Chapter 5 Inquiring into Environmental STEM PDF

Chapter 5 Inquiring into Environmental STEM: Striving for an Engaging Inquiry-Based E-STEM Experience for Pre-Service Teachers Angela Burgess and Gayle A. Buck 5.1 Introduction Many scholars have described the importance of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) knowledge and sk...

Chapter 5 Inquiring into Environmental STEM: Striving for an Engaging Inquiry-Based E-STEM Experience for Pre-Service Teachers Angela Burgess and Gayle A. Buck 5.1 Introduction Many scholars have described the importance of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) knowledge and skills for a nation’s future economic pros- perity and technological competitiveness in global markets (see Blackley & Howell, 2015; Bybee, 2013). Although some fear a potential consequence of this focus on STEM innovations may be global environmental issues, Bybee (2013) argues that the integrated disciplinary approach STEM offers (Kennedy & Odell, 2014) may be useful in addressing global environmental challenges such as climate change, energy production and environmental health. The North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE) have proposed an integrated approach to edu- cation for sustainable development via Environmental STEM (E-STEM) that aligns with their identified educational best practices including hands-on learning, tangible themes, student interest and fostering achievement and empowerment (Fraser et al., 2013). The NAAEE defines E-STEM as “the integration of environmental educa- tion into STEM learning” (NAAEE, 2020). For students to become E-STEM literate, however, teachers need the content and pedagogical knowledge in order to be able to effectively instruct, assess and design STEM curricula (Shernoff, Sinha, Bressler, & Ginsburg, 2017). This task may not be as simple as it first appears (Akerson et al., 2018). Birney and Cronin (2019) explained, “Beyond the familiar vocabulary of job training, linked learning and twenty-first century skills, STEM teachers must create a combined learning experi- ence that has no precedent in education” (P.1). This lack of precedence means that most teachers have had little direct experience of STEM education (Awad & Barak, 2018) and so may struggle to implement STEM education in their classrooms A. Burgess (*) · G. A. Buck Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 61 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_5 62 A. Burgess and G. A. Buck (Kelley & Knowles, 2016). Many studies investigate how teacher professional development programs variably equip teachers with the skills they need to success- fully implement STEM instruction in their classrooms (e.g. Guzey, Moore, & Harwell, 2016; Slavit, Nelson, & Lesseig, 2016; Stohlmann, Moore, & Roehrig, 2012), while only a few studies have investigated how pre-service teachers’ experi- ences of STEM impact their conceptualisations and instruction of STEM (e.g. Adams, Miller, Saul, & Pegg, 2014; Awad & Barak, 2018; Berry, McLaughlin, & Cooper, 2018); fewer still have investigated this in regard to E-STEM. The aim of this study was to examine how pre-service teachers experience an E- STEM intervention in a science content course for elementary education majors. The context of a content course was selected due to the fact that the content knowl- edge of K-12 teachers needs to be increased in addition to their pedagogical knowl- edge (Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014). There is a dearth of research into pre-service teachers STEM experiences in these contexts, despite content knowl- edge being recognised as an integral aspect of an individual’s pedagogical content knowledge. The overall research question we addressed was; In what ways does the inclusion of an E-STEM intervention in an elementary education science content course impact pre-service teachers? The sub questions guiding this action research were, 1) How does our E-STEM intervention influence pre-service teachers under- standing of STEM? 2) To what extent does our E-STEM intervention impact pre-­ service teachers’ notion of environmental issues? 5.2 Theoretical and Empirical Background What STEM actually means is up for debate (Shernoff et al., 2017). Individuals perceive STEM differently and this perception is often influenced by one’s role within the education system (Bybee, 2013), discipline area, or how they use STEM in their everyday lives (Breiner, Harkness, Johnson, & Koehler, 2012). Perspectives range from STEM as it’s individual domain constituent (e.g. STEM is Science) to STEM as a meta-discipline that fully integrates all four constituent disciplines (Bybee, 2013; Kennedy & Odell, 2014). Shernoff et al. (2017) argue that integrated STEM education definitions should be considered within a conceptual framework which considers the interactions between the goals, outcomes and intentions of inte- grated STEM education. Kelley and Knowles (2016) propose integrated STEM edu- cation should consist of STEM practices from each constituent discipline including scientific inquiry, mathematical thinking, technological literacy and engineering design in order to foster situated STEM learning. The intervention in this study was based upon our working definition of STEM as meaningful interdependence among all disciplines of STEM. In other words, includes all individual disciplines of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) in a way that is meaningful and showcases the interdependence of the fields. In an education setting this means that any STEM educational experience must be situated within an authentic context that makes the presence and 5 Inquiring into Environmental STEM: Striving for an Engaging Inquiry-Based… 63 meaningful interdependence of each discipline explicit. This definition does not necessarily exclude integrated STEM education approaches if all four disciplines are expressed. We would argue that combinations of only two to three disciplines constitutes interdisciplinary education, but not STEM education. However, as STEM conceptualisations are so various, we do not discount our participants’ con- ceptions of STEM as incorrect if they do not align with our own. Although this interdependent view of STEM may seem to best reflect authentic practices (Ring, Dare, Crotty, & Roehrig, 2017), many researchers have discussed the difficulties teachers have implementing this type of STEM education in their classrooms (e.g. English, 2016; Rinke, Gladstone-Brown, Kinlaw, & Cappiello, 2016). Nadelson et al. (2013) specifically cite lack of teacher preparedness as an obstacle to provid- ing genuinely integrated STEM education. In this study, we investigated how pre- service teacher content courses may contribute to preparing teachers to teach interdependent STEM. Like STEM, environmental education is ambiguous (Stevenson, Brody, Dillon, & Wals, 2013) and conceptualised differently throughout the literature. We used environmental education as an umbrella term that we define as Vare and Scott’s (2007) interrelated idea about education for sustainable development, and education as sustainable development. This model of environmental education allows us to consider the existing environmental issues as socially and politically induced as well as accepting that we can not fully appreciate the requirements of future societ- ies, and so must embrace open-ended learning. The second point is similar to the skills acquisition and conceptual framework notions of STEM. Tilbury’s UNESCO report (Tilbury, 2011) suggested some key learning processes of environmental edu- cation include collaboration, whole system engagement, innovation and active, and participatory learning, processes we argue are consistent with the twenty-first cen- tury skills for which STEM education has been credited with influencing (e.g. Bybee, 2013; Ostler, 2012). Researchers in environmental education have also dis- cussed the value of using integrated, interdisciplinary approaches (e.g., Howlett, Ferreira, & Blomfield, 2016; Jones, Selby, & Sterling, 2010), a key feature of STEM education. The similarities in the conceptual frameworks of STEM education and Vare and Scott’s ideas about education for/as sustainable development have led some technology and design education scholars to suggest that there is a blurring of the boundaries between the meta-disciplines (Pitt, 2009). As in STEM education, a pervasive issue with environmental education imple- mentation in schools is the teacher’s perceived lack of knowledge of issues and therefore diminished self-efficacy to teach about environmental sustainability. Higher education is viewed as an important site at which graduates can experience environmental education that may impact their future professional lives (Holdsworth & Thomas, 2016). Provision of higher education experiences that have a content focus on sustainability can result in significant changes in pre-service teachers’ environmental perceptions and values, as well as improve their agency and motiva- tion to include environmental sustainability topics in their classroom (Merritt, Hale, & Archambault, 2019). As educators are often viewed as positive role models, it is assumed that they have a substantial influence on community practices via their 64 A. Burgess and G. A. Buck contact with students, parents and other community members (Anderson, Datta, Dyck, Kayira, & McVittie, 2016). STEM and environmental literacy are placed as critical aspects in a dynamic future-focused society. Given the similar attributes a STEM and environmentally literate person should possess, as well as the lack of preparation pre-service teachers receive in these areas, it seems pertinent to explore how using environmental sustainability as a focus of STEM instruction in a teacher preparation, higher education context may impact teacher conceptions. Holdsworth and Thomas (2016) state that, “A lack of reflection on one’s practice will fail to transform practice into praxis, reinforcing the current reductionist, individual approach to education seen today” (p. 1077). In this study we aim to identify if and how pre-service teacher (PST) participation in an E-STEM higher education experi- ence influences their conceptions of STEM and sustainability. 5.3 Methodology This study was conducted as an action research (Lewin, 1948). Action research is the cyclical approach of making change, analysing that change for effectiveness and making further improvements to the action (Eilks, 2018). Action research connects research with practice by having classroom practitioners become classroom researchers. This type of research intends to improve classroom practices as well as contributing to the practitioner’s professional development (Feldman, 1996). Yet, it should also be viewed as a medium through which we can validate strategies for educational innovation (Eilks & Ralle, 2002). The critical reflective practices that are invoked in action research is advocated for in the development of teachers of sustainability and sustainable development (Wals & Jickling, 2002). The action research undertaken in this study was one of a teacher-centered approach (Grundy, 1982) where the practitioners were responsible for deciding the research interest, classroom action, data collection and interpretation and deciding the implications for the action. In this study, both authors co-designed, utilised and analysed the intervention in their own classrooms alongside a third practitioner who implemented the intervention in two additional classrooms. The primary purpose of this action research was to address the problem of insufficient conceptual understanding teach- ers hold of both STEM (as determined via a review of the literature) and to investi- gate how to implement and design STEM interventions that are rooted in environmental issues by introducing an E-STEM intervention. Considering this, we view this study as exploratory and will use it to inform future iterations of the inter- vention. The choice of an action research approach centres learning from experi- ence (Dewey, 1986), in this case the experiences of the practitioner/researcher, as well as the pre-service teachers, while recognising the importance of practitioner reflexivity and reflection in the reformation of educational practices. 5 Inquiring into Environmental STEM: Striving for an Engaging Inquiry-Based… 65 5.4 Participants Our pool of participants included undergraduate students enrolled in a general educa- tion science content course in a large Midwestern university in the USA. In total, there were 81 participants from a cohort of 93 students enrolled in the 4 classes where the intervention was implemented giving a participation rate of 87%. Of the 81 partici- pants, 89% were female (n = 72), and 11% were male (n = 9). The students identified as either freshmen (n = 43), sophomore (n = 32), juniors (n = 5) or seniors (n = 1). 5.5 Context The intervention took place during the Fall semester within a general education sci- ence content course. This is a required course for elementary education majors and an optional course for non-elementary majors. Therefore, the majority (87%) of the students enrolled in this course during this study were education majors. The course is rooted in environmental science and scientific inquiry content. The course is designed using socio-constructivist principles of learning and is split into three broad sections. The first section explores nature of science and principles of scien- tific inquiry; the second section introduces the use of scientific explanations in sci- entific inquiry using several environment focused inquiry scenarios and labs; and, in the final section, students engage in a free-choice scientific inquiry and produce a full scientific report and presentation based on their independent scientific inquiry. The E-STEM intervention took place during the second section of the course. 5.6 Action Description The E-STEM intervention described in this study was based upon the foundations of social constructivist theories (Vygotsky, 1978). The key principles of constructiv- ist theories of knowing and learning are that learning is an active process and each learner enters that process with a schema or mental model that is based on their prior knowledge and experiences (Bruner, 1966). Learning is the reconfiguration of these schemata into something more similar to that of an expert. Vygotsky’s (1978) social constructivist theories of knowledge is based upon these premises but introduces the notion that the collaborative interaction between individuals develops more compre- hensive schemata in those collaborators. The aim of this intervention was to provide a collaborative learning environment and promote reflection of experience (Dewey, 1986). By working collaboratively, it was theorised that the pre-service teachers would develop more comprehensive schemata than would otherwise be constructed. As the aim of this intervention was to promote conceptual change, a collaborative project-based-learning instructional approach was used (Kelley & Knowles, 2016). 66 A. Burgess and G. A. Buck The task, as established in class 2 (see Table 5.1), was: “Design and build a func- tional 1:10 scale model of a solar water heater that will allow you to provide 10% of your daily hot water requirement. The water should be heated to at least 45 Degrees Celsius.”. The intervention took place over four class periods of one hour and fifty- five minutes. Homework assignments related to the topic were assigned prior to the implementation of the classroom interventions and the project culminated in a report writing assignment. For details of the intervention, see Table 5.1. Table 5.1 Description of E-STEM intervention Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Activity Introduction to Solar energy and Initial design plan, Design modification heat transfer project task build and test and testing introduction Purpose Provide students Establish Use collaborative Use data to compare with needed connections between design process efficacy of design scientific concepts, Consider material iterations concepts for environment, property Identifying design task sustainability, STEM appropriateness. consequences of and the task. Apply scientific design modifications concepts to design Evidence-based design Target Radiation, STEM Applying science Applying science concepts conduction and concepts in design concepts in design convection Sustainability Evidenced-based Evidence based design design Energy Use of Use of technological technological tools tools to provide to provide evidence evidence. Design process is iterative Homework 1 Homework 2 Homework 3 Homework 4 Activity Hot water use Solar water heater Analyse data and Write a reflective analysis designs modifications technical report based on rubric Purpose Provide real Consider current Use data to Assessment of world data from solar technologies determine the E-STEM which to base efficacy of the conceptualisations model design initial design Highlight Consider design consumptive modifications to behaviours improve efficacy Target Energy Technological Design process is Integrated E-STEM consumption progress is built iterative concepts Calculating upon prior scales technologies 5 Inquiring into Environmental STEM: Striving for an Engaging Inquiry-Based… 67 5.7 Data Collection and Analysis Procedures Multiple sources of data were used to allow for triangulation and a more sophisti- cated insight into student experiences as a result of the action. The data generated was both qualitative and quantitative which lets us not only reveal general patterns of change across the participant population, but also to understand the nuances and rich points of the participant experiences. Pre and Post Survey To understand broad changes in students’ conceptions and attitudes towards STEM as a result of the action, a pre-survey was completed by participants one week prior to the commencement of the intervention (n = 81) and a post survey was completed one week after the completion of the intervention (n = 81). The survey was adapted from Summers and Abd-El-Khalick’s (2018) BRAINS (Behaviours, Related Attitudes, and Intentions towards Science) survey to measure changes in five constructs/domains related to STEM conceptualisations. These constructs/domains were intention, attitude toward the behaviour, behav- ioural beliefs, control (beliefs and perceived behavioural control) and, normative (beliefs and subjective norms) deriving from the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1985) (See Table 5.2). The survey contains 30 statement items scored on 1–5 Likert scale ranging from 1-Strongly disagree to 5-strongly agree. The survey is provided in Appendix A. The survey was administered online using Google Forms. As well as the 30 items adapted from the BRAINS survey, participants were asked to briefly describe what the term STEM meant to them, and, in the pre-survey Table 5.2 The constructs measured using the adapted BRAINS survey Construct Related domain/construct Sub-Domain/Sub-construct Intention Intention to pursue or interest in Additional or future studies in pursuing STEM STEM A career in STEM Attitude toward the Attitude toward different facets of STEM Attitude toward STEM behaviour as relates to respondent’s life Attitude toward STEM as leisure Behavioural beliefs Beliefs about the consequences Beliefs about the associated with engagement with STEM consequences associated with and beliefs about the benefits associated STEM learning with STEM Beliefs about the relevance and utility of STEM at the societal and personal level Control- beliefs and Perceived self-efficacy and personal Perceived ability towards perceived agency toward STEM learning learning STEM behavioural control Perceived efficacy of effort toward learning STEM Normative- beliefs Perceived approval or disapproval toward Perceived approval or and subjective norms engagement with STEM disapproval by family and friends Modified from Summers and Abd-El-Khalick (2018) 68 A. Burgess and G. A. Buck only, they were asked to describe any prior experience they had with STEM. Demographic information was also collected via the online survey. The 30 items of the adapted BRAINS survey were categorised under their cor- responding psychological construct as prescribed by Summers and Abd-El-Khalick (2018). Two items were reverse coded and then an independent t-test was performed using IBM SPSS to look for changes between pre-survey and post survey responses. Participant written descriptions of STEM were coded using emergent thematic cod- ing. Code frequencies were then input into IBM SPSS and an independent t-test was performed in order to highlight differences in the frequencies of particular codes between the pre and post intervention surveys. Student Work Students produced several pieces of work throughout the interven- tion including: 1) scientific explanations of heat transfer observations; 2) design diagrams for both the initial and modified scale model design by each group of students; 3) worksheets where each group outlined the scientific and practical justi- fications of their material choices; and, 4) individually produced final reports based on the rubric in Appendix B. The initial stage of analysis of student work involved a first pass over the work while noting areas of salience and interest in memos (Glaser, 1978). Once this stage was completed, primary descriptive codes (allowing for simultaneous coding) were determined, and the student work was coded using NVivo qualitative analysis software. These codes were then analysed for patterns and categorised based upon emergent themes. Audio Recordings As collaboration and interaction between participants are key to the socio-constructivist theories that informed this intervention, it is appropriate to record the naturally occurring conversations that occur as a result. Each group of students were recorded using an audio recorder placed at their workspace. Student groups typically consisted of 3 to 4 students. The interactions of 24 groups were recorded in all four class periods, over the four sections, resulting in a total of 182.4 hours of recorded classroom interaction. From each section, audio recordings of 2 student groups were selected and transcribed for analysis (totalling 60.8 hours). The selection of groups was based upon several factors. The first factor was that each member of the group had given consent for their recording to be analysed; the second factor was that each member of the group was present in all four class peri- ods of the intervention; and the third selection criteria was that the quality of audio recording was high enough to allow for accurate transcription. The audio recordings were played back, memos were produced that recorded initial interpretations and patterns identified in the data. Recordings were revised several times and relevant sections of conversational interaction were transcribed verbatim. For an interaction to be identified as relevant the conversation should be directed toward the materials, design, concepts or generally focused on the task. The transcripts produced were then coded descriptively and themes were developed from patterns across the codes. 5 Inquiring into Environmental STEM: Striving for an Engaging Inquiry-Based… 69 5.8 Findings The findings are presented in relation to the two guiding research questions. Any additional interesting patterns that were observed are also pointed out. 5.8.1 How Does Our E-STEM Intervention Influence Pre-­Service Teachers’ Understanding of STEM? Independent samples t-tests of the BRAINS survey revealed that there was statisti- cally significant positive change in three of the five constructs measured in the post-­ intervention survey compared to the pre-intervention survey. The attitude component showed a significant positive change at a 5% level from pre-intervention (M = 7.9, SD = 5.2) to post intervention (M = 10.5, SD = 3.7), t(160) = 3.527, p <.001. The 95% confidence interval for the difference in means ranged from −3.9 to −1.1. The effect size was medium according to Cohen’s guidelines, g = 0.576. The behaviour component also exhibited a significant positive increase, t(160) = 2.327, p < 0.05, between pre intervention (M = 16.6, SD = 8.5) and post intervention surveys (M = 19.4, SD = 7.0). The 95% confidence interval for the difference in means ranged from −5.2 to −0.4 with a medium effect size, g = 0.360. Finally, the control component exhibited a significant change from the preintervention survey (M = 8.9, SD = 5.3) to the postintervention survey (M = 11.5, SD = 4.3) t(160) = 3.425, p < 0.05. The 95% confidence interval ranges from −4.1 to −1.1 with a medium to large effect size, g = 0.539. Although the normative and intentional components of the survey did change slightly between the pre and the post survey, neither changes reached a level of significance (Table 5.3). These findings corresponded with the statistical analysis of the STEM definitions participants produced before and after the intervention. Each response to the ques- tion “Briefly describe what does STEM mean to you?” from both the pre and post intervention survey was coded using emergent codes. A total of 16 codes were iden- tified (Table 5.4). Individual statements could be coded with multiple codes. Each code was then compared to investigate any differences in code frequency between pre and post intervention statements using independent samples t-test. A significant Table 5.3 Results from independent t-test between pre and post construct conceptualisations Pre Post 95% CI Variable M SD M SD t(160) p LL UL Hedge’s g Attitude 7.94 5.20 10.48 3.74 −3.57