Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

Teacher Self-Efficacy and Preparedness for Integrating STEM Education Using a Project-Based Learning Approach

Camryn Brooke Tucker 1 * ,
Kelly Overby Byrd 1,
Drew Gossen 1,
Karen Morrison 1
1 University of South Alabama* Corresponding Author
Download PDF
Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, Volume 7, Issue SI, 2024, pp. 43-59
OPEN ACCESS VIEWS: 156 DOWNLOADS: 197 Publication date: 15 Jun 2024
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this mixed-methods, sequential, explanatory study was to investigate elementary mathematics and/or science teachers’ self-efficacy for implementing integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) instruction through a project-based learning (PBL) approach to learning in the classroom. Further explored were elementary mathematics and/or science teachers’ perceived barriers and needed supports for effective implementation of integrated STEM education using a PBL approach. Participants (n = 43) included elementary mathematics and/or science teachers from seven local school districts in a single southeastern state in the U.S. Quantitative data were collected using the STEM Confidence Questionnaire, and qualitative data were collected from focus group interviews and responses to open-ended questions within the questionnaire. Item-level analysis showed that teacher self-efficacy was the lowest for developing both formative and summative assessments, while teacher confidence levels in gaining students’ interest and motivation in STEM and learning new and appropriate technologies were reported as the highest. Results indicated that while teachers reported confidence in implementing integrated STEM lessons, several barriers preventing them from doing so were identified. Various supports were also discussed including administrative support, additional resources, and adequate training to aid teachers in the successful implementation of integrated STEM education using a PBL approach.
KEYWORDS
STEM education, project-based learning, teacher self-efficacy, elementary teachers
CITATION (APA)
Tucker, C. B., Byrd, K. O., Gossen, D., & Morrison, K. (2024). Teacher Self-Efficacy and Preparedness for Integrating STEM Education Using a Project-Based Learning Approach. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 7(SI), 43-59. https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.313SI
REFERENCES
  1. Al Salami, M., Makela, C., & Miranda, M. (2017). Assessing changes in teachers’ attitudes
  2. toward interdisciplinary STEM teaching. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 27(1), 63–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9341-0
  3. Amran, M. S., Bakar, K. A., Surat, S., Mahmud, S. N. D., & Shafie, A. A. B. M. (2021). Assessing preschool teachers’ challenges and needs for creativity in STEM education. Asian Journal of University Education, 17(3), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v17i3.14517
  4. Asiroglu, S., & Akran, S. K. (2018). The readiness level of teachers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics education. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(11), 2461–2470. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2018.061109
  5. Aydin, G. (2020). Prerequisites for elementary school teachers before practicing STEM education with students: A case study. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 88, 1–39. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6112-5243
  6. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
  7. Bandura A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Education Psychology, 28, 117-148.
  8. Bandura A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge University Press.
  9. Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House, 83(2), 39–43.
  10. Byrd, K. O., Herron, S., Robichaux-Davis, R., Mohn, R., & Shelley, K. (2022). Elementary preservice teacher preparation to teach mathematics and science in an integrated STEM framework. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 53, 173 - 193.
  11. Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., & Morgan, J. R. (2013). STEM project-based learning; An integrated Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) approach (2nd edition). Sense Publisher.
  12. Claesgens, J., Rubino-Hare, L., Bloom, N., Fredrickson, K., Henderson-Dahms, C., Menasco, J., & Sample, J. (2013). Professional development integrating technology: Does delivery format matter? Science Educator, 22(1), 10–18.
  13. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.
  14. Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage.
  15. Dabney, K. P., Good, K. B., Scott, M. R., Johnson, T. N., Chakraverty, D., Milteer, B., & Gray, A. (2020). Preservice elementary teachers and science instruction: Barriers and supports. Science Educator, 27(2), 92–101.
  16. Enochs, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science teaching efficacy belief instrument: A preservice elementary scale. School Science and Mathematics, 90(8), 694–706. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1990.tb12048.x
  17. Fullan, M. (1985). Change processes and strategies at the local level. Elementary School Journal, 85(3), 391–421.
  18. Goralnik, L., Thorp, L., & Rickborn, A. (2018). Food system field experience: STEM identity
  19. and change agency for undergraduate sustainability learners. Journal of Experiential Education, 41(3), 312–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825918774810
  20. IBM Corp. (2020). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 27.0) [Computer software]. IBM Corp.
  21. Johnson, T. M., Byrd, K. O., & Allison, E. R. (2021). The impact of integrated STEM modeling on elementary preservice teachers’ self‐efficacy for integrated STEM instruction: A co‐teaching approach. School Science and Mathematics, 121(1), 25-35.
  22. Kasim, N. H., & Ahmad, C. N. C. (2021). The effectiveness of PRO-STEM module on
  23. students’ higher order thinking skills (HOTS). Malaysian Journal of Education (0126-6020), 46, 55–61. https://doi.org/10.17576/jpen-2021-46.01si-06
  24. Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving Schools, 19(3), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480216659733
  25. Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s440594-018-0151-2
  26. Marksbury, N. (2016, November 30). Monitoring the pipeline: STEM education in rural U.S. Forum on Public Policy Online. Retrieved July 23, 2022, from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1173822
  27. Mintzes, J. J., Marcum, B., Messerschmidt-Yates, C., & Mark, A. (2013). Enhancing self-efficacy in elementary science teaching with professional learning communities. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(7), 1201–1218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9320-1
  28. Mobley, M. C. (2015). Development of the SETIS instrument to measure teachers’ self-efficacy to teach science in an integrated STEM framework [Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Tennessee]. The University of Tennessee Digital Archive. http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/3354/
  29. Moore, T. J., Johnson, C. C., Peters-Burton, E. E., & Guzey, S. S. (2015). The need for a STEM road map. STEM Road Map, 3–12. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315753157-1
  30. Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013). Teacher STEM perception and preparation: Inquiry-based STEM professional development for elementary teachers, The Journal of Educational Research, 106(2), 157-168. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.667014
  31. Nadelson, L. S., & Seifert, A. L. (2017). Integrated STEM defined: Contexts, challenges, and the future. The Journal of Educational Research, 110, 221–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1289775
  32. Niazov, A. (2020). Run over by the globe: Overcoming the flat world and reinventing the educational wheel in U.S. urban schools. Education and Urban Society, 52(2), 215–233.
  33. Novak, E., & Wisdom, S. (2018). Effects of 3D printing project-based learning on preservice elementary teachers’ science attitudes, science content knowledge, and anxiety about teaching science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(5), 412–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9733-5
  34. President B. H. Obama, “Address before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union,” January 25, 2011.
  35. Qablan, A. (2021). Assessing teachers’ education and professional development needs to implement STEM after participating in an intensive summer professional development program. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 22(2), 75–80.
  36. Radloff, J., & Guzey, S. (2016). Investigating pre service STEM teacher conceptions of STEM education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25, 759–774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9633-5
  37. Sahin, A., & Top, N. (2015). STEM Students on the Stage (SOS): Promoting student voice and
  38. choice in STEM education through an interdisciplinary, standards-focused, project based learning approach. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 16(3), 24–33.
  39. Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE Publications Ltd.
  40. Seals, C., Mehta, S., Berzina-Pitcher, I., & Graves-Wolf, L. (2017). Enhancing teacher efficacy for urban STEM teachers facing challenges to their teaching. Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research, 13, 135–146.
  41. Shann, M. H. (1998). Professional commitment and satisfaction among teachers in urban middle schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(2), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220679809597578
  42. Sias, C. M., Nadelson, L. S., Juth, S. M., & Seifert, A. L. (2017). The best laid plans: Educational innovation in elementary teachers generated integrated STEM lesson plans. Journal of Educational Research, 110(3), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1253539
  43. Siew, N. M., & Ambo, N. (2018). Development and evaluation of an integrated project-based and STEM teaching and learning module on enhancing scientific creativity among fifth graders. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(6), 1017–1033. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/18.17.1017
  44. Silm, G., Tiitsaar, K., Pedaste, M., Zacharia, Z. C., & Papaevripidou, M. (2017). Teachers’ readiness to use inquiry-based learning: An investigation of teachers’ sense of efficacy and attitudes toward inquiry-based learning. Science Education International, 28(4), 315–325.
  45. Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002202
  46. Tseng, K. H., Chang, C. C., Lou, S. J., & Chen, W. P. (2013). Attitudes towards science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in a project-based learning (PjBL) environment. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 23(1), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9160-x
  47. Velasco, R. C. L., Hite, R., & Milbourne, J. (2022). Exploring advocacy self-efficacy among K-12 STEM teacher leaders. International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 20(3), 435–457. https://doi-org./10.1007/s10763-021-10176-z
  48. Voet, M., & De Wever, B. (2017). Preparing pre-service history teachers for organizing inquiry-based learning: The effects of an introductory training program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 206-217.
LICENSE
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.