This study examines how elementary education teacher candidates conceptualize STEM fields through interviews. It finds that candidates have some discomfort with STEM subjects in their thoughts, feelings, and attitudes. The study aims to understand candidates' knowledge and perceptions of STEM to inform curriculum design for teacher preparation programs. It uses a conceptual framework of affective, cognitive, and behavioral components and finds limited understanding of STEM field interconnectivity among candidates. The implications are that teacher preparation programs should consider students' attitudes and further develop STEM education preparation since it is an growing expectation for teachers.

1. How Elementary Education Teacher Candidates
Conceptualize STEM: Why does it matter?
Jennifer Clark, Mary Leonard, Clinton Colgrove
Montana State University
Introduction
Results
Research Questions/Theoretical Framework
Implications
Methods
In Higher Education, the faculty who design teacher preparation
programs do so based on state and national standards. They are
responsible for being current on the research, policies, and initiatives
that impact public, K-12 schools (Cochran-Smith, 2001, 2002;
Wiseman, 2012; Yogev & Michaeli, 2011). The literature on what
equals a well-trained, effective teacher is split, and has been for some
years.
Regardless of this dichotomy, teacher candidates arrive at their
chosen higher education institution with gaps in their knowledge and
ability, and an expectation that these gaps will be filled by completing
a teacher education program. Understanding the knowledge-base
students possess when they arrive is important to preparing highly
qualified teacher candidates (Feiman‐Nemser & Buchmann, 1986;
Howes, 2002; Zembal-Saul, 2009). This method of informed course
design allows both for academic advisors to direct students toward
content that will prepare them for success and for faculty to organize
methods content in order to meet students where they are at and
move them to where they need to be within their teacher preparation
program (Feiman‐Nemser & Buchmann, 1986; Hollins, 2011; J. J.
Watters & Ginns, 2000).
This study is an assessment of data from interviews with pre-service
teachers who were progressing through the same Elementary
Education teacher preparation program. The purpose of this study is
to explore how students in a particular teacher education program
understand Science and the interconnectedness of the STEM fields
(Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) for the purpose
of informing curriculum design.
The following research questions were the focus of this study:
• How do ELED students conceptualize and understand the STEM
fields?
• How do ELED students perceive the interconnectedness among
the STEM fields?
Using the model in Figure 1, this study explored how pre-service
teachers conceptualize the STEM fields by exploring affective,
cognitive and behavioral traits through a series of questions and
activities.
The 3 components of this conceptual framework illustrates how
students approach these topics with existing thoughts, feelings,
attitudes, knowledge, understanding, and experience. Teacher
preparation programs are designed to add to these Affective and
Cognitive components. Therefore, how preservice teachers approach
learning, thinking, and teaching styles in the higher education setting
also plays an equal role in shaping their conceptualization of the
STEM fields and their interconnectedness.
An unexpected result of the data
was the expression of feelings of
discomfort in the participants’
thoughts, feelings, and attitudes
towards the STEM fields.
These findings lead to the following implications for future research on
STEM curriculum design for Teacher Preparation Programs:
• Student’s thoughts, feelings, and attitudes should be a consideration
in developing programing in the teacher preparation programs.
• STEM Education is a growing expectation in the field, but pre-
service teacher candidates are underprepared to meet this
expectation.
• Because of the limited research surrounding STEM Education in the
Elementary grades, further study is necessary to understand how to
appropriately re-design curriculums to meet student needs.
See References available under poster.
Conceptualize
STEM Fields
Affective:
Thoughts,
Feelings,
Attitude
Cognitive:
Knowledge,
Understanding,
Experience
Behavioral:
Approach to
learning,
thinking,
teaching styles
Figure 1
This study focuses on participants of a specific teacher licensure
program, and seeks to understand how their experiences shaped their
understanding of the STEM fields. I selected a phenomenography
approach, developed in the 1970’s at the University of Gothenburg,
Sweden, in the Department of Education was selected (Creswell, 2013;
Savin-Baden & Major, 2013). This approach allows for the additional
use of a Constructivist lens as the participants were a sample of a
group of Elementary Education students enrolled in the same teacher
preparation program at a mid-sized higher education institution (Savin-
Baden & Major, 2013).
The data was analyzed and interpreted to gain an understanding of
what Elementary Education students know about the STEM fields, their
definitions, and how they conceptualize the relationships between the
disciplines. This initial review will be used to provide the connections
between the participants and their cognitive attributes toward how they
conceptualized the STEM fields.
Affective Attribute Comments:
• “I don’t know. I’m not really good
at Math.
• “…for me it [Science] would be a
lot of frustration because you
could never find an answer.”
• “I’m not an Engineer, thank God!”
This table demonstrates how
participants’ knowledge,
understanding, and
experience (work and
academic) informed their
assignment of the cards to
specific groups. The limited
use of the “Other” category
suggests that participants’
cognitive conceptualization
of the interconnectedness of
these fields is limited.
Participants’ behavioral approach to teaching & learning, as well as their
developing teaching style was also a theme in this study, although not as
strong as the Affective and Cognitive components. They ranged from a
desire to correct misconceptions being taught in K-12 to recognizing that
they will be expected to teach STEM and have a lot to learn in order to
be prepared to meet this new expectation.