Using Incubation Labs to Support STEM Self-Efficacy and Identity

Purpose & objective

This session will highlight the framework used to create a co-constructed STEM integration learning experience for pre-service teacher candidates, classroom teachers, and elementary students with a strong focus on computational thinking and computer science. We have coined these experiences “Incubation Labs” (authors, 2022). The framework was developed using a Constructivist (Piaget, 1936) and Constructionist (Pappert, 1993) approach, that emphasizes scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas (Next Generation Science Standards, 2013). Digital literacy and computer science standards were explicitly integrated to impact technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK, Mishra & Koehler, 2006) and the Habits of Mind (Costa & Kallick, 2000) were strategically embedded to promote mindfulness, self-regulation, and growth mindset (Dweck, 1986) when learning.

The foundation of this framework is built on the intersection of theory, constructed experiences, along with practice for pre-service teacher candidates and exposure for teachers in the classroom. The unique model places teacher candidates at the center of authentic, scaffolded experiences, in the Incubation Labs (authors, 2022). During this experience, pre-service teacher candidates learn in tandem with elementary students as they explore circuits, computer science, and engineering design. These rich learning opportunities are all housed within the context of a strong school-university partnership.

There is a great need for innovative practices in teacher preparation and teacher professional development in order to bridge the gap between beliefs, understandings, and intentions to teach with competency and confidence (Barak, 2014). Many elementary teachers rely on teacher-led discussions, explanations, and demonstrations rather than engaging students in authentic investigations and hands-on explorations to construct knowledge. Facilitating inquiry-based learning is challenging for many elementary teachers because it requires disciplinary knowledge, as well as the pedagogical skills and confidence to engage students in questioning, evidence gathering, and explaining. Computational thinking is a critical skill for problem solving that affects all other disciplines. Research (i.e., Günbatar & Bakırcı, 2018) has shown Computational Thinking is the most important variable when it comes to STEM teaching intentions of educators. Many educators are interested in integrated approaches to STEM but do not have a strong understanding and thus, feel unequipped to implement integrated STEM instruction (Shernoff, Sinha, Bressler & Ginsburg, 2017; Kurup, Li, Powell, & Brown, 2019). Rooted in research calling for ongoing support and structures for teacher candidates, this study aimed to identify the impact of consistent structures, supports and embedded experiences on equipping teacher candidates to enter the teaching profession and integrate STEM instruction.

The purpose of this session is to introduce teacher educators, teachers, and administrators to an innovative model to support STEM integration in the classroom by strengthening self-efficacy and strong STEM identities with teachers. The framework for this model was developed through a school-university partnership, with a central goal of increasing STEM self-efficacy and identity in pre-service teacher candidates, classroom teachers, and elementary students. Pre-service teachers were invited to participate in a study after their coursework ended. Researchers collected course artifacts and student work samples, administered pre/post surveys, and conducted interviews. Data from a 15-week experience, along with samples of scaffolded Incubation Labs (authors, 2022) experiences from the study will be presented to demonstrate the importance and possibilities that exist when an experiential, scaffolded, and integrated curriculum model is used in teacher preparation courses and local schools.

Objectives: Participants who attend this session will be able to:

- Summarize why innovative teaching models and partnerships are needed in K-12 schools

- Utilize the framework for developing and implementing Incubation Labs (authors, 2022) in their K-12 schools.

- Describe the impact Incubation Labs (authors, 2022) had on pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy, confidence and identity in the STEM fields.

Outline

10 Min- Introduction and Statement of Problem
15 Min- Overview of Incubation Labs and Supporting Research
15 Min- Examination of Scaffolded Continuum and Example of Incubation Lab in Action
10 Min- Share results and impact on teacher candidates
10 Min- Time for Questions and Closing remarks.

Supporting research

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Bandura, A. (1986). Fearful expectations and avoidant actions as coefects of perceived self-inefficacy. American Psychologist, 41(12), 1389-1391.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman Company.

Cook, L. & Friend, M. (1995). Co-Teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1-17.

Felten, P., Cook-Sather, A., & Bovill, C. (2014). Engaging students as partners in learning and teaching: A guide for faculty. John Wiley & Sons.

Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (2015). 5 Strategies FOR Questioning WITH Intention.
Educational Leadership, 73(1), 66.

Czerniak, C. M., & Schriver, M. L. (1994). An examination of preservice science teachers’ beliefs and behaviors as related to self-efficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 5(3), 77-86.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

DeJarnette, N. (2012). America’s children: Providing early exposure to STEM initiatives. Education, 133(1), 77–84.

Dou, R., Hazari, Z., Dabney, K., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P. (2019). Early informal STEM experiences and STEM identity: The importance of talking science. Science
Education, 103(3), 623 –637.

Dweck, C. S. (2016). The remarkable reach of growth mind-sets. Scientific American Mind, 27(1), 36-41.

Enochs, L. G., Scharmann, L. C., & Riggs, I. M. (1995). The relationship of pupil control to preservice elementary science teacher self–efficacy and outcome expectancy. Science Education, 79(1), 63-75.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum tostrengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.

Goddard, Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2004). Collective Efficacy Beliefs: Theoretical
Developments, Empirical Evidence, and Future Directions. Educational
Researcher, 33(3), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033003003

Jaipal-Jamani, K., & Angeli, C. (2017). Effect of Robotics on Elementary Preservice
Teachers’ Self-Efficacy, Science Learning, and Computational Thinking. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 26(2), 175–192.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9663-z

Jarrett, O. (1999). Science Interest and Confidence Among Preservice Elementary
Teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 11(1), 49–59.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173790

Johnson, T. M., Byrd, K. O., & Allison, E. R. (2021). The impact of integrated STEM
modeling on elementary preservice teachers’ self‐efficacy for integrated STEM
instruction: A co‐teaching approach. School Science and Mathematics, 121(1),
25–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12443

Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of Research on Teacher Belief. Educational
Psychologist, 27(1). 65.

Kaya, E., Newley, A., Yesilyurt, E., & Deniz, H. (2020). Measuring Computational Thinking Teaching Efficacy Beliefs of Preservice Elementary Teachers. Journal of CollegeScience Teaching, 49(6), 55–64.

Kim, A. Y., Sinatra, G. M., & Seyranian, V. (2018). Developing a STEM Identity among Young Women: A Social Identity Perspective. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 589 –625.

Kim, C., Kim, D., Yuan, J., Hill, R. B., Doshi, P., & Thai, C. N. (2015). Robotics to promote elementary education pre-service teachers’ STEM engagement, learning, and teaching. Computers and Education, 91, 14–31.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.08.005

Kurup, P. M., Li, X., Powell, G., & Brown, M. (2019). Building future primary teachers’ capacity in STEM: based on a platform of beliefs, understandings and intentions. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1–14.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher; a sociological study. University of Chicago Press.

Lotter, C., Rushton, G. T., & Singer, J. (2013). Teacher enactment patterns: How can we help move all teachers to reform-based inquiry practice through professional development? Journal of Science Teacher Education , 24 (8), 1263-1291.

Lotter, C., Yow, J. A., & Peters, T. T. (2014). Building a community of practice around inquiry instruction through a professional development program. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12 (1), 1-23.

Miller, D. I., Nolla, K. M., Eagly, A. H., & Uttal, D. H. (2018). The Development of
Children’s Gender‐Science Stereotypes: A Meta‐analysis of 5 Decades of U.S.
Draw‐A‐Scientist Studies. Child Development, 89(6), 1943–1955.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13039

Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a
framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6). 1017-1054.

Mouza, C., Karchmer-Klein, R., Nandakumar, R., Yilmaz Ozden, S., & Hu, L. (2014).
Investigating the impact of an integrated approach to the development of
preservice teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK).
Computers and Education, 71, 206–221.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.020

Mouza, C., Yang, H., Pan, Y.-C., Yilmaz Ozden, S., & Pollock, L. (2017). Resetting
educational technology coursework for pre-service teachers: A computational
thinking approach to the development of technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPACK). Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3).
https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3521

Murphy, T. P., & Mancini-Samuelson, G. J. (2012). Graduating STEM Competent and Confident Teachers: The Creation of a STEM Certificate for Elementary Education Majors. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(2), 18–23.

Myers, A., & Berkowicz, J. (2015). The stem shift: A guide for school leaders. Corwin.

Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013). Teacher STEM Perception and Preparation: Inquiry-Based STEM Professional Development for Elementary Teachers. The Journal of Educational Research (Washington, D.C.), 106(2), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.667014

Palmer, D. (2011). Sources of efficacy information in an inservice program for elementary teachers. Science education, 95(4), 577-600.

Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: rethinking school in the age of the computer. BasicBooks.

Piaget, J. (1936). Origins of intelligence in the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Resnick, M. (2020). Foreword. In S. Papert, Mindstorms: children, computers, and
powerful ideas (pp. vii-xiv). Basic Books.

Ryu, M., Mentzer, N., & Knobloch, N. (2019). Preservice teachers’ experiences of STEM integration: challenges and implications for integrated STEM teacher preparation.

International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(3), 493–512.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9440-9

Shernoff, D. J., Sinha, S., Bressler, D. M., & Ginsburg, L. (2017). Assessing teacher
education and professional development needs for the implementation of
integrated approaches to STEM education. International Journal of STEM
Education, 4(1), 13–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0068-1

Stager, G. S. (July, 2001). Constructionism as a high-tech intervention strategy for at risklearners. Paper presented at the National Education Computing Conference, Chicago, IL.

Thomson, M. M., & Gregory, B. (2013). Elementary teachers' classroom practices and beliefs in relation to US science education reform: Reflections from within.
International Journal of Science Education, 35(11), 1800-1823.

Tomlinson, C. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tran, Y. (2018). Computer Programming Effects in Elementary: Perceptions and Career Aspirations in STEM. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23(2), 273–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9358-z

Tschannen-Moran, & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 944–956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003

Tschannen-Moran, M., & McMaster, P. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy: four professional development formats and their relationship to self-efficacy and implementation of a new teaching strategy. The Elementary School Journal, 110(2) , 228– 245.

van As, F. (2018). Communities of practice as a tool for continuing professional
development of technology teachers’ professional knowledge. International
Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(2), 417–430.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9401-8

Voet, M., & De Wever, B. (2016). History teachers’ conceptions of inquiry-based learning, beliefs about the nature of history, and their relation to the classroom context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 57-67.

Voet, M., & De Wever, B. (2019). Teachers’ Adoption of Inquiry-Based Learning Activities: The Importance of Beliefs About Education, the Self, and the Context. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(5), 423–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117751399

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological  
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Webb, D. L., & LoFaro, K. P. (2020). Sources of engineering teaching self‐efficacy in a STEAM methods course for elementary preservice teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 120(4), 209–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12403

Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice:
a guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business School Press.
Weintrop, D., Killen, H., Franke, B.B. (2018). Blocks or text? How programming language modality makes a difference in assessing underrepresented populations. In International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. [ISLS].
https://doi.org/10.22318/csc12018.328

White, K. R. (1982). The relation between socioeconomic status and academic
achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 461-481.

Wilkerson, M. & Fenwick, M. (2016). The practice of using mathematics and
computational thinking. In C. V. Schwarz, C. Passmore, & B. J. Reiser (Eds.), Helping Students Make Sense of the World Using Next Generation Science and Engineering Practices. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers’ Association Press.

Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers' sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of educational Psychology, 82(1), 81.
Yadav, A., Mayfield, C., Zhou, N., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2014). Computational thinking in elementary and secondary teacher education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(1), 1-16.

Yesilyurt, E., Deniz, H., & Kaya, E. (2021). Exploring sources of engineering teaching self-efficacy for pre-service elementary teachers. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00299-8

Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An
overview. Educational psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Dimensions of academic self-regulation: A conceptual
framework for education. Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications, 1, 33-21.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(2), 64-70.