Chapter 12 Future Elementary Teachers’ Perspectives on the Importance of STEM PDF

Chapter 12 Future Elementary Teachers’ Perspectives on the Importance of STEM Lauren Madden, James E. R. Beyers, and Nicole Stanton 12.1 Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to describe future elementary teachers’ perspectives on the importance of STEM education at the elementary level. T...

Chapter 12 Future Elementary Teachers’ Perspectives on the Importance of STEM Lauren Madden, James E. R. Beyers, and Nicole Stanton 12.1 Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to describe future elementary teachers’ perspectives on the importance of STEM education at the elementary level. The emphasis and attention to the STEM disciplines across the K-12 spectrum over the past several decades is far reaching—from funding agencies’ programs directly focused on STEM education to standards documents such as the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) with explicit links between science, engineering, and mathemat- ics made clear—and is intended to engage even the youngest children in STEM learning activities. However, studies continue to show that less instructional time is devoted to science in elementary schools, in comparison to English-language arts and mathematics (e.g. Mahlzahn, 2013), and very little is known about if and how elementary teachers approach STEM in an integrated or interdisciplinary way. This work is based on an earlier study (Madden, Beyers, & O’Brien, 2016) which used a relatively small sample (N = 73) of preservice teachers and recent graduates from the same institution to explore elementary teachers’ views on the importance of STEM. The study participants responded to an online survey that included demo- graphic information (gender, race/ethnicity, year, GPA, education major, content major) and this open-ended prompt open-ended question: Is STEM education important at the elementary level? Why or why not? The results of the previous study indicated that all respondents reported that STEM Education was important at the elementary level. However, a total of 10 dif- ferent reasons for why STEM is important were listed, and the number of reasons given varied considerably across the dataset. This set of 10 responses was the basis L. Madden (*) · J. E. R. Beyers · N. Stanton The College of New Jersey, Ewing, NJ, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 211 V. L. Akerson, G. A. Buck (eds.), Critical Questions in STEM Education, Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education 51, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57646-2_12 212 L. Madden et al. for our framework for analyses, which we will refer to as The Elementary STEM Importance Framework (ESIF). The ESIF can be found in Table 12.1 below. The respondents to the initial study who had content area majors that were single subject focused (e.g. mathematics, English, history) gave fewer reasons than those with more interdisciplinary majors (e.g. integrative STEM, psychology), suggesting that students with different content backgrounds had different perspectives on STEM importance. Given the widespread adoption of the NGSS in our state and many others, and similar efforts around the globe such as the STEM Alliance initiative in the EU, and the continued disconnect between the emphasis on STEM and the way this type of instruction plays out in typical classrooms we replicated our initial study with a more robust and comprehensive approach. In this current iteration, we used a larger dataset (N = 149) in the survey, and triangulated our data by including a focus group discussion with a subset of survey respondents who were probed to clarify and refine their initial survey responses. In this current study, all participants were pre- service teachers in four or five year teacher preparation programs at our institution. 12.2 Defining STEM Education Despite its rise in popularity, STEM education can be difficult to define or describe. This book defines STEM as a process that makes, “meaningful interdependence among all disciplines of STEM. In other words, [STEM] includes all individual disciplines of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) in a way that is meaningful and showcases the interdependence of the fields.” Even with such a comprehensive approach to STEM, it can be challenging to define who a STEM teacher is. A STEM teacher could be a person who teaches any one of the four STEM disciplines (Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics), or one who teaches in a way that integrates content from two or more different content areas (Saunders, 2009). As a result the way in which teachers, current and future, discuss STEM can vary quite considerably. For example, some might emphasize the inter- disciplinary nature of STEM much in the same way it is described in the Framework for K-12 Science Education and the NGSS (NRC, 2012, 2013). While others, such as those in Cinar, Pirasa, and Sadoglu’s (2016) study of preservice science and mathematics teachers’ views on STEM might see STEM as closely related to sci- ence rather than an integrated topic. Rinke, Gladstone-Brown, Kinlaw, and Cappiello (2016) found that preservice elementary teachers with methods courses explicitly tied to STEM were able to better plan integrated and interdisciplinary lessons, while those with more traditional science and mathematics methods courses were less prepared in this area. Likewise, Sumen and Calisici (2016) found that preservice elementary teachers enrolled in an environmental literacy course using a STEM perspective were better able to see environmental concepts as interdisciplinary with links between and among content areas. 12 Future Elementary Teachers’ Perspectives on the Importance of STEM 213 Table 12.1 The Elementary STEM Importance Framework (ESIF) Is STEM education important at the elementary level? Why or why not? Code Example responses Foundation for Later STEM education is absolutely important. An early start and Academics understanding of STEM topics can generate greater interest. It is important to expose children to multiple fields and ideas at an early age. Connections to Everyday [STEM] helps students to understand the world around them and Life prepares them for real life! STEM can really help elementary school students to gain knowledge that can benefit them in the real world. Nurturing Positive STEM STEM education is important that the elementary levels because it Attitudes allows for students to become involved and interested in these subjects. Students can be turned off from science at a very young age and never regain that positive attitude towards it again. In elementary school, we should foster students’ interests and abilities in these content areas Integrating or Balancing [STEM] not only gives students content area knowledge, but it Content gives them a better understanding of how everything can be related. It’s nearly impossible to have one area of STEM without incorporating the other three areas as well. It’s important for stem education at an elementary level to help kids begin to think strategically how science, math and technology all correlate with one another. Preparing Students for These subjects need to be taught at [the elementary] level so the Jobs or Replenishing the children stay in the STEM pipeline. STEM Pipeline The future is constantly changing and students need to be able to keep up with the changes. Promotes Learning/Higher STEM education also challenges children’s high level thinking Order Thinking abilities and allows them to question everything around them (what? how? why?). Yes because it will help young students improve their problem solving skills and ability to think critically. Promote Gender Equity in I think STEM is still seen as a strictly “boy” area of learning and STEM we need to broaden that to all learners. I would like to see more girls in the STEM fields, breaking gender stereotypes! Maintaining Global Our [US] education [system] is falling behind and putting more Competitiveness emphasis on math and science is extremely important. STEM education helps students start early in learning the skills that will help our country as a whole improve in these areas and be able to compete with other countries who are currently more advanced than us. Promote Hands-on Inquiry/ It is important students learn through inquiry, the design process, Design and exploration. [STEM] allows more “hands on” learning to be enforced rather than just memorizing. (continued) 214 L. Madden et al. Table 12.1 (continued) Is STEM education important at the elementary level? Why or why not? Code Example responses Pervasiveness of Technology is improving and advancing at a rapid rate and Technology elementary students need to have more…experiences with STEM topics. It prepares students for a world in which everything is technologically-driven. Note: some example responses were edited so that they addressed only the specific code identified Community of Practice Science Inquiry Engineering Design Technological Mathematical Literacy Thinking Situated STEM Learning Fig. 12.1 Modified model of integrative STEM learning. (From Kelly & Knowles, 2016) 12.3 Theoretical Framework STEM teaching and learning can take many forms, ranging from instruction in any one of the four STEM content areas to interdisciplinary approaches that use the tools and techniques from all four disciplines to design solutions. From our perspective, the integrated nature of STEM, in which science and mathematics content are used together to solve problems within a specific technological or engineering design context, is its greatest utility. Our study uses the conceptual framework developed by Kelley and Knowles (2016) which emphasizes that learning is contextual and situ- ational and that both mathematics and technology are needed to inquire and design within a community of practice. The diagram in Fig. 12.1 below (modified from Kelley & Knowles, 2016) illustrates the interconnectedness of the STEM areas. 12.4 Methodology Our primary objective is to better understand how prospective teachers view the importance of STEM education at the elementary level. A secondary objective of the current study is to evaluate the efficacy of our initial coding framework as a tool 12 Future Elementary Teachers’ Perspectives on the Importance of STEM 215 for measuring teachers’ perceptions of the importance of STEM in the elementary years. Our previous study (Madden et al., 2016) suggested that preservice elemen- tary school teachers found STEM to be important at the elementary school level for a variety of reasons, and that the number of reasons given varied considerably based on the preservice teachers’ content area major. 12.4.1 Study Context The study took place at a small, public, highly selective, primary undergraduate institution in the Northeastern United States. The population of teacher candidates in the dataset were similar to many current and future teachers at the elementary level in the US—largely female and white. The overwhelming majority of partici- pants identified as female (n = 138 or 94%), while eight respondents (5%) identified as male, and one did not identify a gender. Most of the respondents identified as white or Caucasian (n = 123 or 84%), while the next largest groups were multiple races or ethnicities and Hispanic or Latina(o), at about 5% each (n = 8 and 7, respec- tively). Five participants (3%) identified as Asian, three as African American (2%), and one elected not to identify a race or ethnicity. In terms of GPA, 23 respondents (16%) elected not to respond. Of those who did respond, GPAs were almost univer- sally greater than 3.0 with just two respondents (1%) reporting GPAs below 3.0, 15 (10%) reported GPAs between 3.0–3.24, 31 (21%) reported GPAs between 3.25–3.49, 28 (19%) reported GPAs between 3.5–3.74, and 44 (30%) reported GPAs between 3.75–4.0. Preservice teachers across all education programs at our institution are required to enroll in a dual-major, four- or five-year program terminating in a BS or MAT. Since the focus of this study was to examine beliefs about the importance of STEM education at the elementary level, only those seeking a relevant certification were included. For example, no secondary education program students were included in this study. The relevant education major choices are listed here: Elementary Education (n = 75), Early Childhood Education (n = 20), Urban Education (at the early childhood or elementary levels; n = 1 & 8 respectively), Special Education (at the early childhood or elementary levels; n = 7 & 21, respec- tively), or Deaf and Hard of Hearing Education (at the early childhood and elemen- tary levels; n = 7, 8 respectively). The dual-major content area choices include: African American Studies (n = 0), Art (n = 2), Biology (n = 3), English (n = 30), History (n = 12), integrative STEM (n = 32), Mathematics (n = 18), Music (n = 1), Psychology (n = 30), Sociology (n = 13), Spanish (n = 4), and Women, Gender, & Sexuality Studies (n = 2). Figure 12.2 below depicts the distribution of education and content area majors among respondents. We used a mixed-methods approach in this study (Creswell, 2003) in order to reach a wide sample of future teachers and triangulate findings across multiple data sources. A single-question survey (Is STEM education important at the elementary level? Why or why not?) was used to determine respondents’ perspectives on the importance of STEM, and all responses were coded using the ESIF. The 216 L. Madden et al. Fig. 12.2 Education and Content Area majors of participants respondents were also asked to provide demographic information including: gender, year, GPA, education major, and content area major. The survey was distributed to all students enrolled in the four- or five-year programs described above. We distrib- uted our initial survey to preservice teachers enrolled in teacher preparation pro- grams at our institution and sent one follow up email to ensure that we have representation from all programs. A total of 147 responses were received. Two coders (first and second authors) used the ESIF to analyze all reasons given for why STEM was important. To establish inter-rater reliability, the coders both 12 Future Elementary Teachers’ Perspectives on the Importance of STEM 217 coded a subset of 15 responses (just over 10%) for the presence or absence of each of the 10 codes described in the ESIF. Inter-rater agreement was 93%, and discus- sion took place until agreement was met on the remaining 7%. The remainder of the dataset were divided in half and coded by one coder each. Each coder spot-checked ~10% of their partner’s codes and no significant discrepancies were found. Survey respondents were also asked whether they were willing to participate in a focus group discussion to elaborate on their survey responses.1 Focus groups were used because as Villanen (2014) noted, “Focus groups allow group interactions based on central prompts or topics to be the main data source rather than researcher-­ imposed questions.” A total of four respondents participated in the focus group. The focus group discussion took place via Google Hangouts, and were facilitated by the third author. The facilitator asked the initial question from the survey, “Is STEM education important at the elementary level? Why or why not?” She allowed the participants to drive the interactions throughout the discussion and interjected only to ask for clarification or elaboration. The focus group discussion lasted approxi- mately 30 min and was recorded digitally and transcribed by the facilitator. All identifying information was removed from the transcripts. The transcripts were then coded using the ESIF—instances of each of the codes that emerged in discussion were marked, and excerpts of the discussion were identified to further elaborate on participants’ reasoning. We coded the transcription using the same scheme by mark- ing examples of various codes as they emerged. It should be noted that we did not keep a count of each of the codes as it was difficult to determine which individual made which comments, but the presence or absence of each category and notable example phrases were identified. We compared responses between survey and focus group data to validate findings via data triangulation. 12.5 Findings In our prior study (Madden et al., 2016), all respondents agreed that STEM educa- tion was important at the elementary level. During this current study, our findings in this area were similar. Nearly all respondents (143/147, 97%) reported that yes, STEM was important at the elementary level. Four (3%) reported that it was not. In the sections that follow, we will first describe the four responses which indicated that STEM was not important the elementary level, and then describe in detail the reasons for why STEM is important at the Elementary Level and how the frequency and distributions of those reasons given in the current study compare to those given in the previous 2016 study. 1 For logistical reasons related to timing and scheduling during a summer session, only one focus group was held. 218 L. Madden et al. 12.5.1 Those Who Disagree Unlike our prior work, some responses in the current study indicate that they dis- agree that STEM was important at the elementary level. Each of the four respon- dents provided reasons in the survey for their disagreement. Two of the four commented on developmental appropriateness of STEM education; one response noted, “They’re too young to understand STEM and it causes great stress on chil- dren.” One respondent claimed not to know much about STEM and did not want to assert an opinion without knowing more. The fourth respondent discussed testing rather than STEM noting, “Elementary students should be taught in a more open ended way, and instead of preparing them for testing we should prepare them to be functioning adolescents.” It was unclear whether this respondent understood the question based on the response given. Because the focus group participation was voluntary, we were unable to follow up with these respondents in particular. 12.5.2 Those Who Agree In order to further explore the framework identified in previous work, we will con- tinue with similar foci: Comparisons of the trends in reasons given from the current study to the previous study (Madden et al., 2016) Comparisons of the reasons identified rate [RIR] for reasons given by respon- dents in the current study compared to the previous study (Madden et al., 2016) The percentages of overall respondents who offered a reason are shown below (see Table 12.2, below). We can see from this data that the relative frequencies for the reasons given have similar distributions insofar how the percentages are ranked. Upon further examination, though, it can be seen from the changes in the relative frequencies from study to study that there are some differences to note. The change in the percentage was calculated by dividing the two percentages and looking at the percent increase or decrease. For example, with Foundations for Later Academics, the percentage changed from 32 (2016) to 38.5 (2018). Dividing these two values gives the approximate result of 1.20. This means that there has been a 20% increase from 2016 to 2018 in the relative frequency for this code. Across the board, there were increases in six of the ten percentages representing the relative frequency of the coded reasons. Interestingly, five of the six increases were 19% or greater. The decreases in the relative frequency were, by comparison, modest, with the exception of Nurturing a Positive STEM Attitude. This category decreased by 15.4%. Additionally, it can be seen in Table 12.3 (see Table 12.3, below) that there were also some substantial changes in the Reasons Identified Rate [RIR]. This rate is calculated as a ratio of the number of reasons identified per respondent in each of the respective categories below, e.g., content major. Higher RIRs indicate that the 12 Future Elementary Teachers’ Perspectives on the Importance of STEM 219 Table 12.2 Reasons given by participants for why STEM is important Change in Relative Percentage including Percentage including Frequency from 2016 Reasons (codes) this Reason (2018) this Reason (2016) to 2018 Foundation for Later 38.5% 32 % Up 20% Academics Connections to Everyday 27.27% 26 % Up 4.8% Life Nurturing Positive STEM 21.67% 25 % Down 15.4% Attitudes Integrating or Balancing 21.67% 22 % Down 1% Content Preparing Students for 20.97% 22% Down 5% STEM Jobs Promotes Learning/ 25.17% 21% Up 19% Higher Order Thinking Pervasiveness of 20.97% 14% Up 49.7% Technology Promote Hands-on 13.28% 11% Up 20.7% Inquiry/Design Promote Gender Equity 5.59% 4% Up 39.75% in STEM Maintaining Global 2.79% 3% Down 7.5% Competitiveness response included multiple reasons, thus providing a more nuanced explanation for why STEM is important. The RIR for the 2016 study is given next to the RIR for the current study. The largest increases in RIR were among Mathematics, English, History, Sociology, and Women, Gender, & Sexuality Studies majors, at up 27%, 22.7%, 28%, 9.2% and 757% respectively. There was little or no change among the remain- ing content majors for whom a change could be calculated. Also, the overall RIR increased by 12.9% from 1.78 in 2016 to 2.01 in the current study. In order to develop a better understanding about the reported beliefs about STEM education at the elementary level, we sought additional data from respondents in a follow-up focus group discussion. 12.5.3 Focus Group Discussion Trends The individuals who agreed to participate in the focus group unanimously agreed that STEM was important at the elementary level. During the discussion, seven of the 10 coding categories from the ESIF were addressed. These were: Foundation for Later Academics, Connections to Everyday Life, Nurturing Positive STEM Attitudes, Integrating or Balancing Content, Preparing Students for Jobs or Replenishing the 220 L. Madden et al. Table 12.3 Reasons identified rate [RIR]a RIR by content RIR by content Percent Change Second Major major (2018) major (2016) in RIR Integrative-STEM (n = 31) 2.03 2.08 Up 2% Psychology (n = 28) 2.11 2.07 Up 2% Spanish (n = 4) 2 2 No change Mathematics (n = 17) 2.18 1.71 Up 27% English (n = 29) 2 1.63 Up 22.7% History (n = 12) 1.83 1.43 Up 28% Sociology (n = 12) 1.53 1.40 Up 9.2% Biology (n = 3) 2 0b N/Ab Art (n = 2) 1.5 0b N/Ab Music (n = 1) 2 0b N/Ab Women, Gender, & Sexuality 2.5.33 Up 757% Studies (n = 2) Overall RIR 2.01 1.78 Up 12.9% a For the purposes of these analyses, the reasons identified rate (RIR) is operationalized as the rate of reasons given for why STEM education is important per respondent overall (overall RIR), and per respondent within a particular second major designation (e.g., the number of reasons given by history majors divided by the total number history majors). Examples of the calculations are given in the text that follows the initial description b No percent change in RIR was calculated here because the RIR in 2016 was 0. For these content majors, it was because there was no representation from that content area STEM Pipeline, Promotes Learning or Higher-Order Thinking, and Promotes Gender Equality in STEM. Three codes did not emerge as part of the conversation during the focus group. These were: Maintaining Global Competitiveness, Promotes Hands-on Inquiry or Design, and the Pervasiveness of Technology. Table 12.4 lists examples of codes that emerged during the focus group discussion. 12.6 Discussion When we look at the data collected during the present study, we found many simi- larities to our prior work that go beyond simply agreeing that STEM is important at the elementary level. For example, the category Foundation for Later Academics continues to be the most frequently cited reason, even more so during this iteration, with a 20% increase in response rate. This code came up quite frequently in the focus group discussion as well, as one participant noted, “In elementary school you have the building blocks of all the education you’re going to do in the future, your like high school and middle school. So, introducing iSTEM [sic] Education as early as possible, I just think, is super important.” Interestingly, this focus on the early years contrasts the two responses who disagreed with the idea that STEM was important at the elementary level. The Connection to Everyday Life also remained a popular reason given by respondents, though the relative frequency percentage decreased slightly from our earlier study, down about 5%. Again, this response 12 Future Elementary Teachers’ Perspectives on the Importance of STEM 221 Table 12.4 Example ESIF categories cited during the focus group discussion Code Example responses Foundation for Later In elementary school you have the building blocks of all the education Academics you’re going to do in the future, like in high school and middle school. So, introducing iSTEM Education as early as possible, I just think, is super important Connections to It’s kind of teaching people that these things are fundamental in your Everyday Life use and in your everyday life. It’s not just fun for kids. Nurturing Positive When you’re young you kind of get the association that math is really STEM Attitudes bad, or that it’s really hard, it’s impossible, I’m never going to use this, and that’s really just not true. So, if we build the foundation at a younger age, maybe that stigma will sort of go away. Integrating or Doing science experiments combines math and science and then Balancing Content connecting math and science and not just making them isolated subjects. This [content] all comes together and has use for us. Preparing Students for STEM is used in all areas you know, it’s not just for the future, like all Jobs or Replenishing jobs involve STEM in some way, shape, or form. It’s important for the the STEM Pipeline young students to build a really good foundation for so then as they go through school, get better and better at it, and then use it, like actually use it in the future. Promotes Learning/ I think STEM is basically that you gain problem solving skills and no Higher Order Thinking matter what you do in real life, you are going to have to solve problems” Promote Gender You see the gender gap between people in the field of STEM. So Equity in STEM hitting students early on saying you can do science, you can do math, you can be a woman in engineering, the sooner you start making sure that kids understand gender bias, you will have more women in STEM. Note: some example responses were edited for clarity came through in the focus group discussion also, as one participant noted, “[Elementary STEM is] kind of teaching people that these things are fundamental in your use and in your everyday life. It’s not just fun for kids.” The next most frequently given reason on survey responses was Promotes Learning or Higher Order Thinking. Though this code was prevalent during our earlier study, it was cited by participants nearly 20% more during the current study, and focus group discussions echoed they found this important. In the words of one participant: “I think STEM is basically that you gain problem solving skills and no matter what you do in real life, you are going to have to solve problems.” Though it remained frequently-given reason for STEM importance, Nurturing Positive STEM Attitudes decreased in the current survey responses by about 15%, and it was men- tioned by focus group participants as well, in some cases with specific references to their own learning experiences, “And I think that even if it’s not confidence, if it’s enthusiasm about the subject because I’ve had math teachers tell me that it’s ok that I’m not good at math, you don’t have to be good at everything. But I was like...there has to be some level of that’s not ok for a teacher to say to a student who is strug- gling. Instead, there should be some sort of encouragement and things there so even if a teacher isn’t confident (...) they can kind of encourage and say I’m also work- ing on it.” 222 L. Madden et al. Though the overall response rate was low for Pervasiveness of Technology, it did increase by nearly 50% across the two administrations, but did not come up during the focus group discussion. The percentage of survey responses that discussed Preparing Students for STEM Jobs and Integrating or Balancing Content remained about the same between the two administrations of the survey, and these categories were also addressed during the focus group discussion. The two lowest categories of responses Promotes Gender Equity and the Maintaining Global Competitiveness remained the lowest during both survey administrations. It should be noted that the attention to gender equity increased between administrations and was a key compo- nent of the focus group discussions. This attention yielded several responses from students that connected to their personal experiences in higher education. As one said, “I can’t tell you how many times my friends have come up to me and they’re like, ‘My own professor forgot I was a student in their class because I was a woman, sitting, waiting for an engineering lecture to start that was like extra on a Wednesday afternoon and [the professors] were like ‘Actually, we need this room for engineer- ing whatever’ and [we]‘re like, ‘we’re all engineers.’ Like that kind of ‘who can be involved in STEM’ is just as important as the practice of STEM itself.” Another interesting comparison between the two administrations of the ESIF study was the increase in the reasons identified rate (RIR) from 1.79 in the 2016 study to 2.01 currently. This suggests that perhaps that there was some shift in the complexity in the ways individuals in our program thought about STEM education in the elementary years. Interestingly, there were also some shifts in RIR when we consider content area majors. In our 2016 study, the participants majoring in sub- jects that considered multiple perspectives, namely integrative STEM and psychol- ogy tended to identify more reasons in their explanations for why STEM is important, while single-subject majors such as English and mathematics mentioned fewer. In the current study, however, integrative STEM and Psychology majors con- tinued to offer among the higher high RIRs, but English, History, Mathematics, and Sociology, all showed strong increases in RIR, ranging from 9–28%, with Mathematics majors taking the lead this time, with an RIR of 2.18. The 2018 admin- istration had respondents from a greater number of majors, adding Art, Biology, and Music to the list, so comparisons cannot be made in these areas. It should be noted that the Women, Gender, and Sexualities content major increased by 737%, but this was due largely in part to a very low initial RIR (.33) from in the 2016 study. For this reason, it is being considered an outlier. These shifts in RIR overall and within individual majors suggests that perhaps there are some shifts in the types of experiences individuals encounter in our teacher preparation program, or in society overall. Other studies (e.g. Cinar et al., 2016; Rinke et al., 2016; Sümen & Çalisici, 2016) support the idea that preservice elemen- tary teachers’ views on STEM can be shaped by coursework. In mathematics educa- tion literature, it is similarly suggested that dispositional beliefs can vary according to content topics (Beyers, 2005), which in turn can impact the ways in which stu- dents engage in learning opportunities in that content (Beyers, 2011, 2012). The implication here being that it is conceivable to suggest that the changes in RIR may be a reflection of changes in content learning experiences of students in their teacher 12 Future Elementary Teachers’ Perspectives on the Importance of STEM 223 preparation program. We are aware that there is a more intense focus on the struc- ture and use of the NGSS in the science methods courses offered at our institution, and this could also contribute to the overall increases in RIR. Additionally, one focus group participant referenced female faculty members by name when discuss- ing gender equity. These comments suggest that perhaps course content has changed to include discussion of these issues more broadly at our institution. The RIR increases may also be due, in part, to reaching a larger and more representative sample of future elementary education majors at our institution. Regardless of rea- son, when we consider our adapted version of Kelly and Knowles’ (2016) model for integrated STEM education focused on problem solving within the context of a greater community of practice, an increase in the number of reasons given for STEM importance supports this model. 12.7 Conclusions In sum, we found that there continues to be large scale agreement in the value and importance of Elementary STEM among preservice teachers at our institution, and a broad variety of reasons given for this importance ranging from considering foun- dational knowledge of students to bigger scale issues such as equity and career readiness of future students. This range of reasons, and increase in complexity in the number of reasons reported by students suggests that preservice teachers at our institution think of STEM as a multi-faceted discipline. We can also say with confidence that the ESIF served as a valuable and reliable tool for describing reasons why STEM is important among preservice elementary teachers. The tool was useful for analyzing responses to survey data as well as tran- scribed focus group interviews, and provides researchers with a model for framing discussions of STEM importance. It also allowed us to quantify some of the ways in which the views of preservice teachers at our institution have shifted with regard to the importance of STEM. 12.8 Implications and Future Work Our findings, coupled with the literature (e.g Cinar et al., 2016; Rinke et al., 2016; Sümen & Çalisici, 2016) suggest that elementary teachers’ views of the importance of STEM education at the elementary level can be complex, though there are clearly some students who are not convinced, as evidenced by the four responses to this current survey. This implies that shifts in coursework for preservice teachers to directly address the reasons for STEM importance could be fruitful. Though the respondents were not asked to identify reasons for their beliefs (i.e. what experi- ences or knowledge did they draw on when responding to the survey) future 224 L. Madden et al. administrations of the ESIF could include probing questions to help parse out ways in which courses might already be addressing this area or could do so more explicitly. The study demonstrated the utility of the ESIF as an analytical framework. Future analyses of this dataset could be used to identify differences among other factors, such as gender or education major, to tell us a bit more about differences in the reasons given for STEM importance. The survey could also be administered to practicing teachers, college faculty, or elementary aged children to inform us on how these audiences differ in their views of STEM and inform future professional development efforts. References Beyers, J. E. R. (2005). What counts as “productive” dispositions among pre-service teach- ers? In G. M. Lloyd, M. R. Wilson, J. L. M. Wilkins, &; S. L. Behm (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Retrieved from http://convention2.allacademic.com/ index.php?cmd=pmena_guest [Publisher: PME-NA] Beyers, J. E. R. (2011). Student dispositions with respect to mathematics: What the current lit- erature says. Chapter 5 in the 73rd yearbook of NCTM (2011). In Motivation and disposition: Pathways to learning mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Beyers, J. E. R. (2012). An examination of the relationship between prospective teachers’ dispo- sitions and achievement in a mathematics content course for elementary education majors. SAGE Open, October–December 2012; vol. 2, 4: 2158244012462589. Cinar, S., Pirasa, N., & Sadoglu, G. P. (2016). Views of science and mathematics pre-service teach- ers regarding STEM. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(6), 1479–1487. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage. Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(11). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z Madden, L., Beyers, J., & O’Brien, S. (2016). The importance of STEM education in the elemen- tary grades: Learning from pre-service and novice teachers’ perspectives. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 20(5), 1–18. Malzahn, K. A. (2013, September). 2012 National survey of science and mathematics education- status of elementary school mathematics teaching. Retrieved on October 9, 2013 from: http:// www.horizon-research.com/reports/?sort=report_category National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscut- ting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from: nextgenscience.org Rinke, C. R., Gladstone-Brown, W., Kinlaw, C. R., & Cappiello, J. (2016). Characterizing STEM teacher education: Affordances and constraints of explicit STEM preparation for elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 116(6), 300–309. Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania, The Technology Teacher, Dec./Jan.- 2009, 20–26. Sümen, Ö. Ö., & Çalisici, H. (2016). Pre-service teachers’ mind maps and opinions on STEM education implemented in an environmental literacy course. Educational sciences: Theory and practice, 16(2), 459–476. Villanen, H. (2014). Teachers’ reflections on an education for sustainable development project. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 23(2), 179–191. 12 Future Elementary Teachers’ Perspectives on the Importance of STEM 225 Lauren Madden is an Associate Professor of Elementary Science Education and Coordinator of the Environmental Sustainability Education Minor in the Department of Elementary and Early Childhood Education at The College of New Jersey. Her teaching and research focus on advocating for scientific literacy and the health of our planet through teaching and learning. James E. R. Beyers is an Associate Professor of Mathematics Education and Department Chair for Elementary and Early Childhood Education at The College of New Jersey. His research focuses on prospective teachers’ mathematical dispositions and their beliefs about the importance of STEM Education at the elementary school level. He is the current President of the New Jersey Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators. Nicole Stanton is a current student at The College of New Jersey studying Special Education and iSTEM education. She will graduate in May 2020 with a Bachelor’s in iSTEM education and in May 2021 with a Master’s in Special Education. She hopes to be able to instill a love of STEM in her future students.