critical autobiographical research for science educators. Journal of Science Education Japan, 27, 233-244.
  55. Thomas, B., & Watters, J. J. (2015). Perspectives on Australian, Indian and Malaysian approaches to STEM education. International Journal of Educational Development, 45, 42-53.
  56. Tress, B., Tress, G., & Fry, G. (2005). Defining concepts and the process of knowledge production in integrative research. From landscape research to landscape planning: Aspects of integration, education and application, 12, 13-26.
  57. Viennet, R., & Pont, B. (2017). Education Policy Implementation: A Literature Review and Proposed Framework. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 162. OECD Publishing.
  58. Wahono, B., Lin, P. L., & Chang, C. Y. (2020). Evidence of STEM enactment effectiveness in Asian student learning outcomes. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1-18.
  59. Wang, H. H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 1(2), 2.
  60. Aminger, W., Hough, S., Roberts, S. A., Meier, V., Spina, A. D., Pajela, H., … Bianchini, J. A. (2020). Preservice Secondary Science Teachers’ Implementation of an NGSS Practice: Using Mathematics and Computational Thinking. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(2), 188–209.
  61. Witz, K. G., & Lee, H. (2009). Science as an ideal: Teachers’ orientations to science and science education reform. Journal of curriculum studies, 41(3), 409-431.
  62. Wu, W., Lin, L. Y., & Chen, Y. (2018). Investigation and Analysis of the Current Situation of STEM Education in Primary and Secondary Schools in Shanghai. Education Approach, 06,5-16.
  63. Angeli, C., Valanides, N., & Bonk, C. J. (2003). Communication in a web-based conferencing system: the quality of computer-mediated interaction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1), 31–43.
  64. Balta, N., Mason, A. J., & Singh, C. (2016). Surveying Turkish high school and university students’ attitudes and approaches to physics problem solving. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1), 010129. http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010129
LICENSE
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.