Preparing School and District Leaders for Success in Developing and Facilitating Integrative STEM in Higher Education

Abstract

Higher education institutions in the United States with graduate-level educational leadership programs traditionally do not offer professional learning opportunities in integrative STEM education. The objective of this paper is to share our journey to prepare and implement a course designed for P-12 educational leaders to build knowledge and skills to lead impactful integrative STEM programming. Results of the demand survey indicated a high amount of interest in an integrative STEM education course. Findings from interviews and the modified Delphi study informed our decisions for the development, objectives, assessments, and outcomes of the course to enhance integrative STEM culture in educational settings.

Keywords

integrative STEM education educational leadership higher education

To strengthen social and economic well-being and improve equitable opportunities for diverse student populations, national and global efforts have led to reformulations of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) teaching and learning (Mohr-Schroeder et al., 2020). The United States federal funding has supported STEM education through the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015 and other federal programs which have primarily focused upon increasing post-secondary STEM degrees, preparing people to enter into STEM careers, conducting STEM education research, and improving teachers’ knowledge and skills to deliver STEM instruction in elementary and secondary school settings (Granovskiy, 2018). As part of this reformulation, STEM education teaching and learning initiatives are shifting from science, technology, engineering, and mathematics as separate disciplines into interdisciplinary pedagogies. Educational leaders are held accountable by stakeholders to build interdisciplinary STEM programs, but these educators are often unfamiliar with building impactful STEM programs and professional learning opportunities for STEM education targeting educational leadership (Wolfe, 2017).

An example of how this is problematic is evident in our state. In 2012, the Indiana Department of Education (2019a) began a statewide STEM plan that established a process by which K-12 schools could become STEM Certified. STEM Certified Schools exemplify a “highly non-traditional approach to education by employing a great deal of inquiry, project-based learning, community engagement, entrepreneurship, student-centered classrooms, and out-of-school STEM activities” (Indiana Department of Education, 2019a, para 3). As of 2019, only 78 of nearly 2,000 K-12 schools in the entire state have received STEM Certification (Indiana Department of Education, 2019b).

Additionally, the Indiana Department of Education, Office of Workforce & STEM Alliances (2018) published a 6-year strategic plan for statewide K-12 STEM integration with yearly milestones in instruction, curriculum, and early career exposure in STEM from 2019 to 2025. According to the plan, 100% of teachers will use problem-, project-, and inquiry-based instructional approaches to learning. In addition, 100% of schools will implement integrated, evidence-based STEM curriculum, include a focus on STEM careers, as well as create and sustain STEM-focused business and industry partnerships.

Informed and talented school educational leaders (e.g., superintendents, principals, and assistant principals) are needed to lead this transition to integrative STEM education a complex and ambiguous process to prepare interdisciplinary curricula, collaborative learning environments, and equitable STEM opportunities for diverse student populations. Infusing integrative STEM education into educational leader preparation programs is one solution toward building a STEM-capable citizenry. Yet, the university where we reside did not provide integrative STEM graduate-level courses or professional learning opportunities for pre-service school and district leaders. With 90 to 110 master’s students in educational administration graduating each year, we recognized a need for programming to build STEM-capable educational leaders.

After identifying the need to improve opportunities for pre-service school leaders to hone their understandings of integrative STEM education at their own institutions, we devised a multi-tiered research agenda to examine the need and critical content for an integrative STEM education graduate course for school and district leaders. The purpose of the paper is to disseminate the results of four research studies that informed the development and pilot testing of an integrative STEM education course at our institution for pre-service and in-service school and district leaders. Scholars from other institutions may find these findings helpful when evaluating the integrative STEM-readiness of their own educational leadership graduate programs.

Literature Review

We conceptualize integrative STEM through a broad lens that encompasses intentional teaching and learning approaches that strive to simultaneously achieve learning goals that originate from two or more STEM disciplines and may also include integration of non-STEM disciplines. Integrative STEM paradigms and praxis consist of educational experiences “that value unique contributions” (Li, 2014, p. 1), apply the “natural intersections of learning within the continuum of content areas, educational environments, and academic levels” (Wells & Ernst, 2012/2015, para 3), and support educators to innovate curriculum to engage critical thinking and transfer of learning. Throughout integrative STEM experiences, students are empowered to collaboratively think and perform fluidly as scientists, technologists, engineers, artists, and mathematicians to solve real-world problems.

Preparing integrative STEM leaders

Historically, graduate education programs within colleges and universities of the United States have been the primary pathways by which to acquire the required credentials to become P-12 school leaders. Institutions of higher education develop their curricular programs to meet and exceed national standards, such as the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2015). Although the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders address generic knowledge, skills, and competencies of an educational leader (e.g., professional learning, community partnerships, and equitable opportunities), no explicit language drives preparation programs to develop school leaders’ understanding or skills of integrative curriculum, student-driven pedagogies, or “STEM education.”

Seeking further evidence of the status of integrative STEM in education leadership programs, we systematically examined the online program and course descriptions of the 30 top-ranked educational administration programs in the United States (U.S. News and World Report, 2020). No program or course descriptions included explicit reference to STEM education or curriculum, integrative STEM education or curriculum, nor preferred pedagogies. However, some programs may offer elective courses that educational leadership students could use to fill this void. In addition, students at the University of Texas at Austin (2019) could opt for additional coursework by participating in the courses offered through a master’s degree in STEM education.

Evidence supports integrative STEM education as a potentially beneficial cultural shift for school programming. For example, integrative STEM education professional learning has been shown to increase the self-efficacy of teachers and school leaders in project- and problem-based learning (Havice et al., 2018), expand collaboration opportunities and use of technology (Herro & Quigley, 2017), and promote more community stakeholder involvement in schools through partnerships (Havice, 2015). Relatedly, Donna (2012) presents a professional development model to integrate engineering design in an integrative context to (a) explore prior knowledge related to engineering and relationships between domains; (b) develop basic knowledge of engineering; (c) engage in a cooperative engineering design activity; (d) reflect on activity as learners and STEM educators; (e) extend knowledge and connections between domains; and (f) continue work within professional learning communities (p. 3). Professional learning is a critical component for leaders to provide P-12 teachers an opportunity to develop authentic integrative STEM pedagogy.

School leaders who intentionally promote integrative STEM education would do well to attend to the work of researchers (e.g., LaForce et al., 2016; SRI International, George Washington University & George Mason University, 2015) who identify qualities of a transformative STEM experience. These qualities would include the following:

○ Intentional integration of STEM subjects, and often non-STEM subjects;

○ Student-centered learning processes (e.g., inquiry-based, problem-based, project-based, design-based);

○ Collaborative interaction processes and partnerships; and

○ Relevant connections to personal, community, and global issues, as well as future educational and career pathways.

According to Myers and Berkowicz (2015), in order to increase the exposure of students to a STEM culture within a school program, the school leaders should ideally inform and have conversations about a cultural shift with other school and community stakeholders (i.e., teachers, students, staff, district and building leaders, board members, and parents). Evidence indicates that leader capacity can be enhanced through professional learning and training programs. For instance, the results of a 2-day STEM leadership training program for educators enrolled in an administrator certification program in the United States indicated statistically higher posttest readiness scores to lead STEM education as compared to pretest scores (Ayodos, 2018). This effect was moderated by school location with urban leaders higher than suburban school leaders. Ayodos (2018) explained the relationship between STEM leadership preparation and the implementation of influential STEM projects, learning strategies, and resources for enhanced educational leadership professional learning and graduate programs. In consideration of how our leadership program might contribute to initiating and sustaining integrative STEM education in K-12 schools, we envisioned an iterative research and design process to inform and test a professional learning experience for graduate students.

Conceptual Framework

Our mission was to prepare integrative STEM leaders by designing and implementing a graduate-level course for pre-service and in-service school leaders during the 2017–18 and 2018–19 school years. Our goals were to: (1) analyze the demand for an integrative STEM course at the graduate level; (2) analyze critical qualities and strategies to employ in integrative STEM schools and districts; and (3) develop, implement and evaluate a pilot offering of the course. After reviewing research studies in the United States, our objective in this paper is to share our journey, as researchers, in building an integrative STEM professional learning experience.

We designed a framework to guide our research and work related to leadership in integrative STEM education (see Figure 1). First, we identified a national problem as a majority of school and district level leaders do not have access to integrative STEM education courses or professional learning. From there, we situated our goals within leadership training and development in integrative STEM that resulted in course design and implementation in our institution.

Figure 1.

Framework of this study.

Research Questions

We investigated the following questions in our study:

Research Question 1: What is the demand for an integrative STEM education course among graduate students enrolled in education-related graduate programs?

Research Question 2: What are the strategies that current integrative STEM leaders and educators employ that could inform an integrative STEM education course design for graduate students studying educational leadership?

Research Question 3: How do completers of the pilot offerings of an integrative STEM education course perceive their learning experience?

Methods

The design of this mixed methods research project includes a demand survey, interviews, a modified Delphi technique, and textual analysis of student reflections within course evaluations during the 2017–18 and 2018–19 school years.

Research Question 1

Sample

Fifty-six current graduate students and 175 graduates from our institution’s college of education participated in the demand survey. Participants were enrolled in a minimum of one of the following programs: educational administration and supervision (n = 31), science education (n = 3), technology education (n = 4), career and technology education (n = 3), secondary education (n = 18), mathematics education (n = 4), elementary education (n = 57), special education (n = 7), curriculum and educational technology (n = 3), educational psychology (n = 3), educational studies (n = 4), and other/undisclosed (n = 18).

Data collection and analysis

A Qualtrics questionnaire was distributed via email and consisted of 10 items. Six of the items were a part of a 5-point Likert scale section about participants’ perspectives of the effectiveness of their program preparation regarding integrative STEM education. Other questions included the participants’ likelihood of taking an integrative STEM course, the value of course content, skills, and activities in an integrative STEM course, and participants’ program of study and degree or license pursued in our institution. We wrote all of the items in the survey based on our review of literature, the Indiana Department of Education STEM plan, and our knowledge of academic programs at the institution. A descriptive analysis was used to answer Question 1, quantifying responses by participants into established categories. Reading systematically, we tabulated the ordinal scores.

Research Question 2

Sample

Six leaders in integrative STEM education participated in semi-structured interviews. Participants included a state department STEM specialist, two middle school principals, a high school principal, a high school STEM coordinator, and a high school CTE program director. The modified Delphi panel consisted of 24 experts, including school leaders (n = 10), teacher leaders (n = 3), state-level administrators (n = 2), STEM professionals (n = 5), and university faculty (n = 4), with 58% of panelists currently working in Indiana.

Data collection and analysis

Upon completion and analyses of the survey responses, we conducted six semi-structured interviews with integrative STEM education leaders throughout our state; three interviews were conducted via web conference and three interviews were conducted face-to-face. The interview protocol included a sequence of open-ended questions clustered around the expertise and responsibilities of the school leader, integrative STEM initiatives and curriculum at the school, professional learning needs of school leadership and teaching staff, and recommendations for graduate education programs (see Table 1). We wrote all interview questions based on feedback from the demand assessment, the Indiana Department of Education STEM plan and STEM Certified schools document, and our interests in integrative STEM education leadership in schools and districts.

Table 1.

Interview Protocol for Integrative STEM Leaders.

Section I: Information about school leader
1. What are your primary role and responsibilities relative to school leadership? How long have you served in this capacity?
2. What are your responsibilities relative to seeking recognition as a STEM-Certified School? How long have you served in this capacity?
3. What does “STEM immersion” or “STEM integration” mean to you?
4. What formal education experiences prepared you for STEM immersion or STEM integration?
5. What formal educational experiences should you have had to prepare to STEM integration?
Section II. Professional development needs
6. Relative to the state’s Department of Education’s STEM-certified schools program or STEM initiatives in general, what are the most important professional development needs (skills and knowledge) of the school leadership and teaching staff relative to. . ..
a. Collaboratively developing and articulating a shared vision of STEM learning?
b. Performing a needs assessment?
c. Aligning and integrating curriculum?
d. Implementing integrative STEM instruction?
e. Selecting or developing sufficient and appropriate STEM-centric resources?
f. Scheduling or sequencing curricular offerings?
g. Cultivating partnerships with business and industry professionals?
h. Monitoring, assessing, and evaluating student achievement?
i. Evaluating and monitoring STEM programming?
Section III. Graduate education programs
7. How might graduate education programs at state universities, such as our institution, better meet the needs of school leaders and school faculty within schools seeking STEM certification?
8. What is your current and anticipated need to hire faculty and staff with integrative STEM expertise? What expertise or certifications are you seeking?
Closure
Do you have any other insights or concerns you would like to share?

Through Thematic Analysis (TA), the qualitative data was reviewed for emergent themes. The process through which the data was rearranged to support the canons of validity (e.g., code mapping and documentation tables) aligned with the work of Anfara et al. (2002). After transcribing the interviews, researchers read and reread the data to familiarize themselves with the texts. With the first reading of each interview, we observed similarities in words, phrases, and ideas. With the first iteration, the responses underwent a surface content analysis of initial codes. In the second iteration, pattern variables were identified. The third iteration of analysis addressed applications to the data set. After coding all of the data, condensing the codes, and conducting a final reading of each transcript, we collapsed the codes into themes to convey rich, thick descriptions of the data (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Code Mapping of Data Pertaining to Perceptions of Integrative STEM Leaders.

Interview A	Interview B	Interview C	Interview D
Third iteration: Themes
(1) Integrative STEM leaders believe scheduling and planning times for integrative STEM teachers to collaborate or co-teach should be emphasized.
(2) Integrative STEM leaders deem a focus on collaboration with fellow integrative STEM leaders and teachers to be important in a graduate-level course.
(3) Integrative STEM leaders believe information and experiences related to how to promote development opportunities and community partnerships are necessary for integrative STEM to be effective.
Second iteration examples: Pattern variables
Knowledge and skills of creating infrastructure needed	Integrative STEM inspires innovation	Professional development must be purposeful	Advantages with community partnerships
Collaboration with stakeholders	Importance of formal training to teach integrative STEM pedagogy	Tailor needs to local workforce	Schedule time for teachers to collaborate
Time and resources for teachers		Tailor needs to local workforce	Schedule time for teachers to collaborate
First iteration examples: Initial codes/surface content analysis
Code 34: Excited by success	Code 15: Adapting new ideas	Code 19: Selection of professional learning	Code 147: Teacher buy-in ground swell
Code 35: Modification of schedule	Code 77: Strong engagement with teachers with STEM experience	Code 20: Problem-solving and communicating	Code 150: Learn by doing and working with others
Code 45: Collaboration generated ideas	Code 82a: Education background	Code 21a: Industry needs	Code 151: Partnerships opens opportunities
Code 49: Resources through funding	Code 82b: Technology education experience	Code 21b: Community-at-large considerations	Code 152: Involvement of multiple classes
Raw data	Raw data	Raw data	Raw data

A modified three-round Delphi technique was used to identify and validate the qualities of an integrative STEM leader (Rose et al., 2019), and thus inform the content for a graduate-level course for educational leaders. The Delphi technique relies upon the judgments of distributed experts to identify and reach consensus on complex issues through the administration and analysis of consecutively more narrow questionnaires. Relative to STEM education, the technique has been used to identify strategies to promote environmental STEM literacy among teachers (Kaya & Elster, 2019) and to help “leadership educators scaffold learning experiences based on moving from developing simple to complex leadership competencies” (Seemiller & Whitney, 2020, p. 130).

The initial Qualtrics questionnaire asked the panel to list the most critical skills and competencies of an integrative STEM leader and judge a pre-established list of items that were derived from a review of literature and interviews with STEM leaders. The first round included open- and closed-ended items for seven themes related to school leadership. Participants rated unique participant responses in the second round. Findings were validated by the participants in the third round. Upon completing the third round of the Delphi study, we compiled all of our data and resources to develop and implement an integrative STEM course for graduate-level educational leaders. See (Rose et al., 2019) for a comprehensive list of findings.

Research Question 3

With new insights from the interview and modified Delphi study, we developed an integrative STEM course for graduate students. The purpose of the course was to examine foundational knowledge and skills used in integrative STEM education and to study principles and practices of integrative curriculum and instruction as it relates to planning, implementing, and leading integrative STEM programs. The 3-credit course was designed for distributed asynchronous delivery during a 5-week term using collaborative, active learning, and place-based pedagogies. The course was piloted at our institution in the summers of 2018 and 2019 as an experimental course.

Participants

Twenty-three graduate students completed the integrative STEM pilot course. Combining two years of the integrative STEM course, participants included teachers (n = 14), principals (n = 6), school staff (n = 2), and other (n = 1). Fifteen graduate students were male, and eight were female.

Data collection and analysis

In the final days of the course, participants were asked to reflect upon their experiences by responding to four sets of open-ended questions (see Table 3). The purpose was to gauge the strengths and opportunities for future enhancements relative to students’ judgments and recommendations. Responses from both sections were collated by question. During the first round of review, we coded all unique assertions and recommendations. In a subsequent review, we noted the frequency of occurrence of each code by student.

Table 3.

Reflection Prompts for Students Completing the Pilot Course.

What was the best aspect of the class in terms of advancing your own understanding of the principles and practices of STEM education? Why was this effective?

Do you see yourself as an integrative STEM leader? What knowledge and skills might you apply to this role? What knowledge and skills need further development?

Which principle or practice of integrative STEM education would you have appreciated a deeper examination of during this class. Please recommend a learning strategy to address this issue.

Have your experiences enhanced your ability to identify, analyze, and evaluate integrative STEM curriculum and instruction? If so, how so? If not, please recommend a strategy for achieving this goal.

Results

The components of this research project have been informed by the growing demand for quality STEM education in K-12 school systems and the lack of formal education opportunities for educational leadership students to familiarize themselves with best practices in integrative STEM education. To answer research question 1 (i.e., What is the demand for an integrative STEM education course among graduate students enrolled in education-related graduate programs?), we analyzed results from the demand for integrative STEM education survey and interviews with integrative STEM leaders. To answer research question 2 (i.e., What are the strategies that current integrative STEM leaders employ that could inform an integrative STEM education course design for graduate students studying educational leadership?), we analyzed results interviews and a modified Delphi study with integrative STEM leaders. To answer research question 3 (i.e., How do completers of the pilot offerings of an integrative STEM education course perceive their learning experience?), we analyzed results of the student reflections.

Research Question 1

Participants agreed (37.8%) or strongly agreed (40.5%) that STEM education in P-12 schools should be integrative practices (see Table 4). Current students and alumni generally perceived integrative STEM education to be valuable, but felt that their graduate-level programs did not prepare them to contribute to or lead integrative STEM education initiatives (59.4%). The majority of participants indicated they would likely (n = 40, 36.4%) or extremely likely (n = 40, 36.4%) enroll in an integrative STEM education course if one was available. Completion of a graduate-level course in integrative STEM education will better prepare educational leaders to pursue STEM certification for their schools, facilitate community partnerships, and develop an educational environment to prepare a new generation of scientific and technological innovators.

Table 4.

Results of Demand Questionnaire for Items Related to Participants’ Preparedness in STEM.

	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly agree
I am very familiar with the content standards of two or more of the STEM disciplines.	2 (5.4%)	9 (24.3%)	1 (2.7%)	12 (32.4%)	13 (35.1%)
STEM education in P-12 schools should be integrative, that is, achieve learning goals from two or more STEM disciplines at the same time.	0 (0.0%)	1 (2.7%)	17 (18.9%)	14 (37.8%)	15 (40.5%)
My graduate program provided/is providing examples of the structure and nature of STEM-certified schools.	6 (16.2%)	14 (37.8%)	9 (24.3%)	5 (13.5%)	3 (8.1%)
My graduate program prepared me to foster design-based learning, that is, developing solutions to problems.	3 (5.4%)	9 (24.3%)	7 (18.9%)	13 (35.1%)	6 (16.2%)
My graduate program provided ample opportunities for me to learn how to plan integrative STEM curriculum.	5 (13.5%)	17 (45.9%)	2 (5.4%)	9 (24.3%)	4 (18.8%)
As a result of my graduate education, I am confident in my ability to contribute to a STEM-certified school.	5 (13.5%)	9 (24.3%)	8 (21.6%)	9 (24.3%)	6 (16.2%)

Research Question 2

Integrative approaches that merge science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) within K-12 schools offer much promise in preparing creative problem solvers and STEM-capable citizens. To identify the challenges, critical needs, experiences, and content of an integrative STEM education course, we analyzed data from interviews with integrative STEM education leaders and results from a modified Delphi study.

Three themes emerged from the interviews: (1) Integrative STEM leaders believe scheduling and planning times for integrative STEM teachers to collaborate or co-teach should be emphasized; (2) Integrative STEM leaders deem a focus on collaboration with fellow integrative STEM leaders and teachers to be important in a graduate-level course; and (3) Integrative STEM leaders believe information and experiences related to how to promote professional learning opportunities and community partnerships are necessary for integrative STEM to be effective.

According to one principal, the ability to have structures in place to integrate curricula, and be knowledgeable of how each teacher contributes, is critical, “we’re a PBL school. . .to know what each [teacher] is doing at any one given time is important for true STEM integration.” The principal adds that schools who do not have this structure in place are at a disadvantage, thus higher education institutes can be supportive of informing models suited for integrative STEM infrastructure. A CTE director of a STEM-Certified School shares a needed balance for integrative STEM:

I think to me it’s about an openness to new ideas, but also a desire to be responsive to those post-secondary and industry needs. . .We need to look at where student interests are. We need to look at what industry needs are. Then we need to try to bridge the gap and make sure we have indications that our people understand exactly what resources are available where we can find additional resources.

As a program leader, the CTE director aligns with the needs of various stakeholders and so collaboration and open communication are important components within an integrative STEM professional learning approach. The need for collaboration was echoed by another principal of a school that explicitly stated a value for integrativeness in within its mission. “I think it’s important to make sure everyone is on the same page. . .we brought in stakeholders, parents, staff, students. . .an atmosphere of trust, respect, and responsibility.” A former state-level STEM specialist also provided insight into the importance of professional learning for educational leaders that addresses integrative STEM education. When evaluating schools’ approaches to STEM integration, the participant shared that some educational leaders did not appear to find as much value in purposeful STEM integration practices. They perceived these attitudes to be detrimental to a school’s transformation.

Delphi study

An extensive list of desirable qualities of a STEM leader emerged from the field notes taken during school visits, the analysis of interview transcripts, and literature review. A reductionist analysis of these qualities resulted in seven themes: (1) Mission and culture; (2) Equity; (3) Curriculum and instruction; (4) Infrastructure and programming; (5) Professional development; (6) Evaluation and assessment; and (7) Extended learning. A three-round modified Delphi study was conducted to validate these preliminary results.

The questionnaire for Round 1 was divided into the aforementioned seven themes with the first item being an open-ended request to offer the three most critical qualities of a STEM leader striving for excellence relative to the theme. Then, panelists rated a list of pre-established qualities on a 5-point importance scale (1 = Not at All Important to 5 = Critically Important). Analysis of the 423 open-ended responses yielded 55 new qualities to the original list.

For Round 2, panelists rated only the 55 new qualities emerging from Round 1. In Round 3, panelists reassessed the critically important qualities (mean ≥ 4.5 on a 5-points scale), reaching 86 to 100% agreement across all seven themes. However, no qualities reached this threshold for leadership as it relates to Extended Learning. Table 5 identifies the highest rated qualities on average (see Rose et al. (2019) for a more comprehensive list of findings).

Table 5.

Results of Modified Delphi Technique to Identify Skills and Qualities of a STEM Leader.

Theme	A stem leader striving for excellence. . .	Mean	SD
Equity	Ensures that all students have equitable access to integrative STEM curriculum and instruction	4.88	0.34
Mission and culture	Promotes a culture of innovation, inquiry, problem-solving, and evidence-based decision-making.	4.83	0.38
Curriculum and instruction	Ensures students engage in designing, engineering, making, testing, reflecting, and documenting.	4.82	0.5
Infrastructure and programming	Creates the school infrastructure and programming that has STEM learning spaces accessible to all students.	4.79	0.41
Mission and culture	Impanels a STEM leadership team comprised of diverse stakeholders, for example, faculty, students, parents, business, and community leaders.	4.75	0.44
Curriculum and instruction	Forms a STEM curriculum planning team with teachers of science and mathematics.	4.73	0.55
Professional development	Provides time and STEM-related professional development for educators to enhance their teaching practices.	4.71	0.46
Evaluation and assessment	Provides actionable feedback to teachers that enhances STEM instruction.	4.71	0.56

Note. Fifty-four items were deemed critically important in the modified Delphi study. The items listed had means higher than 4.70.

Research Question 3

An integrative STEM course for educational leaders was piloted in Summer 2018 and 2019 as a 5-week, 3-credit, online, asynchronous course delivered by the same instructor. Enrollment in the two sections of this graduate course was 9 and 14, respectively. Primarily, the course attracted students pursuing a Master of Arts in Education in Educational Administration and Supervision, which prepares educators for school leadership positions such as principals, deans, and curriculum specialists. The vast majority were practicing teachers (61%) or school leaders (26%). Interestingly, the course also attracted school and district staff who were not actively engaged in developing or delivering curriculum, but shared their dedication to improving thir schools’ STEM culture.

A primary goal of both iterations of the integrative STEM course was to test the learning strategies’ power to enhance collaborative active learning. For instance, during the first week of both iterations of the course, teams of distributed students were challenged to collaboratively develop a convincing rationale for initiating or strengthening STEM education in a specific state, district or school. Each team developed a visual presentation using Google Slides, which integrated data, descriptive titles, brief narratives, and references to authoritative sources of information. In a second activity, teams debated, rank-ordered and developed a rationale for the six most critical features of integrative STEM education. In response to “what was the best aspects of the class in terms of advancing your own understanding of the principles and practices of STEM education,” 43% noted that “collaborative learning” was the best aspect of the course and 35% noted it was the “diversity of their peers.” In 2018, a male teacher who completed the course stated:

One of the most important concepts of the I-STEM [integrative STEM] movement is collaboration and planning. These skills were tested with the initial group work, highlighting the importance of early and efficient communication. . . . (specifically, questioning strategies, active learning, and forming collaborative relationships with staff in other subject areas).

The review of scholarly articles (39%) and the synthesis paper (35%) were also among the best aspects of the course mentioned by students. All learning experiences and required course deliverables helped students in prepare a proposal to enhance their school’s integrative STEM programs. This place-based learning strategy required students to evaluate their school’s readiness for STEM education, identify current weaknesses, examine best practices and research findings related to these weaknesses, and propose strategies and a timeline to strengthen these weaknesses within their school and community. One completer stated, “It was very logical and helpful that weekly assignments were structured so that be completing a weekly assignment, it rolled into being an aspect of the final synthesis proposal.”

Completers also offered recommendations for improvement of the course. The most frequent response was to offer the course in a 10-week or 15-week semester. One student explained that there needed to be “more time to marinate in the content and slowing the pace a bit would help students appropriate the content more effectively.” Students were also asked, “which principle or practice of integrative STEM education would you have appreciated a deeper examination of during this class?” The most frequently occurring responses included: performance assessment, community partnerships, community-based learning opportunities, afterschool programs, and more opportunities to analyze and evaluate STEM curriculum.

Discussion

As described in the framework of this study (see Figure 1), we began our research based on the perceived lack of leadership education about integrative STEM leadership throughout the United States. By studying state guidelines to enhance STEM education, we recognized the need for administrators and school leaders to have more professional learning to effectively support and engage in integrative STEM initiatives in schools. The data collected in this study indicated course content needed to prepare school- and district-level leaders to facilitate STEM-focused schools and districts.

Identifying a Need for STEM Leadership Professional Development

A national problem has been identified as policymakers and educators call for educational administration preparation programs to empower impactful 21st century leaders (National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2015, 2018; Salinger & Zuga, 2009). Aligning with the literature, participants (pre-service and in-service educators) from our demand study indicated a lack of formal integrative STEM leadership training opportunities available in their programs-of-study.

By not having educational opportunities available to foster paradigms and praxis of integrative STEM education, administrators and teachers with leadership opportunities must navigate a complex cultural shift by themselves. Based on data from the demand study, we concluded that the university’s education programs of study generally did not appear to support integrative STEM education pedagogy. Most participants were in favor of an integrative STEM course within their program of study.

Showcasing the Successful Strategies of Others

In what ways have educational leaders navigated the STEM shift of a school that has led to impactful innovative pedagogy and praxis? Strategies that lead to successful results for one school or district may not necessarily work for another school or district because of significant number of variables (e.g., school culture, competing initiatives, relationship with the community). An important consideration to inform “what works” is to learn first-hand what decisions and actions were pursued at the school or district levels that lead to systemic program change (Myers & Berkowicz, 2015). For example, a team of researcher’s from the University of San Diego’s School of Leadership and Educational Sciences studied 27 “STEM Ecosystems”—each ecosystem encompassing school districts, teachers, parents, higher education institutions, informal STEM programs, and community partners invested in providing equitable STEM opportunities (Vance et al., 2016). From their work, critical factors to the development of a STEM ecosystem were identified: cross-sector partnerships, strong leadership, career pathways, a clear mission, community engagement, educator capacity, STEM literacy, and aligned interests with partners.

In our study, we interviewed six educators (principals, STEM coordinators, CTE directors, and state department personnel) who lead their own integrative STEM system or program to investigate the strategies used by these individuals. From a thematic analysis conducted, we found the following themes: (1) Integrative STEM leaders believe scheduling and planning times for integrative STEM teachers to collaborate or co-teach should be emphasized; (2) Integrative STEM leaders deem a focus on collaboration with fellow integrative STEM leaders and teachers to be important in a graduate-level course; and (3) Integrative STEM leaders also believe information and experiences related to how to promote professional learning opportunities and community partnerships are necessary for integrative STEM to be effective.

According to Myers and Berkowicz (2015), higher education decision-makers must “lead and respond” to the shift of STEM-centric programs that is taking place in P-12 schools (p. 145). Higher education programs can support the professional development of school leaders (pre-service and in-service) by including a study of integrative STEM school and district models in their program. In so doing, graduating school leaders will be familiar with STEM resources and innovative pedagogy and praxes (e.g., planning and scheduling, facilitating collaborative opportunities, selecting professional learning approaches) that may transfer to a school or district’s specific context.

Highlighting the Critical Characteristics and Skills

Myers and Berkowicz (2015) compare the cultivation of a STEM plan to agriculture. “Farmers know that preparing the fields and planting crops do not necessarily result in an abundant harvest. Real work—and yes, some support from nature—is required to maximize crop yield” (p. 79). With this analogy, the farmers are leaders who have the expertise to address the needs and problems of growing something new. The shift to an integrative STEM culture will also need a leader with the skills and characteristics to make decisions and collaborate with others in the initial development and nurturing of integrative STEM programs.

In our study, professional integrative STEM leaders (practicing administrators, university professors, state-level STEM specialists) completed a modified Delphi study, resulting in agreement of seven domains of qualities, characteristics, and skills identified as critical for integrative STEM leaders who strive for excellence. These domains include: (1) Mission and culture; (2) Curriculum and instruction; (3) Equity and social responsibility; (4) Infrastructure and programming; (5) Professional growth; (6) Extended learning; and (7) Evaluation and assessment. Critical characteristics of leaders in integrative STEM are outlined within each domain (Rose et al., 2019).

While these domains were deemed critical leadership qualities, characteristics, and skills in integrative STEM education, the domains also complement and build upon national standards for educational leaders. Alignment between the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (2015) Professional Standards for Educational Leaders and the critical competencies in integrative STEM leadership exist with strong connections to equity and school improvement (see Table 6) (Rose et al., 2019). Higher education faculty should reflect upon the extent to which their current instruction and program offerings prepare their educational leadership students to lead integrative STEM education and meet the social, emotional, academic, and career and college readiness needs of P-12 students.

Table 6.

Alignment of Educational Administration Standards and Integrative STEM Leadership Competencies.

	Integrative STEM leadership critical competencies
Standards	Mission and culture	Equity and social responsibility	Infrastructure and programming	Curriculum and instruction	Extended learning	Professional growth	Evaluation and assessment
1. Mission, Vision, and Core Values	X	X					X
2. Ethics and Professional Norms		X		X
3. Equity and Cultural Responsiveness	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
4. Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment	X	X	X	X		X	X
5. Community of Care and Support for Students	X	X	X		X
6. Professional Capacity of School Personnel		X		X		X	X
7. Professional Community for Teachers and Staff	X	X				X	X
8. Meaningful Engagement of Families and Community		X	X		X	X
9. Operations and Management	X	X	X		X	X	X
10. School Improvement	X	X	X	X	X	X	X

Note. National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA, 2015) standards are referenced.

Building Leadership Capacities in Higher Education

Fostering a shared vision among school stakeholders that would result in a cultural shift to integrative STEM education demands a complex set of knowledge and skills among school leaders. Interviews with STEM teacher leaders and administrators attest to the proposition that “adequate preparation in integrated STEM would entail a considerable rethinking and redesigning of pre-service courses and in-service workshops” (Shernoff et al., 2017, p. 1). Our multi-method study was a deliberative effort to rethink and design a graduate course specifically geared for pre-service and in-service school leaders. The content of the course arose from the results of interviews and the modified Delphi study, including integrated curriculum, STEM standards, mapping, and problem-based and design-based pedagogies. Learning activities were carefully crafted to enhance leaders’ skill sets to build teachers’ and their own capacity to implement integrative STEM education. Course activities required students to: engage in collaborative decision-making; use collaborative network tools; conduct a self-study of their school using appropriate metrics; and interpret research findings to inform a proposal for improvement.

In our evaluation of the pilot course, students found understanding and value in STEM programming. They appreciated the collaborative learning strategies employed in the class, as well as the opportunity to evaluate the STEM readiness of their own school in order to inform their synthesis project for the class (i.e., a proposal that would lead to enhancement in their school’s STEM programming). However, the majority indicated that a 10- or 15-week course, instead of a 3-credit 5-week course in the summer, would be a more appropriate time period to delve into the many complex facets of integrative STEM education. The results of our study and pilot course resulted in the formal approval of a course for integrative STEM educational leaders as an elective or professional core optional course for several graduate education programs at our university.

Limitations

The population in this study was limited by state, institution, and size. We focused on developing and facilitating one graduate-level course at one mid-sized, Indiana institution. The majority of participants in this study were from one state which emphasized preferred strategies and a well-established framework for integrative STEM education. New educators and school administrators were students in this graduate-level course; it was not required for degree or licensure completion. Students who took this course likely had an inherent interest in STEM education prior to enrolling in the course. Thus, it is likely that these results may have limited utility to inform course development for general populations in other states.

Implications

Professional learning opportunities among educators and leaders is critical in educational curricula, programs, and stakeholder involvement to promote P-12 student success in integrative STEM fields. Several studies related to the importance of STEM education in P-12 schools exist, however few studies (e.g., Ayodos, 2018; Havice et al., 2018) regarding the preparation and training of integrative STEM education for school and district leaders are available. Although the national educational leadership standards (i.e., National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2015; see Table 6) suggests compatible alignment with the critical characteristics of integrative STEM leaders, without explicit standards referencing integrative STEM curriculum and student-driven pedagogy, the preparation and training for integrative STEM education will not likely be infused into traditional educational leadership programs. Furthermore, a review of national educational leadership program standards in alignment with STEM competencies may support curriculum developers and scholars in designing STEM leadership courses and professional learning opportunities (National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 20). State and national standards and policies should be reassessed relative to the principles and practices of integrative STEM education that support students’ career and college readiness in STEM fields and ability to thrive in a scientific- and technologically-driven society. Educational leaders need support and opportunities in integrative STEM education to increase their understanding, competence, and readiness to lead powerful integrative STEM learning for our P-12 students.

Conclusion

We situated the study within a national issue of limited options for educational leadership to become informed of the paradigms and praxis of integrative STEM education. Possible solutions to this multi-tiered problem were explored through a demand study, interviews with STEM leaders, a modified Delphi study with STEM professionals, and integrative STEM pilot course evaluations. From the conclusions of these studies, evidence strongly indicates that leaders in integrative STEM schools foster a paradigm shift from traditional teacher-centric pedagogy to non-traditional student-centric pedagogy, thus redefining the institutional identity and culture that manifests through student learning environments.

Therefore, professional learning opportunities should be available for educational leaders who are interested in developing stronger integrative STEM programming. Increased knowledge and understanding of the development, implementation, and promotion of successful STEM programs create transference opportunities of evidence-based strategies that drive systemic program change. Higher education institutions and college departments should reassess their educational leadership programs and discuss ways to ensure leaders have opportunities to develop the critical characteristics of integrative STEM leadership through graduate-level coursework, in-service professional learning programs, and licensure requirements. State and national policies and standards for educational leaders should be re-evaluated to address the need for integrative STEM leadership in schools.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Rachel Louise Geesa

Author Biographies

Rachel Louise Geesa is an assistant professor of Educational Leadership at Ball State University. She is skilled in working with students, teachers, and leaders to create and execute integrative STEM-based learning experiences. As a school administrator, she recognized a gap in research, resources, and preparation for educational leaders to guide and support integrative STEM education for students, teachers, and community stakeholders, and she strives to address this issue through research and professional learning for school administrators and leaders.

Krista Marie Stith is the director of the Center for Gifted Studies and Talent Development at Ball State University. Her area of expertise is in integrative-STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education and tying in technology and engineering practices to engage high-ability students in STEM literacy. While serving as the director of the Gifted Center, she provides support to a wide audience of stakeholders (educational leadership, scholars, teachers, parents, and students) in a number of facets regarding gifted and talented education.

Mary Annette Rose is an associate professor of Educational Studies at Ball State University. She collaboratively develops and evaluates integrated curriculum with science, technology and engineering, and mathematics educators. As an energy and sustainability educator, she strives to protect and conserve the ecosystems that sustain us.

References

Anfara

V. A.

Jr. Brown

K. M.

Mangione

T. L.

(2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28–38. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031007028

Ayodos

(2018). The impacts of STEM education training on pre-service school leaders (Doctoral dissertation). ERIC database. (ED585634). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED585634

Donna

J. D.

(2012). A model for professional development to promote engineering design as an integrative pedagogy within STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 2(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314866

Granovskiy

(2018). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) Education: An overview. Congressional Research Service database. (R45223). https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45223.pdf

Havice

W. L.

(2015). Integrative STEM education for children and our communities. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 75(1), 15–17. https://www.iteea.org/49346.aspx?sortby=objectrelation.listorder&dir=desc

Havice

Waugaman

Walker

(2018). Evaluating the effectiveness of integrative STEM education: Teacher and administrator professional development. Journal of Technology Education, 29(2), 73–90. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1182375

Herro

Quigley

(2017). Exploring teachers’ perceptions of STEAM teaching through professional development: Implications for teacher educators. Professional Development in Education, 43(3), 416–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2016.1205507

Indiana Department of Education. (2019a). Indiana STEM education: Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. https://www.doe.in.gov/wf-stem/indiana-stem-education-science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics

Indiana Department of Education. (2019b). Indiana STEM certified schools (78). https://www.doe.in.gov/sites/default/files/wf-stem/stem-certified-schools-list-1-5.pdf

10.

Indiana Department of Education, Office of Workforce & STEM Alliances. (2018). STEM six-year strategic plan: An integrated K-12 STEM approach for Indiana. https://www.doe.in.gov/sites/default/files/wf-stem/20181108154535030.pdf

11.

Kaya

V. H.

Elster

(2019). Environmental science, technology, engineering, and mathematics pedagogical content knowledge: Teacher’s professional development as environmental science, technology, engineering, and mathematics literate individuals in the light of experts’ opinion. Science Education International, 30(1), 11–20. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1209311.pdf

12.

LaForce

Noble

King

Century

Blackwell

Holt

Loo

(2016). The eight essential elements of inclusive STEM high schools. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(21), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0054-z

13.

(2014). International Journal of STEM Education - a platform to promote STEM education and research worldwide. International Journal of STEM Education, 1(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-7822-1-1

14.

Mohr-Schroeder

M. J.

Bush

S. B.

Maiorca

Nickels

(2020). Moving toward an equity based approach for STEM literacy. In Johnson

C. C.

Mohr-Schroeder

M. J.

Moore

T. J.

English

L D.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on STEM education. Routledge.

15.

Myers

A. P.

Berkowicz

(2015). The STEM shift: A guide for school leaders. Corwin.

16.

National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2015). Professional standards for educational leaders. Author. http://www.npbea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Professional-Standards-for-Educational-Leaders_2015.pdf

17.

National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2018). National educational leadership preparation (NELP) program standards: Building level. Author. www.npbea.org/nelp

18.

Rose

M. A.

Geesa

R. L.

Stith

(2019). STEM leader excellence: A modified Delphi study of critical skills, competencies, and qualities. Journal of Technology Education, 31(1), 42–62. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v31i1.a.3

19.

Salinger

Zuga

(2009). Background and history of the STEM movement. In ITEEA (Ed.), The overlooked STEM imperatives: Technology and engineering (pp. 4–9). ITEEA.

20.

Seemiller

Whitney

(2020). Creating a taxonomy of leadership competency development. Journal of Leadership Education, 19(1), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.12806/V19/11/R5

21.

Shernoff

D. J.

Sinha

Bressler

D. M.

Ginsburg

(2017). Assessing teacher education and professional development needs for the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(13), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0068-1

22.

SRI International, George Washington University & George Mason University. (2015). What is an inclusive STEM high school? SRI Education. https://inclusivesteminsights.sri.com/

23.

The University of Texas at Austin. (2019). STEM education master’s degree programs. Author. https://education.utexas.edu/departments/curriculum-instruction/graduate-programs/stem-education/stem-education-masters-degree-programs

24.

U.S. News and World Report. (2020). Best educational administration programs. Author. https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-education-schools/education-administration-rankings

25.

Vance

Nilsen

Garza

Keicher

Handy

(2016). Design for success: Developing a STEM ecosystem. University of San Diego: Institute for Entrepreneurship and Education. https://1va22l4dun7a16k87y2j3tfx-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/USD-Critical-Factors-Final_121916.pdf

26.

Wells

Ernst

(2012/2015). Integrative STEM education. Virginia Tech, Invent the Future, School of Education. https://liberalarts.vt.edu/departments-and-schools/school-of-education/academic-programs/integrative-stem-education.html

27.

Wolfe

K. L.

(2017). Principals often do not advocate for science, technology, and engineering. 100Kin10. https://grandchallenges.100kin10.org/assets/downloads/principals-often-do-not-advocate-for-science-technology-and-engineering/GrandChallengesWhitePapers_Wolfe_24.pdf