Abstract
In recent years, the integration of STEM disciplines has been increasingly advocated. It is crucial to prepare and support teachers for integrated STEM education. However, few studies in the literature explore collaborating with teachers from different disciplines. This study investigates the effect of the professional development (PD) program designed for integrated STEM education on teachers' pedagogical design competencies and the contribution of the PD program to teachers' integrated STEM understanding. The pedagogical design competencies of the teachers were examined in terms of the level of conformity of the lesson plans they prepared based on the 5E learning model and how they unified the computational thinking components into STEM education. The program comprised 48 h and five modules. 20 computer science (CS), ten mathematics, and ten science teachers working in middle schools participated in the study. The study shows that the lesson plans developed collaboratively by the teachers were at an acceptable level in terms of integrated STEM education. However, lesson plans need to be improved. Regarding computational thinking, the teachers were more efficient in associating simulation in CS education, data analysis in mathematics education, and data collection in science education compared to other components. They were insufficient in associating components such as parallelization in CS education and automation in science and mathematics education. The teachers stated that PD program strengthens their collaboration with colleagues, contributes to pedagogical design skills in integrated STEM lesson planning and integrating STEM disciplines, and improves their understanding of integrated STEM.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Almeida, F. (2018). Strategies to perform a mixed methods study. European Journal of Education Studies, 5(1), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1406214
Baker, C. K., & Galanti, T. M. (2017). Integrating STEM in elementary classrooms using model-eliciting activities: Responsive professional development for mathematics coaches and teachers. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0066-3
Balgopal, M. M. (2020). STEM teacher agency: A case study of initiating and implementing curricular reform. Science Education, 104(4), 762–785. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21578
Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is Involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? Acm Inroads, 2(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929905
Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Dettori, G., Ferrari, A., & Engelhardt, K. (2016). Developing computational thinking in weaselly education-Implications for policy and practice (No. JRC104188). Joint Research Centre.
Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. A report prepared for the Office of Science Education, National Institutes of Health. BSCS.
Bybee, R. W. (2009). The BSCS 5E Instructional Model And 21st Century Skills. A Commissioned Paper Prepared For A Workshop On Exploring The Intersection Of Science Education And The Development Of 21st Century Skills. BSCS.
Cavallo, A., & Laubach, T. (2001). Students’ science perceptions and enrollment decisions in differing learning cycle classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(9), 1029–1062. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1046
Ceylan, S. & Ozdilek, Z (2015). Improving a sample lesson plan for secondary science courses within the STEM education. Global Conference on Contemporary Issues in Education GLOBE-EDU 2014, 12–14 July 2014, Las Vegas, USA. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.395
Cheng, L., Antonenko, P. D., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., Miller, D., MacFadden, B. J., ... & Ziegler, M. (2020). Exploring the influence of teachers' beliefs and 3D printing integrated STEM instruction on students’ STEM motivation. Computers & Education, 158, 103983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103983
Çiftçi, A., Topçu, M. S., & Foulk, J. A. (2020). Pre-service early childhood teachers’ views on STEM education and their STEM teaching practices. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2020.1784125
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage.
Dare, E. A., Ellis, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2018). Understanding science teachers’ implementations of integrated STEM curricular units through a phenomenological multiple case study. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0101-z
Dass, P. (2015). Teaching STEM effectively with the learning cycle approach. K-12 STEM Education, 1(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.14456/k12stemed.2015.17
English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1
Estapa, A. T., & Tank, K. M. (2017). Supporting integrated STEM in the elementary classroom: A professional development approach centered on an engineering design challenge. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0058-3
Falloon, G., Hatzigianni, M., Bower, M., Forbes, A., & Stevenson, M. (2020). Understanding K-12 STEM education: a framework for developing STEM literacy. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09823-x
Gardner, M., & Tillotson, J. W. (2019). Interpreting integrated STEM: Sustaining pedagogical innovation within a public middle school context. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(7), 1283–1300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9927-6
Guzdial, M. (1994). Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 4(1), 001–044. https://doi.org/10.1080/1049482940040101
Herro, D., & Quigley, C. (2017). Exploring teachers’ perceptions of STEAM teaching through professional development: Implications for teacher educators. Professional Development in Education, 43(3), 416–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2016.1205507
Hudley, A. H. C., & Mallinson, C. (2017). “It’s worth our time”: A model of culturally and linguistically supportive professional development for K-12 STEM educators. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12(3), 637–660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9743-7
Israel, M., & Lash, T. (2020). From classroom lessons to exploratory learning progressions: Mathematics+ computational thinking. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(3), 362–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1674879
Jaipal-Jamani, K., & Angeli, C. (2017). Effect of robotics on elementary preservice teachers’ self-efficacy, science learning, and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(2), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9663-z
Johnson, C. C. (2013). Conceptualizing integrated STEM education. School Science and Mathematics, 113(8), 367–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12043
Kalelioğlu, F., Gülbahar, Y., & Kukul, V. (2016). A framework for computational thinking based on a systematic research review. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 4(3), 583–596.
Kalelioğlu, F. (2018). Characteristics of studies conducted on computational thinking: A content analysis. In Computational thinking in the STEM disciplines (pp. 11–29). Springer.
Kaniawati, D. S., Kaniawati, I., & Suwarma, I. R. (2017). Implementation of STEM education in learning cycle 5E to improve concept understanding on direct current concept. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Mathematics and Science Education.
Kelley, T. R., Knowles, J. G., Holland, J. D., & Han, J. (2020). Increasing high school teachers self-efficacy for integrated STEM instruction through a collaborative community of practice. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00211-w
Ketelhut, D. J., Mills, K., Hestness, E., Cabrera, L., Plane, J., & McGinnis, J. R. (2020). Teacher change following a professional development experience in integrating computational thinking into elementary science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 174–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09798-4
Kong, S. C., Lai, M., & Sun, D. (2020). Teacher development in computational thinking: Design and learning outcomes of programming concepts, practices and pedagogy. Computers & Education, 151, 103872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103872
Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y., Froyd, J. E., & Nite, S. B. (2020). Research and trends in STEM education: a systematic analysis of publicly funded projects. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00213-8
Lorsbach, A. W. (2006). The Learning Cycle as a Tool for Planning Science Instruction. Retrieved October 23, 2018 from https://www.msad54.org/sites/default/files/Learning-Cycle.pdf
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21522
Mathematics and Science for Life [MASCIL]. (2013). Design a parking garage - Working as an architect: Parking in the basement. Retrieved July 11, 2018 from http://www.fisme.science.uu.nl/toepassingen/22015/
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Miller, J. (2019). STEM education in the primary years to support mathematical thinking: Using coding to identify mathematical structures and patterns. ZDM Mathematics Education, 51(6), 915–927. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01096-y
Morrison, J., Frost, J., Gotch, C., McDuffie, A. R., Austin, B., & French, B. (2020). Teachers’ Role in Students’ Learning at a Project-Based STEM High School: Implications for Teacher Education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10108-3
Nadelson, L. S., & Seifert, A. L. (2017). Integrated STEM defined: Contexts, challenges, and the future. Taylor & Francis.
Ortiz-Revilla, J., Adúriz-Bravo, A., & Greca, I. M. (2020). A framework for epistemological discussion on integrated STEM education. Science & Education, 29, 857–880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00131-9
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Peel, A., Sadler, T. D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2019). Learning natural selection through computational thinking: Unplugged design of algorithmic explanations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(7), 983–1007. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21545
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2017.1356671
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. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10798-018-9440-9
Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.
Schallert, S., Lavicza, Z., & Vandervieren, E. (2020). Merging flipped classroom approaches with the 5E inquiry model: a design heuristic. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2020.1831092
Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J. S., Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Clark, D. (2013). Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies, 18(2), 351–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9240-x
Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003
Song, M. (2020). Integrated STEM teaching competencies and performances as perceived by secondary teachers in South Korea. International Journal of Comparative Education and Development, 22(2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijced-02-2019-0016
Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 2(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314653
Suwito, Budijanto, Handoyo, B., & Susilo, S. (2020). The effects of 5E learning cycle assisted with spatial based population geography textbook on students’ achievement. International Journal of Instruction, 13(1), 315–324. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13121a
Thibaut, L., Knipprath, H., Dehaene, W., & Depaepe, F. (2019). Teachers’ attitudes toward teaching integrated STEM: The impact of personal background characteristics and school context. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(5), 987–1007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9898-7
Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., ... & Depaepe, F. (2018). Integrated STEM education: A systematic review of instructional practices in secondary education. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/85525
Trowbridge, L. W., Bybee, R. W., & Powell, J. C. (2004). Teaching secondary school science: Strategies for developing scientific literacy (8th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
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. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314636
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Sage.
Wilson, S. M. (2011). Effective STEM teacher, preparation, and professional development. Paper presented at the workshop of the National Research Council’s Committee on Highly Successful Schools or Programs for K-12 STEM Education, Washington, DC.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.
Yadav, A., Hong, H., & Stephenson, C. (2016). Computational thinking for all: Pedagogical approaches to embedding 21st century problem solving in K-12 classrooms. TechTrends, 60(6), 565–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0087-7
Yıldız, B. (2013). Etkili matematik öğretimi için BİT entegrasyonu model önerisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Eğitimi Ana Bilim Dalı Doktora Tezi.
Zhou, D., Gomez, R., Wright, N., Rittenbruch, M., & Davis, J. (2020). A design-led conceptual framework for developing school integrated STEM programs: the Australian context. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09619-5
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank our esteemed teachers participating in this study and our valuable academicians who contributed to the realization of this study.
Funding
This study was supported by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) with the number 218B542 in 2019. The grant had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, writing, or submission of the article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
FM, NAU and BY contributed equally to designing of and conducting the research and collecting the data. FM carried out the literature review, wrote and prepared the manuscript. NAU provided insight and editing of the manuscript. BY analyzed the data. FM and NA contributed equally the discussion and conclusion parts of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1
Table 8
Appendix 2
Table 9
Appendix 3 Interdisciplinary Relationships of CT Components
Since this table is related to the lesson plan, it was deemed appropriate to present the problem statement, which is the starting point of the lesson plan and prepared as a group by the teachers, in the lesson plan with the 5E model.
Students are shown two different pictures, the first picture is an arid area, the second picture is a woodland picture as a green area. By asking the question, "What do you see in these two images?" students' opinions about two visuals are collected. "Which image would you like your place to be like, why?" The discussion is conducted in a way that emphasizes that all factors such as food, oxygen, water, etc. that will ensure the continuity of living life, and students are asked to explain the ideal ecosystem or environment, and the importance of forests. Then, they are asked to search the official pages of the state on how much forest land there is in our country and to list the tree species in the region. Afterward, they are asked where the forest areas are in their neighborhood. "What destroys our forests?" With the question, students are asked to write their answers to the board created with web 2.0 tools such as MindMeister, Mentimeter, Padlet (if there is access to appropriate technological tools), if there is no access, the teacher is asked to write the student's answers on the blackboard. It is decided which of the answers do the most damage. It is explained that the greatest damage to forests is caused by fires. It is requested to research how much forest area is damaged per year due to fire in Turkey. Students are made aware of the importance of fire detection by asking questions. “What can be done in case of a fire in the school? What are the measures in the school? Are the measures taken sufficient? What measures would you take?" By asking: "How do you plan to detect that the fire has started?" students are expected to conduct research in groups and collect information such as the combustion event, what kind of reaction has developed, the types and density of the gases emitted during this combustion event. Upon this, a combustion experiment is performed with the students and the data on combustion is collected. By asking: "What can we do to reduce the damage to our forests by the fire incident using the data we have obtained from the experiments?" The students are expected to answer that a system that will inform the fire department in a short time can be made with sensors measuring the gas density of the fire. Support questions may be asked until reaching this answer. Experiments are conducted with students to measure how far the sensors detect the gas density and measure the baseline values.
As an example, 5 groups of setups are prepared (Safety measures should be taken while preparing the experimental setups):
-
In the 1st setup, there are sealed container and the container with the heat source
-
In the 2nd setup, there is an open-mouthed container without any material inside
-
In the 3rd setup, there is a sealed container with flammable material inside
-
In the 4th setup, there is a container with an open mouth of flammable material
-
In the 5th setup, there is a container with an open mouth and a heat source inside.
It is asked in which of these setups the combustion event is observed, in which one can the fire start and grow, they are asked to discuss the data they have obtained. Later, students are made to prepare simple fire mechanisms and test how they can detect the fire with different sensory organs, how long does it take to detect it, and they are asked to discuss among themselves whether a useful determination can be made on this issue. Finally, it is asked whether burning and fire incidents can be detected with the help of technology and how. An introduction to the subject of sensors and how to get data from some microcontrollers and processors are discussed, and they are asked to prepare an electronic mechanism to perform a fire detection process. In this context, it is stated that the prototype they made should detect the fire at the most appropriate distance and in the shortest time. The assemblies made are tried and tested. Using the information learned, students are requested to build a fire alarm system that detects the carbon monoxide concentration in the air with the help of sensors and sends a warning to the nearest fire department.
CT Component | CS Education | Mathematics Education | Science Education |
---|---|---|---|
Data collection | Information is collected about which sensors can be used Smoke Sensor SMS Module | According to data from the Ministry of Forestry, it was calculated how often data could be sent in which months. Calculated at what intervals to place sensors according to tree species | Smoke detection distances were measured for various trees |
Data analysis | It was determined that if the carbon monoxide value taken from the smoke sensor is over 800 ppm, a fire situation occurred | It was determined that data should be sent every hour in summer and 3 h in other months | Area measurements covered by the smoke densities of tree species were extracted |
Data representation | A table showing the measured CO values per month is prepared | A line graph showing the CO values by months is drawn | Loss of vitality below optimum humidity, a continuation of vitality on above |
Problem decomposition | The program decides to send the alarm message according to the information received while measuring smoke | It calculates whether the amount of smoke goes above 800 ppm | The propagation rate of the fire is determined according to the type of tree in the forest area |
Abstraction | The value taken from the smoke sensors will be measured continuously at specified intervals | VCO = CO concentration per unit volume If VCO > = 800 send an Alarm SMS If VCO < 800 stand-by | The demonstration representing the fire incident was created and made with laboratory materials |
Algorithms and procedures | 1. start, 2. vco = sensor reading value 4. sensorno = 1 3. if vco > = 800 go to step 5 4. If not, go to step 5 5. "There is fire" send via sensorno SMS module 6. Run the clock module 7. Return to top 8. Finish | The change in the amount of CO is determined by performing the necessary mathematical operations i.e. Proportion | The data obtained in the virtual simulation environment and also the data obtained through small station experiments conducted in a secure environment were collected |
Automation | Proper coding is done in the Arduino editor | Graphs are created by computerizing data in the Excel program and interpreted | Tables are created by computerizing data in the Excel program and interpreted |
Parallelization | - System that measures the amount of smoke continuously - SMS sending system integrated into the system | Number of trees that fit into the area detected by the sensor = [3.14 * (The distance that meets the amount of smoke emitted by the tree species)2] / tree footprint | Different fire scenarios were tried through controlled experiments |
Simulation | The smoke sensor circuit in the tree was placed in the birdhouse. With the program written, the SMS module will start according to the information coming from the smoke sensor | The smoke spread area was measured according to different tree species | Different scenarios were arranged in the virtual science laboratory environment and the revisions of the system were determined |
Appendix 4
Figure 1
There is a color sensor connected to the Arduino. There is litmus paper in the part seen by the color sensor. When acid rain falls, litmus paper turns red. Three DC motors available. There are two on the wheels and one where the tarpaulin unfolds. When the litmus paper turns red, the tarpaulin begins to open. The length of the tarpaulin is calculated according to the area of the field. The tarpaulin opens until the mechanism reaches the end of the field. There is also a button. When the acid rain is over, the tarpaulin can be collected by pressing the button.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Mumcu, F., Uslu, N.A. & Yıldız, B. Teacher development in integrated STEM education: Design of lesson plans through the lens of computational thinking. Educ Inf Technol 28, 3443–3474 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11342-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11342-8