 |
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 18, Issue 2, Article 6 (Dec., 2017) |
Teacher’s Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Building on Shulman’s notion of PCK, many studies have defined PCK as consisting of instructional strategies that incorporate representations of subject matter and a good understanding of specific student-learning difficulties and modes of thought across different subjects (Goodnough & Nolan, 2008; Van Driel & Berry, 2010). PCK is suggested to have the greatest impact on a teacher's classroom abilities (Gess-Newsome 1999). The orientations toward teaching is an important component of PCK and referring to teachers’ beliefs and perceptions about the goals for teaching specific content at different grade levels (Grossman, 1990; Magnusson et al., 1999). Recently, Gess-newsome suggested that teachers’ orientations toward teaching, belief, prior knowledge, and context can act as a filter or amplifier for teachers to approach the learning and application of new knowledge differently (Gess-newsome, 2015, p. 32). Also, teacher’s perceptions strongly shape their instructional decisions on activity design, the content of students’ assignments, the evaluation of student learning, and the use of curriculum materials (Adadan & Oner, 2014). Moreover, it is much evidences that teachers’ use of strategies is influenced by their beliefs and perceptions about teachings. For example, some teachers resisted changing their practices to match those of an innovative approach because their beliefs differed from the premises of the new approach (Cronin-Jones, 1991; Mitchener & Anderson, 1989; Olson, 1981). Research also indicates, however, that teachers are likely to change when they become dissatisfied with their current teaching practice (Feldman, 2000; Fullan, 1993).
Teachers’ Perception of STEM Education
Many studies on learning context and teachers’ perceptions of teaching (e.g., teachers’ awareness, prior experiences, understanding, concern, and interest) established a series of systematic associations linking teachers’ approaches with students’ perceptions, learning approaches, and outcomes (Biggs, 1999; Marton & Booth, 1997; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999). In this way, teachers’ perceptions of the STEM approach are very important given that they can influence teachers’ decision-making. Also, students’ learning is related to their teachers’ approaches to teaching (Trigwell, Prosser & Waterhouse, 1999). Cope and Ward (2002) summarized the associations of teachers’ perceptions of teaching and the quality of students’ learning outcomes in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Teacher-student perceptions and quality-of-learning outcomes.
In terms of STEM education, the NRC (2007) argued that individuals begin to develop perceptions and knowledge of STEM prior to and during their elementary education, which increases the importance of teaching STEM at the elementary level. Teachers with negative attitudes-a part of perception-toward STEM tend to avoid teaching STEM (Appleton 2003). Since the attitudes of the teacher are frequently transferred to their students (Deemer, 2004), poor attitudes toward STEM may be initiated and enhanced by teachers. Besides developing robust teacher knowledge for teaching STEM, we insist that teachers’ perceptions of the STEM approach should be considered. As STEM education becomes focus for an increasing number of schools and teachers, the term "STEM approach" needs to be clarified and better defined, because an uncertain definition may affect teachers’ attitudes and views.
Although, educators are aware of the importance of STEM education, neither educators nor researchers agree on understand what STEM education should really be about in K-12 education. Currently, STEM disciplines are taught in silos, but the nature of the work blurs the lines between disciplines. Integrating STEM disciplines would be more in line with the nature of STEM (Wang et al., 2011). Because the nature of STEM is integration of the four subjects, many questions remain unanswerd in K-12 STEM education. One of the biggest educational challenges for K-12 STEM education is that few general guidelines or models exist for teachers to follow regarding how to teach using STEM integration approaches in their classroom. Thus, research needs to be done to look at teachers’ understanding, perceptions, and implementation of STEM integration.
Bybee (2013) proposed that there are many different perceptions on STEM integration, for example, the view that STEM equal a quartet of separate disciplines and the view that STEM is a reference for science and mathematics (Figure 2). Both perceptions consist of the same four elements but the way in which each element interacts with each other is obviously different. In the first one, STEM is viewed as separate concepts with no explicit connection between them. This can represent a course that provides general content of the STEM disciplines or four separate courses, one for each discipline. In the second one, STEM is viewed as a course that emphasize only science and mathematics and may or may not mention engineering and technology. These are two examples of how integration can be viewed differently by each teacher. Even though STEM only consist of four major disciplines, it can take many forms, and we believe it directly impacts the teacher’s decisions on instructional strategies. In this study, we proposed nine possible models that adopted and modified from Bybee’s notions, constructed from many discussions, articles, reports, and projects. (summarized in Appendix A).
Figure 2. STEM equals a quartet of separate disciplines (a) and STEM as a reference for science and mathematics (b).
Teachers’ perceptions can vary depending on job title, location, and teaching style. This can make it confusing for teachers trying to implement STEM-centric lessons into their classrooms. Bybee also pointed out that advancing STEM education presents several significant challenges. Use of the acronym and the associated ambiguity has served as a rallying point for policy makers and some educators (Bybee, 2010). When people come with different perceptions, they might come with different perceptions as well. Therefore, identifying teachers’ STEM perceptions is one of the most important processes that science educators and other STEM-education stakeholders need to consider.
STEM integration can be viewed differently based on a person’s background, attitude, and other factors. To advance STEM education into the classroom, we need to identify how teachers and students think about STEM education. While there is a continuing need to clearly define a theoretical framework for STEM integration, other issues including understanding curriculum for the classroom, and the goals for an effective STEM instruction still need to be discussed (Bybee, 2011; Breiner et al., 2012).
