Teaching and Learning Approaches and Strategies in STEM Education - Research Paper Example

Approaches and Strategies in STEM Education affiliation Approaches and Strategies in STEM Education STEM education refers to the learning experience that is involves Engineering, Technology, Science and Mathematics. Generally, the STEM education experience develops the approaches and strategies in learning and teaching the subjects mentioned. STEM education makes a difference in that it develops the indulgence and interest of students in science and technical subjects. The education system excludes the consideration of other subject such as languages and history. Breiner et.al (2012) point out that the STEM education strives to increase the participation of students in science and technical subjects. The author further points out that it separates from other subjects with an objective of increasing the interests of students in one particular field. Over the years, schools in the United States have recorded a minimal number of students enrolled to take courses in STEM education. The educational trend is visible from the lower level education institutions. From high school, the situation becomes worse as students tend to drop their participation in the STEM subjects. In college and universities the number of graduates in science and technical subject has also decreased significantly. From the trend, the state realized there is a gap in the modern educational system. For instance, the job market becomes unbalanced since the number of students with business skills outmatches the numbers of students with science and technical skills. This attributes to issue such as shortage of health care workers. For this reason, the state created a STEM education system that increases the awareness of science and technical awareness among students (Asghar et.al, 2012). However, the educations system could not be of importance if the students’ attitude towards the subject was not altered. Venville, Rennie & Wallace (2004) are of the assumption that the negative perception of the students towards science and technical subjects minimized their participation. For this reason, the STEM education system should develop a way that the students’ perception could be changed. One major requirement was to change the approach used in the curriculum. The curriculum on STEM subjects was not interesting enough to capture the attention of students. Economics and Statistics Administration (2011) points out that the learning approaches used in STEM subjects aim at increasing the interest of students. Tutors were also not provided with the required expertise to explore the fun parts of STEM subjects. Another hindrance to effective learning of STEM subjects was lack of differentiation in the curriculums used at different levels of education. The high school curriculum of STEM subject can be described as challenging thus eliminating participation of students in the subjects. However, the modern day STEM education system has been developed to fit the interest of the common student. The state has developed a curriculum aimed at increasing the effectiveness of the learning and teaching experience of STEM subjects. In addition, the curriculum has been developed to include more physical activities and experiments aimed at improving the participation of students. Moreover, the strategies to learning and teaching experience have required the participation of numerous all stakeholders in the educational system. This comprises of the government, educational institutions and parents. One significant approach to learning and teaching STEM subjects is development of the learning infrastructure. Effective learning and teaching of STEM subject requires resource allocation that would cater for the physical requirements of the subjects. All STEM subjects require the physical participation of students for them to effectively capture the scope of the learning experience. Park & Ertmer (2008) are of the assumption that the physical involvement of students enables them to relate to the information they are being exposed to. The authors cite that this argument is behind the creation of experiments in science and technical subjects (Park & Ertmer, 2008).STEM subjects can be learnt purely through experiments. The authors further points out that, the theory part of learning STEM subjects can be easily transferred to experiments since they purely explain what the experiments explain (Park & Ertmer, 2008). Moreover, for a student to effectively capture the provisions of the STEM subjects they should exposed to physical participation from a lower educational level. Developing the knowledge of a student from all learning stages increases both their knowledge and interest in the science and technical subjects. From these arguments, one may point out that infrastructure allocation would be of significant importance in developing learning and teaching approaches of STEM subjects. For instance, technology requires vast knowledge of computers. In this case, a school may be required to design a computer laboratory that would allow both tutors and students have a more indulging experience. If a student is exposed to such a learning activity from a younger age, their ability to understand technology in future classes is enhanced. Park-Rogers, Volkmann &Abell (2007) assert that, a student requires experience and practice to develop their learning prowess. Infrastructures enable tutors and students take part in the physical learning aspect. The same could be said of science subjects. Moseley & Utley (2006) point out that a science tutor should be equipped with the ability to perform exemplary in the lab. This could be enabled by training them in highly developed laboratories. From this experience, a tutor is able to indulge the participation to students in science subjects. Moseley & Utley (2006) assert that developing infrastructures also enables both the instructors and the students to increase their relation to the field of science in regards to trend and developments. In addition, through this experience, a student is enabled to develop a great interest in science subjects at the university or college level. From the arguments presented, one may derive the assumption that the allocation of resources and infrastructure is a mandatory requirement in the STEM education learning experience. The prowess of both the tutors and students is dependable on their ability to relate to the experiences in STEM education (Economics and Statistics Administration, 2011). This is only possible if an academic institution is provided with the required infrastructure to develop the learning experience of STEM subjects. Moreover, an exposure to these resources increases the level at which a student learns to embrace the subjects of Technology, Engineering, Science and Mathematics (Economics and Statistics Administration, 2011). Another learning approach is creating a scientific approach to the educational experience. It is an observation that education interventions lack the scientific approach. Scientific scope refers to the ability of the interventions to consider the personal results as recorded by individuals. In addition, scientific approaches require considering the implementation of child centered education (National Research Council, 2001). A child centered education is one based on the consideration of the development of a child in more than just education. A student centered education enable a tutor to develop both a learning relationship with the students. Fairweather (2005) is of the assumption that STEM education required a tutor with the ability to expose a child to the application of science and technical subjects. The author further points out that a student centered learning system creates a way that enables the tutor to monitor the level at which a student incorporates information provided (Fairweather, 2005). The approach makes a student more interested in their learning experience. The tutor is also enabled to develop a teaching structure that increases the participation of the students. In science and technical subjects, it is important for a student effectively grasp the knowledge provided to them. For this trend to be initiated, a tutor is required to develop a personal relationship with the student. From this relationship, a tutor is able to determine the level at which a student incorporates knowledge and information provided to them. From this revelation, a tutor is able to monitor and control the content a student is exposed to. In an argument by Mayer (2004) the student centered approach to learning develops a learning relationship that is considerate of the mindset of the student in regards to their speed in acquiring knowledge and information. The author further points out that determining the speed of a child creates awareness to the tutor on how to develop a learning system that fits the student. In relating this strategy to STEM education, Lou et.al (2011) point out that, the subjects involved require a transition from one academic year to another. As provided by the curriculum, each academic year is provided with knowledge to be provided to children. It is required that a tutor to be able to enhance the understanding of a student as required by the curriculum. At the end of the academic years, a student is required to understand the curriculum. However, most students proceed to the next learning level without an effective understanding of the curriculum in the previous years. This creates a gap in the knowledge a student acquires (Lou et.al, 2011). This hinders the ability of the student to perform exemplary in STEM subjects. However, a student centered learning approach to STEM education determines the ability of student to incorporate knowledge. A tutor is able to determine the strength and weaknesses of the student. In addition, the tutor understands the most appropriate way that they could develop the learning abilities of the student. A personal approach to teaching develops the learning experience of the student (Lou et.al, 2011). Another significant approach to instruction and learning experience is to put in place proper evaluation system that would reflect the performance of the student. From the results obtained a tutor could be able to develop a learning structure that suits the performance of the students. In STEM education, the performance of students determines their ability to excel in the subjects (Lee & Paik, 2000). The authors further point out that the evaluation process of STEM subjects should reflect the accurate abilities of the student to acquire knowledge (Lee & Paik, 2000). There are numerous requirements on the nature of evaluation required for STEM education. One requirement is the evaluation of classroom activities. Classroom activities refer to the tutor initiatives created in the classroom setting. When evaluating teachers, their efforts in the classroom should constitute a majority of the tools used. This is because instructors spend most of their institutional time in classrooms and acquiring instructor skills. This makes it fair for any evaluation process to greatly consider these efforts. Goodnough & Cashion (2006) argue that classroom evaluation should be the only tool to be considered when evaluating teachers; thirty percent inclusion in the evaluation programs would be important in understanding the ways in which tutors perform in classrooms. Classroom activities make ups seventy percent of all the evaluation tools used on students (Goodnough & Cashion, 2006). Classroom activities include (Goodnough & Cashion, 2006): Continuous assessment tests- written or oral test during mid-terms and the beginning of the term Student participation in group projects- this includes assessments on a student’s ability to work in a group and their success in it. Writing projects and research papers- this evaluates a student’s ability to carry out their own analysis on specific topic as guided by the tutor Routine assignments- routine assignments refer to activities assigned by teachers in regards to research question on a specific learning task Creation of assessment personal assessment tools- tutors help students develop personal assessment tools that help then evaluate their classroom progress Daily class attendance In addition, evaluation should be made as per the provisions of the curriculum. Colliver (2000) argues that teachers rarely operate under their own consent, which means that the curriculum provided to them by the government is what they present to the classroom. The only way to be fair in evaluating teachers is through the consideration of the curriculum and how the curriculum is presented in the classroom. 30% of the value-added data based on the curriculum is enough to ensure quality education and teaching strategies are provided to the students (Colliver, 2000). From the argument presented, one may justify the assumption that effective evaluation increases the ability of the tutor to develop a teaching strategy that is required by a student. In addition, a student is enabled to understand their strengths and weaknesses in their learning experience. This is important in STEM education since the system is determinant on how a tutor develops the ability of a student to understand subjects under the system. Moreover, STEM education assessment requires accurate reflection on the performance of a student (Colliver, 2000). In an argument by Desimone (2009) the most effective approach to STEM education is develop a learning community. A learning community refers to the ability of a learning environment to incorporate mechanisms that promote effective teaching and learning. In an argument by Desimone (2009) a learning community should be; Assessment centered Learner centered Knowledge centered The combination of the three provisions creates learning and teaching approach that is determinant on the results to be obtained at the conclusion of the learning arrangement. In addition, the educational experience is made specific and accurate. The assessment centered approach requires effective evaluation frameworks. In an argument by Desimone (2009) proper evaluation system should reflect both the strengths and weaknesses of a student. This enables for an accurate determination of the ability of a student to cope with their learning experience. The argument is supported by Smith, Douglas & Cox (2009) who point out that an assessment centered teaching approach enables both the student and the tutor understand their progress in the learning experience. Moreover, an assessment enables an academic institution measure the success of their students and tutors. In addition, an institution may understand improvements required to develop their learning environment. A leaner centered approach is based understanding the strides made by a student in their education experience. The approach is also determined by the strengths and weaknesses of a student (Flick & Lederman, 2002). As provided earlier in the paper, an effective learner centered approach is created by developing a tutor student learning relationship. A knowledge centered approach is determined by the ability of the curriculum to be result oriented. The National Science Board (2007) is of the assumption that the curriculum should be created with an objective of equipping students with necessary and appropriate information. For these grounds, the information should not be wide to an extent the viability of knowledge in the curriculum is breached (National Science Board, 2007). Rivkin (2007) is of the supposition that the knowledge centered approach also limit the mandate of the tutor to provide students with information not included in the curriculum. Regardless of the assumption that a tutor should be autonomous, STEM education requires adherence to the curriculum requirement. This is based on that subjects under STEM education contain vast and deep content. Through the curriculum, the content is divided in regards to their complexity. A student should be provided with specific knowledge at a particular level of education. Adherence to these requirements increases the suitability of the student to improve their level of understanding and corporation towards STEM education (Diaz & King, 2007). From the arguments presented, one may point out that STEM education requires numerous strategies and approaches. In addition, the strategies presented provide knowledge on the importance of creating an effective learning experience in STEM learning. In a general conclusion, most strategies aim at improving the participation of students in STEM education. The role of the tutor in STEM education is also important. The combination of accurate teaching and learning approaches improve the effectiveness of STEM education. Links to article used Supporting STEM Education in Secondary Science Contexts. Retrieved from:http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1349&context=ijpbl What Is STEM? A Discussion about Conceptions of STEM in Education and Partnerships. Retrieved from:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x/abstract Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: Research and theory. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200003000-00017 Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140 Beyond the Rhetoric: Trends in the Relative Value of Teaching and Research in Faculty Salaries. Retrieved from: https://www.nsf.gov/attachments/117803/public/Xc--Linking Evidence--Fairweather.pdf Science and math for all? Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb18190.x Exploring problem-based learning in the context of high school science: Design and implementation issues. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2006.tb17919.x Conceptions of science achievement in major reform documents. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb17316.x The impact of problem-based learning strategies on STEM knowledge integration and attitudes: An exploratory study among female Taiwanese senior high school students. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9114-8 Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14 The effect of an integrated science and mathematics content based course on science and mathematics teaching efficacy of pre-service elementary teachers. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03174684 Examining barriers in technology-enhanced problem-based learning: Using a performance support systems approach. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00858.x Supportive Teaching and Learning Strategies in STEM Education. Retrieved from: http://www.ce.umn.edu/~smith/docs/Smith-Douglas-Cox-Supportive_Strategies_STEM_Ed-NDTL117-2009.pdf Decision making and sources of knowledge: How students tackle integrated tasks in Science, Technology, and Mathematics. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:RISE.0000033762.75329.9b References Asghar, A., Ellington, R., Rice, E., Johnson, F., and Prime, G. M. (2012).Supporting STEM Education in Secondary Science Contexts. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 6(2). Breiner, J., Harkness, S., Johnson, C. and Koehler, M. (2012). What Is STEM? A Discussion about Conceptions of STEM in Education and Partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112: 3–11. Colliver, J. A. (2000). Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: Research and theory. Academic Medicine, 75(3), 259-266. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. Diaz, D., & King, P. (2007).Adapting a Post-Secondary STEM Instructional Model to K-5 Mathematics Instruction. Clemson: Clemson University. Economics and Statistics Administration. (2011). STEM: Good Jobs Now and for the Future. Washington, D.C: United States Department of Commerce. Fairweather, J. (2005). Beyond the Rhetoric: Trends in the Relative Value of Teaching and Research in Faculty Salaries. Journal of Higher Education 76: 401-422. Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (2002).Science and math for all? School Science and Mathematics, 102(1), 1-3. Goodnough, K., & Cashion, M. (2006).Exploring problem-based learning in the context of high school science: Design and implementation issues. School Science and Mathematics, 106(7), 280-295. Lee, O., & Paik, S. (2000). Conceptions of science achievement in major reform documents. School Science and Mathematics, 100(1), 16- 26. Lou, S. J., Shih, R. C., Diez, C. R., & Tseng, K. H. (2011). The impact of problem-based learning strategies on STEM knowledge integration and attitudes: An exploratory study among female Taiwanese senior high school students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(2), 195-215. Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. Moseley, C., & Utley, J. (2006). The effect of an integrated science and mathematics content based course on science and mathematics teaching efficacy of pre-service elementary teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 18(2), 1-12. National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Science Board.(2007). A national action plan for addressing the critical needs of the U.S. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics System. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Park, S. H. & Ertmer, P. A. (2008). Examining barriers in technology-enhanced problem-based learning: Using a performance support systems approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 631–643. Park-Rogers, M., Volkmann, M. and Abell, S. (2007). Science and mathematics: A natural connection. Science and Children, 45(2), 60-6. Rivkin, S.G. (2007). Value added analysis and education policy. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Center for the Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. Smith, K., Douglas, T. and Cox, M. (2009).Supportive Teaching and Learning Strategies in STEM Education. New directions for teaching and learning, 117, 19-32. Venville, G., Rennie, L., & Wallace, J. (2004). Decision making and sources of knowledge: How students tackle integrated tasks in science, technology, and mathematics. Research in Science Education, 34(2), 115-135. Read More