Conclusion

The problem in U.S. Educational systems is simply stated, but very complex in nature: American schools were never designed to authentically educate students of color. Instead, schools in the United States marginalize and under-educate children of color, especially in STEM-foundational thinking and instructional activities. In order to address issues of disproportionality and racial predictability in the lowest and highest achieving students, teachers must “engage [staff] in narratives that compel [them] to synthesize [their] knowledge and transform it into direct and measurable action” (Singleton, 2013, p. 7). Engaging every staff member is essential for implementing a STEM-equity leadership effort thereby closing these STEM opportunity gaps. In order to design equitable learning experiences that support traditionally underperforming students of color, we, as educational leaders, need to develop adequate indicators for the capacity of elementary schools to close STEM inequity gaps. Teachers need to be trained using stronger pedagogical frameworks that support marginalized students and accurately measure their success. The current metrics used, which determine the efficacy of pedagogical practices to close equity gaps, are not sufficient. For example, state standardized testing such as the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) are not authentic indicators of the capacity for schools to close equity gaps. PARCC and other state measures are proximal indicators of student achievement, representing second- and third-hand effects of effective gap-closing efforts at the school and district level. I feel that academic growth, achievement, and assessment, no matter the design, all need to be authentic and culturally relevant to all learners. Students should not fear assessments because they should be presented as opportunities to share their knowledge, and or progress toward a learning goal, with the teacher. Teachers should not fear assessments because they should be received as such. Nothing punitive. Nothing final. Just a snapshot of where each learner is on the continuum of growth. I believe that educational leaders need to guide schools through multiple conversations speculating what the most accurate measures of success would be if applied an equity lens, and pinpointing the design of learning experiences and support traditionally underperforming, vulnerable student. These students, continuously marginalized by systemic prejudice and inequity, should be an active participants in setting their learning goals and action plans for achieving those goals. Student growth in STEM foundational thinking is measurable. STEM-foundational thinking connects principles of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to solve problems face by individuals in society. Pedagogy focused on STEM-foundational thinking and instructional activities instills a deep and extensive understanding of STEM content applied in real-world contexts. I feel that both students and teachers should be driven more by design thinking than by data. Teaching is an interaction and relationship between a teacher and a child. If one compromises this relationship in order to gain in standardized test scores, then they will be disappointed by the results. I believe that true academic achievement lies in creating a lasting, collaborative partnership between the teacher, student, and the community.

Chapter V. Conclusions, Discussion, and Suggestions for Future Research

Introduction

In conducting this collaborative, mixed-methods, multi-site comparative case study with the Center for Practice Engaged Education Research (C-PEER), I wanted to understand aspects of systems that impact schools operating as effective learning communities, specifically with regards to systemic STEM inequities. In the following sections, I summarize my findings based on qualitative archival data coding and quantitative survey analysis. I revisit my original research questions and draw conclusions based on the data I received. My discussion of the data leads into two recommendations: (a) recommendations for future/continued research; and (b) recommendations for supporting teachers’ practice. It is my hope that these recommendations further the conversation around adult professional development and the pedagogical practices necessary for moving teachers to make meaningful changes current pedagogy, which perpetuates inequitable systems of learning.

Summary of Findings

This study intends to answer: (a) What elementary school structures support students in STEM curricular areas? (b) Do these supports differ for sub-groups of students, i.e. students of color, students in poverty, and English language learners? (c) What are the components of elementary STEM opportunities to learn foster interest, participation, and academic success in STEM content areas, especially for marginalized students of color? Researchers examined a combination of quantitative and qualitative data sources, which included the Effective Learning Teacher Survey (ELTS), the Effective Learning Leader Survey (ELLS), extant student perception survey data provided by the partner district, de-identified teacher evaluation data under the professionalism domain on the teacher evaluation rubric, extant district data, like school UIP’s and SPF’s, and archival documents provided by participating schools, including any professional learning plans and calendars for each school. Key findings from the participating schools in this focus-study include: (a) no evidence of integrated STEM-foundational thinking and STEM instructional activities into content areas; (b) a lack of an explicit STEM agenda for each elementary school; (c) no explicit structures in place for underperforming subgroups of students to access STEM-foundational thinking; (d) the alignment of student perceptions about a teacher’s ability to facilitate STEM-foundational thinking with reported teacher perceptions about current instructional practices and the schools’ identified performance level (as determined by the Colorado Department of Education); and (e) the misalignment between school’s perceptions about STEM-foundational thinking and instructional practices and teacher perceptions about the effectiveness of using STEM to in improving their pedagogy.

Conclusions (Organized by Research Questions)

Based on obtained qualitative and quantitative data, there are no elementary school structures present that support students in STEM curricular areas. Since there are no structures in place, students of color, students in poverty, English language learners, and other underperforming sub-groups, do not have access to STEM-foundational thinking and instructional activities. Based on current research, there are specific components that elementary schools can put in place to foster student interest, participation, and academic success in STEM content areas. These include (a) Culturally Responsive Education professional development; (b) collaborative, distributive leadership toward STEM-foundational thinking; (c) attention to rigor; (d) attention to and validation of students’’ everyday experiences; (e) focus on creating STEM communities; and (f) out-of-school and in-school content-area connections (Cokley, 2003; Litowitz 1997; Seashore-Louis, et al., 2010; Knapp, et al., 2010; Anderson-Butcher, Lawson, Bean, Boone, Kwiatkowski, et al., 2004; Hess, et al., 2009; Stembridge, 2015; Walker, 2012; Basham, et al., 2010; Bybee, 2013; Drew, 2011; Myers & Berkowicz, 2015; Berkowicz & Myers, 2016).

Conclusion

This study investigated STEM-foundational thinking and structures in place for teacher practices in relation to STEM instructional activities. Some overarching findings for the participating schools in this study indicate a relationship between isolated STEM-foundational thinking teacher practices. For example, researchers found that in participating schools, there were no statistically significant teacher perceptions of STEM-foundational thinking, and these did not align with administrator perceptions of STEM-foundational thinking. Participating schools do not indicate that they explicitly participate in STEM-foundational thinking and instructional activities. Professional. Researchers also discovered that student perceptions of teachers facilitating STEM-foundational thinking aligned with teacher perceptions about the lack of STEM instructional practices. Researchers also ascertained the evidence of relationships and patterns between teacher survey responses (STEM-related sub-scales), student perceptions about their teachers’ abilities to facilitate STEM-foundational thinking also aligned with a school’s performance level. Generally speaking, in lower performing schools, teacher and student perceptions were lower than teacher and student perceptions in higher performing schools. Finally, researchers were also able to uncover evidence of relationships among the variables in responses on the ELLS and the ELTS (see Table 8). 

In terms of my original research question: What elementary school structures support students in STEM curricular areas? and based on the quantitative data analysis, there are pockets of STEM-foundational thinking present throughout the seven surveyed elementary schools. There does not seem to a pattern among schools with regards to STEM-foundational thinking and instructional activities, especially with respect to how STEM supports may or may not differ for sub-groups of students. However, as no individual school cases are meant to be generalized, I focused my efforts on exploring several sources of data. For example, when one examines the qualitative data (i.e.: curriculum documents, school improvement plans, and mission and vision statements), what stands out is the lack of a deliberate focus on STEM-foundational thinking. No school surveyed has a full agenda for how to implement or integrate STEM-foundational thinking into their curricula. No school (as indicated by the STEM survey clusters) has an entire cluster correlated to STEM-foundational thinking. Nonetheless, one school, Richard Spikes Elementary, does stand out slightly from the other schools. There appears to be a school-wide effort on student reflection in all content areas. This give students multiple opportunities throughout their school day to reflect on their thinking and academic work, a characteristic found in STEM-foundational thinking and STEM instructional activities. In terms of specific components of elementary STEM opportunities to learn that foster interest, participation, and academic success in STEM content areas, especially for marginalized students of color, I believe that consistency in pedagogical practices is important for integration of any educational philosophy. When a building embeds a certain value in multiple aspects of their organization (e.g.: mission and vision statement, professional development, curriculum guides), then that value becomes more widely adopted by staff, students, and the parent community.

Qualitative Procedures

First, data was classified into categories on the Activity System Frameworks, using content analysis and constant-comparative structural coding (e.g., see Saldana, 2013). From the case study analysis protocol (e.g., see Yin, 2014) we looked for patterns of variables and analyzed the likelihood of designated outcomes based on the qualitative variable patterns. Researchers used a concept-matching approach (Kane & Trochim, 2007) to categorize the Activity System elements (rules/policies, community, tools, roles) into membership in common variable sets. Next, researchers analyzed the set-membership across case study sites (n=7) in relation to designated outcomes (in this case, STEM-foundational thinking and instructional activities, student achievement growth, both generally and for subgroups of students; and social-emotional supports of students in classrooms, as indicated by the student perception surveys). This “fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis” method (Ragin, 2000; Ragin, 2008) allowed researchers to assess which context and activity system variable combinations improved the likelihood of particular outcomes of interest (e.g.: STEM-foundational thinking). Finally, this, combined with the Activity System qualitative analysis, which looks within and across the “triangle” framework for conflicts among variables allowed researchers to highlight potential levers for systemic change within each of the urban elementary schools and classrooms. All survey responses were coded utilizing the appropriate scale and entered into SPSS for analysis. Reports were generated through SPSS to identify key findings in the quantitative data.

Conclusion

This study examines the relationship between STEM foundational thinking and instructional activities present in the Colorado elementary schools. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analyzed during the fall semester of 2015 through the spring semester of 2016 from seven participating schools and analyzed in order to answer the research question. Participants included teachers, instructional staff and school leaders, who participated in the Effective Learning Teacher Survey (ELTS), and the Effective Learning Leader Survey (ELLS). Extant data examined included the framework for effective teaching (LEAP) data, Student Perception Survey (SPS) results, the Colorado Department of Education (CDE) School Performance Framework (SPF), and each school’s Unified Improvement Plans (UIP), relevant trend (qualitative data), and archival structure data (e.g.: school schedules and team and committee workflows). An analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a principal components analysis (PCA) were utilized to find relationships and patterns among the variables. The purpose of this research was to ascertain what practices are in place for recruiting and engaging students of color in STEM curricula, as well as recommendations for creating a culturally relevant school culture (e.g.: an effective learning organizations). The findings of this study will contribute toward an understanding of how best to integrate STEM-foundational thinking and instructional activities into mainstream classroom curricula, so as to provide increased access and opportunity for traditionally underperforming students of color.

Research Questions

This study intends to answer:
(a) What elementary school structures support students in STEM curricular areas?
(b) Do these supports differ for subgroups of students, i.e. students of color, students in poverty, and English language learners?
(c) What are the components of elementary STEM
opportunities to learn that foster interest, participation, and academic success in STEM content areas, especially for marginalized students of color?

Significance of Study

There is great significance in focusing on STEM equity and access to STEM-related content and activities for all students in elementary grades, including general supports for critical and creative thinking and innovation. I focus on elementary levels because research shows that it is in these early years that students find their natural interest in STEM foundational thinking either supported or discouraged, with the result that they are variously successful in the content areas as they grow older (Moomaw, 2013; Helm et al., 2001; Katz et al., 2000; Katz, 2010). Elementary-school students are most likely to gain STEM foundational thinking when they have opportunities to engage in in-depth investigations of phenomena around them worthy of their knowledge and understanding (Katz & Chard, 2000).

Definition of Terms for STEM Foundational Thinking and Instructional Activities

STEM connects the principles of the sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics in order to solve problems faced by individuals and society. STEM-focused foundational thinking, teaching, and learning all instill a deep and extensive understanding of STEM content as it is applied to the real world. Students who participate in STEM instructional activities collaboratively engage in (a) critical thinking; (b) scientific inquiry; (c) applying specific content knowledge to real-world contexts; (d) the engineering design process; (e) evidence-based reasoning and argumentation; and (f) effective written and oral communication.

          Critical thinking. Critical thinking is an important STEM skill that takes time and practice. It requires students to understand their own reasoning, while dissecting their thinking, and looking at how that thinking is constructed. Finally, critical thinking requires students to evaluate and judge the quality of their own or another’s thinking. These are all needed in order to be successful in society. For example, with such an emphasis on improving test scores, many students are graduating school lacking the critical thinking skills necessary to succeed in higher education or in the workplace

(Szymanski, 2013). Current research on critical thinking indicates that by having a more in-depth focus on enhancing critical thinking skills in schools, it can increase academic rigor and the scores on the standardized assessments (VanTassel-Baska, Bracken, Feng, & Brown, 2009; McCollister & Sayler, 2010; Snodgrass, 2011; Tsai, Chen, Chang, & Chang, 2013). When teachers create and facilitate STEM instructional activities that enhance critical thinking, students are better able to understand why something has occurred instead of only understanding what has occurred. This deeper understanding “allows the students to better analyze the circumstances surrounding the occurrence and differing viewpoints about the occurrence” (Tsai et al., 2013).

          Scientific inquiry. Scientific inquiry is vital to understand scientific concepts, as well as “the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work” (National Science Education Standards, 2004, p. 23). Students who are participating in scientific inquiry during STEM instructional activities are formulating questions that can be answered through investigation. Students must have a content knowledge that is specific to various aspects of the real-world problem being investigated, while engineering solutions that can be tested scientifically. The National Science Education Standards, which were developed by the National Research Council (1996), and updated and renamed the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS, 2016) state that students need multiple opportunities to:

Use scientific inquiry and develop the ability to think and act in ways associated with inquiry, including asking questions, planning and conducting investigations, using appropriate tools and techniques to gather data, thinking critically and logically about relationships between evidence and explanations, constructing and analyzing alternative explanations, and communicating scientific arguments" (p. 105).

Scientific inquiry is a very powerful way to not only understand science content, but how to ask questions, search for supporting evidence from a variety of sources, and communicate and defend one’s thinking to a real audience.

          Content knowledge application. STEM foundational thinking and instructional activities draw on a large base of content knowledge. In order to tackle real-world problems, students need to be able to apply a variety of content knowledge (e.g.: mathematics, science, social studies, technology). Problems need to be authentic, and the content needs to be pedagogically grounded in academic standards. Doing so gives students insight into the interconnectedness of various curricular content areas and how they can be used together to solve novel problems facing society.

          Engineering design process. Best pedagogical practices indicate that teachers need to design lessons that introduce creativity and innovation in order to help students with career exploration and development, especially female students and students of color. By helping students build a strong foundation in problem-solving, teachers allow students to use cross-disciplinary tools for discovery and for developing solutions to problems that are open-ended and embedded in the real world. Classrooms that focus on STEM foundational thinking shift students away from learning isolated engineering-design model as a framework for instruction, teachers can advance students’ academic abilities, creativity, and learning. Students will have a framework for thinking systematically about problem-solving. This framework includes: (a) identifying the problem; (b) exploring possible solutions or researching needed information; (c) designing a solution; (d) creating or building the prototype solution; (e) testing the idea; and (f) redesigning or modifying the solution to make it better. This framework focuses on teamwork and open-ended design while emphasizing creativity and feasibility.
facts, moving towards experience-based inquiry with multiple opportunities for independent learning. By using the

          Evidence-based reasoning. Identifying sound evidence and drawing logical conclusions is critical to problem-solving. This skill allows students to transfer knowledge from one content area to another and apply to potentially unrelated real-world contexts. In order for teachers to effectively engage their students in reasoning, they must shift their role from that of a lecturer, imparting wisdom for the students, to a facilitator of learning, allowing for discussions and encouraging an open thought process. Teachers need to encourage students to ask questions, evaluate multiple, sometimes conflicting, answers and opinions (Henderson-Hurley & Hurley, 2013; Tsai et al., 2013). Educational philosopher John Dewey always believed that students are motivated to problem solve because they have an “innate love of learning” based on their survival instincts (p. 611). In fact, the simple act of discovery plays a central role in learning. When students “become interested in a problem as a problem and in inquiry and learning for the sake of solving the problem, [student] interest is distinctively intellectual” (Dewey, 1939, p. 614). Students who are strong reasoners will grow up thinking critically about problems and making better decisions as adults; they will be creative, imaginative people who understand the world on a deeper level.

          Effective communication. Communication is a learning and innovation skill (Framework for 21st Century Learning, 2007). Effective written and oral communication requires students to “articulate thoughts and ideas effectively” while informing, instructing, motivating, or persuading others (Framework for 21st Century Learning, 2002). Students need to make connections between classroom writing and practical, real-world applications. This includes reflecting on problem solving and technical writing for STEM-related jobs. STEM instructional activities combine oral and written communication with information and technology literacy.

Limitations and Delimitations

The limitations of this study relate to our sample size and lack of qualitative data such as classroom observations and student interviews, making subgroups of teachers and leaders surveyed too small to permit meaningful disaggregated analysis. We had a sample of seven urban elementary schools from an urban public school district in which to survey teachers, students, and other educational leaders. I would have liked to have more schools participate, possibly from different school districts, so that our data analysis might be generalizable to different schools. Although I understand that with regards to many types of educational reform, one size does not fit all; what works as a change effort or leveraging point in one school may or may not work in another building with a different student demographic population. However, I feel that STEM foundational thinking is apropos for raising student achievement in all content areas, preparing students with 21st century skills necessary for college and career readiness. Including an elementary school with a strong STEM focus would also have given this multi-site comparative case study a different context with which to analyze both qualitative and quantitative data.

Conclusion

So far, I have outlined the background of STEM inequities in public education. I described the purpose and significance of our study, while naming our specific research questions. I described STEM foundational thinking and instructional activities, as well as defining relevant terms. Finally, I discussed my limitations in disaggregating our data analysis in order to generalize our results. I also discussed the boundaries we have set for this study, and why I feel that STEM foundational thinking is appropriate for raising student achievement.