1. Engaging Middle Level Candidates with STEM/STEAM-based pedagogies Stacie Nowikowski, D. Ed.

2.   Introductions  Initiative overview  Research  STEM/STEAM Roots  Learning structure  Teacher skills and preparation  Improving middle level teacher preparation  Resources  Future Directions and Discussion Overview

3.   Middle Level Single Certification Program  Contains integrated methods courses in Social Studies/Language Arts and Science/Mathematics  Coursework was mainly planning in isolation prior to project implementation  Students enrolled all had little to no STEM experience prior to the pilot study. Program Improvement for STEM/STEAM Preparation

4.   Due to course availability and other field based courses, the course is held as a night course, 6:30- 9:00.  Couse has field requirements where students must fulfill competencies, but they work with a field placement director to identify possible avenues for volunteer hours.  Technology in available classrooms is limited. Current Course Challenges

5.   How do candidates with little to no STEM/STEAM experience perceive and first interact with a STEM- based model for thinking?  How well-prepared are these students to teach in a technology rich, integrated, STEM environment following modeling and intervention of critical thinking models?  What additional improvements are needed to prepare students for current STEM environments? The questions for exploration…

6.   Task 1: Having students identify prior STEM knowledge and experiences.  Task 2: Experimentation with a sample STEM-Based problem.  Task 3: Engineering Design Challenge Experimentation  Task 4: Stem Problem Lesson Design  Task 5: Review and reflection on knowledge gained. Collect Student Reflections/Interviews as Evidence

7.   Research indicated:  STEM subjects often taught in isolation (Stohlmann, Moore, McClelland, & Roehrig, 2011).  Students receiving insufficient academic preparation in STEM based subjects (Farmer, 2009; Laird, Alt, & Wu, 2009)  Therefore, are less often choosing and completing STEM- based programs at the college level (Chen & Weko, 2009; Farmer, 2009; Laird, Alt, & Wu, 2009)  STEM based fields are key to the success of the U.S. Economy. STEM Roots

8.   Twenty-first century skills esp. communication, collaboration, and problem solving.  Encouragement for innovation  Executive programs  Educate to Innovate: an “all-hands-on-deck” call to action to elevate STEM subjects and the training of qualified STEM teachers.  Critical thinking  Integration of subjects  Next Generation Science Standards:  Influence of flexible, integrated curriculum  STEM driven with presence of Disciplinary Core Ideas, Science and Engineering Practices, and Crosscutting Concepts A push for STEM/STEAM

9.   Research indicates a lack of preparedness of pre- service teachers to engage students in STEM related fields (Evaluation of Educational Achievement, 2011).  Mainly due to a lack of science, math, and other related content courses.  No sources found for studying a “content heavy” middle level certification program vs. more traditional programs. Lack of Presence in Teacher Education

10.   Stand Alone Approach indicates additional STEM based courses for students to enroll in.  Integrative Approaches have indicated a positive effect on achievement of subjects.  And integration of subjects was beneficial with earlier implementation.  Definition: “Approaches that explore learning between/among two or more of the STEM subjects areas and/or between a STEM subject and one or more other school subjects.” -Sanders in Technology Teacher, 2009, pg. 21. Stand Alone or Integrative Approach

11.   Process 1:  Reflection (dissection of the problem, building/accessing of background knowledge).  Process 2:  Research and Conceptionalization (review of resources to help influence problem solution finding, completion of concept mapping or data organization to demonstrate knowledge)  Process 3:  Discovery and Feedback: Students will compare models plans and solutions and offer peer-to-peer feedback.  Process 4: Application of solution. (Students model solutions to problem).  Process 5: Communication: Reflect on solution and understanding of the STEM process during this solution. Identify new knowledge acquired as well as any thoughts or recommendations for future classroom. STEM Thinking for Candidates

12.   1. Ask: What is the problem? What have others done? What are the constraints?  2. Imagine: What are some solutions? Brainstorm ideas. Choose the best one.  3. Plan: Draw a diagram. Make lists of materials you will need.  4. Create: Follow your plan and create it. Test it out.  5. Improve: Talk about what works, what doesn't, and what could work better. Modify your design to make it better. Test it out.  Source: Engineering Design Process, Museum of Science, Boston (2012) in Gehlhar & Duffield, 2015. Explorative Approaches for Candidates

13.   Content knowledge vs. Pedagogical experiences.  Improvement in problem based-learning.  Challenges in appropriate STEM pedagogy.  The third space. Conclusions and Future Implications

14.  Session Evaluation Let us know what you thought of this session. Complete an evaluation electronically on the conference app, or complete the paper evaluation located in the back of the program book. CEU Code: UT-63 CEU Code Earn Continuing Education Units (CEU) to maintain your teaching certification. Write down the CEU Code for every session you attend on the CEU card located in the back of the program book.