Definition of Change
Change is a constant process of re-adaptation and readjustment, as people respond behaviorally to ever-changing circumstances. It implies a shift towards an idealized state, a vision, or a goal of the situation that should be and away from present attitudes, beliefs or conditions (Zaballero & Kim, 2013). Change involves the crystallization of new possibilities including behaviors, policies, methodologies, market ideas, or products based on the reconceptualization of institutional patterns. Accordingly, change architecture entails the design and construction of new ideas from the reconceptualization of older ones to come with novel and potentially more effective actions. Changes can span a range of spheres including technology, rules and regulations, structures, and procedures within an organization. Effective change, however, is that which is properly integrated into all organizational functions. In most cases, changes in the environment are the primary drivers of change in organizations to ensure that internal processes are adaptable to the prevailing circumstances.
Literature Review for Change Interpretation
Regarding other contributions to the definition of change, it has been argued that the occurrence of change should not be incidental. Instead, all initiatives for change should be meticulously planned and should involve extensive consultation with all relevant stakeholders. Moreover, the planned change should have specific objectives and a purpose for the organization implementing it to retain its viability (Anyieni, Ondari, Mayianda, & Damaris, 2016). Change should also be an adaptive and continuous process to ensure that stakeholders are constantly aware of new ideas so that they may promptly adjust their attitudes, perceptions, and goals such that they are consistent with the overall organizational strategic direction (Fullan, 2011). Stakeholders are central to facilitating, implementing, and managing effective change. In the same measure, stakeholders may be a significant barrier to change implementation. An incremental approach to change has thus been suggested to be a good strategy as it has the capacity to circumvent such barriers.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to Wright (2015), incremental change is a series of small changes, each of which is geared towards building on already-accomplished work and improving organizational functions in small increments. Supporters of incrementalism consider change as a normal and never-ending process. Incremental change facilitates the effective engagement of employees and stakeholders in collaborative work towards the achievement of organizational goals. It thus results in more effective and efficient functioning. Even though most organizations favor incrementalism, others do not see any merit in its use. One argument against this approach is that it does not do away with past tendencies entirely. On the contrary, it is an extension of past patterns and thus limited in scope. Despite the criticism, the incremental approach to change is favored by organizations that consider it an ongoing aspect of organizational improvement. This in line with the argument presented by Hargreaves et al. (2014) that sometimes, a change in leadership or organizational focus is critical to providing necessary uplifts.
Continuous fine-tuning of organizational approaches through incrementalism improves the access of employees to one another and thus facilitates the exchange of information across the organization. Though resource-intensive, incremental changes may result in fundamental shifts in an organization's modus operandi. Accordingly, incremental change is the constant improvement that all efficient and effective organizations engage in to improve continually. Other types of change may be implemented by organizations that are opposed to incrementalism. An example of such change involves the implementation of an approach based on standard with resultant dramatic changes. This is referred to as the fundamental approach. The transitional approach, on the other hand, entails the slow evolution of organizations by introducing new technologies or processes. Organizations may also opt for transformational change in which they rethink their activities, culture, and mission. It is thus evident that organizations can make various types of change. As such, managers should seriously consider the complexity, depth, and the kind of required change before implementing it.
D’Ortenzio (2012) offers another perspective of change. He suggests that organizations that avoid change must have the capacity to maintain stable identities and attain operational objectives. The successful occurrence and implementation of change require organizations to foster clear communication, strong leadership and effective collaboration to develop and fully exploit their resources (D’Ortenzio, 2012). The development of these relationships calls for the acknowledgment of the fact that relationships are a reflection of living structures with intrinsically dynamic characteristics, and are characterized by continuous change. Change can also be viewed as profound in organizational capacity-building as it takes into consideration the aspirations, behaviors, fears, and values of all the stakeholders involved in the process. Change involves moving from known grounds into unknown territories. For this reason, change may elicit feelings of uncertainty about the future which may affect the coping abilities, sense of worth, and competencies of employees. Therefore, most employees are often opposed to change unless convinced by enthralling reasons.
The successful implementation of change must involve among other factors, mission, vision, culture, communication, able leadership, and participation. Vision is critical to the development of a future picture for the organization and from it, the mission may be developed. Organizational mission plays a critical role in setting the stage for change. Able leadership and communication are critical in priming organizations for change as they guide organizations through tumultuous times. Through participation, all stakeholders may be accorded fair says in the change process. Finally, organizational culture is the common understanding of the organization’s mechanisms and thus impacts change initiatives. As such, organizations must adopt change as a way of life to maintain a competitive advantage in all sectors, whether public or private. It is thus imperative that organizations realize the importance of having an integrated approach to change programs that involves linking behavioral, technological, and structural approaches.
Change Initiative
Description of the Setting
The change initiative was implemented in a high school in a rural area. The school has a population of about two thousand students from grade 9 to grade 12. Collectively, the school's faculty members in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields comprise about twenty individuals. Eight teachers have a science background, seven have a mathematics background, four have a technology background and one has an engineering background. All students in the school are enrolled in STEM classes. STEM courses in the school are designed to offer learners the opportunity to comprehend engineering problem-solving, scientific processes, and the various applications of technology. The courses are also meant to encourage students to use their mathematical skills and knowledge in solving problems. Importantly, the programs also emphasize effective communication through speaking, listening, writing and reading; and effective collaborative work with peers. However, it is evident that the school has a low teacher-student ratio, especially with regards to the STEM fields. The school administration in collaboration with the faculty members of the STEM fields agreed to a STEM shift for a more inclusive and integrated curriculum to enhance learning outcomes among students.
Explanation of the Change
Previously, STEM education in the school emphasized the improvement of mathematics and science as two distinct and isolated disciplines with little attention to and integration with engineering or technology. Moreover, STEM subjects in the school were traditionally taught separately from design, creativity and the arts. However, there has been a recent shift toward the adoption of integrated STEM and inclusive curricula. According to Honey et al. (2014), The definition of integrated stem remains elusive for a multiplicity of reasons. Some of these reasons include the variability of contexts, flexibility, and the need to have a definition that includes a wide range of applicable conditions (Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014). Despite the challenges with defining integrated STEM, certain processes and attributes have been identified to be good indicators of integrated STEM. Honey et al. (2014), therefore, argue that integrated STEM encompasses circumstances that necessitate the use of practices and knowledge from various STEM domains to solve or learn about multidisciplinary issues. Integrated STEM education may also be designated as exploratory methods to learning and teaching between various STEM disciplines or between a STEM discipline and any other academic domain.
According to Moore et al. (2014), integrated STEM entails the combination of scientific disciplines into a single lesson, unit or class based on the connections between real-world problems and the subjects. It is thus an educational strategy for teaching the contents of two or more STEM disciplines according to the practices within a realistic setting with the aim of creating a connection between STEM domains to enhance learning outcomes (Moore et al., 2014). The amalgamation of concepts and contents in integrated STEM is seamless and occurs such that the processes and knowledge of the particular subjects are taken into account concurrently notwithstanding the specific STEM disciplines, but rather in the perspective of tasks, projects, or problems (Nadelson & Seifert, 2017). Nadelson and Seifert (2017) posit that problems that typically require the integration of STEM concepts are characteristically ill-structured with many potential solutions, and need one to apply practices and concepts from more than one STEM domain. In the school setting, integrated STEM is related to problem-based education which entails design challenges and making inquiries (Nadelson & Seifert, 2017).
Numerous advantages have been associated with the application of integrated STEM education. Research findings indicate the use of an integrated or interdisciplinary curriculum creates opportunities for less fragmented, more applicable, and more thought-provoking experiences for students (Stohlmann, Moore, & Roehrig, 2012) . Integrated curricula have also been proven to improve retention, problem-solving, and critical thinking skills because they are student-oriented. Similar benefits have been associated with the use of integrated STEM education. The adoption of this educational approach reportedly raises a crop of students who are self-reliant, technologically literate, inventive, innovative, and adept problem solvers (Stohlmann, Moore, & Roehrig, 2012). Learners have also reported that the integration of science and mathematics has a positive impact on their interest in and attitudes towards school, their enthusiasm to learn, and overall achievement (Stohlmann, Moore, & Roehrig, 2012). The incorporation of engineering in K-12 school curricula has also been associated with benefits such as increased awareness of engineering as a field in science, increased technological literacy, and improved achievement in math and science (Kelley & Knowles, 2016). Additionally, students gain a profound understanding and thus capacity to come up with engineering designs.
Shernoff et al. (2017) have found that students are highly motivated and display exemplary performance within STEM domains when engaged in activities that entail the utilization of technology such as designing solutions and prototyping. Such positive outcomes are supposedly linked to the perceptions of students who find instructions to be more meaningful, challenging, relevant, and competency-supportive (Shernoff, Sinha, Bressler, & Ginsburg, 2017) . These positive perceptions result in better student engagement. Analyses of the effects of integrated STEM education on learning typically describe positive effects on the learning process with the most perceptible effects being in elementary stages of education (Shernoff, Sinha, Bressler, & Ginsburg, 2017). Research findings have also established that integrated STEM methods may potentially provide appropriate contexts for interest advancement alongside intellectual benefits. Shernoff et al. (2017) argue that the research on the effect of integrated STEM is largely inconclusive. English (2016) shares the same sentiments especially when integrated approaches are considered from a long-term perspective. For instance, while integrated STEM is considered critical to the inspiration of perseverance, enthusiasm, and engagement, these effects are seldom evaluated in the assessment of integrated STEM programs.
One of the most critical factors to the successful implementation of integrated STEM education is ensuring that the difficulty of its context to a certain degree corresponds with the knowledge level of the students. For instance, is the knowledge of students on STEM is low and the context of learning is overly composite, learners are highly likely to become frustrated upon engaging in the context tasks. As a result, they may disengage from the program altogether. In the same measure, if the students have a high level of STEM knowledge and are exposed to simpler STEM contexts, learners could easily get bored and again, disengage from the program. Therefore, optimal integrated STEM learning necessitates appropriate orientation of the learning and teaching contexts with the students’ learning capacity and STEM knowledge background. The use of one integrated STEM contexts during lessons confers students with shared experiences for examining STEM facets and thus facilitates the process of knowledge transfer as students are allowed to build on a common understanding and shared experience. Accordingly, the context bolsters STEM learning by presenting a project or process that lets several facets of facts to be explored. Moreover, contextual teaching in integrated STEM augments the relevance and significance of STEM content with the potential to raise the engagement and enthusiasm of students for learning.
Though welcome, certain challenges have also been associated with the implementation of an integrated STEM curriculum. One of the main barriers to teaching integrated STEM is the effort needed to effect an entirely different structure of education in a system that is predominated with an established structure with segregated STEM (Nadelson & Siefert, 2017). For this reason, the introduction and adoption of an integrated STEM curriculum would thus require the total overhaul and restructuring of the curriculum characterized by considerable changes in the approaches to teaching and instruction (Nadelson & Siefert, 2017). According to Nadelson and Seifert (2017), most of the successful models of integrated STEM education have occurred in schools where complete restructuring has had to be done. As such, the challenge lies in determining how to reconcile the traditional structure of schools, curricula, instructions, and assessments with a new school environment and culture that is conducive for integrated STEM education.
Another notable challenge to the implementation of integrated STEM is the knowledge and professional mindset of the teachers. A fundamental understanding of the impact of context on the opportunity to learn multiple concepts and facets of STEM is requisite for teaching integrated STEM. For this reason, teachers who feel inadequate as regards their knowledge, as well as those who are not ready to learn the content or concepts of integrated STEM rapidly, are not likely to be adept and well-versed in supporting the new approach to learning or teaching. Teachers who actively engage in integrated STEM teaching have a higher chance to benefit from a mindset of progress that favors perceptions of long-term learning. According to Nadelson et al. (2015), teaching integrated STEM is an educational revolution that encompasses novel instructional and curricular approaches and ill-structured problems. It thus indicates a need for teachers to be amenable to calculative risk-taking and ambiguity ( Nadelson, Seifert, & Sias, 2015).
Need for the Change
The introduction of integrated STEM education in the school was driven primarily by the need to produce students with the capacity to meet the current workforce competency needs (Nadelson & Seifert, 2017). This decision was arrived at after the school management and STEM faculty recognized that the STEM that happens currently in society, industry, and research is seemingly inclined towards the integration of domains. Despite these current trends, the STEM education in the school was mostly segregated and thus students were not well-equipped to compete favorably in the real world. According to Nadelson and Seifert, (2017), the structural contrast between segregated STEM education within schools and the integrated STEM workforce requirement in the outside world increases the potential for learners to complete their primary and secondary education without the necessary preparedness to tackle STEM-oriented challenges.
The education provided by the school was considered to be subject content-based and thus students were left to integrate knowledge by themselves to function effectively in the future.
For this reason, it was thought that greater exposure of students to integrated STEM education would make their learning experiences more like the challenges they would face as they learn, live, and work as productive members of society engaging in integrated STEM projects, problems, and issues. The school also realized that the achievement of authentic learning required students to be provided with platforms and opportunities for designing products or processes. The detection of the apparent gap between what is provided by the school and what the students would possibly require in their future lives and careers created an impetus for the introduction and implementation of integrated STEM education.
Goals of the Change
The school’s main goal of introducing integrated STEM education was to develop and breed talents in convergence and to groom students to be some of the most productive and innovative professionals in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. More importantly, the goal of integrated STEM is based on holism and the need to provide an approach to education that links STEM disciplines to ensure that the learning process in relevant, focused, meaningful, and connected from the learners’ perspectives. The specific goals of the change initiative were:
To employ in-service technology and science educators in professional improvement to enhance their STEM knowledge and practices and to improve their capacity to provide integrated STEM instructions to students.
To engage students in integrated STEM learning by introducing them to concepts of engineering design and technology.
To develop educational approaches to circumvent the identified gap for learners in the school and to encourage them to pursue STEM-related career paths.
To create a sustainable practice community comprising STEM teachers, students, researchers, and various industry partners to enhance the experiential aspect of integrated STEM learning.
Implementation of the Change
The school realized that the effective implementation of integrated STEM would require knowledgeable, organized and dedicated individuals. As such, the school maintains a faculty that is committed to long-term service as high teacher turnover rates have been associated with impeding the successful implementation of integrated STEM education. Additionally, high turnover has negative effects on the effectiveness of teaching, cohesion of the school, and achievements by students (Stohlmann, Moore, & Roehrig, 2012) . Importantly, teachers were required to develop their content knowledge regarding integrated STEM education. To this effect, teachers were linked to various institutions that offer integrated programs that allow teachers to be appropriately licensed as instructors of the various STEM domains. The school recognized that its staff has teachers from different backgrounds and licensures. The management thus ensured that staff members were provided with ample time and support for interdisciplinary collaboration. Various approaches were used to support the teachers. The school partnered with a local university that provided the required additional training to better equip teachers with the requisite integrated STEM instruction techniques.
The school also made provisions for the faculty to attend professional development fora and took advantage of the training programs offered by various curriculum companies in the state. The management also ensured that teachers had a common planning tome and encourage open communication among members of staff so that they could feel that they are adequately supported to achieve the desired outcomes. STEM teachers thus collaborated to ensure that they maximized student learning. This was achieved by making certain that similar information and concepts were reinforced during lessons or skimmed through in cases where the students were deemed to have mastered and understood the concept. Introductory classes to simple machines were also provided to cover for the years that the science curriculum had left out aspects of engineering. As a result, students were brought up to speed with basing engineering concepts before the actual content was introduced.
A STEM model for guiding instructors on integrated STEM education was also adopted by the school as it provides invaluable information for the successful implementation of integrated education. Per the model, the largest category is dedicated to teaching. This is because the mastery of content is deemed the most critical for instructors with no previous understanding of the concept of integrated STEM education. From the model, teachers were able to build on the guidelines for teaching integrated mathematics and science effectively. The emphasis on content knowledge is evidence-based. Research findings indicate that experience, STEM content knowledge, and a profound understanding of pedagogical content positively impact self-efficacy among teachers (Stohlmann, Moore, & Roehrig, 2012) . Over time, the teachers at the school were able to employ a student-centered teaching method with well-defined and well-thought-out activities that allowed them to feel more at ease with the curriculum. Learners, on the other hand, were able to adjust appropriately to the requirements of the curriculum. Supporting members of the faculty in different ways and ensuring that they are provided with the essential resources and tools to perform their duties effectively have been considered as some of the factors that contributed to the successful implementation of integrated STEM education in the school.
Reflective Thoughts on the Change
Integrated STEM education is not a distinctly-defined experience. It, however, involves analogous hallmarks in its planning and execution. Despite the efforts to implement integrated STEM programs by local school district programs, teachers are the most pivotal element in the success of the program. Curricula are merely blueprints and integrated STEM education demands pedagogical change to student-oriented learning as proposed by Margot and Kettler (2019). Additionally, much of the instruction in STEM learning is experimental and problem-based. It is imperative that policymakers and administrators identify the barriers and challenges perceived to impede integrated STEM learning. It would also be paramount to determine the factors that teachers feel would support and buttress their work as integrated STEM practitioners. Such factors may include prior experience, support from local school districts, collaboration with colleagues, effective professional development, and quality curricula. While many teachers in the school have developed an interest in integrated STEM education, most of them do not feel adequately prepared and equipped to implement it. Moreover, the school's administration and staff also seem to believe that adequate preparation for integrated STEM education would necessitate substantial redesigning and rethinking of in-service workshops as well as pre-service training. This reflection provides the foundation for an improved understanding of the needs of teachers in integrated STEM education and is thus a point of reference for further studies.
Methodology
This present evaluation will utilize a ground-up, qualitative approach. It will rely on participants to voice their perceived needs and challenges as well as supports in the integrated STEM education. As such, identified patterns will be solely rooted in the participant’s descriptions. The evaluation will be dedicated to determining the existing needs and challenges of integrated STEM education as defined by students, educators, and administrators. The descriptions will then be blended into coding sets for analysis.
Participants and Procedure
Participants in the study were the school’s STEM teachers ( n = 14, including 4 heads of department), administrators ( n = 3, the school principal, deputy principal, and one local school district supervisor) and students ( n = 200, 50 each from grade 9 through to grade 12). By involving administrators and teachers, the change evaluation aims to rely on key informants with a profound understanding of the needs and challenges in integrated STEM education in the school. As such, information from knowledgeable sources will be maximized (Shernoff, Sinha, Bressler, & Ginsburg, 2017). On the other hand, involving students would give a clear picture of the effectiveness of the effectiveness of the integrated STEM curriculum as they are the ones for whom the program is primarily meant.
The participants in the evaluation will also be attendees of an integrated STEM workshop organized by the local school district. Attendance of the workshop was limited to recipients of the local school district’s grant in STEM education. The grant is particularly dedicated to supporting teachers who have an interest in leading and implementing change initiatives in STEM education. Beneficiaries of the grant receive the four-day workshop as well as some extra resources for teaching or developing integrated STEM curricula upon request. The school nominates and supports participants in the program. The facilitators of the workshop included officers from the local school district and STEM experts. Since participants gain a common understanding of integrated STEM from the workshop, it will not be conceptualized or defined further during the study. The sample of 14 teachers will be a good balance of all the STEM disciplines. Students will be selected randomly from grade 9 through grade 12. Fifty students will be picked from each grade to ensure that all grades are equally represented in the study. This number was considered sufficiently representative of the entire student fraternity.
Data Collection
Semi-structured interviews will be used as the primary source of data. The selection of interviews is because the method has many advantages in a change evaluation study. Interviews allow for an in-depth probe into a several of topics and provide for the clarification of unclear reactions. Through interviews also, more information can be elicited than would be possible with other methods. As posited by Shernoff et al. (2017), interviews can function as valuable starting points in the identification of salient issues for further studies or questionnaire construction.
Interviews will range from twenty to thirty minutes in length and will be conducted by three experienced researchers. Distinct interview protocols for administrators and teachers will be used. Administrators will be interviewed about the general state of integrated STEM education in the school and the needs and challenges they grapple with in trying to achieve integrated STEM education. The administrator interview will also seek to determine the school's most needed supports and resources, as well as staffing requirements for teaching STEM in an integrated manner. Importantly, the administrators will be asked about the necessary qualifications of competent STEM teachers and suggestions for professional development and teacher education.
The teacher interview will begin by determining a participant’s greatest challenges and needs in a particular subject and the desired supports for overcoming the perceived constraints. The determination of these facts will establish a baseline of the teachers’ needs as a comparison point to the supposed supports facilitating integrated STEM education. Teachers will also be probed to determine the extent to which multiple STEM disciplines are integrated into their lessons. The interviews will also seek to determine the teachers' perceptions of the challenges or barriers to the successful implementation of integrated STEM education in the school. On that note, the interview will also seek to determine the supports needed by teachers to enable them to work more effectively towards integrating STEM education. Other questions will surround the teachers' perspectives on the need for professional development and teacher education for the development of STEM competencies both in-service and pre-service.
For the students, structured questionnaires will be used to gauge their perceptions of the effectiveness of the new integrated STEM curriculum. Structured questionnaires are considered to be revolutionary by social researchers (Cheung, 2014). The questionnaires that will be administered to the students will contain a set of standard questions and a specific scheme to specifying the exact wording (Cheung, 2014) to gather information from the participants regarding their perceptions of integrated STEM education to their learning. The student questionnaires will be particularly designed to pick out their attitudes towards learning given the new teaching approach as well as their perceived areas of improvement. The students will be required to fill the questionnaires independently. Anonymity will be ensured by assigning each student a unique identification code.
Data Analysis
The team of researchers scheduled to conduct the interviews will also analyze the data to come up with themes, as is appropriate for the analysis of qualitative data (Shernoff et al., 2017). Recorded interviews will be distributed randomly among the three coders. An organized and systematic process based on a grounded theory approach will be developed for the identification of themes. The first step will be to identify all the essential elements through the conceptualization, examination, and categorization of the data. The three coders will generate categories and discuss them to facilitate selective coding. Appropriately, core and essential categories will be determined and some codes will be consolidated into comprehensive and central codes. Double coding will be allowed. More than 25 percent of the scripts will be coded by at least two coders for the estimation of inter-rater reliability. Every source of data will be coded using both open and axial coding to develop themes. The sources will then be paralleled to each other for the identification of themes.
In addition to the inductive coding described above, the following codebook derived from previous research in the field will be used complementarily:
| Current integrated STEM activities | Supports for the advancement of integrated STEM |
| Integration of two or more STEM subjects | Professional development |
| Integration of technology | Ample planning time |
| Application to real-life situations | Availability of resources |
| Minimal integration | Supportive STEM culture or ethos |
| Challenges to achieving integrated STEM | Effective interdepartmental communication |
| Poor teacher understanding | Improvements to pre-service training |
| Inadequate planning and collaboration time | More experiential learning |
| Organizational barriers within the school | Observation of effective STEM teaching |
| Inadequate disciplinary content | Integrated interdisciplinary approach |
| Poor teacher attitudes | Incorporation of teaching mentors |
| Inadequate resources | Rigorous training in STEM domains |
| Inadequate technology | Improvements to in-service education |
| Inadequate finance | Observation of effective STEM teaching. |
| Lack of student motivation | More training on integrative education |
| Lack of professional development | Establishment of a supportive community |
| No barrier | Post-training follow-up |
For the analysis of the data collected from the students using the questionnaires, the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) will be used.
Quantitative Measures
The change evaluation that will be conducted in this case will be primarily qualitative. In such a study, coding is used to convert qualitative data into quantitative measures for analysis and interpretation. However, with the structured student questionnaires, some quantitative data will be obtained.
Timelines
The evaluation will run for a period of four weeks. The first one week will be dedicated to preparation. This will entail the selection of key informants, preparation of the data collection tools and interview questions, and gaining institutional approval from the school to conduct the study. The second week will involve the actual data collection. Participants will be interviewed in their free time given their busy schedules. In the third week, the collected data will be analyzed. And in the last week, the final report will be written detailing the outcomes of the evaluation.
Limitations and Potential Sources of Bias
The purposive sample was made up of key informants who had been nominated as teachers with the potential to lead and effect integrated STEM education initiatives in the school and who were provided with additional curricular and instructional support. As such, the selective sample, as well as the shared experiences of the key informants in the STEM workshops, may probably bias the outcomes. This would be as a result of possible selection bias toward more qualified STEM instructors. Besides, the receptivity and acceptance level among the teachers towards integrated STEM education will probably be higher than that of a random sample of STEM teachers. This could probably result in response bias in contrast to when a bigger sample of participants could be used.
Indicators of Success
The success of the new integrated STEM education initiative may be perceived in terms of teaching practices and teacher efficacy, supports to teachers, and perceptions of students about the new curriculum.
Teaching Practices and Teacher Efficacy
An indicator of the successful implementation of integrated STEM education in the school would be the reliance of teachers on quality pedagogy. Teachers should display a wealth of knowledge on STEM disciplines as this is critical to the successful integration of STEM concepts. As such, there should be minimal knowledge gaps if any among the teachers. Stohlmann et al. (2012) recommend best practices for integrated STEM teaching, especially for science and mathematics. In their view, the teacher should be the facilitator during lessons and problem-solving approaches to teaching should be applied. Teachers should also emphasize hands-on learning, inquiry and discussion, conjectures and questioning, and cooperative learning. Importantly, technology should be integrated into the learning process. Teachers should also encourage writing for problem-solving and reflection and use assessments as part of their instructions. Concerning teacher efficacy, the successful implementation of integrated STEM in the school will be indicated by the positive beliefs of teachers about their capability to facilitate effective learning. Teachers should thus be adequately knowledgeable on integrated STEM teaching. Teacher efficacy would also be indicated by enhanced student performance, self-esteem, motivation, improved attitudes towards learning, and feelings of self-efficacy.
Teachers should also display optimum comfort levels and be passionate about developing their careers and integrated STEM teachers. The successful implementation of the integrated STEM curriculum would also be reflected in the manner in which teachers approach student knowledge. Accordingly, teachers should aim to determine the students' prior knowledge then build on it to introduce increasingly complex ideas. Importantly, they should be able to organize knowledge around central themes, concepts, or big ideas. Successful implementation of integrated STEM teaching also requires the teacher to understand the effect of context on knowledge in that knowledge is context or situation-specific. Another imperative aspect would be to develop the knowledge of students to involve the interrelationships of processes and concepts. Additionally, teachers should facilitate and encourage the advancement of knowledge through social discourse and acknowledge the fact that the social construction of knowledge occurs over time. Teachers should thus be able to employ student-centered approaches to teaching by encouraging student presentations, group projects and discussions, and other collaborative activities. Teachers should thus not focus excessively on lecturing but allowing learners to work together in the development of their ideas.
Supports to Teachers
Another indicator of the successful implementation of integrated STEM education would be the availability of supports to ensure that teachers effectively execute their duties in guiding learners. So far, the school has partnered with a local university to support integrated STEM education. The university has thus been assisting the school particularly with the integration of engineering into the classrooms. Through engineering students have been able to appreciate the applicability of science and mathematics to solving actual technological problems. The partnership has seen university professors, faculty members, and students joining teachers periodically to assist them. Additionally, there are regular teacher support meetings and training programs for instructors on technology. While this partnership has resulted in substantial benefits to the school in terms of improving the integrated STEM program, more partnerships with various STEM institutions should be sought.
Other supports that would be indicative of the success of the integrated STEM curriculum at the school would be regular professional development training to give teachers the capacity to better implement STEM integration. There should also be evidence of commitment by the school's administration to supporting the teachers by allowing them ample time to plan their lessons collaboratively. The administration should also be seen to encourage a supportive STEM culture and ethos by facilitating effective interdepartmental communication within the school. Imperatively, administrators should show their dedication towards ensuring that the necessary resources are made available to teachers. This is because integrated STEM education requires many resources and materials to enable students to investigate solutions to real-life problems through testing, designing, expressing, and reviewing their ideas. Administrators should show their recognition of the fact that hands-on training requires adequate room space by making provisions for the same. Teachers should also be provided with storage areas for keeping students’ projects and other materials. Electronic technology resources and material should also be made available for teachers to make the integrated STEM program more effective. As such, there should be efforts by the school to provide relevant software and hardware towards this end.
Students’ Perception
Probably the most accurate indicator of the effectiveness of integrated STEM education would be the students. This is because this approach to teaching is primarily meant to benefit the students. The success of the integrated STEM curriculum should be manifested through the improved attitudes and interest of students in learning activities. Students should also show signs of increased motivation to learn and achieve excellent results. It should also be evident from assessments that students show improved performance in STEM domains. Further, students should have greater awareness or engineering and showcase greater technological literacy. These parameters may be assessed by evaluating their engineering designs aimed at solving real-world problems. The students should also be able to display better collaboration and teamwork with their peers in solving problems. Furthermore, there should be improved problem-solving and communication among learners. Importantly, more learners should show increased awareness and interest in pursuing STEM-related careers in the future.
References
Anyieni, G., Ondari, G., Mayianda, R., & Damaris, K. (2016). Organisational Change: A Critical Review of the Literature. International Journal of Professional Management , 11 (2).
Cheung, A. K. L. (2014). Structured Questionnaires. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research , 6399–6402. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_2888
D’Ortenzio, C. (2012). UNDERSTANDING CHANGE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT PROCESSES: A CASE STUDY . Retrieved from http://www.canberra.edu.au/researchrepository/file/81c02a90-6a15-91ae-c7a2-ff44c96d60b2/1/full_text.pdf
English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education , 3 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1
Fullan, M. (2011). The six secrets of change : what the best leaders do to help their organizations survive and thrive . San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.
Hargreaves, A., Boyle, A., & Harris, A. (2014). Uplifting leadership : how organizations, teams, and communities raise performance . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, A Wileybrand.
Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM Integration in K-12 Education: Status, Prospects, and an Agenda for Research . https://doi.org/10.17226/18612
Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education , 3 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
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/s40594-018-0151-2
Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M. S., Wang, H. H., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Roehrig, G. H. (2014). Engineering in Pre-College Settings: Synthesizing Research. Policy, and Practices [Internet] (Purdue University Press) Implementation and Integration of Engineering in K–12 Stem Education , 35-60.
Nadelson, L. S., & Seifert, A. L. (2017). Integrated STEM defined: Contexts, challenges, and the future. The Journal of Educational Research , 110 (3), 221–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1289775
Nadelson, L. S., Seifert, A. L., & Sias, C. (2015). To change or not to change: indicators of K-12 teacher engagement in innovative educational practices. International Journal of Innovation in Education , 3 (1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijiie.2015.074704
Shernoff, D. J., Sinha, S., Bressler, D. M., & Ginsburg, L. (2017). Assessing teacher education and professional development needs for the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education , 4 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0068-1
Stohlmann, M., Moore, T., & Roehrig, G. (2012). Considerations for Teaching Integrated STEM Education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research , 2 (1), 28–34. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314653
Wright, J. D. (2015). International encyclopedia of the social & behavioural sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Zaballero, A. G., & Kim, Y. (2013). Theoretical Frameworks and Models Supporting the Practice of Leveraging Workforce Diversity. Handbook of Research on Workforce Diversity in a Global Society , 463–480. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-1812-1.ch027
