Urban Elementary STEM Initiative Id

Urban Elementary STEM Initiative
Carolyn Parker

Yolanda Abel

The Johns Hopkins University

The Johns Hopkins University

Ekaterina Denisova
Baltimore City Public Schools

The new standards for K–12 science education suggest that student learning should be more integrated and should
focus on crosscutting concepts and core ideas from the areas of physical science, life science, Earth/space science, and
engineering/technology. This paper describes large-scale, urban elementary-focused science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM) collaboration between a large urban school district, various STEM-focused community
stakeholders, and a research-focused private university. The collaboration includes the development of an integrated
STEM curriculum for grade K–5 with accompanying teacher professional development. This mixed-methodology study
describes findings from focus group interviews and a survey of teachers from Title I elementary schools. Findings
suggest the importance of the following critical features of professional development: (a) coherence, (b) content focus,
(c) active learning, (d) collective participation, and (e) duration to the success of large-scale STEM urban elementary

school reform

Recent data suggest that many U.S. K–12 students are
not well prepared for our future science and technologyfocused world economy. Although employer demand for
skilled science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) workers is at its highest level in many years, the
United States is currently ranked 27th in the world for
producing STEM college graduates, and U.S. students’
interest and academic performance in STEM fields remain
weak (Change the Equation, 2012). It is thus critical to
engage and excite more students in STEM disciplines.
Moreover, racial and ethnic minority populations are projected to expand substantially over the coming decades.
Recruiting more people from traditionally underrepresented groups is imperative for meeting the demand for
qualified STEM workers (Center for Public Education,
2012).
However, according to the 2011 data from the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the STEM
student achievement for K–12 students is not promising.
Approximately 73% of U.S. eighth graders were not proficient in mathematics at the end of eighth grade. In
science, 62% of U.S. eighth graders were not proficient at

the end of eighth grade. Moreover, there are significant
achievement gaps between student populations. Historical
evidence from the NAEP suggests that groups of students
are being left behind and that there is a “science education achievement gap” between White and Asian/Pacific
Islanders and Black and Hispanic students (National
Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP], 2011). The
most recent results of the NAEP exam revealed that White
292

students received an average score of 163. Asian/Pacific
Islander students scored an average of 159. However, Hispanic and Black students’ scores trailed. Hispanic students
scored an average of 137, whereas Black students’ average
score was 129.
Acknowledging that there is a shortage of skilled STEM
workers and that U.S. K–12 students are underperforming
on STEM-standardized measures, the federal government’s investments in STEM education have increased
dramatically. In 2011, the federal budget included $3.7
billion for STEM education policy and $4.3 billion for
Race-to-the-Top programs. Moreover, in order for a state to
be successful in winning Race-to-the-Top funds, it must

include a comprehensive state-level strategy focused on
STEM education. State departments of education have
responded by developing policy that they believe will help
bolster K–16 STEM achievement and garner funding. For
example, the state that this work is situated in has developed
and adopted STEM Standards of Practice, which reflect an
approach to “teaching and learning that integrates the
content and skills of science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics” (Anonymous, 2012). The state’s STEM
Standards of Practice are intended to guide K–12 STEM
instruction by delineating a combination of student performance behaviors while integrating STEM content.
Expected STEM student performance behaviors include
“engagement in inquiry, logical reasoning, collaboration,
and investigation, with the ultimate goal of STEM education to prepare students for post-secondary study and the
21st century workforce” (Anonymous, 2012).
Volume 115 (6)

Urban Elementary STEM Initiative

This integrated approach is an intentional departure

from the way typical instruction and accompanying
professional development is planned and delivered
(Herschbach, 2011; Labov, Reid, & Yamamoto, 2010).
Typically, in K–12 schools, subjects such as science,
technology, engineering, and math have been taught as
separate disciplines and not integrated in ways that demonstrate interdisciplinary relationships (Kuenzi, 2008).
However, the separation of disciplinary knowledge and
processes does not reflect the outside-of-school contexts
where knowledge is integrated and applied from across
fields of study (Herschbach, 2011). In practice, integrated
curriculum and instruction embeds interrelationships
within and between disciplines, replicating how knowledge is actually used in our day-to-day lives outside the
K–12 setting.
A Large Urban District Context
A large urban district is the context of this study. The
district enrolls approximately 85,000 students, with almost
45,000 enrolled in grades K–5. About 85% of the district’s
students are African American, 8% are White, 5% are
Hispanic/Latino, and only 1.0% are Asian. Of the students,
84% are considered low-income, based on eligibility for

free or price-reduced meals.
In the district, students underperform in statewide
STEM assessments when compared with peers across the
state. In statewide mathematics assessments, 2010 data
indicate that only 74.0% of fifth-grade students scored at
the proficient or advanced level, compared with the statewide average of 83%. In science, only 39.4% of the district’s students scored at the proficient or advanced level,
compared with the state average of 65.9%. When these
data are disaggregated by race, the results are even more
alarming. Only 33.2% of African American students
scored at a proficient or advanced level on the fifth-grade
state mathematics examination. And, only 14.3% of fifthgrade students with limited English proficiency scored at
the proficient or advanced level in mathematics.
In December 2010, acknowledging that the district’s
students were struggling on the state’s math and science
examinations, the district’s leadership turned their attention to the development of an integrated STEM education
approach as a way to improve student achievement. An
integrated approach at the elementary level is supported
by recent research. Cotabish, Dailey, Robinson, and
Hughes (2013) found that elementary-aged, general education students of teachers who employed rigorous
curriculum and inquiry-based instruction supported by

intensive professional development showed statistically
School Science and Mathematics

significant gains in science process skills, science concepts, and science-content knowledge when compared
with students in a comparison group.
Supported by science education and engineering faculty
at a local university, private STEM education stakeholders,
and an outside vendor, five integrated STEM units were
developed for each elementary grade level: one in life
science, one in physical science, one in Earth/space
science, and one in environmental science. To connect the
new science ideas and math skills, each grade level’s
sequence culminated with an engineering design challenge.
Each STEM unit follows the 5E learning cycle and
focuses on science explorations, while providing full math
and technology integration. With only 73.6% of third
graders reading at or above grade level (Maryland State
Department of Education, 2010), the district administrators identified the students’ ability to read informational
text and engage in argument writing as an area of academic weakness. Therefore, in order to focus on the
reading of informational text and argument writing, the

new STEM units follow a “bookend approach.” Each unit
begins with a book to engage the students in the exploration of a science idea. The non-fiction book is followed by
a series of hands-on explorations, which allow the students
to explore the scientific concepts and topics introduced in
the non-fiction text. Finally, students engage in reading a
non-fiction title, which confirms or disputes each student’s
hands-on, experimental findings. The unit culminates with
students using scientific argumentation to dispute or
support their experimental findings.
The district’s newly developed STEM curriculum
concept was presented to the administrators of the district’s elementary schools. Administrators from 22 schools
agreed to adopt the curriculum. The schools were all
underperforming and demonstrated inconsistent progress
toward improvement. In the three years preceding the
study, at least 25% of students at each of the 22 schools
scored at the basic level on the state’s mathematics assessment, and more than half of each school’s fifth graders
scored at the basic level on the state’s science assessment.
Historical achievement data for each school can be found
in Table 1, which summarizes three years of state achievement data for the 22 schools that implemented the STEM
curriculum.

In preparation of the curriculum rollout, each school’s
administration agreed to offer a four-week summer STEM
program to students in grades kindergarten through 5. The
intent of the summer school rollout was twofold. A STEMfocused summer school that included a literacy component
would provide an interesting point of engagement for the
293

Urban Elementary STEM Initiative

Table 1
State Achievement Data for the 22 Schools that Implemented the STEM Curriculum

School Number % Proficient or Advanced—Reading
Assigned for
2008
2009
2010
Study
1
2

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

46.2
51.5
63.6
65.3
66.7
70.3
68
60
77.5
43.5
68
67.2
71.3
62.8
71.6
63.8
69.3
53.4
71.9

74.5
73.3
52.8

46.3
70.6
65.5
54.9
64.5
76.4
65.6
53.5
79.5
64.7
63.9
75.5
69.3
65.5
71.4
62.9
70.5
61.3
71.4
76.9
81.8
65

44.7
49.1
60
55.9
65.6
68.7
62.6
62.2
68.6
65.4
72.4
66.9
69.7
62.3
72.6
71.5
68
60.5
75.2
72.7
75.8
69.9

% Proficient or Advanced—Math
2008

2009

2010

2008

2009

2010

42.3
45
46.3
52.8
44.7
54.3
71.2
62.3
43.8
33.8
53.6
53.5
51
58.4
54.9
50.5
51.4
55.1
53.2
66.4
53.2
50

45.8
47.5
54.6
54.7
50
62.2
63.2
53.5
50.6
69.2
57.7
62.4
50.8
69.6
62.4
59.9
62.1
71
65.9
70.8
75.3
57.9

47.5
53.1
52.8
55
54.6
52.9
62.6
63.9
58.1
62.3
57
62.7
61.7
69.9
60
62.8
67.6
77.4
64.2
70.5
70.6
78.6

19.2
34.4
37
25.7
36.8
41.4
26.2
27.5
30.8
11.3
26.2
28.6
50
21.6
46.8
14.9
44.6
15.8
35.1
57.1
37.5
14.1

9.1
25.7
7.8
32.5
48.3
15.1
13.3
30.6
6.7
12.3
13
23.4
23.9
10.8
40
48.6
42.9
14.6
30.8
50
35.3
23

4.9
4.3
12.2
29.2
31.6
20.4
18.4
28.2
15.4
21.6
21.4
47.8
38.5
24.5
56.8
42.1
23.3
25
28.9
39.1
19.4
39

city’s youth while allowing teachers to explore and gain
experience in STEM teaching, without the academic year
pressures around standardized testing.
Six teachers from each of the 22 schools agreed to
participate in the summer STEM program. Each building’s
administrator identified teachers who were interested in the
program and were available to work over the summer.
Each teacher received two weeks of professional development immediately preceding the summer school implementation. The professional development focused on the
content and pedagogy of the STEM curriculum. Teachers
were grouped by the grade level that they would teach over
the summer and in the subsequent school year. Led by a
STEM master teacher from the district’s central office, the
teachers were led through every investigation included in
their grade-level curriculum. Following the two weeks of
the professional development component, each participant
was given the opportunity to teach the STEM modules to
summer school students. The summer school program was
offered at each of the 22 identified schools for three hours
a day, five days a week, for four weeks. This resulted in a
total of 60 hours of instruction.
In addition, as the curriculum was being implemented
during summer school, in-class support, which consisted
of the assignment of a STEM coach to each school for
every summer school day, was provided. The STEM coach
294

% Proficient or Advanced—Science

supported six teachers, grades K–5, who were implementing the summer school STEM program. The support of
the coaches varied depending on the needs of the teachers,
but included co-teaching, observing lessons, and helping
teachers reflect on their STEM instructional practices.
Coaches also provided assistance with lesson planning and
connected teachers with instructional resources. Further,
the coaches met with all of their building’s STEM summer
school teachers as a group to reflect on the effectiveness of
the STEM program at their school. In addition to the
school-based coaches, the teachers met on Thursday afternoons for three hours. During the Thursday afternoon sessions, the teachers from the 22 schools met in grade-level
groups to discuss the successes and pitfalls of the implemented summer STEM program.
Research Questions
The study was framed around the following research
questions:
1. How did the teachers describe their experiences with
the two-week professional development that prepared them
to teach in the six-week STEM summer school curriculum?
2. What aspects of the professional development and
subsequent summer school program supported the teachers
in the enactment of the STEM curriculum during summer
school?
Volume 115 (6)

Urban Elementary STEM Initiative

3. What aspects of the professional development and
subsequent summer school program created barriers for
the teachers as they enacted the STEM curriculum during
summer school?
4. What were some of the supports and barriers to the
enactment of the STEM curriculum during the academic
year?
Professional Development
Darling-Hammond (2010) suggests that student learning is mostly influenced by teacher quality. Moreover,
professional development is a necessity for enhancing
teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge, classroom practices, and overall teacher quality (Colbert, Brown, Choi, &
Thomas, 2008). Recent research supports the idea that
“reform-oriented” professional development is generally
more effective than the more traditional one-time workshop professional development and includes being
mentored and coached, participating in a study group,
and/or engaging in an internship (Garet, Porter, Desimone,
Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Loucks-Horsley, Stiles, Mundry,
Love, & Hewson, 2009; Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, &
Gallagher, 2007; Putnam & Borko, 2000). Little (1993)
hypothesized that sustained professional development was
more effective than the traditional one-time workshops, as
it allowed teachers to explore new concepts and teaching
strategies in greater depth.
Penuel et al. (2007) focused more on the design of
activities included in the professional development—
specifically on the “proximity to practice”—with an
understanding that supporting teachers to prepare for their
own classroom practices would most readily allow them to
translate the professional development to their individual
classrooms (Kubitskey & Fishman, 2006). Fishman, Marx,
Best, and Tal (2003) suggested that “site-based” or
“curriculum-linked” professional development prepared
teachers more effectively, as they embedded the professional development in instructional practice and curriculum enactment. And, site-based professional development,
such as coaching, focused teachers’ attention on how to
use materials, enact the curriculum as intended, and
administer assessments (Veenman & Denessen, 2001).
Analytic Framework
The analytic framework that guided our work was
derived from Desimone’s (2009) Critical Features of Professional Development, which reflects a consensus of
characteristics of teacher professional development
that educational researchers and practitioners believe are
necessary for increasing teacher knowledge and skills.
School Science and Mathematics

Desimone’s five critical areas of professional development
are: (a) coherence, (b) content focus, (c) active learning,
(d) collective participation, and (e) duration.
Desimone (2009) describes the importance of coherence,
which she describes as the alignment of federal, state,
district, and school policies, with the content of the professional development. Coherence supports a consistent
message of reform to school administrators and teachers.
Professional development that is content-driven, and
that explicitly links activities focusing on subject matter
content and how K–12 students engage with that content,
are crucial to enhancing teachers’ instructional practice
and students’ growth and achievement. Desimone (2009)
contends that the content focus of teaching may be the
most influential component of a professional development
offering. Simply stated, teachers must deeply understand
the content that they are to teach. Active learning provides
an opportunity to observe expert teachers or to be
observed, with some sort of interactive follow-up, such as
reviewing student work or leading and/or participating in
discussions with peers. Content focuses supported with
active learning are necessary for successful professional
development.
Another critical component of Desimone’s (2009)
framework is the notion that teachers from the same grade
level, school, or department must be brought together to
collaborate toward the objectives of the professional
development. This intentional interaction enables educators to meaningfully discuss and reflect on the important
themes of the professional development.
Finally, according to Desimone (2009), gone should be
the days of one-shot professional development offerings.
Although Desimone does not prescribe the length of a
professional development opportunity, she suggests that it
must be of sufficient duration to support teachers’ intellectual and pedagogical changes.
By utilizing Desimone’s (2009) framework, our
research helps to advance the premise that a common
professional development conceptual framework would
increase the impact on teachers’ practice and, ultimately,
on students’ growth and achievement.
Study Design
The study of the summer school implementation was
qualitative in nature. Teachers from nine schools who participated in the integrated STEM curriculum adoption and
the STEM professional development were interviewed for
this study. These schools were selected at random out of
the 22 schools that participated. The focus group questions
included prompts about each teacher’s experience with the
two-week professional development, their experiences
295

Urban Elementary STEM Initiative

with the mentoring and coaching, the grade-level meetings
that occurred on Thursday afternoons, and how they
anticipated the rollout of the curriculum during the academic year. We asked the teachers to comment on
strengths, weakness, and areas of improvements across
various domains of the professional development. All
interviews were recorded and transcribed. All participants’
responses are reported using pseudonyms to ensure the
anonymity of each teacher.
A grounded theory approach was used to code teachers’
focus group interviews (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Four
analytic categories emerged from the initial coding: (a)
coaches, (b) Thursday PD, (c) weaknesses in PD, and (d)
positives in PD. Memo was used to make comments and
suggest categories based on teachers’ responses. As the
memo process continued, constant comparison was used to
determine codes and align with appropriate data statements. This second round of coding generated two major
core categories or themes: helpfulness and barriers. The
sorting process identified four sub-codes for helpfulness
and three for barriers. These major themes and subcodes
were then used to begin the line-by-line analysis of the
Thursday PD data. The core categories that emerged from
the Thursday PD data were reflective practitioner and frustration. The core category of reflective practitioner has
three supporting subcodes and frustration has four
subcodes. As these core categories were generated, memo
was also used to begin situating them within Desimone’s
(2009) analytic framework. At this juncture in the coding
process, there were 4 core categories and 14 subcodes.
These codes were used in the initial line-by-line analysis
for the weaknesses in PD data. The major category of
reflective practitioner and two of its corresponding
subcodes were supported by the data. One new subcode,
disposition, was generated in this data set. This added an
additional subcode for a total of 15. A new core category
of preparation emerged from this data set and was supported by six new subcodes. So, for the last set of data,
positives in the PD, there were 5 core categories and 21
subcodes, used in the memo process. No additional codes
were generated from this data set. The core categories of
reflective practitioner and preparation were supported by
the data with a subset of the supporting subcodes for each
major theme. At this point, saturation occurred and the
coding process was complete.
The focus group interviews were followed up with a
survey administered in December of the 2011–2012 academic school year. The survey was sent to all 130 teachers
who participated in the summer professional development
and teaching experience and queried them about supports
296

and barriers to enacting the curriculum. A total of 42
teachers responded to the survey, which is a response rate
of 32.3%.
Results
Our results are organized around the four research questions while aligning with Desimone’s (2009) analytical
framework. Responses during the teacher focus groups,
held during the last week of the summer school implementation, align with the following research questions:
• How did the teachers describe their experiences with
the two-week professional development that prepared
them to teach in the six-week STEM summer school
curriculum?
• What aspects of the professional development and
subsequent summer school program supported the
teachers in the enactment of the STEM curriculum
during summer school?
• What aspects of the professional development and
subsequent summer school program created barriers for
the teachers as they enacted the STEM curriculum
during summer school?
The survey, administered in December of the 2011–
2012 academic school year, aligns with the following
research question:
• What were some of the supports and barriers to the
enactment of the STEM curriculum during the academic
year?
Coherence
The state that this reform occurred within was in the
process of developing and adopting STEM Standards of
Practice. The state’s Standards of Practice, formally
adopted in the spring of 2012, explicitly call for the integration of the content and skills of STEM. The district
followed the state’s lead, devoting its scarce resources to
the development of an integrated curriculum and accompanying professional development. In our interviews,
teachers articulated that they perceived the way in which
this professional development experience aligned with
where their school district was going with science or
STEM education. “It was uh. . .trickle down into our district’s format because I would love to make sure STEM
goes on,” stated Aubrey, a teacher we interviewed (personal communication, July 27, 2011). Another teacher
acknowledged that the summer was a bit of a learning
process for everyone:
Come next year, I think we’re going to put everything
together and figure out ok, this is what worked, this is
what didn’t work last year, this is what teachers had to
Volume 115 (6)

Urban Elementary STEM Initiative

say, and I think it’s going to run smoother next year
when they implement this program. (Jenae, personal
communication, July 27, 2011)
Johnson (2012), citing the work of Fullan (2006), reinforces the importance of learning in context, which refers
to stakeholders learning new strategies and behaviors in
the educational reform’s setting. In our study, each of the
school’s teachers needed to learn new STEM instructional
strategies and teaching behaviors in the context of his or
her urban elementary classroom. Learning in context will
support a shift in institutional culture, with the negotiation
of “new norms, new norms, structures, and processes”
(Johnson, 2012, p. 46). This is illustrated in one teacher’s
quote:
Yeah, I think it was very valuable, I think Tom, Tom
was our techno, he had a lot of input, a lot of good
suggestions and he comes with a lot of experience, and
he’s worked with hands-on learning so he knows a lot
about it and just teaching us to not give the answers for
the design challenges and not model for the students
cause they had to do their own learning and go through
the engineering process, so he was very helpful in that
aspect. (Melissa, personal communication, July 27,
2011).
Coaching is a beneficial mechanism to assist learning
in context and address some of the barriers to effective
professional development for science teachers (Johnson,
2006). Johnson (2006) examined Anderson’s model, the
Study of Curricular Reform, which identified three dimensions of barriers that teachers faced while implementing
reform efforts. They comprise three categories: (a) technical, (b) political, and (c) cultural. Technical barriers were
defined as teachers’ content knowledge, pedagogical
knowledge, and their ability to teach effectively in the
reform area. Political barriers were expressed as a lack of
district and school leadership, along with a lack of
resources or materials needed to implement the reform
curriculum. Cultural barriers referred to teachers’ existing
beliefs and values regarding teaching. The teachers in
Johnson’s (2006) research identified barriers that aligned
with these categories; in the cultural category, teachers’
lack of understanding of standards-based testing was an
issue. In the domain of political barriers, it was found that
teachers need more extended support through mentoring
and the resources to conduct inquiry-based science lessons
with their students. With regard to technical barriers, it
was found that teachers provided with school-day profesSchool Science and Mathematics

sional development—and substitute teachers to cover their
classes—were more successful than teachers whose professional development was done after school and without
a stipend.
The research context, which involves a state that initiated STEM Standards of Practice and a district that
devoted its scarce resources to an integrated elementary
STEM approach, helps to redress the political barriers
common to effective professional development for science
teachers. In particular, coaches were imperative to support
this large-scale professional development. Through the
coaches’ regular co-teaching, lesson observations, and
support in helping teachers reflect on their STEM instructional practices, coherence was a key element of the
professional development and aligned with the district’s
STEM education initiatives.
Content-Based Professional Development
As recommended by Desimone (2009), the elementary
STEM professional development was a content-based professional program that was framed around the curriculum
each grade would present to their students. Many teachers
expressed discomfort engaging with the integrated STEM
content. The approach was new. This aligns with the technical barrier discussed in Johnson’s (2006) work. Many of
the teachers had only taught STEM as separate subjects.
For example, one teacher expressed her discomfort with
having to teach an engineering design investigation:
But if I don’t have . . . you tell me I’m going to make
a speed racer and you didn’t show me how to make a
speed racer, you didn’t model it, then I’m clueless. I’m
just like the children. I needed a model. (Casandra,
personal communication, July 27, 2011).
However, teachers expressed satisfaction with the
professional development, especially in the way that it
supported an integrated approach. The major code of
preparation is inherent in the teachers’ responses. In addition, the coaches’ helpfulness—pedagogical instructional
assistance, materials instructional assistance, and role as
reflective practitioners and encouragers—was evident in
how prepared the coaches were to transfer content knowledge to the teachers. The teachers desired that the modeling of the lessons and opportunities should reflect what
was being done and how, as well as offer encouragement
as they engaged in lessons from the STEM curriculum.
The opportunities to see others implementing inquirybased teaching and ongoing support with both instructional and materials acquisition during the summer school
enrichment helped to develop the teachers’ confidence in
297

Urban Elementary STEM Initiative

inquiry-based teaching and learning, and minimized the
impact of technical barriers (Johnson, 2006).
Active Learning
Desimone (2009) describes the importance of active
learning as a focus of professional development. Active
learning can include being observed, observing other
teachers, engaging in interactive discussions, or reviewing
student work. Throughout the two weeks of the professional development program, the teachers were organized
in small groups, which actively worked through the newly
developed STEM curriculum. Teachers felt that the professional development prepared them well to present the
curriculum to their students. For example, one teacher
expressed that:
It [the PD] prepared me very well also because we
were the teacher and we were able to do all of the
projects that the students were doing so I knew what
was expected. . .the biggest strength to me was really
going through the lessons and going day by day over
the two weeks and actually experimenting and actually
doing the work that the students would do, so we had
a chance to see if we thought the children would like it
or not, so we shared our input and we tweaked a
couple of things, not a lot just because we hadn’t
taught it at that point but that was one of the best
things to me. (Tracey, personal communication, July
28, 2011).
Another teacher added:
I agree, we were able to really see the experiment, how
it worked, and then model it for our students as well.
So we weren’t surprised, but during the training we
were able to have that kind of discovery with the
students what, or this is how it works, and it worked
really well, I really enjoyed the two weeks. (Bernice,
personal communication, July 28, 2011).
However, teachers also cite barriers to their own active
learning, including coaches whom the teacher perceived as
unapproachable, as well as the lack of the necessary classroom or physical space to implement the curriculum’s
hands-on investigations.
Collective Participation
Again and again, the cross-grade-level collaboration
that was built into the Thursday afternoon professional
development was crucial in helping teachers feel more
confident in their pedagogy. The teachers also saw a
benefit in networking with teachers from other schools
298

who taught the same grade. Teachers who had received the
two-week professional development in grade-level groups
continued to meet with their peers throughout the summer.
According to one of the teachers:
It was good to meet with my peers who were also
teaching the program because I believe that we learned
the most from each other. So that was a strength and
getting a chance to at least test out some of the materials that we would be using. (Alisha, personal communication, July 27, 2011).
A teacher from another school added:
The Thursdays were very helpful, and going back and
being able to collaborate again with your fourth
graders, what we came up with, what needed to be
changed, what we liked, and then they were talking
about rewriting the program or rewriting parts that the
students didn’t need or that they already knew or
things that needed to be added in. (Norma, personal
communication, July 27, 2011).
The major code associated with these criteria was
reflective practitioner. Four subcodes were especially
prevalent: (a) collaboration, (b) modeling, (c) pedagogical
instructional practice, and (d) materials instructional practice. The sessions also addressed technical and cultural
barriers (Johnson, 2006), as teachers utilized reflection in
and on action (Schon, 1983, 1987). The grade-level meetings allowed teachers to reflect on their practices while
learning from their peers. These interactions supported
refinement of the instructional practices.
Duration
Desimone (2009) conceptualizes duration as being of a
sufficient time span, both for the length of the project and
the number of hours spent in the activity. Teachers in this
project spent two weeks in professional development
and then implemented what they learned in a four-week
summer school model. They received real-time coaching
during the day as they implemented the knowledge and
skills acquired through the professional development, and
they participated in weekly professional learning communities for the duration of the summer school enrichment
program. As previously discussed, the coaches were familiar with the curriculum and the management skills and
dispositions of working with elementary students with
hands-on STEM units. This characteristic aids in the
implementation of effective peer coaching, for example,
by facilitating the transfer of new skills from professional
Volume 115 (6)

Urban Elementary STEM Initiative

development into teachers’ daily instructional practices
(Lam, Yim, & Lam, 2002; Waddell & Dunn, 2005). One
teacher expressed the pedagogical instruction assistance in
the following way:
Mine was the design challenge, he helped me plan
activities and I struggled with it so we sat down for
like 30 minutes and planned what to do the next day,
that was a lot of help though and the rest of the days it
as just more assistance on what would be the lesson for
the next day. . .that was a lot of help. (Nancy, personal
communication, July 27, 2011).
The materials instructional assistance was exemplified
by this teacher:
I didn’t have any problem, any material that I needed
that I didn’t have and I knew that was somewhere in
the building, they didn’t even know the building as
well as I do and they would find stuff for me real
quick, I didn’t have a problem at all with them. (Carla,
personal communication, July 28, 2011).
The reflective practitioner subcode is indicative of how
the coaches guided the teachers to think about what they
were doing and its effectiveness. One teacher observed
that “They provided a lot of feedback and support to each
of the staff members” (Mary, personal communication,
July 28, 2011). Coaches were seen as a source of encouragement among the teachers. This statement characterizes
the feeling: “I really want to commend our coach for not
just being positive but being supportive; she really goes
beyond to help us and support us and I have to commend
her for that” (Vincent, personal communication, July 27,
2011). These examples help to illustrate how the two-week
professional development, the in-school coaches, and the
professional learning communities help to minimize cultural and political barriers. Coaches provided support with
lesson implementation, assistance with acquiring materials, and overall encouragement as the teachers implemented the inquiry-based lessons they were introduced to
throughout the weeklong professional development.
As this was the first iteration of this project in this
large-scale urban school district, there were some challenges as well. The teachers characterized barriers as
distractors from the instructional process that hindered
their understanding and subsequent instructional implementation. A primary theme of mixed messages can be
characterized as a political barrier (Johnson, 2006). Teachers commented that it was confusing at times receiving
School Science and Mathematics

different messages from various persons related to the
project. This concern is represented by the following
quote: “They didn’t match up. You know, we were all
hearing different things, I think that was the only barrier
really” (Audrey, personal communication, July 27, 2011).
Teachers also cited the lack of time during the 60 hours
of summer school instruction as a barrier. “Another great
challenge also was the classrooms are not conducive to
learning during the summer in terms of getting all of that
material done, covering all of that” (Carla, personal communication, July 28, 2011). “I still wasn’t prepared unfortunately. It was just too much that they wanted to do in
such a short period of time” (Chris, personal communication, July 28, 2011). The shortness of time inherent in this
comment contradicts Desimone’s (2009) concept of duration and highlights the need to remember that everyone
will not agree on how long a period of practice and/or
coaching needs to be for the teacher to deem it successful.
A shortened summer school session was not adequate for
some teachers to fully develop teaching practices around
an integrated STEM approach.
To Consider Further
In December 2011, almost halfway through the academic year following the summer school curriculum and
professional development implementation, we administered a survey focused on academic year implementation
to the teachers who participated in the professional development. Of the 130 teachers who participated in the
summer professional development, 42 teachers responded,
with a response rate of 32.3%. Of the 42 teachers who
responded to the survey, 27 (65.9%) had implemented the
integrated STEM curriculum during the first half of the
2011–2012 school year. Of the 15 teachers who had not,
two said that there was no time before, during, or after the
school day to implement the summer STEM curriculum.
Five said that they did not have any time to prepare and
implement the summer STEM curriculum; one said that
their school’s administration did not support the teaching
of STEM, and seven said that they planned to implement
the STEM curriculum later in the school year. None of the
teachers stated that they did not feel prepared by the professional development to teach the STEM curriculum. The
professional development successfully addressed any
technical barriers. With regard to the teachers not engaging in the teaching of the STEM curriculum during the
school year, their reasons can be classified as political. For
the teachers who expressed not having the time to do so,
the data do not allow us to conclude whether the barriers
were cultural or based on their existing beliefs and values
299

Urban Elementary STEM Initiative

regarding teaching, but in subsequent studies, it would be
prudent to ascertain this information, to help reduce barriers in the future (Johnson, 2006).

6. Instructional coaches need to provide teachers with
specific feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of their
instructional activities.

Lessons Learned
Overall Organization
1. Grade-level teams allow teachers to reflect and
debrief with colleagues who are teaching the same content
and to share tips and suggestions that support effective
pedagogy. The Thursday afternoon, grade-level debriefings
were an integral and important part of the summerlong
professional development. Numerous teachers cited the
importance of talking through their success and challenges
with teachers who were enacting the curriculum.
2. Modeling is a key strategy to help teachers become
familiar with new STEM curriculum. Again and again, the
teachers cited the modeling that the coaches provided as
a necessary piece of the professional development. It is
helpful for teachers to experience first-hand the curriculum that they will enact.
3. Structured time must be provided for teachers to
watch others implement lessons; attempt the lesson themselves; and reflect on the strengths, weaknesses, and other
information learned through the process. The teachers in
this study cited, again and again, the need for dedicated
time to focus on their pedagogy.
4. A communal learning environment helps teachers
develop their confidence and comfort for teaching STEM
lessons, particularly when grouped by grade level. A
shared learning environment takes teachers out of their
“silos” and allows them to examine their practice in a
shared, supportive environment.
5. Providing teachers with quality technology, such as
videos, websites, computers, etc., helps them to offer
appropriate technology-rich resources in support of
student learning.
Instructional Coaching
1. Instructional coaches need to have strong STEM
content knowledge.
2. Coaches should be teachers within the same district
that employs the teachers participating in the professional
development. The coaches can then provide important
district-level contextual knowledge.
3. The modeling of STEM lessons, by coaches and for
teachers, is integral.
4. The coaching experience needs to allow teachers to
use the same materials they will use with their students.
5. The classrooms used for the coaching experience
need to be conducive to fully implementing the provided
STEM lessons.

Implications
The need for reform in the STEM fields has historically
been trumpeted by many organizations. The National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2000),
the American Association for the Advancement of Science
(1989, 1993), and the National Research Council,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Committee
(2012) have called for students to think like mathematicians, scientists, and engineers.
More recently, the call has become more urgent. In
2010, the National Science Board (2010) issued the report
“Preparing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators,”
which describes better ways to identify and develop the
next generation of “STEM innovators” in the United
States. The report suggests that we must “cast a wide net”
to seize on historically underrepresented talent, including
minority students and children from low-income families.
“Currently, far too many of America’s best and brightest
young men and women go unrecognized and underdeveloped, and, thus fail to reach their full potential,” says the
report by the board, which sets policy for the National
Science Foundation and serves as an advisory body to the
White House and Congress. “This represents a loss for
both the individual and society” (National Science Board,
2010).
The initiative described in this article illustrates how a
large urban school district’s STEM education initiative
can be supported by collaboration with a local university.
The collaboration with the university helped strengthen
the STEM curriculum. Content experts from the university’s engineering school, along with STEM educators from
the university’s school of education, provided support for
the newly developed and piloted curriculum units. Support
was provided, which produced a professional development
very closely aligned with Desimone’s (2009) framework.
Finally, the university provided support to the school district to help study the intervention.
The collaboration continues today. This work was the
beginning of a long-term commitment to STEM education
on behalf of a large-scale urban school district, which
utilized the data from this experience to refine the summer
school enrichment program in subsequent years. Now in
its third year, the summer school enrichment project has
laid the groundwork for a larger scale, grant-funded collaboration between the large-scale urban school district
and the private university, focused on in-school and

300

Volume 115 (6)

Urban Elementary STEM Initiative

outside-school STEM for elementary school students, and
professional development for teachers and after-school
providers. This project was the beginning of a process that
has endured and is continuing to grow within the largescale urban school district, and which has now become an
institutionalized component of how science is offered
through an integrated STEM approach. The strength of
this model is that it is grounded in solid educational theory
and practice.
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all
Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks
for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Anonymous. (2012). State Department of Education Report. Baltimore, MD.
Center for Public Education. (2012). The United States of education:
The changing demographics of the United States and their schools.
Retrieved from http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/You-May-Also
-Be-Interested-In-landing-page-level/Organizing-a-School-YMABI/The
-United-States-of-education-The-changing-demographics-of-the-United
-States-and-their-schools.html
Change the Equation. (2012). Help wanted: Demand for science, technology,
engineering and math weathers the storm. Vital signs: Reports on the
conditions of STEM learning in the US. Retrieved from http://
changetheequation.org/sites/default/files/CTEq_VitalSigns_Supply%2%22
%29.pdf
Colbert, J., Brown, R., Choi, S., & Thomas, S. (2008). An investigation of the
impacts of teacher-driven professional development on pedagogy and
student learning. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(2), 135–154.
Cotabish, A., Dailey, D., Robinson, A., & Hughes, A. (2013). The effects of
a STEM intervention on elementary students’ science knowledge and
skills. School Science and Mathematics, 113, 215–226.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world of education: How America’s
commitment to equity will determine our future. New York: Teacher’s
College Press.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ development
toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher,
38(3), 181–199.
Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. (2003). Linking teacher and
student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643–658.
Fullan, M. (2006). Change theory: A force for school improvement. Centre for
Strategic Education Seminar Series Paper No. 157. Retrieved from http://
www.catalyst-chicago.rg/sites/catalyst-chicago.org/files/michael_fullen
_change_theory.pdf
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001).
What makes professional development effective? Results from a national
sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–
945.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory:
Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Herschbach, D. (2011). The STEM Initiative: Constraints and challenges.
Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 48(1), 96–122.
Johnson, C. C. (2006). Effective professional development and change in
practice: Barriers science teachers encounter and implications for reform.
Social Science and Mathematics, 106(3), 150–161.
Johnson, C. C. (2012). Implementation of STEM education policy: Challenges, progress, and lessons learned. School Science and Mathematics,
112(1), 45–55.
School Science and Mathematics

Kubitskey, B., & Fishman, B. (2006). A role for professional development
in sustainability: Linking the written curriculum to enactment. ICLS
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Learning Sciences.
363–369.
Kuenzi, J. (2008). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education: Background, federal policy, and legislative action. Washington, D.C.:
Congressional Research Service.
Labov, J. B., Reid, A. H., & Yamamoto, K. R. (2010). Integrated biology and
undergraduate science education: A new biology education for the twentyfirst century? CBE Life Science Education, 9, 10–16.
Lam, S.-F., Yim, P.-S., & Lam, T. W.-H. (2002). Transforming school culture:
Can true collaboration be initiated? Educational Research, 44(2), 181–195.
Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129–
151.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S. E., Love, N. B., & Hewson, P. W.
(2009). Designing professional development for teachers of science and
mathematics (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Maryland State Department of Education (2010). Maryland State Report
Card. Retrieved from http://reportcard.msde.maryland.gov/
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2011). The
nations’ report card, 2011. Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard.gov/
science_2011/science_2011_report/
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2000). Principles and
standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
National Research Council, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Committee. (2012). Report of the NRC STEM Committee on the successful K-12
education: Identifying effective approaches in science. Washington, D.C.:
NRC.
National Science Board. (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM
innovators: Identifying and developing our nation’s human C=capital.
Washington, D.C.: NRC.
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007).
What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster
curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal,
44(4), 921–958.
Putnam, R. T