Abstract

This study is about teachers’ collective activity during the development and initial year of a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)-focused school in the USA. The target school of this study was inclusive, as it sought admission of students from varying backgrounds and levels of ability. Drawing from narrative inquiry and case study methodologies, we examine the collective work of the teachers in the target school from 6 months prior to school start-up through the end of the first year. We focus on visioning, collaboration, and curriculum development in our analysis of the teachers’ collective work. We analyze the collective sense-making activity of the teaching staff regarding key facets of the start-up process. While the teachers received a variety of supports, including time and resources for collaborating, there was a lack of specific support for the conceptualization and creation of multi-disciplinary, STEM-focused projects. The risk-taking and collaborative actions of the teachers led to three specific instructional approaches that were continuously adjusted to respond to the evolving vision of the STEM-focused school. The teachers also solicited the needs and interests of their students and utilized these in curricular design and instruction, which promoted student buy-in and participation. By the end of the school year, a common vision for STEM-focused, project-based learning was emerging, but not solidified. Our study confirms the power of doing and risk-taking in teacher development, particularly in the ways in which teacher collaboration advanced curriculum and instruction in this STEM-focused school context. The intellectual supports that teachers require in this context are numerous and must be carefully identified and nurtured, and the subsequent teacher activity must be monitored as contextual shifts occur and sources of pressure (e.g., external learning standards) become relevant. The teachers’ role is a complex mixture of learner, risk-taker, inquirer, curriculum designer, negotiator, collaborator, and teacher. Instructional and curricular supports require substantial time to synthesize and eventually enact, and more than a few months prior to school start-up are necessary to fully engage and prepare teachers for the collective task of visioning, collaborating, and planning the curriculum and instruction of an innovative school.

Highlights

  • This study is about teachers’ collective activity during the development and initial year of a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)-focused school in the USA

  • We offer a definition provided by Nathan and Nilsen (2009) as a starting point for analyzing STEM as a curricular concept: STEM education is an interdisciplinary approach to learning where rigorous academic concepts are coupled with real-world lessons as students apply science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in contexts that make connections between school, community, work, and the global enterprise enabling the development of STEM literacy and with it the ability to compete in the new economy. (p. 3)

  • We discuss the key events and outcomes related to the collaborative instructional processes in which the teachers engaged, including the development of a collective vision and materials regarding STEM-based, multi-disciplinary curricula and a project-based learning (PBL) approach to instruction

Read more

Summary

Introduction

This study is about teachers’ collective activity during the development and initial year of a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)-focused school in the USA. The recent popularity of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) as an integrated academic focus has recently led the way to a large number of STEM-focused magnet schools throughout the world, mostly in response to political and business calls for an improved workforce and a more STEM-educated citizenry. Australia, England, Scotland, and the USA have published national recommendations to support the growing STEM movement (Fan and Ritz 2014; Marginson et al 2013; National Research Council 2011; Pitt 2009; Science and Engineering Education Advisory Group 2012), and many countries have developed specialized programs and schools that focus on STEM.

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call