Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Defining STEM within a school district: a co-constructed and evolving process

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Cultural Studies of Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Taking a sociocultural approach, the goal of this qualitative study was to examine the process of implementing a science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) initiative. The study examined how the construct of STEM was individually appropriated and collectively constructed within a rural school district during its launch year. Within this theoretical framework, the authors argue that such a change must be viewed as a contextual, active, co-constructed, and evolving process. Data from practitioner journals, participant interviews, and researcher field notes were characterized by how practitioners referred to and discussed the idea of “STEM.” The perspectives of teachers, administrators, and a STEM coach were examined to determine how practitioners appropriated the notion of “STEM,” how this varied by practitioner group, and how individual appropriations of “STEM” merged and evolved as a co-constructed understanding of “STEM.” Practitioners appropriated this STEM initiative in distinct ways, specific to their context, while at the same time working toward a district-wide understanding of “STEM.” During the course of this year, the district’s ownership of this initiative was reflected in the emergence of a new label for “STEM,” which they renamed “TEAMS.” This new label reified the context-specific conceptualization of a STEM initiative. The results highlight the importance of acknowledging the active role that practitioners play as co-designers of innovations and the value that should be placed on this active role to support long-term sustainability. The study provides a deeper understanding of the process of implementing STEM that might have implications for implementing similar STEM initiatives elsewhere.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ash, D. (2007). Using video data to capture discontinuous science meaning making in non-school settings. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 207–226). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blasé, J. J. (1987). Dimensions of effective school leadership: The teacher’s perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 24(4), 589–610. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312024004589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Béguin, P. (2003). Design as mutual learning process between users and designers. Interacting with Computers, 15(5), 709–730. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0953-5438%2803%2900060-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. S., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289–325). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research–practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16631750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coburn, C. E., Penuel, W. R., & Geil, K. (2013). Research-practice partnerships at the district level: A new strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement. New York: William T. Grant Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Datnow, A. (2002). Can we transplant educational reform, and does it last? Journal of Educational Change, 3(3/4), 215–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (1998). Educational reform implementation: A co-constructed process (Report No. 5). Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence.

  • Downing-Wilson, D., Lecusay, R., & Cole, M. (2011). Design experimentation and mutual appropriation: Two strategies for university/community collaborative after-school interventions. Theory & Psychology, 21(5), 656–680. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354311414456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellison, S., & Allen, B. (2018). Disruptive innovation, labor markets, and Big Valley STEM School: Network analysis in STEM education. Cultural Studies in Science Education, 13(1), 267–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9786-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giamellaro, M., & Siegel, D. R. (2018). Coaching teachers to implement innovations in STEM. Teaching and Teacher Education, 76, 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.08.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2015). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoachlander, G. (2014). Integrating STE&M. Educational Leadership, 72(4), 74–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmlund, T., Lesseig, K., & Slavit, D. (2018). Making sense of “STEM education” in K-12 contexts. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0127-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM Integration in K–12 Education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, D., & English, L. D. (2016). Engineering design in the primary school: Applying STEM concepts to build an optical instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 38(18), 2762–2794. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1262567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, C., Binns, I. C., & Bloom, M. A. (2016). The emergence of STEM. In C. C. Johnson, E. E. Peters-Burton, & T. J. Moore (Eds.), STEM road map: A framework for integrated STEM education (pp. 13–22). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaForce, M., Noble, E., King, H., Holt, S., & Century, J. (2014). The 8 elements of inclusive STEM high schools. Chicago, IL: Outlier Research & Evaluation, CEMSE, The University of Chicago.

  • Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2019). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

  • Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412995658.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nasir, N. S., & Vakil, S. (2017). STEM-focused academies in urban schools: Tensions and possibilities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(3), 376–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1314215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027870190403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, D. K. (2016). Understanding design research–practice partnerships in context and time: Why learning sciences scholars should learn from cultural-historical activity theory approaches to DBR. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25, 487–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1226835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Office of the Chief Scientist. (2014). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Australia’s future (p. 44). Canberra: Australian Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penuel, W. R., Cole, M., & O’Neill, K. (2016). Introduction to the special issue. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25, 487–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1215753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters-Burton, E. E., Lynch, S. J., Behrend, T. S., & Means, B. B. (2014). Inclusive STEM high school design: 10 critical components. Theory into Practice, 53(1), 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014.862125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rocha, H. H., Dantas, D. de S., & de Fariasa, R. F. (2017). Contextualization and interdisciplinarity in chemistry teaching in Brazil: After two decades, everybody knows but nobody understands. African Journal of Chemical Education, 7(1), 31–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sannino, A., & Nocon, H. (2008). Special issue editors’ introduction: Activity theory and school innovation. Journal of Educational Change, 9(4), 325–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-008-9079-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Severance, S., Penuel, W. R., Sumner, T., & Leary, H. (2016). Organizing for teacher agency in curricular co-design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 531–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1207541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17. Accessed July 24, 2017.

  • Royal Society. (2014). Vision for science and mathematics education. London: The Royal Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasquez, J. A. (2014). STEM: Beyond the acronym. Educational Leadership, 72(4), 10–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, V., Dillon, J., & King, H. (2016). STEM in England: Meanings and motivations in the policy arena. International Journal of Science Education, 38(15), 2346–2366. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1242818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worthen, B. R., Sanders, J. R., & Fitzpatrick, J. L. (1997). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (2nd ed.). New York: Longman. https://doi.org/10.1177/135638909700300304.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all of the teachers, students, and administrators who participated in this project. We would also like to thank the research assistants who contributed to this work: Alyssa Lopez and Rita Schenkelberg.

Funding

The work presented here was supported by funding from the Title II-A University-School Partnership Grant #TRSUB14.07 (CFDA No. 84.367) and the Oregon Department of Education Lab School Grant #3232.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Learning Innovation, 9450 SW Gemini Dr #79315, Beaverton, OR, 97008, USA

    Debbie Siegel & Michael Giamellaro

Authors
  1. Debbie Siegel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Giamellaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Debbie Siegel.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Lead Editor: David Long.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Siegel, D., Giamellaro, M. Defining STEM within a school district: a co-constructed and evolving process. Cult Stud of Sci Educ 15, 739–773 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09959-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09959-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation