SECTION 

STEM Teacher Education

 27
ELEMENTARY STEM
TEACHER EDUCATION
Recent Practices to Prepare General
Elementary Teachers for STEM

Amy Corp, Melanie Fields and Gilbert Naizer

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) content and skills are highly valued in
the 21st century. As more and more jobs utilize these skills and knowledge, education has the respon-
sibility of teaching these content areas and skills. In the United States, the federal government has
allocated billions of dollars to STEM education efforts (e.g., professional development, curriculum,
and partnerships with institutes of higher learning) in hopes of producing this workforce (Breiner,
Harkness, Johnson, & Koehler, 2012). Internationally, funding for STEM and STEM education
remains a priority in many countries (e.g., Granovskiy, 2018; Marginson, Tytler, Freeman, & Roberts,
2013; Ritz & Fan, 2015). Science teachers (K-12) are now encouraged and required by some states
to include the engineering design process and engineering standards as one method for presenting
science content based on the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; NGSS Lead States, 2013).
Interest in STEM fields starts with an interest in science and mathematics at a young age. Con-
versely, elementary is also the time when students could become disengaged in these subjects and
choose not to pursue these fields as they grow older. This has become especially true for mathematics
and science teaching and for low-income students (Epstein & Miller, 2011).
Since integrated STEM curriculum starts in elementary/primary school (Moomaw & Davis,
2010; Sullivan & Bers, 2018), these teachers must be equipped to teach integrated STEM. Recent
studies show a connection between early experiences with STEM subjects and later success in those
subjects or in school generally (McClure et al., 2017).
The typical elementary teacher is trained in all subjects with minimal depth in science or math-
ematics and little, if any, in engineering and technology. In a science report for the Center for Ameri-
can Progress, Epstein and Miller (2011) discussed how the current path for elementary teachers does
not ensure the appropriate knowledge of or disposition toward science or mathematics because the
course requirements do not include upper mathematics or science courses such as chemistry or
calculus. They suggested strengthening these two areas in particular as a more targeted approach to
improving elementary teacher preparation for STEM in the United States. Moore’s research (2014)
described how K-12 curriculum is being developed toward STEM integration. She iterated that
undergraduate programs need to adopt collaboration of STEM faculty in preparing teachers to
understand and teach integrated STEM. In Singapore, Teo and Ke (2014) noted the lack of elemen-
tary STEM training despite the increase in STEM elementary specialized schools in their country.
They concluded that even the one-year post-graduate diploma for elementary teacher training is not

337
 Amy Corp, Melanie Fields and Gilbert Naizer

enough and recommended more training in STEM subjects and specific pedagogies such as scientific
inquiry and information and communication technologies.
Shernoff, Sinha, Bressler, and Ginsburg (2017) conducted survey research and found that current
elementary teachers were interested in teaching integrated STEM but felt unprepared in content
and pedagogy. Some teachers told how they knew only their subject and did not really understand
integration with the other STEM subjects. In their list of obstacles to teaching STEM, poor (teacher)
preparation was listed first, and they later noted a lack not just of content but of constructivist peda-
gogical knowledge. Their data on teacher responses demonstrated that teachers recognized their own
inability to envision what integrated STEM really looks like. They also concluded that integration
from the teachers’ responses would best be addressed in elementary teacher preparation courses and
workshops, or in service workshops, both with demonstrations of how to integrate across multiple
disciplines by collaboration and connections to real-world problem solving.
Clearly, if integrated STEM is to be successful in elementary schools, there is a need for changes
to occur in elementary teacher preparation regarding STEM and STEM integration. In this chapter,
research on current practices of integrated STEM in Elementary Teacher preparation are described.

Methodology

Finding Articles for Integrated STEM in Elementary Teacher Preparation

In order to describe the research of integrated STEM in elementary teacher preparation, a large-
scale article search was conducted. Utilizing a university library system, including listings outside the
university collection, the lead researcher typed in key words to perform multiple searches for articles
from 2000 to 2018: preservice teachers (and) STEM, teacher preparation (and) pre-service teacher
experiences in STEM, STEM (and) elementary teacher preparation, alternative teacher certification
(and) STEM, teacher certification (and) STEM, STEM (and) elementary teacher certification
Then the lead researcher used tools within the system to refine the search, which reduced thou-
sands of articles, which mentioned elementary teachers or elementary schools to several hundred
indicating teacher preparation. This was repeated with each search using every set of keywords. The
articles titles were saved in a web-based bibliography and database manager by search, and duplicates
were eliminated. When searches began to yield only repeated articles, the process stopped. One last
search was conducted a month later to harvest research published for fall 2018 (null). The research
team noted that this search was limited to published articles and did not include presented studies
not yet published.
The article titles and abstracts were then entered into a spreadsheet for analysis of meeting core
criteria of this study: Were the participants preparing to become elementary teachers? Was inte-
grated STEM the main topic of the article? These articles (N = 60) were member checked by the
three-person research team and coded into three separately filled categories: articles that met criteria
in abstract (N = 20); articles that were unclear if they meet criteria but showed indications (N = 16);
and articles with abstracts that did not meet criteria for elementary teacher preparation but gave
strong evidence of the need for integrated STEM and of frameworks to explore integrated STEM
(N = 10). The articles were divided amongst the researchers for a closer read.
As the research team read the articles, they completed columns in the spreadsheet for evidence of:
meeting criteria, descriptions of content or pedagogy, and results. They also scanned the references
of each article for other criteria matching articles missed in the database searches (N = 4). The team
met and discussed in greater detail how articles in the showed evidence of STEM integration category
met or did not meet criteria. For example, several articles stated working with P-12 teachers in the
abstract, but in reading the article we uncovered that the participants were middle and high school
student teachers. Other articles mentioned integrated STEM, but a closer read revealed only one

338
 Elementary STEM Teacher Education

Table 27.1 Changes in Elementary Teacher Preparation Program for STEM Integration

Type of change to teacher preparation # of studies

Program changes 7
Pedagogical changes 5
STEM component added to course 7

STEM subject or one subject in combination with language arts, or social studies (not another
STEM content area). Based on the integrated STEM framework developed in Chapter 1, we were
able to analyze and eliminate studies that were not describing integrated STEM.

Refining the List of Articles

The team then examined the titles and abstracts in the evidence of possibly meeting criteria category and
eliminated those that did not meet the common themes defined for integrated STEM from Chap-
ter 1. The rest of the articles in this category were given a closer read by the researchers and the data
for evidence of criteria, descriptions of content or pedagogy, and results were entered in the spread-
sheet. The researchers came to consensus about eliminating those that did not meet the definition
for integrated STEM in Chapter 1 and those found to have participants that were not in elementary
teacher preparation. The articles that remained were merged into the category of demonstrates evidence
of integrated STEM.

Analyzing Articles
Remaining articles were further examined for content about integrating STEM within an elemen-
tary teacher preparation program. Two clear categories emerged: program change, and pedagogical
change within a course. The articles were separated into these categories. Data in each column (descrip-
tions of content or pedagogy, and results) were scrutinized to provide overall descriptions of the
research in integrated STEM for elementary teacher preparation for this study (see findings).
Working within the framework for integrated STEM with an emphasis on common STEM
practices (described in Chapter 1) allowed us to more closely examine the articles within pedagogi-
cal change. Examining the articles in this manner led to separating these articles into two categories:
one remaining pedagogical changes in a course and the addition of another, STEM component added, for
a total of three categories (see Table 27.1).

Results
As the United States adopts the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), and national and state
entities such as the National Research Council (NRC) and the President’s Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology (PCAST) call for reform in STEM education, teacher education preparation
programs are being tasked to include STEM pedagogy and content knowledge (Counsell, Jacobs, &
Gatewood, 2017; Radloff & Guzey, 2017; Rinke, Gladstone-Brown, Kinlaw, & Cappiello, 2016). In
answer to the need for STEM education, universities across the United States are implementing
various versions of their understanding of STEM preparation. Similarly, Korea has placed an educa-
tional focus on STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, mathematics); therefore their teacher
preparation programs have added STEAM to the curriculum (Kim & Bolger, 2017). Other coun-
tries (France, Australia, Japan, China, South Africa, and the UK) are focusing on STEM in schools,
but in this global research review the response of elementary teacher preparation programs in these

339
 Amy Corp, Melanie Fields and Gilbert Naizer

countries is unsupported (Ritz & Fan, 2015). Many teacher preparation programs in the United States
have responded to this task by revising their programs (e.g., Rose, Carter, Brown, & Shumway, 2017).
Rose et al. (2017) undertook a mixed-methods study to identify and characterize the models of
teacher preparation programs that prepared preservice elementary teachers to deliver TE experi-
ences in elementary classrooms. Their research examined 44 programs that now offer technology
and engineering (TE) as part of their teacher preparation program in the United States. Their search
specifically looked for technology and engineering components; they also identified programs that
were STEM, or that included technology and engineering in their teacher preparation (particularly
in science methods).
They found that of the 44 institutions, 14 indicated that they included technology and engi-
neering experiences for elementary teachers to deliver such experiences in the elementary class-
rooms. The study identified six different models in elementary teacher preparation: specific courses,
a concentration, a certificate, a minor, a bachelor’s degree, and a combined bachelor’s and master’s
certificate specific to TE or STEM integration. Although this study was specifically looking for TE
education, they also identified models that current elementary teacher preparation programs are
using to address the need for integrated STEM preparation. While this article provided useful infor-
mation, details on specific programs and research on those programs were not included.
After culling various articles on STEM in elementary education, the researchers determined that
only 19 published studies discussed implementation and outcomes of changes to incorporate inte-
grated STEM in their elementary teacher preparation programs. Table 27.1 highlights the findings
of program implementation.
Program changes were defined as elementary teacher preparation programs that described changes
in the courses offered or by combining methods courses to focus on integrated STEM. Pedagogical
changes described additions of STEM activities to an existing course or changes in pedagogy toward
integrated STEM. STEM component added to course designated strategies for included STEM compo-
nents into preservice teachers’ activities designed for elementary students.

Research Findings of Program Changes in Elementary

Teacher Preparation
The following articles highlight examples of program changes for better STEM preparation for
elementary teachers. These include the creation of a STEM certificate specifically for elementary
teachers, designing STEM as a choice of majors for elementary teachers, and combining traditional
science and mathematics methods courses into a STEM block. We also include evidence of program
changes to include STEM in elementary preparation programs in Turkey. For clarity, the name of
each article examined is also the title of that section.
Graduating STEM Competent and Confident Teachers: The Creation of a STEM
Certificate for Elementary Education Majors. Murphy and Mancini-Samuelson (2012)
described how they created a STEM certificate for elementary teachers. The certificate was cre-
ated with collaboration between education and STEM faculty and consists of three interdisciplinary,
team taught, lab-based classes: Chemistry of Life (chemistry integrated with physics, mathematics,
and technology), Environmental Biology (biology integrated with Earth Science, mathematics, and
technology) and Engineering in Your World (engineering integrated with physics, mathematics,
and technology). This article suggested that collaborating with STEM faculty to include integrated
science courses within the elementary teacher preparation program increases students’ confidence
in teaching integrated science and knowledge of science content. Based on these initial findings, the
courses are now part of the elementary education curriculum and continue to be taught in partner-
ship with the STEM faculty. These students are also required to complete student teaching in local
schools and to use their understanding from these courses to teach science.

340
 Elementary STEM Teacher Education

Characterization of a Unique Undergraduate Multidisciplinary STEM K-5 Teacher

Preparation Program. O’Brien (2010) described program changes at the College of New Jersey to
increase the number of STEM-trained elementary teachers by specifically including technology and
engineering education. The Multidisciplinary major for elementary education students was approved
in 1998 (formally called the Math-Science-Technology program, MST) and has requirements in
all STEM areas. The purpose of this research was to investigate the depth of content knowledge in
the MST program and is intended to inspire ideas for preparing elementary teachers for providing
STEM experiences in their teaching. The research indicated that changes in this program to include
a major in integrated Math-Science-Technology increased graduates’ scores in mathematics and sci-
ence, while still remaining on par with TE (Technology Education) students. He also concluded that
since these (STEM) courses focused on education, not just S, T, E, and M in isolation, this process
better prepares them for providing integrated STEM experiences to their elementary students.
Characterizing STEM Teacher Education: Affordances and Constraints of Explicit
STEM Preparation for Elementary Teachers: Characterizing STEM Teacher Education.
Rinke et al. (2016) explored the outcomes of redesigning the mathematics and science methods
courses in their current elementary teacher preparation program into a combined STEM block with
integrated engineering and technology themes (six hours). The combined STEM block courses
stressed the same development of pedagogical content knowledge goals, learning opportunities
around instruction, curriculum development, reflection, and assessment as the separate math and sci-
ence methods courses. In the STEM block the STEM literacies of technology, engineering, content
integration, the 21st-century skills and the arts were introduced by providing personal experiences
with the fundamentals of computer coding and the engineering design process. The final assignment
in the STEM block was modified to reflect this focus: an integrated curricular unit that relates to a
real-world problem.
The researchers analyzed student work and surveys of efficacy from the two groups and found
that everyone developed in general strategies and mathematics and science efficacy. They also noted
that those in the STEM block had greater gains in confidence after the course than those in the
separated courses. From analysis of the lesson plan artifacts for pedagogical skills for teaching math-
ematics and science they concluded that in content integration and STEM literacies, 75% of the
STEM preservice teachers adopted an interdisciplinary approach with interdependence between the
subjects. They found that the traditional students adopted a more multidisciplinary approach that
typically included one STEM subject and literacy (reading or writing). When artifacts were analyzed
for evidence of STEM literacies, they discovered that 87.5% of STEM preservice teachers included
two literacies and that 21st-century skills were found in 100% of STEM student lesson plans com-
pared to 77.7% of students in the traditional methods courses. This was a single-institution study of
self-reported data, suggesting that combining traditional mathematics and science methods courses
into one STEM (six-hour) block is more effective in increasing students’ self-efficacy in teaching
mathematics and science, creating integrated lessons, and employing 21st-century skills as pedagogies
in their lessons for students.
Examining Elementary Pre-Service Teachers’ Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Teaching Intention. Very little published research is available from the
international community about preparing elementary teachers for STEM. This article, although not
directly about program change, implies that changes occurred recently in Turkey. Hacıömeroğlu
(2018) wrote about the resulting intentions of preservice teachers from two Turkish universities to
teach integrated STEM. The author translated the Pre-Service Teachers’ Integrative STEM Teach-
ing Intention Questionnaire into Turkish and administered it to 401 preservice teachers majoring in
elementary teaching (306 females and 95 males). The questionnaire examined five sub-dimensions
(knowledge, value, attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and behavioral intention)
with a 7-point Likert scale.

341
 Amy Corp, Melanie Fields and Gilbert Naizer

Results indicated positive results overall for intentions. Hacıömeroğlu concludes that these posi-
tive results are natural since they will be qualified to teach these subjects (plus the Turkish language).
He suggested longitudinal studies with these preservice teachers in their classroom environments
with integrated STEM activities. Only a portion of this article is translated to English, and some of
the details are vague. The article does point to programs in Turkish universities that are specifically
training preservice elementary teachers for integrated STEM.
Where Is the ‘E’ in STEM for Young Children? DiFrancesca, Lee, and McIntyre (2014)
examined and discussed their implementation of an elementary STEM program that intentionally
focuses on engineering and technology. The program has implemented a complete set of courses for
pedagogy and content in mathematics and science, with a dedicated series for engineering. Within
the series of courses, the course instructors focus on connections between the STEM fields, high-
lighting math and science in the engineering courses explicitly. Partnering with various colleges
at their university, the program consists of 27 credit hours of courses in science, mathematics, and
engineering methods. Teacher candidates select one of two introductory engineering-based courses
intended to provide a basic understanding of engineering and an introduction to the engineering
design process.
The preservice teachers take a second engineering course in their junior year designed to build
on their introductory concepts of engineering and the pedagogy of teaching through engineer-
ing. Within all courses, the focus is on pedagogy and content demonstrated through inquiry-based
approaches, cognitively guided instruction, field-based experiences, and self-made lessons. The
courses are layered throughout all semesters until their final student teaching experience.
The anecdotal data demonstrated that students enjoyed the courses but did not always see the
connections to STEM. Additionally, the authors reported on planned longitudinal research on the
program and the relationships with the other colleges with respect to preparing STEM teachers. One
student published her own narrative, a summary of which follows.
Growing Strong STEMs Reflections of a Beginning Teacher’s Preservice Program.
Glavich (2016) wrote a personal narrative on her experiences in the elementary STEM prepara-
tion program discussed in the previous subsection. Through the use of several pedagogies including
inquiry-based instruction, PBL, practical experiences, and reflective opportunities, the preservice
teacher was encouraged to use engineering to teach mathematics and science in her field experi-
ences. Overall, the author felt highly prepared and more confident in her daily practices to integrate
engineering into concepts of mathematics and science.

Findings on Pedagogical Changes in Elementary Teacher Preparation

In this section we report on pedagogical changes made within courses of elementary teacher prep-
aration. All the articles found for elementary teacher education were university-based programs,
although a search was conducted to include alternative programs. Changes included the use of
videos as engineering cases, providing digital media instruction for lesson planning and integration,
hands-on training designed specifically for science-focused STEM lessons, specific focus on STEAM
integration, and the evaluation and creation of STEM kits.
Investigating Changes in Preservice Teachers’ Conceptions of STEM Education Fol-
lowing Video Analysis and Reflection. In a typical elementary preparation program, Radloff
and Guzey (2017) reported on the changes in PSTs from viewing exemplary cases of teachers utiliz-
ing integration lessons throughout their student teaching semester. The goal of the intervention was
to determine if the PSTs could identify STEM integration, methods, interactions with students/
teachers, and concepts. They conducted a case study by interviewing two PSTs about STEM inte-
gration before and after the intervention. In their findings, both preservice teachers’ concept of
STEM changed; they were able to define and explain in depth about STEM, differing from the

342
 Elementary STEM Teacher Education

beginning, as initially neither had a good definition of integration. Additionally, both PSTs reported
they could see themselves using integration in their future classes with greater confidence, and they
appeared to gain appreciation for intentional and purposeful use of STEM lessons in a classroom.
Assessment of Creativity in Arts and STEM Integrated Pedagogy by Pre-Service
Elementary Teachers. Tillman, An, and Boren (2015) reported on findings from a pedagogical
strategy of having elementary preservice teachers design lesson plans to specifically teach integrated
STEM and the arts in creative ways utilizing digital media production. The purpose of this study was
to analyze the differences in bilingual (Spanish), regular, and undecided generalists’ peer evaluation
and assessment of these STEAM lessons regarding opportunities for students to engage in creativity.
One hundred twenty-four Hispanic female preservice elementary students participated (61 regular
generalists, 43 bilingual, and 20 undecided). As students in an educational technology course, they
received instruction and assignments on how to utilize digital media productions to create lesson
plans. Students worked in groups of three or four (with a combination of bilingual generalist, regular
generalist, and undecided generalist in each group) to create STEAM lessons using technology and
presented them to their peers. Then immediately after each group’s lesson, they completed a peer
evaluation survey, and after all the presentations were completed, they answered two open-ended
questions regarding their perceptions of the peer evaluation experience.
Participants were given a survey created by the researchers, based on STEM content and creativity
in interdisciplinary STEM pedagogy. Analysis of the survey and questions given after presentations
yielded data for the three groups: bilingual, regular, and undecided generalist. The authors concluded
that all preservice elementary teachers utilized what they learned by combining technology skills
with lesson planning to design more creative integrated STEAM lesson plans. They believe this
change in pedagogy helps address the lack of integrated STEM and the lack of arts education for
elementary teachers.
What’s in Our Soil? A University-Nonprofit-School Partnership Aims to Raise Envi-
ronmental Awareness. Counsell et al. (2017) reported on a change toward integrated STEM in
their early childhood teacher preparation program. In partnership with a local non-profit organiza-
tion and local elementary school, preservice elementary teachers investigated, designed, and imple-
mented STEM lessons in K-2 classes over one semester. The authors discussed how the PSTs created
the ‘three phase lesson’; a lesson cycle provided by the instructors. The three-phase cycle included:
productive questions, engineering designing, and thinking maps to support math/science reasoning.
The PSTs utilized resources such as National Science Teachers Association Teacher Resources, PBS
Kids, and others for assistance in creating engaging STEM lessons for young children. Although they
reported more about the lessons developed, we conclude that the partnerships and lesson develop-
ment during this field based time were to encourage PSTs to plan and integrate STEM lessons in
their own teaching.
Analysis of Korean Elementary Pre-Service Teachers’ Changing Attitudes About
Integrated STEAM Pedagogy Through Developing Lesson Plans. Kim and Bolger (2017)
researched a science methods course in a Korean elementary teacher preparation program which
focused on training PSTs to create integrated STEAM lessons. The study involved 119 elementary
preservice teachers with no prior exposure to STEAM. Throughout the course the PSTs were
introduced to theory on STEAM, inquiry-based instruction, and lesson planning. The PSTs were
assigned to generate integrated lessons and then improve them based on feedback. Their findings
from survey data and review of lesson plans included a lack of integrated lessons, a lack of focus on
science, and a struggle to improve throughout the lessons. However, they also noted increases in posi-
tive attitudes, perceived ability, and confidence and awareness towards STEAM.
Creating STEM Kits for the Classroom. Carroll and Scott (2017) described a pedagogical
change to their methods courses for early childhood preservice teachers. As part of their science,
mathematics, and social studies methods course, the instructors dedicated two classes to integrated

343
 Amy Corp, Melanie Fields and Gilbert Naizer

STEM learning. Although not research-based, they described how students could identify the STEM
subjects before the intervention but could not describe what an integrated STEM activity looked
like for early childhood. Initially students learned about integrating STEM with literacy and exam-
ined ready-made STEM kits. Students then completed a kit of their choice and reflected on the
experience. Later they created their own STEM kits with a focus on science and the engineering
design process. They also learned about lesson planning for integrating a Next Generation Science
Standard core idea, with a science and engineering practice by creating learning objectives, student
tasks, and assessments. Students tested out their plans and kits in small groups and reflected on the
experience. Candidates indicated that they were more confident in STEM, felt more motivated
when doing the STEM kits, and their pedagogical skills for STEM improved.

STEM Component Added

Similar to the studies outlined previously, we report on other published efforts to add STEM integra-
tion knowledge and/or experiences within the elementary preparation courses. These articles report
on the experiences of small additions to the course instead of pedagogical changes. They provide a
sample of revised units, or added projects and activities to encourage STEM integration. Since the
articles provided details of the experiences and little research data, we provide a brief summary of these
added components and their reported impacts on elementary teacher preparedness for STEM teaching.
One added activity to integrate STEM was the inclusion of experiences with robotics through
the use of LEGO robotics sets. Jaipal-Jamani and Angeli (2017) reported on their experiences of a
three-week LEGO robotics unit at a university within the United States. They concluded that pre-
service teachers reported inclinations to implement robotics in teaching science and mathematics
topics in their future elementary classes. In a Canadian study, Kaya, Newley, Deniz, Yesilyurt, and
Newley (2017) highlighted how one program used two weeks in a 12-week methods course to
teach engineering through LEGO robotics. In each study, courses allowed class time for the PSTs to
build the robots. PSTs commented about the potential robotics has for integrating all core subjects,
reduced anxiety for teaching the complex sciences such as physics, and reported significant gains in
content knowledge of science topics such as gears. In general, these cases suggest that robotics can
demonstrate integration experiences for technology and engineering with science and potentially
mathematical concepts ( Jaipal-Jamani & Angeli, 2017; Kaya et al., 2017).
Following Bybee’s (2010) recommendation to introduce changes toward integrated STEM from
the bottom up through introductory and exemplary units, Schmidt and Fulton (2017) transformed
an inquiry-based traditional unit on the moon into a richly integrated inquiry-based unit with tech-
nology. PSTs in a STEM undergraduate elementary methods course were actively participating in
inquiry with technology while learning science content. Schmidt and Fulton found evidence that
students gained scientific knowledge, but more importantly concluded that they practiced integrated
technology and 21st-century skills. Although not seen as a quick fix, the authors find power to
change elementary teacher preparation from within the classroom by designing exemplary units for
students to work through.
Two articles described another way to create experiences in STEM integration from within the
university curriculum. Both partnered with field teaching experiences to add a STEM event in
which PSTs had to learn about integrated STEM and work together to plan lessons and activities.
The first includes planning STEM events and the second includes planning projects at a museum.
Although they were not program changes or pedagogical changes, these additions to the courses
explained in this section provided valuable experiences for PSTs learning about planning and imple-
menting integrated STEM.
Dani, Hartman, and Helfrich (2017) led their students (50 participants in the P-3 science methods
course) to plan and implement informal STEM events at their field placement school, outside of

344
 Elementary STEM Teacher Education

school hours. They conducted this study to determine how planning and preparing for these events
would affect PSTs’ learning about STEM teaching. After analysis of PSTs’ reflections and plans/
preparations for the event, they concluded several themes had emerged: PSTs understood that telling
students is not enough, and they identified a need to shift control to the students to explore. PSTs
noticed how much a child knows before the event makes a big difference in their understanding
during the lesson, and they also determined that choosing examples is important and can be com-
plex based on the scope of learning. The authors also noted how this added component gave PSTs
opportunities to develop their 21st-century skills while learning about teaching STEM in their
community.
Counsell, Peat, Vaughan, and Johnson (2015) described four integrated STEM units developed
by their early childhood preservice teachers for implementation in their field placements or the local
science museum. The introduction to their article described how these students increase their STEM
learning as they utilize the learning cycle approach, the inquiry approach, and the engineering design
approach. The authors felt that working beyond the field was even more valuable, as students not
only increased STEM skills and knowledge as they implemented lessons with children, but also that
they were part of building a STEM partnership in the community.
Stein and Muzzin (2018) described how elementary PSTs learned from failure with STEM les-
sons in their STEM camp. The authors focused on PSTs’ learning from failure with STEM lessons,
particularly in executing an experiment. Students developed STEM lessons, practiced them with
peers, and then presented them 14 times with elementary campers, providing multiple opportunities
to capitalize on failures and redesign the lesson. The authors concluded that when PSTs see fail-
ure through the lens of an opportunity (instead of failure as defeat), they learned even more. PSTs
learned to ask open-ended questions, how to better scaffold activities for learning, and how to better
engage students for the ‘testing’ phase of their experiment. The authors concluded that although the
focus was on STEM learning for students, the PSTs were learning that discussion and activities in
STEM are often based on failure or problematic situations, and that questions about how to solve
these problems or failures motivate students’ thinking and get them ready to do the STEM learning.

Conclusions
It is clear that preparation programs are attempting to create changes toward integrated STEM, and
many universities across the world are working toward better preparing elementary teachers for inte-
grated STEM; however, the research is not conclusive about best practices or the impact of so many
of these changes since little has been reported. Also many of the articles published are not research-
based. We encourage our colleagues to make a concerted effort to publish based on their research of
practices that best prepare our future elementary teachers in STEM education.
As a result of our article search and review, we found fewer than ten articles that described program
changes (including course changes). These changes varied and measured different outcomes. Murphy
and Mancini-Samuelson (2012) and O’Brien (2010) reported increase confidence and knowledge.
Rinke, Gladstone-Brown, Kinlaw, and Cappiello (2016) described students in the changed program
increased efficacy and lesson planning for integrating STEM. Glavich (2016) described her experi-
ence in a newly created program as giving her confidence and preparation to integrate STEM in
her classroom.
Only five articles described pedagogical changes and gave limited results of their effectiveness on
students’ ability to create integrated STEM lessons. Several of these studies included students learning
how to create STEM lessons/activities. But the results were conflicting. Radloff and Guzey (2017)
found that the PSTs could explain integration of STEM along with perception changes on how
to use STEM with intent. But Kim and Bolger (2017) of Korea found that despite more positive
attitudes, confidence, and awareness of STEM, lessons lacked integration or a science focus. Tillman

345
 Amy Corp, Melanie Fields and Gilbert Naizer

et al. (2015) looked at different types of PSTs (general education, bilingual, and undecided) to deter-
mine if this impacted their view of creativity in designing integrated STEM lessons and found that
all students improved and felt more confident about planning integrated STEM.
Self-efficacy was also noted as a positive change when PSTs were asked to integrate content as
an added component to the class in both Canadian and American elementary teacher preparation
courses ( Jaipal-Jamani & Angeli, 2017; Kaya et al., 2017). Schmidt and Fulton (2017) reported on
gains in content knowledge and increases in desire to implement technology after modeling a crea-
tive integrated STEM unit with PSTs. Conversely, Kim et al. (2015) found little difference in change
in content knowledge from the addition of their STEM unit to the single course despite an increase
in their aspiration to expose students to STEM. We conclude the results are too scant and varied for
clear recommendations of what is happening to prepare elementary teachers for integrated STEM.

Implications
Clearly, the lack of published research regarding elementary teacher STEM preparation provides a
concern. Given the growing focus on STEM in elementary schools, it is clear that preparation pro-
grams are attempting to create changes toward integrated STEM; however, the research is not con-
clusive about best practices or the impact of these changes due to the scarce amount published. We
join with others such as PCAST (Holdren, Lander, & Varmus, 2010) in recommending greater focus
on preparation of STEM teachers (NCTM, 2019; NSF, 2018; NRC, 2013), particularly elementary
teachers who will teach STEM (Epstein & Miller, 2011; Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014;
Radloff & Guzey, 2017). O’Brien, Karsnitz, Sandt, Bottomley, and Parry (2014) reported the lack of
intentional practices on the part of preparation programs, and their assertions cannot be refuted by
evidence from the review conducted for this chapter.

Future Research Directions

Within the few studies reviewed in this chapter, it appears that changes to preservice elementary
teacher programs that focus on STEM content and/or pedagogy tend to produce increased knowl-
edge in STEM content, growth in attitude and confidence towards STEM and STEM teaching,
and slight improvement in the ability to develop integrated STEM lesson plans. However, research
is needed on every aspect of elementary STEM teacher preparation. There were no published data
supporting the number and type of content or pedagogy courses needed for elementary teach-
ers to effectively teach integrated STEM. What programs are offered in STEM within elementary
teacher preparation? What courses or certificates are offered for elementary preservice teachers? We
described some of these changes, but there needs to be much more evidence of what is being done
and more research into what is effective in producing PSTs with STEM-literate skills.
What courses have been changed to integrated STEM, and how effective is this in preparing them
to teach integrated STEM? We reported on just a few activities and specific field experiences. But
what types of field experiences and in-class activities are most proficient in preparing elementary
teachers to effectively teach integrated STEM?
Perhaps the most telling data lie just beyond the teacher preparation program. How are these
students doing as teachers? We suggest research that follows teachers into their first years of teaching
to determine what skills were gained through preservice STEM experiences in their preparation that
have transferred to in-service practice.
While models of elementary teacher STEM preparation exist, our review of current research
found extremely limited data on effectiveness of program changes, course changes, pedagogical
changes within courses, and addition of STEM or TE activities to current courses for elementary
teacher preparation. The potential impact of teachers who are better prepared to teach integrated

346
 Elementary STEM Teacher Education

STEM is desperately needed. Describing their review of the literature of integrated STEM curricu-
lum, Honey et al. (2014) found two areas most impacted by teaching integrated STEM: conceptual
learning and interest and identity. They found the potential for increased learning in all STEM areas,
but particularly science. Noting that the practices and research for how students interest and identify
with STEM varied, they still concluded that the strongest positive impacts of integrated STEM prac-
tices were on students who have been historically underrepresented in STEM fields.
We have anecdotal/personal evidence that some research is being presented at conferences, but
it has not yet reached the published literature. If we continue developing programs without research
support, how are we adequately meeting the need of elementary students and schools? Could prepa-
ration programs inadvertently be contributing to the lack of quality students for the STEM pipeline?

References
Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about
conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3–11. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x
Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30–35.
Carroll, K., & Scott, C. (2017). Creating STEM kits for the classroom. Science and Children, 55(1), 36–41. https://
doi.org/10.2505/4/sc17_055_01_36
Counsell, S., Jacobs, K., & Gatewood, S. (2017). What’s in our soil? Science and Children, 55(1), 58. https://doi.
org/10.2505/4/sc17_055_01_58
Counsell, S., Peat, F., Vaughan, R., & Johnson, T. (2015). Inventing mystery machines: Collaborating to improve
teacher STEM preparation. Science and Children, 52(7), 64. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/sc15_052_07_64
Dani, D. E., Hartman, S. L., & Helfrich, S. R. (2017). Learning to teach science: Elementary teacher candidates
facilitate informal STEM events. The New Educator, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1547688X.2017.1356413
DiFrancesca, D., Lee, C., & McIntyre, E. (2014). Where is the “E” in STEM for young children? engineering
design education in an elementary teacher preparation program. Issues in Teacher Education, 23(1), 49.
Epstein, D., & Miller, R. T. (2011). Slow off the mark: Elementary school teachers and the crisis in STEM edu-
cation. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 77(1), 4.
Glavich, C. (2016). Growing strong STEMs reflections of a beginning teacher’s preservice program. Issues in
Teacher Education, 25(2), 89.
Granovskiy, B. (2018). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: An overview. (CRS Report
no. R45223). Retrieved from Congressional Research Service Website https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/
R45223.pdf
Hacıömeroğlu, G. (2018). Examining elementary pre-service teachers’ science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) teaching intention. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(1), 2–12.
https://doi.org/10.15345/iojes.2018.01.014
Holdren, J. P., Lander, E. S., & Varmus, H. (2010). Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in science, technology, engineer-
ing, and math (STEM) for America’s future. Executive Report). Washington, DC: President’s Council of Advisors
on Science and Technology.
Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects,
and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Jaipal-Jamani, K., & Angeli, C. (2017). Effect of robotics on elementary preservice teachers’ self-efficacy, science
learning, and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(2), 175–192. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10956-016-9663-z
Kaya, E., Newley, A., Deniz, H., Yesilyurt, E., & Newley, P. (2017). Introducing engineering design to a science
teaching methods course through educational robotics and exploring changes in views of preservice elemen-
tary teachers. Journal of College Science Teaching, 47(2), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst17_047_02_66
Kim, C., Kim, D., Yuan, J., Hill, R. B., Doshi, P., & Thai, C. N. (2015). Robotics to promote elementary educa-
tion pre-service teachers’ STEM engagement, learning, and teaching. Computers & Education, 91(15), 14–31.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.08.005
Kim, D., & Bolger, M. (2017). Analysis of Korean elementary pre-service teachers’ changing attitudes about
integrated STEAM pedagogy through developing lesson plans. International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 15(4), 587–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9709-3
Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: Country comparisons: International compari-
sons of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Final report.

347
 Amy Corp, Melanie Fields and Gilbert Naizer

McClure, E. R., Guernsey, L., Clements, D. H., Bales, S. N., Nichols, J., Kendall-Taylor, N., & Levine, M. H.
(2017). STEM starts early: Grounding science, technology, engineering, and math education in early child-
hood. In Joan Ganz Cooney center at sesame workshop. New York, NY: Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame
Workshop.
Moomaw, S., & Davis, J. A. (2010). STEM comes to preschool. YC Young Children, 65(5), 12.
Moore, T. J., & Smith, K. A. (2014). Advancing the state of the art of STEM integration. Journal of STEM Educa-
tion: Innovations and Research, 15(1), 5.
Murphy, T. P., & Mancini-Samuelson, G. J. (2012). Graduating STEM competent and confident teachers: The
creation of a STEM certificate for elementary education majors. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(2),
18–23.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2019). NCTM Legislative Platform for the 115th Congress.
Retrieved from https://www.nctm.org/uploadedFiles/2019-NCTM-Legislative-Platform-Final%20.pdf
National Research Council. (2013). Developing assessments for the next generation science standards. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press.
National Science Foundation. (2018). Science & engineering indicators. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/
statistics/2018/nsb20181/
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
O’Brien, S. (2010). Characterization of a unique undergraduate multidisciplinary STEM K-5 teacher prepara-
tion program. Journal of Technology Education, 21(2), 35–51.
O’Brien, S., Karsnitz, J., Sandt, S., Bottomley, L., & Parry, E. (2014). Engineering in preservice teacher education.
In S. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in Pre-college Settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and
practices (pp. 277–300). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Radloff, J., & Guzey, S. (2017). Investigating changes in preservice teachers’ conceptions of STEM educa-
tion following video analysis and reflection. School Science and Mathematics, 117(3–4), 158–167. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ssm.12218
Rinke, C. R., Gladstone-Brown, W., Kinlaw, C. R., & Cappiello, J. (2016). Characterizing STEM teacher
education: Affordances and constraints of explicit STEM preparation for elementary teachers: Character-
izing STEM teacher education. School Science and Mathematics, 116(6), 300–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/
ssm.12185
Ritz, J. M., & Fan, S. C. (2015). STEM and technology education: International state-of-the-art. International
Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(4), 429–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9290-z
Rose, M. A., Carter, V., Brown, J., & Shumway, S. (2017). Status of elementary teacher development: Preparing
elementary teachers to deliver technology and engineering experiences. Journal of Technology Education, 28(2),
2–18. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v28i2.a.1
Schmidt, M., & Fulton, L. (2017). Lessons learned from creation of an exemplary STEM unit for elementary
pre-service teachers: A case study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 36(2), 189.
Shernoff, D. J., Sinha, S., Bressler, D. M., & Ginsburg, L. (2017). Assessing teacher education and professional
development needs for the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education. International Jour-
nal of STEM Education, 4(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0068-1
Stein, M., & Muzzin, M. (2018). Learning from failure. Science and Children, 55(8), 62–65. https://doi.org/10.
2505/4/sc18_055_08_62
Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2018). Dancing robots: Integrating art, music, and robotics in Singapore’s early child-
hood centers. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(2), 325–346.
Teo, T. W., & Ke, K. J. (2014). Challenges in STEM teaching: Implication for preservice and inservice teacher
education program. Theory into Practice, 53(1), 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014.862116
Tillman, D. A., An, S. A., & Boren, R. L. (2015). Assessment of creativity in arts and STEM integrated pedagogy
by pre-service elementary teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 23(3), 301.

348