Using stem education to Promote 21

Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21^st Century (2007) stated, in order for teachers to keep up with this fast-paced world, they need to have continuing professional development opportunities, especially for elementary and middle school teachers in the math and science fields. The committee went on to state that “many school children are systematically discouraged from learning science and mathematics because of their teachers’ lack of preparation, or in some cases, because their teachers’ disdain for science and mathematics” (p. 121). One of the committee’s recommendations was to offer summer institutes for teacher development.

The National Mathematics Advisory Panel searched for “available evidence on how teachers’ own knowledge matters for students’ achievement” (U.S. Department of Education, 2008, p. 63). Although the panel did decide, “teachers knowledge of mathematics is positively related to student achievement” (p. 65), they found it very difficult to prove “due to a historical lack of high-quality measures of mathematics content knowledge” (p. 64). This panel examined teacher certification, content coursework and degrees, tests, and ad hoc assessments as measurements of teacher mathematical knowledge. The panel did recommend, “More precise measurements should be developed to uncover in detail the relationship among teachers’ knowledge, their instructional skill, and students’ learning, and to identify the mathematical and pedagogical knowledge needed for teaching” (p. 66). Another recommendation from the panel was to give ongoing professional development opportunities to elementary and middle school teachers to learn how to teach mathematics.

Rising Above the Gathering Storm re-illustrates that students learn the most from teachers who have strong content knowledge and who constantly stay current with their field, but “unfortunately, it is uncertain what science and mathematics preparation, beyond the basics, is the best training for teachers” (Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21^st Century, 2007, p. 151).

A study by Schultz, Rhodes, and Hallman (2009) surveyed 46 of the 65 participates who attended an eight-day institute in the summer of 2004 to strengthen teachers’ mathematical knowledge. In additional to this survey they interviewed 32 participants. This study particularly focused on the questions that concerned the “laboratory class” part of the institute. During the laboratory class, participants worked as a community to “generate knowledge and theorize their practice. Specifically, the laboratory class and its supporting sessions paralleled the three-part teaching cycle—planning, teaching, and reflecting” (p. 995). In general, participants reported that the lab changed their thinking and mathematical teaching practices. This study encourages those who are in charge of mathematical teacher training to help teachers move from the teacher-centered models of instruction to a student-centered model. Teachers should create a learning environment where the content of the classroom focuses “on students’ mathematical understanding and developing students’ ability to solve problems, communicate, and work together” (Schultz et al., p. 992).

By the time the average American student graduates from high school, “they will have spent more time watching television than they have in the classroom” (American Academic of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2006, p. 1). Imagine for a moment if those TV commercials that were discussed earlier contained content focused on promoting education, learning, and staying in school. What if for those four hours, while children watched TV, they watched 54 thirty-second commercials with content that emphasized the importance of education, mathematics, and science. Think of the potential this could have to increase awareness and interest in education and to help shape American culture from being a society of consumers to a society of learning. It might help the 7,000 American students who drop out of school every day, find a reason to stay in school (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2006).

In today’s world, many U.S. kids frequently interact in an online environment. They have a constant connection to their social networks, post their personal thoughts and ideas on Facebook, and prefer to text message instead of make a phone call. Yet all of these forms of communication are banned from many of today’s schools, denying students their natural way of learning, commutating, and sharing (COSN, 2008). Typically education/school is not about “anywhere anytime” learning; it is about learning 180 days a year from approximately 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Imagine for a moment what education would look like if it was about “anywhere anytime” learning.

Many of today’s school children live in a world where in math class a majority of the time is spent listening to the teacher explain past math discoveries, some of the time solving problems from a book, and little to no time promoting creativity and interest in mathematics (Seeley, 2009). Imagine for a moment if math time was different. Math time would revolve around the students, who would have the afternoon to formulate a question that relates to their lives, figure out what they need in order to answer the question, collect and analyze the appropriate data, and then present the information to the class (Partnership for 21^st Century Skills, 2004). This type of math class would help promote the types of thinking, learning, and skills needed to promote 21^st century skills and

As an educator, a parent, and a US citizen I am greatly concerned about the lack of aggressiveness the U.S. is using to address its out-of-date education system. All of the reports used in this study repeat the same gloom and doom about the reality of American students’ future if the education system does not change. The reports send the message, “Wake up, America!” and yet few steps have been made to even start the overhaul that the U.S. education system needs in order to produce 21^st century Americans (Gordon, 2011). I found the best way for me to do something was to create a workshop to help teachers learn how to create a learning environment that excites students about science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, in which students “can use their knowledge to communicate, collaborate, analyze, create, innovate, and solve problems” (p. 31).

This study will determine how teachers who attended the six-day STEM Institute have applied the information they learned to their classrooms along with the successes and struggles they had while applying the information. I will identify any new technologies or ideas teachers have incorporated into their lessons to promote 21^st century skills. I will find out how teachers encouraged students’ interests in STEM fields. The method of data collection is a focus group. When participants cannot attend the focus group, an individual interview will be conducted to collect the information.

This study will include 17 teachers who attended the six-day STEM Institute in summer of 2010. Fifteen were certified elementary teachers and taught grades K-6; one teacher had an education science major and taught 7 and 8^th grade science; and one teacher had an education math major and taught grades 7-12 math. Of the 17 teachers, 14 were female teachers and 3 were male teachers. The teachers’ years of experience varied: one teacher had no experience; two teachers had 1-3 years; three teachers had 4-6 years; one teacher had 7-9 years; one teacher had 10-12 years; two teachers had 13-15 years; and seven teachers had 16 or more years of teaching experience.

Participants taught in small rural and urban towns located in North Dakota, Montana, and Minnesota. Six of the teachers had taken an online class or workshop; none of them had taught an online class. All of the participants had an e-mail account and a cell phone. Only three had access to graphing calculators, but 12 had interactive whiteboards or similar technology in their classrooms.

One circumstance that will affect the study is the differences between individual school districts. Some of those differences include but are not limited to the openness and willingness to change, the availability of STEM resources and educational technology, and the amount of funding. Another circumstance that will affect the study is the differences between individual teachers. Some of those differences include but are not limited to grade levels taught, years of teaching experience, and the ability to be creative, along with willingness to change.

The learning objectives for the STEM Institute were that each participating teacher would:

• 
  Define STEM education.
  
• 
  Identify STEM careers.
  
• 
  Link STEM fields/careers to local area businesses.
  
• 
  Explain why STEM education is important to the future of our nation.
  
• 
  Apply the scientific method while performing different STEM activities (examples: construct a Lego ball that will roll down an incline, create a paper airplane that will fly the farthest distance, make a windmill that will produce energy).
  
• 
  Choose the North Dakota math and science standards that relate to each STEM activity.
  
• 
  Describe how STEM activities could be integrated into their current curriculum.
  
• 
  Compare how the Ancient world, the age of discovery, and modern times measured items/things.
  
• 
  Identify different technologies that were invented during the Ancient world, the age of discovery, and modern times.
  
• 
  Predict future technology.
  
• 
  Assess online learning.
  
• 
  Assess mobile learning.
  
• 
  Predict the future of education.
  

This action research project will assess the implementation and promotion of STEM education in the classroom using a qualitative method approach. During July of 2011, all of the 17 teachers who attended the six-day STEM Institute during summer 2010 will receive a research participant invitation letter (see Appendix E) by e-mail. The letter asks participates to attend a 2-3 hour focus group to determine how they have applied the information they learned to their classroom along with the successes and struggles they had while applying the information. At the start of the focus group participants will sign a research participant consent letter (see Appendix F). . During this focus group teachers will be asked to share any new technologies, ideas, content, or practices they incorporated into their lessons to promote 21^st century skills. They will also be asked to share ways in which they encouraged students’ interests in STEM fields. A focus group protocol (see Appendix G) will be used to guide and structure the meeting, but additional questions may be added as the meeting progresses. The focus group will be digitally recorded.

Teachers who could not participate in the focus group will be asked to participate in an in-person interview. If an interview cannot be conducted in person, the interview will be conducted over the phone. As with the focus group, an interview protocol (see Appendix H) will be used to guide and structure the interview, but additional questions may be added as the interview proceeds. Interviews will be digitally recorded.

The focus group and the interviews will give teachers an opportunity to reflect on the 2010-2011 school year. It will give both the teachers and me a chance to learn about the successes and struggles teachers had using STEM pedagogy, new technologies being used to promote 21^st century skills, and activities students are participating in that encouraged interest in STEM fields.

All participants will be informed about the study through a research participant invitation e-mail (see Appendix E). They will be asked to participate in the study by attending a 2-3 hour focus group during July of 2011. The purpose of the focus group will be explained to each participant prior to attending so they will understand what they will be doing. At the beginning of the focus group each participant will receive a research participant consent letter (see Appendix F), preapproved by Minot State University’s Institution Review Board, and asked to officially participate in the study. After signing the letter, participants will participate in a 2-3 hour focus group meeting that will ask them to reflect on and discuss their implementation of STEM practices and materials in their classes during the 2010-2011 school year.

All teachers who cannot attend the focus group will be contacted by phone or e-mail and an interview time will be scheduled. At the beginning of each interview, each participant will receive a consent letter (see Appendix F), preapproved by the Institution Review Board, and asked to officially participate in the study. After signing the letter, the participant will partake in a 30-45 minute interview. If an in-person interview cannot be conducted, it will be done over the phone.

The focus group and interviews will provide insight into the successes and struggles teachers had while applying the information they learned to their classrooms, how they incorporated new technologies or ideas to promote 21^st century skills, and how they encourage students’ interests in STEM fields.

I believe teachers who attended the six-day STEM Institute will have different successes and struggles while applying the information they learned during the institute to their classrooms. I predict that the levels of success and struggle each teacher had will be based on various factors. I anticipate teachers integrated new technologies, content, practices, or ideas into their lessons to promote 21^st century skills. I believe the STEM Institute opened a door of awareness about STEM fields and the importance of them to the U.S. and that each teacher incorporated at least one activity to encourage students’ interest in STEM fields.

The STEM Institute was conducted on July 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, and 29 in 2010. Teachers were to use STEM pedagogy during the 2010-2011 school year. In July of 2011, teachers will receive an e-mail personally inviting them to participate in a focus group during the month of July 2011. Any participants who cannot attend the focus group will be asked participate in a 30-45 minute interview, in person or by phone. Participants who could not complete an interview by August 2011 will not be included in the study.

After the focus group and all interviews, I will analyze the responses to determine how teachers who attended the six-day STEM Institute have applied the information they learned to their classrooms along with the successes and struggles they had while applying the information. I will determine any new technologies or ideas teachers incorporated into their lessons to promote 21^st century skills. Last, I will use the focus group and interviews to determine how teachers encourage students’ interests in STEM fields.

Summary

Briefly summarize what you wrote in Chapter Three, and transition the reader to the next chapter.

Use an introductory paragraph to remind the reader of your purpose and to give them a brief description of what is included in this chapter.

Address each data collection method separately (e.g., chapter test, survey, interview, etc.). Be sure to do the following:

• 
  Describe how you analyzed the data.
  
• 
  Display numerical or statistical results in tables or figures.
  
• 
  Summarize the results of surveys or other instruments.
  
• 
  Theme and summarize narrative data, including representative quotes when appropriate.
  

Revisit each research question and present the data that answer that question. Include the following:

• 
  Did you successfully answer your question?
  
• 
  Did you get the results you expected.
  
• 
  Discuss significance and rigor (i.e., quality, validity, accuracy, credibility, trustworthiness) as needed.
  
• 
  Discuss unusual circumstances as needed
  

Briefly summarize what you wrote in Chapter Four, highlighting the key findings, and transition the reader to the next chapter.

Draw conclusions about your research questions based on your results. Someone reading only this section should get a sense of your research purpose and findings.

Present a plan of action. What will you do now? Will you continue, modify, or throw out your innovation? Why? Speculate on your “next steps” in the action research cycle.

This section is all for you—your opinions, impressions, frustrations, and celebrations.

• 
  What would you do differently?
  
• 
  What were the highlights of your project?
  
• 
  Advice to teachers about your intervention.
  
• 
  Advice to teachers about action research.
  

This is the last paragraph of the paper. Briefly summarize what you wrote in Chapter Five and give any last comments that will help wrap up the paper.

ACT. (2008). The forgotten middle: Ensuring that all students are on target for college and career readiness before high school. Iowa City, IA: Author.

ACT. (2010). North Dakota, the condition of college and career readiness: Class of 2010. Iowa City, IA: Author.

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. (2006). Facts for families: Children & watching TV. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved March 14, 2011, from http://www.aacap.org/galleries/FactsForFamilies/ 54_children_and_watching_tv.pdf

Business Roundtable. (2005). Tapping America’s potential: The education for innovation initiative. Washington DC: Author.

Britton, J. (2006). String and ring puzzle. Retrieved February 22, 2011, from Jill Britton’s HOME page: http://britton.disted.camosun.bc.ca/home.htm

Coble C., & Michael A. (2005). Keeping America competitive: Five strategies to improve mathematics and science education. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21^st Century. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.

Council on Competitiveness. (2005). Innovate America: National innovation initiative summit and report. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved March 13, 2011, from http://www.compete.org/images/uploads/File/PDFFiles/ NII_Innovate_America.pdf

Department of Education. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the national mathematics advisory panel. Washington, DC: Author.

Dickinson Public Schools. (2011). Dickinson High School. Retrieved March 18, 2011, from http://www.dickinson.k12.nd.us/dhs/courses.asp

Gates, B. (2005). National Governors Association. Retrieved June 1, 2009, from Speech to the National Education Summit on High Schools Web site: http://www.nga.org/cda/files/es05gates.pdf

Gordon, D. (2011). Return to sender. The Journal, 38(3), 31-35.

Kuenzi, J. J., Matthews, C. M., & Mangan, B. F. (2006). CRS report for Congress: Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education issues and legislative options. Retrieved March 13, 2011, from http://media.umassp.edu/massedu/stem/CRS%20Report%20to%20 Congress.pdf

Members of the 2005 “Rising Above the Gathering Storm” Committee. (2010). Rising above the gathering storm, revisited: Rapidly approaching category 5. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.

Narum, J. L. (2008). Promising practices in undergraduate STEM education. Retrieved March 13, 2011, from http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose /Narum_CommissionedPaper.pdf

North Dakota Department of Career and Technical Education. (2007). Science, technology, engineering, & mathematics career cluster plan of study. Retrieved March 15, 2011 from http://www.dickinson.k12.nd.us/dhs/data/ ccluster/pages/sci.htm

Partnership for 21^st Century Skills. (2002). Learning for the 21^st century: A report and mile guide for 21^st century skills. Washington, DC: Author.

Partnership for 21^st Century Skills (2004). ICT literacy map: Math. Tucson, AZ: Author.

Pfeiffer, S. I., Overstreet, J. M., & Park, A. (2010). The state of science and mathematics education in state-supported residential academics: A nationwide survey. Roeper Review, 32(1), 25-31.

Phillips, G. W. (2007). Chance favors the prepared mind: Mathematics and science indicators for comparing states and nations. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). (2010). Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) for America’s future. Washington, DC: Author.

Schultz, K. T., Rhodes, G. A., & Hallman, A. (2009). Proceedings of the 31^st annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Atlanta, GA: Georgia State University.

Seeley, C. L. (2009). Faster isn’t smarter: Messages about math, teaching and learning in the 21^st century. Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions.

Shuler, C. (2009). Pockets of potential: Using mobile technologies to promote children’s learning. New York, NY: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.

Wai, J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J. H. (2010). Accomplishment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and its relation to STEM education dose: A 25-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 860-871.

Wallis, C., Steptoe, S., & Miranda, C. A. (2006). How to bring our schools out of the 20^th century. Time, 168(25), 50-56.

White House Press Office. (2009). Remarks by the president to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce on a complete and competitive American education. Retrieved March 14, 2011 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/ the_press_office/Remarks-of-the-President-to-the-Hispanic-Chamber-of-Commerce/

Zordak, S. E. (2000-2011). Barbie bungee. Retrieved February 23, 2011, from Illuminations Web site: http://illuminations.nctm.org/LessonDetail.aspx? id=L646