JFG_Dissertation_USC

Running head: IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM 1
THE PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE: ESSENTIAL FACTORS WHEN
IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATIVE STEM IN MIDDLE SCHOOL
by
Joann Ferrara-Genao
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2015
Copyright 2015 Joann Ferrara-Genao

Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to my sister Jean Ferrara-Cordova who holds a variety of
teaching credentials and has successfully taught various grades within the K-12 educational
pipeline. She has been my distinguished editor-in-chief throughout this process, devoting
countless hours to support, not just me, but our dedication to the field of education. It was an
honor to debate topics, agree to disagree, and reach consensus with my sister. Jean is an
amazingly dedicated service provider and talented educator in this field. She has been and will
always be my rock and I thank her for allowing me the opportunity to work with her
professionally.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Anthony B. Maddox, for being an
inspirational leader. His guidance, insights, and support were the guiding force that propelled
me through this process. Thank you Dr. Freking for being a member of this team and providing
a thoughtful balance with your undivided dedication to this dissertation process. Dr. Maddox
and Dr. Freking made my dissertation process a smooth one. I would also like to acknowledge
and thank my third member, Dr. Sheehan, who added his time, energy, and insights to complete
the team that led me to the finish line.
A special acknowledgement goes to my dear friend, Dr. Lela Llorens, for listening,
advising, and teaching me during each phone call or visit I made seeking assistance. Dr. Llorens
supported me with her expertise during my USC educational journey and has championed my
advancement in the educational field. I am forever grateful to her and for her friendship.
I am eternally grateful for my sister and editor-in-chief, Jean Ferrara-Cordova, who ran
the race alongside me and missed a couple of birthday celebrations along the way. You are a
fierce educational leader. Special thanks, to my dear friend and colleague Shelly Yarbrough.
Both Jean and Shelly are dedicated educational leaders. Together they eloquently demonstrate
the art of engaging in educational conversations that are riveting. These two ladies are a joy to
be around!
I give grand thanks to my husband Robert, mother Jennie, brother Jeff, family, extended
family and friends. Thank you for your generosity of spirit and forgiveness toward me for not
being available many days and nights when I studied and wrote this paper. Justine, you were the
best study buddy an aunt could ever ask for! To my brother Joe, I channeled your sudden
departure during my USC journey into positive energy. I will always strive to make you proud!

Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
Abstract 10
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 11
Introduction 11
Background of the Problem 12
Statement of the Problem 16
Purpose of the Study 16
Research Questions 17
Importance of the Study 17
Limitations and Delimitations 18
Definition of the Terms 19
Organization of the Study 23
Chapter Two: Literature Review 24
Introduction 24
Educational Leaders Drive Integrative Curriculum 25
Constructivism 25
The Gary Plan 29
The Baldrige in Education Initiative 31
21st
Century Leadership 35
21st
Century Integrated STEM Education 37
Implementation 40
K-12 Educational Pipeline 41
The Middle Connection in the Pipeline 44
Transformational Leadership 47
Diffusion of Innovations 48
Application 49
Human Capital Theory and Externalities 51
Application 52
Conclusion 53
Chapter Three: Methodology 54
Introduction 54
Research Design 55
Sample and Population 57
Instrumentation 58
Interview and Observation Data 58
Data Collection 59
Validity and Reliability 59
Data Analysis 60
Analysis and Coding 60
Ethical Considerations 62
Summary 63

Chapter Four: Results 64
Introduction 64
Data Collection 64
Research Findings Pertaining to Research Question One 67
Conclusion: Research Question One 70
Research Findings Pertaining to Research Question Two 71
Principal #1- Implementation Process 71
Planning Stages 71
New school name 74
Student entry 74
Electives 74
Marketing 75
Supportive environment 76
Key Players 76
Administrators 76
The leadership team 76
Data 77
Master schedule 78
Monitoring 78
Adjustments 79
Challenges 79
Staffing, Resources, Funding, Communication 80
Staffing 80
Resources 80
Funding 80
Communication 80
Classroom Observations: A, B, and C 81
Observation A 81
Integrated Classroom Environment 81
Classroom description 81
Technology available 81
Lesson 81
Materials 81
Integrated STEM Instruction 82
Technology used 82
Strategies 82
Student interest 82
STEM integration 82
Observation B 82
Lesson 83
Materials 83

Technology used 83
Strategies 83
Student interest 83
STEM integration 84
Observation C 84
Lesson 84
Materials 84
Technology used 84
Strategies 84
Student interest 85
STEM integration 85
Conclusion: Interview and Observations 85
Principal #2 - Implementation Process 86
Planning Stages 87
Master schedule 89
STEM teachers 89
Teacher training 90
Curriculum 90
Integration 91
Failure 91
Collaborative culture 91
Business partnerships 92
Key Players 92
Leadership team 92
Data 93
Monitoring 94
Initiatives 94
Changes 94
Student Performance 95
Adjustments 95
Improve integration 95
Challenges 96
Financial, Demographics, Sixth Grade 96
Financial 96
Demographics 96
Sixth Grade 96
Classroom Observations: D and E 96
Observation D 97

Lesson 97
Materials 97
Technology used 97
Strategies 97
Student interest 98
STEM integration 98
Observation E 98
Lesson 98
Materials 99
Technology used 99
Strategies 99
Student interest 99
STEM integration 99
Principal #3 - Implementation Process 100
Planning Stages 102
Magnet theme 103
Design and innovation 103
Culture 104
Engagement and discipline 104
Funding 105
Donations 105
Key Players 105
Founding faculty 105
Steering committee 105
Curricular leads 105
Data 106
Monitoring 106
Adjustments 107
Challenges 107
Classroom Observations: F, G, H, and I 107
Observation F 108
Lesson 108
Materials 108
Technology used 108
Strategies 108
Student interest 108

STEM integration 109
Observation G 109
Lesson 109
Materials 109
Technology used 109
Strategies 109
Observation H 109
Lesson 110
Materials 110
Technology used 110
Strategies 110
Observation I 110
Lesson 110
Materials 110
Technology used 111
Strategies 111
Conclusion: Research Question Two 112
Research Findings Pertaining to Research Question Three 114
Principal #1 115
Essential Factors 115
Staff, support, autonomy 115
Communication 115
Funding 115
Additional factors 116
Effective STEM Integration 116

Principal #2 117
WiFi 117
Space 117
Staff 117
Principal #3 118
Staff 118
Conclusion: Research Question Three 119
Summary and Discussion Findings 120
Chapter Five: Conclusions 123
Key Findings 125
Interviews 125
Interviews and Observations 126
Integrated STEM Classroom 127
Essential Factors Common to each School Site 128
Limitations 130
Implications for Practice 130
Recommendations for Principals 131
Recommendations for Future Research 132
Conclusion 133
References 134
Appendix A: Initial Contact with Principals 146
Appendix B: IRB Approval 149
Appendix C: University of Southern California 150
Rossier School of Education Principal Information Sheet
Appendix D: Middle School STEM Integration Study 152
Middle School Principal Interview Protocol
Appendix E: University of Southern California 155
Rossier School of Education Teacher Information Sheet
Appendix F: Middle School STEM Integration Study 157
Middle School Classroom Observation Protocol
Appendix G: STEM Curriculum Scope & Sequence 161
Appendix H: Sixth Grade Program Description School Brochure 162
Appendix I: Seventh and Eighth Grade Program Description 163
School Brochure
Appendix J: Course Descriptions 164
Appendix K: Egg Drop Apparatus 166

Abstract
Forecasting the future global economy places requirements on the United States to focus
developing a work force that is knowledgeable and astute in the areas of science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM). President Obama recognized the need to increase the
capacity within our educational system to make the leap necessary to address STEM for all and
close the educational achievement gap in the United States. The purpose of this study is to gain
an understanding of the middle school principal’s perspective regarding the essential factors
needed when implementing integrative STEM in middle school. The methodologies of
qualitative research, in the form of interviews with three middle school principals who have
implemented STEM integration and observations which followed each interview, were used for
the purpose of answering the research questions: 1. What do principals understand about the
importance of STEM integration? 2. How do principals describe implementing an integrated
STEM program at their school site and what does the implementation look like in the classroom?
3. What do principals perceive to be essential factors, and of them, which do they feel are the
most crucial when implementing an integrated STEM program? The interviews and observations
provided insight and understanding of the importance middle school plays as the connector in the
K-12 educational pipeline. The results indicated: the importance of passionate, innovative,
transformational leadership; leaders who are knowledgeable and aware that a supportive staff is a
key ingredient in the success of an integrative STEM program; the importance of district support
when implementing integrated STEM; and an integrative STEM program that provides access to
meaningful learning opportunities for all students is not a one-size-fits-all program.
Keywords: integrative STEM education, K-12 educational pipeline, Transformational
Leader

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF STUDY
Introduction
For the ongoing success of 21st
century educational reform, it is imperative for educators
to recognize that connections to real life within the curricula are critical components to support
student learning (Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation, 2014). Furthermore,
developing critical thinkers who are self-motivated, innovative, interested, work cooperatively,
develop creativity, have a desire to learn, and a sense of community are essential ingredients in
the reform of our educational system as well (Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014; Kaluf &
Rogers, 2011). To be prepared for the job market that awaits them, it is essential for students to
be exposed to these ingredients throughout their K-12 educational experience and beyond.
Forecasting the future global economy places requirements on the United States educational
system to focus on developing a work force that is knowledgeable and astute in the areas of
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) (National Research Council, 2015;
Nugent, Kunz, Rilett, & Jones, 2010).
President Obama surmises the United States’ role as a leader of nations in the fields of
scientific discovery and technological innovation by meeting the challenges of the 21st
century.
Challenges such as health care, developing environmentally safe energy sources and cures for
various diseases require STEM skills (The White House, 2009). To sustain world-class status,
America’s STEM work force must be able to bring solutions to 21st
century challenges.
President Obama states, “Success on these fronts will require improving STEM literacy for all
students; expanding the pipeline for a strong and innovative STEM workforce; and greater focus
on opportunities and access for groups such as women and underrepresented minorities”
(National Research Council, 2015; The White House, 2009). President Obama recognized the

need to increase the capacity within the educational system to accomplish intentional outcomes
such as job growth in STEM fields, an increase in the number of students pursuing STEM
degrees and maintaining the United States’ leadership role in science and technology. He
acknowledged the responsibility agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF),
Department of Education (DOE), and National Institutes of Health (NIH) play in providing a
pathway for students to participate in higher education (California Department of Education,
2013; The White House, 2014). This aforementioned focus on STEM initiatives, affords
educational institutions opportunities to receive federal government support to improve their
organizational capacity and develop strategies to expand educational avenues for students.
Background of the Problem
Under the direction of President John F. Kennedy, STEM initiatives in school curriculum
took root in 1961 during the era of lunar exploration (Asunda, 2011). STEM initiatives
resurfaced in 2009 when President Obama prioritized the need to rejuvenate innovations in
STEM education for all students to be able to compete with the best educational systems in the
world. President Obama followed through in 2011 by pledging to prepare 100,000 STEM
teachers by the end of the decade, 2021 (Asunda, 2011). This pledge supported the National
Science Board’s (2007) highlight of the nation needing 2.2 million new teachers in K-12 schools
and community education settings over the next decade.
Following this pledge, colleges began preparing teacher education programs that focused
on STEM education collaborating with individual STEM discipline programs to develop
certification programs (National Science Board, 2007). Such programs are preparing pre-service
teachers to become K-12 STEM instructors using curriculum integration (Sanders, 2009). With
these programs in place it becomes imperative for school districts and leaders to implement K-12

integrative STEM initiatives ready for certificated teachers to commandeer. Additionally,
STEM-based understanding and experience that prepare learners beyond the classroom are of
imminent need, as today’s STEM education students are tomorrow’s leaders in science,
technology, engineering, mathematics, and education (Prabhu, 2009). Researchers have noted it
is imperative that educational institutions extend activities to students related to life and society
in order to stimulate an innovative and critical scientific awareness (Californians Dedicated to
Education Foundation, 2014; National Research Council, 2015; Rocas, Gonzalez, & Araujo,
2009).
In the Executive Report to the President, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science
and Technology (PCAST) highlighted the importance of STEM education for the United States
to remain a leader among nations and to solve the immense challenges in the areas of energy,
health, environmental protection and national security (The White House, 2010). A specific
PCAST recommendation was “the creation of at least 200 new highly-STEM-focused high
schools and 800 STEM-focused elementary and middle schools over the next decade, including
many serving minority and high-poverty communities” (The White House, 2010).
In spite of the growing number of specialized STEM high schools, student access is not widely
available, in part, because access to STEM schools is geographically uneven (Subotnik,
Edmiston, and Rayhack, 2007). Only 27 out of 50 states offer STEM programs such as regional
centers, magnet schools, governor schools, or exam schools. A select few of these states have
five or more programs: Georgia (eight schools), Maryland (five schools), Michigan (ten schools),
Virginia (nine schools), New Jersey (eight schools), and New York (seven schools). Many other
states with similar population sizes do not offer any such STEM educational opportunities.

Given the push to create additional schools, it appears imperative that “best practice” with regard
to specialized STEM high schools be identified in a scientifically robust manner (Scott, 2012).
Research indicates an increase in the number of STEM schools over the past decade;
however, it is inconclusive which of these schools is most effective and for whom (Scott, 2012;
Subnotinik, Kolar, Olszewski-Kublius, & Cross, 2010). Additionally, in a study of ten STEM
High Schools, where two out of ten schools admitted all student applicants using a lottery
system, (Scott, 2012) their student population was comprised of a higher number of non-white
students compared to other STEM schools in the United States. The significance of this study
was the findings indicating when given the opportunity and support many students are able to
successfully complete rigorous STEM academic programs that go beyond the basic graduation
requirements (Scott, 2012).
STEM education offers students opportunities to view the world from a broadened
perspective and prepares them for jobs in a domestic and foreign economy (National Research
Council, 2015). Studies show implementing an integrated STEM educational program will
demonstrate to students how science, technology, engineering, and mathematics can overlap in
the real world (Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation, 2014; National Research
Council, 2015; National Science Teacher Association, 2008). An example of successful STEM
integration may be observed when teachers in mathematics and science disciplines co-teach in
the same room or share ideas to integrate content with real life themes while embedding good
practices across both subjects (McCulloch & Ernst, 2012; Roehrig, Moore, Wang, & Park,
2012). Furthermore, research shows various K-12 engineering programs, such as Project Lead
the Way (PLTW) and Engineering Projects in Community Service (EPICS), have had a positive
impact on student awareness, focus, and perseverance in engineering, as well as, on helping

students develop a sense of engineering thought patterns that assist them with mathematics,
science, and technology (Berland, 2013; Kelley, Brenner, & Pieper, 2010; Nathan et al, 2013;
Roger, Wendell, & Foster, 2010; Zarske, Yowell, Ringer, Sullivan, & Quinones, 2012).
Despite these advances, national test scores have suggested that many students in the
United States finish the middle grades underprepared in STEM subjects. Examples of this
decline are reflected on the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) science
test, where 41% of eighth graders scored below basic level (National Center for Educational
Statistics, 2006) and 29% of eighth graders scored below basic on the 2007 NAEP mathematics
test (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2007). The National Science Board (2007)
stressed the urgency of investigating these deficiencies. Data supports a change needed by
teachers to reinforce the 21st
century student’s learning approaches (National Research Council,
2015; National Research Council, 2013; National Research Council, 2011). An important
question to be addressed is, “If teachers do not begin to teach differently then how can we expect
students to gain an interest in STEM?” STEM teachers have reported that student’s interests
have directly influenced their instruction (Nathan, Tran, Atwood, Prevost, & Phelps, 2010).
Gaining and sustaining the 21st
century student’s interest in STEM to produce highly qualified
learners ready for the global economy requires research, conversation, and then action.
The goal of this study was to examine middle school principals’ perspective regarding the
essential factors needed when implementing integrative STEM programs at this level. This will
in turn inform future implementation practices with the hope of building educational pathways
within the K-12 pipeline for students to access and gain knowledge. Findings show that
student’s gained knowledge through integrated STEM, incorporated with learned critical

thinking skills, can be useful for job entry and serve well for overall life-long decision-making
(Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014).
Statement of the Problem
A cluster of research indicated young people are ill prepared for college level STEM
coursework (California Department of Education, 2013; National Research Council, 2011; The
White House, 2010). This placed requirements on the United States educational system to focus
on developing a work force knowledgeable and proficient in the area of STEM for the United
States to maintain its leadership role in the global economy (Nugent, Kunz, Rilett & Jones,
2010).
Since President Obama pledged in 2011 to prepare 100,000 STEM teachers by the end of
the decade (Asunda, 2011) colleges have been ignited to prepare certificated teacher education
programs focused on STEM education (National Science Board, 2007). This now placed the
onus on school district leaders to implement K-12 integrative STEM programs ready for
STEM- focused certificated teachers to commandeer (National Research Council, 2011).
There is limited research regarding the ingredients necessary for a sustained middle
school integrated STEM program. Therefore, more can be learned about the role leaders play in
the organization when implementing an integrated STEM program at a middle school site. This
includes knowing the leader’s philosophy for supporting teachers and students with integrated
approaches to STEM education (National Research Council, 2015).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to gain an understanding of the essential factors needed
when middle school principals are implementing an innovative integrated STEM program. The
following questions guided this study.

Research Questions
• What do principals understand about the importance of STEM integration?
• How do principals describe implementing integrated STEM at their school site and what
does the implementation look like in the classroom?
• What do principals perceive to be essential factors, and of them, which do they feel are
the most crucial when implementing an integrated STEM program?
The results of this research may shorten the time required to execute a comprehensive
integrative STEM program in middle schools across the country in support of the 21st
century
educational reform movement and student access to these initiatives within the K-12
pipeline.
Importance of the Study
The significance of this study was to address the urgency in the nation’s educational
system for the implementation of K-12 STEM integration as a response to fortifying the
workforce needed to maintain the nation’s leadership role in science and technology
(Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation, 2014; National Science and Technology
Council, 2013). The intent of this research was to provide knowledge and identification of
essential factors that influence STEM implementation at the middle school level. Unpacking the
results of the qualitative research may identify qualities leaders use to implement a
comprehensive integrated STEM initiative. This information may be useful as a blueprint for
other middle school leaders as they look to implement an integrative STEM program (National
Research Council, 2011).

Limitations and Delimitations
The limitations of this study include results that may not be generalizable beyond the
specific population from which the sample was drawn due to the sample size of this study. Non-
generalizable results leave room to further analyze the role of principals, as institutional agents,
in the success of middle school STEM integration.
The following assumptions guided the development and administration of the study.
1. Cooperating organizations provided access to individuals with training and/or experience
in STEM content and methodology.
2. Cooperating organizations provided a cross-section of potential participants in STEM
integration from the middle school setting.
3. Cooperating organizations provided access to principals and their STEM teacher staff
with implementation levels ranging from partial implementation to full implementation.
4. Respondent’s answers were accurate and honest.
5. A heterogeneous, purposeful, and nonprobability sampling method was chosen to provide
an opportunity to collect data regarding essential factors to STEM implementation in the
middle school setting of a diverse nature.
The study was strategically limited to middle school principals who initiated integrated
STEM programs at their school sites. The leaders involved in this study each provided the
researcher with access to any information pertinent to the research that would hopefully propel
the evolution of the integrated STEM movement. The teaching staff solicited from several of
these middle school organizations had previous experience with integrated methods. The study
utilized qualitative responses.

Definition of Terms
The following terms were used throughout the study as defined by cited references and
were the author’s intended meaning in this study.
Change Agent: The leader with ability to stimulate change in an organization by
analyzing the organization’s need for change, isolating, and eliminating structures and routines
that work against change, creating a shared vision and sense of urgency, implanting plans and
structures that enable change, and foster open communication (Sosik & Dionne, 1997; Marzano,
McNulty, Waters, 2005).
Critical Thinking: Involving use of logical thinking and reasoning (Teacher Tap, 2011).
Critical Thinking Skills: Involving use of comparison, classification, sequencing,
cause/effect, patterning, webbing, analogies, deductive and inductive reasoning, forecasting,
planning, hypothesizing, and critiquing (Teacher Tap, 2011).
Curriculum Integration: A curriculum design that is concerned with enhancing the
possibilities for personal and social integration through the organization of curriculum around
significant problems and issues, collaboratively identified by educators and young people,
without regard for subject-area boundaries (Beane, 1997).
Diffusion of Innovations: The process in which an innovation is communicated through
certain channels over time among the members of a social system and includes planned and
spontaneous spread of new ideas. It is a special type of communication, in that the messages are
concerned with new ideas. This newness of the idea in the content gives diffusion its special
character and a degree of uncertainty. Uncertainty implies a lack of predictability, structure, and
information. When a new idea is adopted or rejected this leads to certain consequences
establishing social change (Rogers, 2003).

Part one: The Diffusion of Innovations process occurs within a sequence of four stages (Rogers,
2003):
1. Innovation takes place. When individuals perceive an innovation holds advantages and
compatibilities, is able to pass a trial of tests, and is observed as non-complex, it most likely will
be adopted.
2. Communication develops through channels. The technical grasp of the innovation must be the
same message given through the channels to all receivers.
3. Time is the period it takes to communicate the innovation.
4. Getting the members of a social system on board is Stage four.
Part two: After communicating the innovation through channels, there are five adopter
categories (Rogers, 2003):
1. Fellow Innovators - are consistently interested in new ideas and embody a venturous spirit.
2. Early Adopters - believe in the innovation more then fellow innovators.
3. Early Majority - invest in the innovation if the Early Adopter does.
4. Late Majority - are the skeptics.
5. Laggards - are the last to adopt an innovation because they are suspicious of new ideas.
Differentiated Classroom: In a differentiated classroom setting a teacher provides
different avenues to the content (information taught), the process (activities for understanding),
and the products (demonstrated learning) in response to the readiness levels, interests, and
learning profiles of the full range of academic diversity in the class (Beane, 1997; California
Department of Education, 2014).
Diversity: The state of having people who are of different races or different cultures in a
group or organization (Merriam-Webster, 2015).
Externalities: Economic benefits derived by society when people make investments in
themselves which may include direct benefits to health, longevity, reduced poverty, lower crime
rates, lower public welfare, prison costs, environmental sustainability, contributions to
happiness, social capital, effects from new ideas as a result of research, democracy, human
rights, and political stability over a period of time (Almendarez, 2010; Eide & Showalter, 2010;

McMahon, 2010; Sweetland, 1996).
Human capital theory (HCT): The investment each person makes in one’s self, provides
a benefit for them in the form of higher earnings, well being, or anything of value to them (Eide
& Showalter, 2010).
Innovation: Any idea, practice or object that is humanly perceived as new is known as an
innovation (Rogers, 2003).
Institutional Agent An individual who occupies one or more hierarchical positions of
relatively high-status and authority. Such an individual, situated in an adolescent’s social
network, manifests his or her potential role as an institutional agent, when, on behalf of the
adolescent, he or she acts to directly transmit, or negotiate the transmission of, highly valued
resources (Stanton-Salazar, 2011).
Integrate: To unite with something else (Merriam-Webster, 2015).
Integrative STEM education: Technological/engineering design-based learning
approaches that intentionally integrate the concepts and practices of science and/or mathematics
education with the concepts and practices of technology and engineering education. Integrative
STEM education may be enhanced through further integration with other school subjects, such as
language arts, social studies, art, etc. (Sanders & Wells, 2006).
K-12 Educational Pipeline: A series of successive transitions in standards based
education from kindergarten through the completion of high school (Ewell, Jones, & Kelly,
2003).
Problem-Based Learning or Project-Based Learning: The fundamental difference
between project and problem-based learning, noted by Savery (2006), was the learning outcome.
While project-based learning focused on a final product such as an artifact, model, presentation,

or performance, problem-based learning focused on processes used to address a given problem.
Though differing in application, these pedagogical approaches both used student-centered and
teacher-facilitated instruction in which students work, individually or in teams, to learn self-
directed problem-solving skills along with real-world application of subject matter (Barron et al.,
1998; Beane, 1997).
Pedagogy: The art, science, or profession of teaching (Merriam-Webster, 2015).
Provost: an official of high rank at a university (Merriam-Webster, 2015).
Qualitative: Data conveyed through words (Merriam, 2009).
Real-life: Happening in the real world, rather then in a story (Merriam-Webster, 2015).
School Culture: Refers to the beliefs, perceptions, relationships, attitudes, and written
and unwritten rules that shape and influence every aspect of how a school functions. The term
also encompasses more concrete issues such as the physical and emotional safety of students, the
orderliness of classrooms and public spaces, and the degree to which a school embraces and
celebrates racial, ethnic, linguistic, or cultural diversity (Edglossary.org, 2015).
STEM Literacy: An individual’s conceptual understandings along with procedural skills
and abilities used to address STEM-related personal, social, and global issues (Bybee, 2010).
Transformational Leader: A successful organizational leader is a change agent or
transformational leader who creates lasting change in an organization (Marzano, McNulty, &
Waters, 2005).
21st
Century Leadership: 21st century leaders who inspire others to alter their thoughts
and actions, in alignment with an empowering vision (Strock, 2013).

Organization of the Study
This study begins with an overview in Chapter One with the intent of exposing the
urgency for reform within our K-12 educational system if the United States is to maintain its
leadership role in the 21st
century global economy. The review of literature provided in Chapter
Two supports the importance of this study and the unequivocal need for reform within our
educational system. This chapter is divided into five sections which reviews curriculum
integration and educational leadership; examines the importance of the leader’s role in
curriculum integration; reviews the application of economic and educational research; critiques
the effectiveness the components of integrated STEM initiatives have within the K-12
educational pipeline; and finally includes the definition of the diffusion of innovation and a
discussion of its application along with the application of Human Capital Theory and
externalities in conjunction with integrated STEM implementation.
Chapter Three describes the methodology of this qualitative case study and the
conceptual model used to develop the research questions, data collection instruments, and
determination of validity. Chapter Four gives a description of the chosen schools and the
findings in relation to the research questions. Finally, Chapter Five provides an analysis of the
collected data and discusses the implications and recommendations based on study findings.

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Within our educational system, we have experienced a metamorphosis of the term
“school reform” since its inception in the 19th
century and rebirth in the 20th
century. School
reform and student improvement continue to be an ongoing topic of discord; however, the
question facing the educational profession today is how to take the reform idea and manifest it
into transitional growth within our present day schools for enhancing the student experience.
The 21st
century reform movement must be elevated to meet the needs of today’s diverse student
population.
As educational stakeholders look with urgency to embrace the most current movement
for student improvement, it is incumbent for them to recognize and acknowledge that the old
model, in its original form, may no longer be applicable because the population it once served no
longer fully exists. Research shows that today’s students require different learning approaches
than our educational system was originally designed to output (Prensky, 2011). Meeting the
needs of all students must be a priority for the stakeholders in the wake of the 21st
century school
reform, along with recognizing the need for implementation to be a process and not an event
(California Department of Education Foundation, 2014; National Research Council, 2015).
This literature review examines contributions from the Diffusion of Innovations
framework and the Human Capital Theory (HCT). Externalities as essential components for
implementing an effective kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-12) integrated STEM program
are also examined. This chapter is divided into the following five sections. First, a review of
curriculum integration, as well as, the educational leaders who are driving it to improve the
capacity for all learners and the need to implement integrative STEM programs will be

examined. Second, an examination of the importance of a leader’s role in curriculum integration
will be presented. Third, the implementation of innovative integrated STEM programs will be
reviewed in relation to the application of economic and educational research. Fourth, a critique
of the effectiveness the components of integrated STEM programs have within the K-12
educational pipeline will be discussed. Fifth, a theoretical perspective, which includes a
definition of the Diffusion of Innovation and its’ benefits is placed into context. The review
concludes with a discussion of the application of Diffusion of Innovation, HCT, and externalities
in conjunction with integrated STEM implementation in the K-12 educational pipeline.
Educational Leaders Drive Integrative Curriculum
A pathway for curriculum integration was forged in the 19th
century. It has since taken
root in education through initiatives such as Constructivism, The Gary Plan, and The Malcolm
Baldrige National Quality Model. The pioneers of these programs addressed the people of the
nation through their innovative efforts. Nationally, curriculum should be written to comprise
issues related to real life experiences in the lives of people (Beane, 1997). It should address their
needs, interests, problems, and concerns as they see them; contribute to the common good of
society as a whole; bring all young people together in a democratic experience; value personal
and social significance of all ages, and celebrate the definition of the word diversity (Beane,
1997; Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation, 2014; Palincsar, 1998; Robinson, 2011;
Rocas, Gonzalez, & Arajuo, 2009).
Constructivism
Constructivism as a theory of knowledge argues that humans generate knowledge and
meaning from an interaction between their experiences and ideas. Although knowledge in one
sense is personal and individual the National Science Teacher Association (2008) supports

constructivism as a theory of knowledge by giving examples of how learners construct their
knowledge through their interaction with the physical world, collaboratively in social settings,
and in a cultural and linguistic environment. The end of the 19th
century delivered constructivist
ideas largely via the avenues of cognitive and social behaviors. The core ideas constructivists
agreed on were that knowledge must be assembled by the learner because learners hold the
existing ideas, therefore, teachers should not transmit knowledge to the learner thus impeding
their self discovery (Taber, 2006). Knowledge is represented in the brain as conceptual
structures that can be modeled and described with details. Learners bring superficial or
satisfactorily developed existing ideas about a multitude of occurrences to their learning
domains. The learner’s ideas are often accepted, shared, and become part of language in society.
This is observable through supportive metaphors used in the culture. The learner’s ideas also
function well as a tool kit to support the understanding of various phenomena.
Teachers have an obligation to take the learner's ideas seriously and help them make
adjustments to challenges and changes; recognize that learning should not be imposed on the
learner, instead allowing the learner to experience acquired knowledge. During student
knowledge acquisition they have the ability to discover, transform, and cross reference
information, as well as, revise rules when they no longer apply (Loyens, Rikers, & Schmidt,
2007). This constructivist view of learning supported by the National Science Teacher
Association (2008), considers the learner as an active agent in the process of knowledge
acquisition.
Learning is a process that requires self-regulation and conceptual development through
reflection and interpretation (Blumenfeld, 1992; Von Glasersfeld, 1995). The key to successful
learning in school and beyond (Boekaerts, 1999) is the ability to regulate one’s own learning.

Learners who use their meta-cognitive ability in conjunction with motivation to achieve goal
setting, self-observation, self-assessment, or self-reinforcement are practicing self-regulated
processes en route to becoming self–regulated learners (Zimmerman, 1990). Elaboration, an
additional metacognitive process, allows the learner to build upon prior knowledge while
incorporating interest and motivation (Forbes, Duke, & Prosser, 2001). The student also learns
through the conventions of discussion and explanation, asking and answering questions, and the
ability to create analogies (Weinstein & Mayer, 1983). No matter the learning style, educational
leaders driving the implementation of K-12 integrated STEM programs must put in place
opportunities for students to indulge in complex problem solving similar to ones they may
confront in future professions and authentic real-life situations (Californians Dedicated to
Education Foundation, 2014; California Department of Education, 2014; National Research
Council, 2015).
Complex problems serve as a challenge to the learner’s reasoning skills, problem-solving
ability, and organized learning patterns (White & Frederiksen, 2005), while developing an
understanding of subject matter. The intent is for the learner’s ideas to mirror the way an
experienced professional would generate and use knowledge in the work place (Blumenfeld,
1992). The more learning experiences mirror professional situations, the more plausible transfer
of knowledge will occur since authentic problems become fully clear for learners during
encounters with real-life situations (Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation, 2014;
Loyens, Rikers, & Schmidt, 2007; National Research Council, 2015). Migrating between
authentic and abstract reasoning is a skill for many disciplines including those of integrated
STEM education. The flexibility to allow students to experience both processing skills is

paramount to their ability to grasp concepts and take on new challenges (National Research
Council, 2015).
A significant challenge to social constructivism is promoting meaningful learning
environments and educational opportunities for all children, inclusive of those linguistically and
culturally diverse (Beane, 1997; Palincsar, 1998). Sanders (2012) reports K-12 integrative
STEM learning outcomes encompass constructivist core ideas, knowledge construction,
cooperative learning, self-regulation, and the use of authentic problems. These skills enable
students to demonstrate integrative STEM knowledge and practices. Students also effectively
use grade-appropriate STEM concepts and practices for designing, making, and evaluating
solutions to authentic problems (Sanders, 2012; The National Science Teacher Association,
2008). They further demonstrate STEM-related attitudes and dispositions after one or more
semesters in a K-12 integrative STEM program (Sanders, 2012).
Cooperative learning, which covers social interactions with fellow students and teachers,
contributes to the construction of knowledge (Steffe & Gale, 1995) and is of the utmost
importance for the learner to experience. Constructivists share the idea that cooperative learning
promotes social negotiation and interaction (Greeno, 1998), which is important to building
integrated knowledge in STEM education. Social interaction among students allows them to
communicate their level of understanding and ideas about subject matter and permits discussions
to be used as an assessment of students’ prior knowledge (Slavin, 1996). These student
discussions provide direction regarding the extent of study needed to accomplish a deeper
understanding of the subject matter.
Overall, constructivism’s core ideas, which are also applicable to integrative STEM
education, result in the learner’s ability to engage in the process of attaining learned information

through integration of knowledge construction, cooperative learning, self-regulation, and the use
of authentic problems (Loyens, Rikers, & Schmidt, 2007). These are important aspects for
learning and promoting success (Greeno, 1998).
The Gary Plan
These aspects of constructivism incorporated with student’s ability to acquire more
hands-on and problem-based learning skills can successfully support the nations competitiveness
for the world of tomorrow. News and public policy agencies report keeping the nation
competitive for the world of tomorrow may be inhibited due to a lack of resources (Roberts,
Schreibr, & Scissors, 2012; Williams, 2011). These aforementioned concerns were discussed in
the early 1900’s, during a time when financial constraints and students’ lack of skills were major
anxieties throughout our country and continued as the United States entered the twentieth
century. In 1907, William Wirt, Superintendent of Schools in Gary Indiana addressed these
ongoing concerns with the creation and implementation of the “work-study-play” integrated
program known as The Gary Plan (Kaluf & Rogers, 2011; Volk, 2005).
Immediately after Wirt took office as superintendent, he began implementing an
educational reform plan based on his belief that public schools should instill positive family
values, work ethic, and improved productivity among urban students to produce efficient orderly
citizens in society (Kaluf & Rogers, 2011). Superintendent Wirt believed strongly in manual
arts, the predecessor to technology education (Kaluf & Rogers, 2011). His plan, an innovative
way to implement and encourage the use of manual arts in K-12 education, had students
participate in hands-on activities inclusive of problem solving and career-related skills needed to
continue the nation’s reign. Manual arts was part of the elementary curriculum giving students
the opportunity to become familiar with the industrial shops and practices by observing older

students at work in these shops (building, repairing, printing) during the school day (Kaluf &
Rogers, 2011; Volk, 2005). This was an inclusive curriculum where girls were also expected to
participate at their level of strength and ability (Kaluf & Rogers, 2011; Volk, 2005).
A product of The Gary Plan in K-12 education designed to improve technology education
programs was the creation of a differentiated classroom. In a differentiated classroom setting a
teacher provided different avenues to the content (information taught), the process (activities for
understanding), and the products (demonstrated learning) in response to the readiness levels,
interests, and learning profiles of the full range of academic diversity in the class (California
Department of Education, 2014). Differentiated learning can offer students an opportunity to
succeed at their ability level while participating in constructivist core ideas such as problem
solving, working collaboratively, and classroom projects developed to stimulate their learning
(Beane, 1997).
A classroom project referred to as either project- or problem-based learning is an
instructional approach, built upon authentic activities that engage student interest and motivation
to improve their educational outcomes (Barron et al., 1998; Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber,
2014; Savery, 2006). Authentic activities are designed to answer questions or solve problems by
reflecting on various learning and working experiences encountered in real life situations (Beane,
1997). Project-based learning has been successfully implemented in science, technology and
engineering classrooms to improve instruction, develop scientific inquiry skills, and use
engineering design processes (Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014). A study by Marx et al.
(2004) confirmed that project-based learning increases students’ test scores compared to
traditional practices.

The fundamental difference between project- and problem-based learning, noted by
Savery (2006), was the learning outcome. While project-based learning focused on a final
product such as an artifact, model, presentation, or performance; problem-based learning focused
on processes used to address a given problem. Though differing in application, these
pedagogical approaches both used student-centered and teacher-facilitated instruction in which
students work individually or in teams to learn self-directed problem-solving skills along with
real-world application of subject matter (Barron et al., 1998; Beane, 1997). These similar
approaches are rooted in constructivist core ideas (Savery & Duffy, 1995), which are also
fundamental when implementing a K-12 integrative STEM program. Research shows students
perception of their learning environment (versus their perception of the curriculum) greatly
affects how they cope with it, which is directly related to their learning results (Beane, 1997).
One of the demands placed on education today is to graduate more students who are able
to apply their knowledge to solve complex problems in a working context (California
Department of Education, 2014). Concepts in K-12 classrooms based on elements of The Gary
Plan inspire a balanced integrative STEM program. This plan includes active environmental
exploration, self and teacher directed hands-on learning activities, individual and group
activities, supportive interaction with teachers and !peers, and both active movement and
quiet !activities (Kaluf & Rogers, 2011). Since the ingredients in The Gary Plan equate to solving
complex problems in a working context, utilizing elements of the Gary Plan’s “work-study-play”
system may help teachers better prepare students to apply their knowledge to life situations.
The Baldrige in Education Initiative
Teachers who invest time preparing students to apply their knowledge to life situations,
within a school site supported by a mission and vision, promote awareness of performance

excellence. Performance excellence is foundational to The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
Improvement Act of 1987 written to honor quality in business (Walpole & Noeth, 2002). The
President of the United States furnishes The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award that
promotes awareness of performance excellence as an important element in competitiveness,
sharing successful performance strategies, and benefits gained from using such strategies
(Karathanos & Karathanos, 1996; Walpole & Noeth, 2002).
In 2010, The Baldrige Performance Excellence Program was established specifically to
focus on the quality of products, services, and customers. It also strategically placed a focus on
the overall organizational quality identified as performance excellence (Walpole & Noeth, 2002).
The Baldrige Performance Excellence Program, governed by the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), recognizes United States profit and non-profit organizations for
performance excellence in education, health and other sectors. The Education Criteria for
Performance Excellence is composed of eleven core values. These core values include:
Visionary Leadership; Learning-Centered Education; Organizational and Personal Learning;
Valuing Faculty, Staff, and Partners; Agility; Focus on The Future; Managing for Innovation;
Management by Fact; Public Responsibility and Citizenship; Focus on Results and Creating
Value; and Systems Perspective (Walpole & Noeth, 2002).
To attain the award many organizations, including those in education, have used
Deming’s Total Quality Management (TQM) tenets adopted during the 1980’s quality movement
decade (Marzano, McNulty, & Waters, 2005; Walpole & Noeth, 2002). TQM was predicated on
continuous improvement of work processes with fourteen tenets organized into five factors,
which specifically defined the actions of an effective leader. The five basic factors focused on
the process and long-term perspective of a quality organization led by an effective leader. These

factors included change agency, teamwork, continuous improvement, trust building, and
eradication of short-term goals (Marzano, McNulty, & Waters, 2005). Marzano, McNulty, &
Waters (2005) stated an effective leader helps establish the criteria for goals to be set and
participates in the design and implementation of them.
In 1998 several states, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, New Mexico, Ohio and Texas,
established The Baldrige in Education Initiative (BiE IN) (Walpole & Noeth, 2002). This was a
national initiative that sought to improve educational management and student achievement by
setting goals to establish an infrastructure composed of national leaders from both key business
and education organizations. These organizations were aligned to educational reform policies
and successful practices, and from states and communities with sustained long-term
improvement efforts (Walpole & Noeth, 2002). BiE IN addressed educator’s beliefs that
focusing on the five quality common core operational elements of teaching, learning,
administration, operations and personnel in schools greatly improves leadership, teaching and
learning (Blankstein, 1992; Bonstingl, 1992, 2001; Schmoker & Wilson, 1993).
Many BiE IN schools articulated how, along with leadership, it is critical to establish
leadership teams that support implementing strategies focused on improvements of core
processes with a long-term outlook (Walpole & Noeth, 2002). When teamwork is the norm, staff
members are continually learning, collaborating, and directing efforts toward meeting the needs
of students to ensure their learning. These schools highlighted the significance of planning and
establishing business partnerships that could provide resources such as facilities use, access to
technology, knowledge of quality principles, and assistance with training initiatives (Walpole &
Noeth, 2002).

Quality school leadership champions the framework for implementation, quality
improvements, and supporting staff and students during the process (Blankstein, 1992;
Bonstingl, 1992, 2001; Schmoker & Wilson, 1993). In the past, efforts to actually change the
teaching-learning process have been arduous and often unsuccessful because they have
typically lacked leadership decisions based upon data and analysis, knowledge of educational
institutions as interdependent systems, and the ability to change the culture of schools (Sarason,
1990). Additionally, changes in leadership can be a precursor for program failure in education
when decisions are made to replace one program with another. On the other hand, innovative
leaders who focus on school quality, which is Baldrige’s theme, have the ability to greatly
improve the teaching and learning environment (Blankstein, 1992; Bonstingl, 1992, 2001;
Schmoker & Wilson, 1993). Before considering a quality school improvement program, a
strategy held by innovative leaders is to ask strategic questions such as, “How will this program
benefit our organization?”
True education reform occurs when there is a systematic approach such as the framework
BiE IN provides (Schumacher, 2011). School districts in New Mexico, Tennessee, North
Carolina, New York, Florida and New Jersey have implemented the BiE IN framework. These
states reported that with a process in place to ensure continuous improvement based on
accountability to its stakeholders, successful systemic change readily occurs (Walpole & Noeth,
2002). There is value in the importance of those in leadership positions to embrace belief in a
quality educational system that supports innovation. Wilson & Collier (2000) used a causal
model to empirically investigate the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award criteria. The
results indicated that leadership drives system performance and these two elements, leadership
and organizations, result in business and customer satisfaction. Ultimately, leaders (the drivers)

and organizations (the systems) are dependent on each other. Schumacher (2011) noted, BiE IN
concepts of continuous improvement in education or life need to be embraced and implemented
for continued economic solvency.
21st
Century Leadership
The core principles of Constructivism, The Gary Plan, and The Baldrige in Education
Initiative are ready building blocks for an integrated STEM education program. Integrated
STEM education will survive the latest fad syndrome if the educational community recognizes
and embraces the need for continual improvement in teaching practices for present and future
generations of learners (National Research Council, 2015). Ultimately, an institutional agent’s
actions will contribute to the success or failure of integrated STEM education. An organization’s
leadership, coupled with teachers willing to explore the learning process, can make
implementing an integrated STEM program grow and flourish (California Department of
Education, 2014; National Research Council, 2015). Breiner (2011) suggested various strategies
that bode well for the success of an integrated STEM program. These suggested strategies are:
model real-life; integrate coursework in science and math to make explicit connections within
these disciplines; update teacher preparation programs requiring arts, sciences, and education
course collaboration; and train teachers to teach engineering design in K-12 by taking advantage
of existing programs such as Engineering Is Elementary or Project Lead the Way.
As organizations are led, they are not without imperfections and successfully assessing
them is a process. This process would include knowing desired outcomes and having a plan for
addressing obstacles along the journey. Organizational leaders must be able to make, implement,
and oversee decisions, as well as, reflect and create change for the good of the organization while
staying open to new possibilities (Baldridge, Julius, & Pfeffer, 1999). A successful

organizational leader is a change agent or transformational leader who creates lasting change in
an organization (Marzano, McNulty, & Waters, 2005). The transformational leader engages with
others in the organization and creates conversation that raises the level of motivation and
morality, while being attentive to helping them reach their fullest potential. A transformational
leader has the ability to build trust among constituents by responsibly sharing decision-making to
create a solid foundation within the organization. These abilities are key components to
accomplishing organizational change such as implementing an innovative integrative STEM
program in K-12 schools within the United States.
Overall for change to occur leaders are the driving force (National Research Council
2014; National Research Council, 2015). Leaders who are honest, fair, passionate in their
beliefs, and capable of making the hard decisions are proven change agents (Alexander, 2000).
Lasting change will take effect when leaders do more than manage a group of people (Olsen,
2000). A key responsibility leaders face is the need to sustain working relationships in the
organization. According to Marzano, McNulty, & Waters (2005) establishing effective
relationships is critically important because these relationships have a direct effect on the
execution of many responsibilities held by other members of the organization. The
transformational leader is capable of producing results beyond expectations primarily because
they place a focus on relationship building (Marzano, McNulty, & Waters, 2005).
A transformational leader inspires followers to change expectations, perceptions, and
motivations to work toward common goals with shared decision-making, coveting unified
discussions, and legitimizing decisions by consensus (National Research Council, 2015; Riggio,
2009). Conversations lead to consensus on implementing tactics for the improved growth and
benefit of the entire organization. Leaders demonstrate valuing their employees by supporting

and empowering them to be decision-makers, communicating the vision and goals, inspecting
what is expected, ensuring a positive learning experience for all, and celebrating successes
regularly (National Research Council, 2015). A key aspect of a transformational leader is
empowerment.
To meet the challenges of the 21st
century, transformational leadership skills are
necessary for school principals (Marzano, McNulty, & Waters, 2005). School principals have
different avenues that can be used to acquire skills for practicing their craft and layering their
leadership style with personal beliefs and values (Hudson, English, Dawes, & Macri, 2012).
Bass and Avolio (1994) have identified four specific skills that characterize the behavior of
transformational leaders: individual consideration, intellectual stimulation by allowing people to
be innovative, inspirational motivation with high performance expectation from a dynamic
invigorating leader, and ideal influence from demonstrated exemplary behavior through personal
achievements and overall character. For sustainability, transformational leaders must be focused
on cultivating an environment that asks important questions and gives rise to finding solutions to
improve the learning process (National Research Council, 2015).
21st
Century Integrated STEM Education
Educational leaders should have an understanding of how students learn within the
context of their school’s culture when they are embarking on implementing an integrated STEM
program. Learning theories have been around since the 19th
century. Now that we are in the 21st
century, it appears imminent that our educational leaders explore how they can initiate early
innovative (Rogers, 2003) implementation of an integrated STEM program for sustainability
(National Research Council, 2015).

In the 1990’s members of the NSF originally used the acronym SMET, then decided
SMET would not be as pleasant an acronym to say or remember as STEM (Sanders, 2009).
Once this acronym was in place the introduction of STEM Education to the nation was
underway. Dr. Bybee (2010), an acknowledged curriculum developer and researcher for the
science educational community, recognized a need to define the purpose of STEM education and
stressed that this topic involves the integration of STEM disciplines as interrelated and
complimentary components.
Bybee (2010) introduced and defined the term STEM literacy as “the conceptual
understandings and procedural skills and abilities for individuals to address STEM-related
personal, social, and global issues”. Implementing integrative STEM instruction and various
complementary components throughout the K-12 curriculum has the potential for greatly
increasing the percentage of learners interested in STEM subjects and fields, maintaining
learners’ interest throughout elementary, middle, and high school years, and adding significance
to American education, culture, and global competitiveness.
Research indicates Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) in
Blacksburg, Virginia led the nation by introducing Integrative STEM Education college courses
for graduate and undergraduate levels in Fall, 2007 (Sanders, 2009). Recognizing the potential
positive impact an integrated STEM program can have in the educational pipeline, The Virginia
Tech faculty discussed at great length what the meaning of Integrative STEM Education would
signify and established the following definition.
“ Integrative STEM education refers to technological/engineering design-based learning approaches that
intentionally integrate the concepts and practices of science and/or mathematics education with the concepts and
practices of technology and engineering education. Integrative STEM education may be enhanced through further
integration with other school subjects, such as language arts, social studies, art, etc.” (Sanders & Wells, 2006).

The Integrative STEM Education graduate program was designed to encourage and
prepare STEM educators from kindergarten through higher education (K-HE) and train
administrators to explore and implement integrative alternatives as opposed to traditionally
teaching separate STEM subjects. The coursework maintained a focus on integrative approaches
to STEM education by offering foundations, pedagogies, curriculum, research, and contemporary
issues of each STEM discipline merged with ideas, procedures, and instructional materials
(Sanders, 2009). Integrative STEM Education courses also included approaches that explored
teaching and learning between any two or more of the STEM subject areas, and/or, between a
STEM subject and one or more other school subjects. Successful completion of Integrative
STEM Education coursework prepares and enables educators to better understand and integrate
complementary content and process from STEM disciplines other than their own (Beane, 1997;
Rogers, 2010; Sanders, 2009).
As educators are prepared to better understand and integrate complementary content and
process from STEM disciplines other than their own, the pedagogy taught used a tactic similar to
project-based or problem-based instruction referred to as Purposeful Design and Inquiry (PD&I).
This pedagogy intentionally combines technological design with scientific inquiry engaging the
learners, individually and as teams, to problem-solve in the context of technology (Sanders,
2009). Sanders (2009) described how a problem-based learning design challenge, as taught in
technology and engineering education, intentionally spotlights scientific inquiry and
mathematical applications in the context of technological designing and problem solving. This
problem-based learning design challenge emulates the design and scientific inquiry routinely
used in the engineering of solutions for real-world problems (Beane, 1997; National Research
Council, 2015; Sanders, 2009).

Implementation
There are various ways integrative STEM can be implemented in the United States
educational system. Some scenarios include, STEM educators implementing integrative
approaches within their own STEM discipline(s), others may begin working together across
disciplines in pairs or teams. Dyer, Gregersen, & Christensen (2011) support the concept of
working together in and across disciplines; however, there are many factors to be considered
before implementing STEM integration. There is no one right way to integrate because there are
many factors which influence a direction the implementation of integrated STEM would follow
in a diverse school culture. STEM Integration is operationalized differently for learners,
teachers, stakeholders, districts, schools, classrooms, homes, communities, and businesses. It’s
implementation is achieved through the use of problem-, project-, or designed-based tasks to
engage students in addressing complex contexts that reflect real world situations (Roehrig,
Moore, Wang, & Park, 2012).
Educational processes are inherently top-down, however, in a data-driven, evidence-
based climate, bottom-up thinking, and instruction to influence the direction of implementing
integrated STEM also needs to exist (Beane, 1997). Implementation of an integrated STEM
program requires leadership to be cognizant that this innovation is complex, may be multi-
faceted, is a process in itself, and not a one-size-fits-all program (National Research Council,
2015). Implementation of STEM integration is imperative for developing critical thinkers as
forerunners in maintaining our country’s economic growth. Leadership will need to use skillful
decision making to create effective teams, giving them autonomy to develop an innovative
integrated STEM program (Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014).

Innovation will be the primary driver of our future economy, as the creation of jobs will
be largely derived from advances in technology and engineering complimented by science,
mathematics, and other academic disciplines (National Research Council, 2015). Several reports
have linked K-12 leadership and economic growth in the United States, supporting the need for
innovative leadership in our country’s educational system. Leaders with passionate beliefs, a
sense of fairness, and skillful decision-making are authentic change agents (Alexander, 2000)
who may be the catalysts when implementing integrative STEM education.
K-12 Educational Pipeline
Our American educational pipeline is a systemic pathway that supports academic
attainment in grades K-12 and allows for advancement into college and universities (higher
education) (California Department of Education, 2014). An effective pipeline that supports
educational attainment in the K-12 system, according to Yosso and Solorzano (2006), is a system
where all students move from one level to the next because school culture, procedure, policies,
and dialogue facilitate the flow of knowledge and skills that support all students on their varied
journeys along the educational pipeline. Yosso and Solorzano (2006), further emphasized the
critical need for all students to have equal access in the United States K-12 educational system to
prevent further persistent leakage in the United States K-12 education pipeline. The 2011
United States Census Bureau report identified achievements and leaks within the educational
pipeline. The report stated, of approximately 200 million Americans, ages 25 and older in 2010,
87 percent earned at least a high school diploma or its equivalent, which was up three percent
from the year 2000 (Sparks, 2011; United States Census Bureau, 2000, 2010).
This data supports the efforts that states are making toward adopting educational
programs and policies that increase the number of students who successfully progress from ninth

grade to a four-year college degree. Many states developed policies such as Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) and programs such as integrated STEM to assist with gaining a high number
of knowledgeable and skilled workers into the workforce. State residents holding college
degrees are the basis of a state’s educational capital affecting economic development and the
quality of life for residents (Sweetland 1996). The number of highly knowledgeable and skilled
people making up a state’s workforce increases the number of college graduates and this
occurrence is both an educational and social issue (National Center for Public Policy and Higher
Education, 2014).
An educated workforce directly affects the state’s economy as well as an individual’s
quality of life, because dividends accrue for individuals who earn higher degrees (Schultz 1997;
Sweetland 1999). An example of a dividend would be a higher income that creates higher buying
power, which results in more tax revenue and economic activity for the state. Additionally, an
educated population handles decisions about health care, personal finance, and retirement more
effectively, resulting in less government responsibility in social services or public resources in
general (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2004). This is supported by
research reporting that students’ exposure to K-12 STEM integration develops critical thinking
skills which equip learners with the ability to make substantially better decisions throughout their
lives (Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014). An educated workforce can be reflective in
accomplishing tasks such as choosing elected officials and personal economic-planning.
With or without a higher education degree, the critical thinking skills afforded to learners
by a K-12 integrated STEM curriculum can raise the level of a learner’s self-efficacy. To
accomplish this, learners must pass through an educational pipeline that is a system of parts
working together toward an established process whose end result is student achievement. States

are placing an emphasis on developing quality K-12 programs focusing on improving the
national graduation rate (California Department of Education, 2014), which substantiates the
importance of K-12 integrated STEM programs. Efforts to create a stronger K-12 educational
pipeline within an integrated school system, varies from state to state as well as within each state.
It appears the research on the key ingredients for developing a successful STEM
integrated program parallels the research for creating a positive impact within a K-12 educational
pipeline. The most significant qualities of these key ingredients include transformational
principals, effective teachers, and knowledge and understanding of the school’s culture.
Additional qualities identified in both successful STEM integrated programs and the K-12
educational pipeline include an integrated curriculum, technology, partnerships, finances,
professional development opportunities, planning time, and interdisciplinary and cross grade
level articulation (McGowan & Miller, 2001; Purpose Built Communities, 2009). The presence
of community involvement, high performance-driven and quality teachers, rigorous and relevant
educational curriculum, and a focus on excellent outcomes are also paramount (McGowan &
Miller, 2001; Purpose Built Communities, 2009).
It is no easy task to teach people the effective qualities of leadership such as optimism,
balance, commitment, courage, and empathy (Marzano, McNulty, & Waters, 2005). A
successful school leader in the educational pipeline will demonstrate a focus on building
relationships within the school culture and creating systems that encourage and support these and
other positive strengths (McGowan & Miller, 2001). Organizational leaders are faced with a
multitude of responsibilities, which they execute on an on-going basis, yet the key responsibility
faced is the need to sustain working relationships in the organization. Marzano, McNulty, and
Waters (2005) decree, establishing effective relationships is critically important because they can

have a direct effect on the execution of many other responsibilities held by other members of the
organization. Transformational leaders seek to sustain integrated STEM education by increasing
student access through establishing programs and initiatives throughout K-12 grades. This
requires educational stakeholders to cultivate “whatever it takes” attitudes to propel integrated
STEM education to the top of the priority list (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Karhanek, 2004).
This can be accomplished by raising awareness about the importance of integrated STEM
education and sustaining positive outcomes within the K-12 educational pipeline (Californians
Dedicated to Education Foundation, 2014).
The Middle Connection in the Pipeline
As stakeholders cultivate a what-ever-it-takes attitude, designers of integrated STEM
education programs must have goals that are consistent with school culture and mission (Honey,
Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014). The design of an integrated STEM experience must be
explicit to achieve goals that have sustaining positive outcomes (Honey, Pearson, &
Schweingruber, 2014). In a K-12 educational pipeline the design must begin at the elementary
level to establish learning roots that elevate the learner’s self-efficacy, which continues through
the middle grades and into the high school level. Designers also need to thoughtfully articulate
their hypotheses concerning why and how a particular integrated STEM experience will lead to
particular outcomes and how those outcomes should be measured (Honey, Pearson, &
Schweingruber, 2014). Asking important questions such as, “Why should we implement
integrated STEM at our school?” must be addressed by the stakeholders (Sinek, 2009).
It is imperative that characteristics of integrative STEM education be thoughtfully
articulated throughout the K-12 educational pipeline regarding pedagogy and learning outcomes
(Sanders, 2012). It is equally important for integrative STEM education pedagogy to be

consistent with accepted learning principles (Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence, 2012), and
is inter-disciplinary, trans-disciplinary, or multi-disciplinary in nature (Drake, 2007). Pedagogy
needs to purposefully engage students to think from simplicity to complexity and assess their
application of grade-appropriate concepts and practices in designing, making, and evaluating
solutions to authentic problems (Sanders, 2012). Additionally, pedagogy must provide a robust
context for integrative STEM-related learning associated with all levels of the cognitive and
affective taxonomies (Krathwohl, 2002). Research reports that within a span of one or more
semesters of K-12 integrative STEM education, quality pedagogical learning outcomes occur.
These outcome produce students with STEM-related attitudes and dispositions who are able to
demonstrate their grade- appropriate knowledge and practices in designing, making, and
evaluating solutions to authentic problems (Sanders, 2012).
In the K-12 educational pipeline, the rates of student progress throughout elementary and
secondary school are one of the best measures of the health of an educational system (Haney et
al., 2004). A way to keep the K-12 educational pipeline healthy is to recognize the importance
of middle school as the connector between elementary and high school. Providing students
access to career information as early in their educational career as possible and encouraging
progress during the pre-adolescent years is important. This can be achieved by providing
students access to career information that is beneficial to aligning goals needed to be well
prepared for employment (Mourshed, Farrell, & Barton, 2012). The United States Bureau of
Labor Statistics asserts STEM employment will grow approximately 13 percent or 200,000 jobs
in any one field between the years of 2012-2022, which is consistent with integrative STEM
pedagogy (Vilorio, 2014). Exposing students to jobs in the elementary stages of the educational
pipeline and increasing information at middle and high school, to include market information,

supports the growth of students prepared for future STEM employment (Honey, Pearson, &
Schweingruber, 2014).
Pre-adolescent exposure to integrative STEM practices lays a foundation for students
who are transitioning into adolescent grades. This early exposure to critical thinking practices
provides a pathway for deeper understanding and a measure for continued learning progress
(California Department of Education, 2014; National Research Council, 2015). In support of
continuity within the K-12 pipeline and the importance of measuring the health of our education
system, an assessment agency called ACT, launched an assessment tool in the spring of 2014 for
grades 3-10 called ACT Aspire (ACT, 2013). ACT Aspire will provide a look at STEM results
to assist educators to broaden STEM opportunities for students in the K-12 pipeline. Educational
leaders who utilize this data will be able to prompt meaningful discussions with students and
thereby extract intelligence for pedagogy and planning (ACT, 2013).
It is essential to come toward and leave from the adolescent years in middle school
equipped with the tools needed to build knowledge capacity (California Department of Education,
2014; National Research Council, 2015). An effective middle school educational program has
the capability to build capacity and make adjustments with ease when the K-12 educational
pipeline is aligned to do so. Middle school principals, as transformational leaders, who
communicate with elementary and high school leaders regarding the capacity building
characteristics of integrative STEM initiatives support laying a path of educational sustainability
for the country’s future. Leaders should agree that implementing sound curriculum and
instruction can be done in various ways. Ultimately the goal is to produce critical thinkers and
capable learners in the shared K-12 educational pipeline. This pipelines weaves into the
complex fabric of our educational system.

How can we expect students who see engineers as manual laborers rather than creative
thinkers making lucrative salaries, and teachers with misguided thoughts about engineers and
who think they are categorized under construction workers, to become innovators (Carr, Bennett,
& Strobel, 2012)? Attributing to creating integrative STEM educational excellence is the need to
implement integrative STEM-rich learning environments for students and educators as well as
the infrastructure or processes that promote more cross-sector collaboration (Californians
Dedicated to Education Foundation, 2014). When supporting innovation, it is apropos that
teachers work in teams, are responsible for selecting curriculum, develop and deliver integrated
lessons and regularly assess students. Those who design and implement integrative STEM
education need to attend to a number of these interrelated factors if they hope to influence
student learning, interest, motivation, and persistence in integrated STEM subjects (Honey,
Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014). Curriculum integration is not a simple method of rearranging
lesson plans, but rather a broad theory of curriculum design that encompasses particular views
about the purposes of schools, the nature of learning, the organization and use of knowledge, and
the meaning of an educational experience (Beane, 1997; National Research Council, 2015).
As students move through the educational pipeline, middle school is the connector for
receiving students from elementary and passing them on to the High School level with
integrative learning approaches. Educational leaders can effectively address integrative STEM
education by initially finding ways to develop and sustain learners’ interest in STEM education
throughout their K-12 educational school years (Sanders, 2009).
Transformational Leadership
Our nation is due for sustained good practice. For the Nation’s educational system to
experience sustained good practice, the literature suggests it will require transformational leaders

who focus on school quality and an innovative learning environment (National Research
Council, 2015). Transformational leadership is supported within the Diffusion of Innovations
Framework and HCT.
Diffusion of Innovations
Any idea, practice or object that is humanly perceived as new is known as an innovation
(Rogers, 2003). An innovation’s newness is a perception and, therefore, may or may not actually
involve new knowledge. Moreover, an individual may have known about an innovation for a
length of time yet not developed an opinion toward it. Once an individual becomes aware of an
innovation, it is common for an individual to go through a decision process of either accepting or
rejecting it. Rogers (2003) acknowledges this process exists in five stages. The stages are
sequential, beginning with an individual seeking to gain knowledge about an innovation. Gained
knowledge will persuade the individual to favor the innovation or not. The individual will then
engage in some type of activity to affirm a decision to adopt or reject the innovation. If the
individual is in favor of the innovation then implementation will be underway. Finally, the
individual will seek confirmation to reinforce the decision to implement the innovation and it is
at this juncture that an individual may continue or reconsider the action.
Diffusion is the process in which an innovation is communicated through certain
channels over time among the members of a social system and includes planned and spontaneous
spread of new ideas. It is a special type of communication, in that the messages are concerned
with new ideas. This newness of the idea in the content gives diffusion its special character and
a degree of uncertainty. Uncertainty implies a lack of predictability, structure and information.
When a new idea is adopted or rejected this leads to certain consequences establishing social
change.

The Diffusion of Innovations process occurs within a sequence of four stages (Rogers,
2003). First the innovation takes place. When individuals perceive an innovation holds
advantages and compatibilities, is able to pass a trial of tests, and is observed as non-complex, it
most likely will be adopted. Second, communication develops through channels. The technical
grasp of the innovation must be the same message given through the channels to all receivers.
The third element in the Diffusion of Innovation is the period of time it takes to communicate the
innovation and the final component involves getting the belief system of the members of a social
system on board.
Once an innovation is communicated through channels there are five adopter categories
(Rogers, 2003). Rogers (2003) describes the first category as fellow Innovators. Fellow
Innovators are consistently interested in new ideas and embody a venturous spirit. They
represent 2.5 percent of those who will adopt the innovation at its beginning point. Second, the
Early Adopters play a more integral part in believing in the innovation than the first group. Early
Adopters represent 13.5 percent of recipients who help trigger the masses of people when they
adopt an innovation. These people are often sought out by change agents, as the person with
whom to check before adopting a new idea. The third group, Early Majority, invests in the
innovation if the Early Adopter does. This group represents 34 percent of the adopters and they
usually deliberate for some time before completely adopting a new idea. The Late Majority is
the fourth group of adopters known as the skeptics who also represent 34 percent. Finally, the
Laggards are the last in a social system to adopt an innovation. They are suspicious of new ideas
so they wait until all the bugs and kinks have been ironed out of the innovation before adopting.
Application. Very often when a transformational leader implements an integrative
STEM program, it is an innovation. It appears many of the best practices from Constructivism

and The Gary Plan are incorporated in integrative STEM education programs. Best practices in
an integrated STEM program must be expansive enough to simultaneously meet the needs of a
diverse culture, provide inclusive access for all students adapting to student learning, and
produce critical thinkers discovering their capabilities (National Research Council, 2015).
Flexibility within this program is required to create revisions and make use of outside agencies,
while utilizing key components such as transformational leaders, quality teachers and an
integrated curriculum based on the school’s culture.
There is value in the importance of leaders embracing belief in a quality educational
system that supports innovation. Early adopter leaders set the stage for the early majority leaders
to implement integrated STEM. All leaders who focus on school quality have the ability to
greatly improve the teaching and learning environment. These abilities are key to accomplishing
organizational change such as implementing an innovative K-12 integrative STEM program.
Leaders who are the driving force for change are referred to as change agents (Honey, Pearson,
& Schweingruber, 2014; National Research Council, 2015). Change agents transform
environments by empowering others, building trust, and sharing decision making to create a
solid foundation within the organization. Change agents are transformational leaders that do
more than manage a group of people (Olsen, 2000). They inspire people to upgrade their
expectations, perceptions, and motivations to work toward common goals, while coveting team
discussions and legitimizing decisions by consensus (Riggio, 2009).
Sustaining a transformational leader’s vision encompasses implementing innovations
such as integrative STEM programs within the K-12 educational pipeline. When a
transformational leader within the K-12 educational pipeline perceives that an innovation such as

integrated STEM holds advantages, compatibilities, deems it uncomplicated, and nonthreatening,
the innovation will be implemented (Rogers, 2003).
Early adopter transformational leaders realize integrated STEM can be customized to the
culture of a school and have strong beliefs about quality education. The more integrative STEM
roots are planted at an elementary and middle school level, the firmer the foundation for best
practices that produce critically thinking students with a positive self efficacy for learning. Early
majority transformational leaders, empowered by the early adopter, empower their staff to
implement integrated STEM innovation that supports students, teachers, and parent interest. A
positive result from integrated STEM will be the critically thinking students bringing awareness
to communities in the educational pipeline about integrated STEM innovations as viable avenues
for learning that are worth sustaining.
Human Capital Theory and Externalities
In the 1960’s, American economists, Theodore Schultz and Gary Becker, pioneered the
Human Capital Theory (HCT) (Blaug, 1976). HCT is based on expecting the investment people
make in themselves, such as educational advancement or training time, to provide a benefit for
them in the form of higher earnings, well-being, or anything of value to them (Eide & Showalter,
2010). HCT suggests that both individuals and society derive economic benefits from
investments in people (Almendarez, 2010; Eide & Showalter, 2010; Sweetland, 1996).
Human capital externalities occur when people make investments in themselves which may
include direct benefits to health, longevity, reduced poverty, lower crime rates, lower public
welfare, lower prison costs, environmental sustainability, contributions to happiness, increased
social capital, and positive effects from new ideas as a result of research (McMahon, 2010).
Moreover, when people make investments in themselves through education, the benefits can

include health, nutrition, quality of life, and life expectancy (Becker, 2007). Benefits from
education may also include contributions to democracy, human rights, and political stability over
a period of time (McMahon, 2010). These benefits are termed external benefits of education
(Eide & Showalter, 2010; McMahon, 2010).
HCT asserts a worker’s capacity should be productive with the ability to see the coexisting
relationship between their own productivity and improving the quality of their life (Sweetland,
1996). Based on this, an assumption that income will be a reflection of the worker’s productivity
can be made. Additionally, one can assume education or on-the-job training will help develop
the skills that may improve the worker’s capacity to produce (Sweetland, 1996).
Government is involved in providing public education mainly because of the social
benefits to society, and a belief that, if left to other markets, education would be under served
(McMahon, 2010). People who are not in school or not working are typically a social cost to
society, since many jobs require some form of higher education or workers with post-secondary
level skills. Moreover, the external social benefit report states that individual earnings and
personal welfare are higher in today’s economy due to external social benefits of education from
prior generations (Levin, 1989; McMahon, 2010). With this knowledge, one can hope that
leaders find an inherent motivation to offer innovative programs that provide students with the
skills needed to successfully compete in the present and future emerging global economy.
Application. Research on the development of human capital includes the areas of K-12
and post secondary education completion rates, on-the-job training, and previous experience.
The investment in education by a society goes beyond the tangible items, to the investments
made in people who are able to demonstrate benefits for other individuals (learners) and society
as a whole (productive employees) (Sweetland, 1996). The educational investment in human

capital is not immediately available to the economy because of a gestation period that happens
when beginning a new venture such as integrative STEM programs (Levin, 1989).
HCT was framed around the core idea that human efforts inherently are situated within the
core of wealth. This core idea which had its’ inception in the 18th
century has evolved over time
(Blaug, 1976). Wealth comes to fruition when people make investments in themselves through
education and the resulting benefits are observable in health, nutrition, quality of life, and life
expectancy. These benefits of education, or external benefits, may also include contributions to
democracy, human rights and political stability (McMahon, 2010). The extended benefits
derived from HCT, are noted in education with empirical data surrounding results that affect
education and education policy, drawing the conclusion that education increases or improves the
economic capabilities of people (Sweetland, 1996). With this conclusion in focus, the
educational community at large is turning its attention to innovative programs in STEM
education.
Conclusion
There is expressed concern that the United States will lack the workforce needed to
maintain its leadership role in science and technology because young people are ill prepared for
college level study, particularly in the disciplines of STEM ((Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber,
2014; National Research Council, 2015). A national emphasis on improving the graduation rates
and educating our student population to be prepared to succeed in the growing global economy
motivates school districts to implement innovative programs, such as integrative STEM.

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLGY
Introduction
This chapter describes the purpose of the study and research design. The research
settings and participants are identified, and the methods of data collection are discussed as to
why these participants and settings were chosen and how these methods answered the research
questions.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to gain an understanding of essential factors needed when
middle school principals implement integrated STEM initiatives. The following research
questions guided this study.
• What do principals understand about the importance of STEM integration?
• How do principals describe implementing integrated STEM at their school site
and what does the implementation look like in the classroom?
• What do principals perceive to be essential factors, and of them, which do they feel are
the most crucial when implementing an integrated STEM program?
In pursuit of answering these research questions, my research design was a qualitative
approach gathering data through interviews and observations. To achieve an understanding of
each educator’s perspective I first conducted three isolated interviews with middle school
principals, each of whom initiated an integrated STEM program at their school site in three
varied school districts in Southern California. Each interview was followed by observing the
implementation of the integrated STEM program in classrooms at their school site. Qualitative
research allows the researcher an opportunity to explore the “how” and “why” of people’s
thoughts and feelings which adds richness when explaining a phenomenon (Merriam, 2009).

JFG_Dissertation_USC

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (11)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to JFG_Dissertation_USC

Similar to JFG_Dissertation_USC (20)

JFG_Dissertation_USC