BackgroundDespite increasing attention to STEM education worldwide, there is considerable uncertainty as to what constitutes STEM education and what it means in terms of curriculum and student outcomes. The purpose of this study was to investigate the commonalities and variations in educators’ conceptualizations of STEM education. Sensemaking theory framed our analysis of ideas that were being selected and retained in relation to professional learning experiences in three contexts: two traditional middle schools, a STEM-focused school, and state-wide STEM professional development. Concept maps and interview transcripts from 34 educators holding different roles were analyzed: STEM and non-STEM teachers, administrators, and STEM professional development providers.ResultsThree themes were included on over 70% of the 34 concept maps: interdisciplinary connections; the need for new, ambitious instructional practices in enacting a STEM approach; and the engagement of students in real-world problem solving. Conceptualizations of STEM education were related to educational contexts, which included the STEM education professional development activities in which educators engaged. We also identified differences across educators in different roles (e.g., non-STEM teacher, administrator). Two important attributes of STEM education addressed in the literature appeared infrequently across all contexts and role groups: students’ use of technology and the potential of STEM-focused education to provide access and opportunities for all students’ successful participation in STEM.ConclusionsGiven the variety of institutionalized practices and school contexts within which STEM education is enacted, we are not convinced that a single worldwide definition of STEM education is critical. What we do see as essential is that those working in the same system explore the common elements that are being attributed to STEM education and co-construct a vision that provides opportunities for all their students to attain STEM-related goals. This is especially important in the current reform contexts related to STEM education. We also see that common conceptions of STEM education appear across roles and contexts, and these could provide starting points for these discussions. Explicitly identifying the ideas educators are and are not selecting and retaining can inform professional learning activities at local and larger scales.

Filling the knowledge gap in the limited research on professional development leaders is an urgent issue if teacher learning is to be improved. This research and development project is studying how leaders learn to cultivate mathematically rich professional development environments. The authors adapted two frameworks from classroom-based research-sociomathematical norms and practices for orchestrating productive discussion-to support leaders' understanding of facilitation of mathematics professional development. In this article, the authors describe the use of these frameworks in their work and argue for a third framework-the mathematical knowledge for teaching. Based on the analysis of their work, they believe that mathematics professional development leaders need to cultivate particular sociomathematical norms for teacher explanation and employ practices for orchestrating discussions to achieve the purposeful development of teachers' specialized knowledge of mathematics for teaching.

We describe and analyze a professional development (PD) model that involved a partnership among science, mathematics and education university faculty, science and mathematics coordinators, and middle school administrators, teachers, and students. The overarching project goal involved the implementation of interdisciplinary STEM Design Challenges (DCs). The PD model targeted: (a) increasing teachers’ content and pedagogical content knowledge in mathematics and science; (b) helping teachers integrate STEM practices into their lessons; and (c) addressing teachers’ beliefs about engaging underperforming students in challenging problems. A unique aspect involved low‐achieving students and their teachers learning alongside each other as they co‐participated in STEM design challenges for one week in the summer. Our analysis focused on what teachers came to value about STEM DCs, and the challenges in and affordances for implementing DCs. Two significant areas of value for the teachers were students’ use of scientific, mathematical, and engineering practices and motivation, engagement, and empowerment by all learners. Challenges associated with pedagogy, curriculum, and the traditional structures of the schools were identified. Finally, there were four key affordances: (a) opportunities to construct a vision of STEM education; (b) motivation to implement DCs; (c) ambitious pedagogical tools; and, (d) ongoing support for planning and implementation. This article features a http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ssm.12172/suppinfo. Please click on the supporting information link below to access.

No abstract

Background: 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. Results: 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 risktaking 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. Conclusions: 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.