- Year 2024
- NSF Noyce Award # 1852890
- First Name Catherine
- Last Name Lussier
- Registration Faculty/Administrator/Other
- Discipline STEM Education (general)
- Role Principal Investigator (PI)
- Presenters
Catherine Lussier, University of California-Riverside, Samantha Byers, University of California-Riverside
Need
Careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) are expected to grow by 11% by 2031, which is twice as fast as the anticipated growth for all other occupations (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022). Yet, despite educators’ best efforts to meet this growing demand, research indicates K-12 students still consistently struggle in both math and science (Nation’s Report Card 2019, 2022) and are often underprepared to fully participate in STEM subjects upon entering post-secondary courses. Research further indicates that underrepresented minority students such as English Learners/Multilingual Learners (ELs) leave the STEM pipeline faster than their white counterparts (NCES, 2022). The continued increase of EL students in the U.S., coupled with an established achievement gap between ELs and non-ELs in STEM content areas (NCES, 2019ab), raises concerns regarding teachers’ level of preparation to support EL students (Reeves, 2006). The National Research Council has called for early career teachers to be provided with experiences and training that help them understand how to generate supportive curriculum in STEM (NRC, 2012, p. 255-256). Yet, extensive self-reporting by STEM teachers and other early career teachers indicate a lack of professional development opportunities to learn and practice pedagogical skills that adequately prepare them to meet STEM learner needs (August & Shanahan, 2010; Ballantyne et al., 2007; Tolbert et al., 2014; Janzen, 2008). Further, according to Besterman and colleagues’ 2018 large data survey, more than half of all STEM teachers indicated having taught courses with ELs; yet, less than 25% of STEM teachers reported participating in any EL-specific professional development activities, with no teachers receiving more than eight hours of EL-specific professional development training (Besterman et al., 2018). Specifically, STEM teachers have reported feeling inadequately equipped to adapt instruction to better prepare students and support those who are culturally and linguistically diverse (DeJong & Harper, 2005; Lee & Stephens, 2020). This training gap and lack of self-efficacy makes it challenging for teachers to provide high quality instruction and address the learning needs of all STEM students (Reeves, 2006; Hutchinson, 2013). The current study’s program provides STEM preservice teacher training focused on best practices for teaching EL students and developing greater skills to deliver high quality STEM instruction for all.
Research Questions
Research Question 1: What was the impact of the EL supplemental training program on overall STEM teaching practices (TPE scores) on the participating STEM preservice teachers (Noyce Scholars)? Research Question 2: What was the amount of change (growth) at each of the three time points (Fall, Winter, Spring) between the STEM preservice teacher groups (Noyce Scholar and Non-Noyce control group) for the year-long program? What was the amount of change within the groups? Research Question 3: At program conclusion, will Noyce Scholars’ growth in confidence match or exceed that of the Non-Noyce control group regarding their ability to integrate support for EL students during STEM instruction? Research Question 4: Will the added workload of supplemental training during a one-year teacher credential program adversely impact Noyce Scholars’ overall STEM instructional self-efficacy?
Approach
Theoretical Framework: Constructivist learning theory emphasizes that individuals learn through building their own knowledge. This knowledge building occurs by connecting new ideas and experiences to preexisting knowledge to form enhanced understanding (Piaget, 1952). Active learning strategies promote knowledge construction by asking teachers to engage with the content through activities that employ higher order thinking and personal inquiry (Johnson, 2019). Moreover, Menon (2020) found that teacher training which partnered in-depth field experiences with learning how to embed active learning strategies into science curriculum development significantly contributed toward increasing feelings of instructor self-efficacy. Founded in previous research, the purpose of the present study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a supplemental professional development program focused on educating student teachers on best practices for supporting EL students as part of STEM instructional design (Heineke et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2008; Stoddart et al., 2002). However, given the limited time available during teacher credential training, there has been debate on when and how to add such supportive professional development. Thus, we also investigated whether extra supplemental instruction would positively, negatively, or neutrally impact student teachers’ general pedagogical self-efficacy during the early career/preservice stage since attitudes, preparation, and future instructional design practices have been shown to be interrelated (Rubinstein-Avila & Lee, 2014).In this case study, five STEM preservice teachers (Noyce Scholars) were compared to a control group of STEM preservice teachers (Non-Noyce Scholars) during the course of a university credential program. All preservice teachers participated in all credential program requirements including classes (minimum of 3 per quarter) and 600 fieldwork teaching hours. Noyce Scholars also participated in the additional components of the year-long supplemental early teacher training program which included: (a) coursework extending teacher knowledge of EL language development, (b) fieldwork providing early exposure to research-based teaching experiences with EL students, and (c) professional development guiding the creation of hands-on science/math curriculum for diverse learners with added quarterly mentor check-in and group reflection meetings. A. Coursework: Scholars followed the traditional course sequence for single-subject preservice teachers in the university’s one-year teaching credential program. Coursework for the single-subject science participants was oriented toward the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) for science instruction at the secondary level, whereas the coursework for the single-subject mathematics participants was directed towards the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics (CCSS Math) for math instruction at the secondary level. In addition, the Common Core Standards in English Language Arts (CCSS-ELA) and the California English Language Development (ELD) Standards for ELs were incorporated into instruction for all preservice teachers in order to highlight the importance of the interrelatedness of disciplines. B. Fieldwork: All Noyce and Non-Noyce Scholars were placed in high-need school districts for their fieldwork placement (600 supervised student teaching hours total for the year) with large diverse populations. However, all Noyce Scholars were placed in the same school district with over 20% of the students classified as EL, mirroring California’s overall EL percentage (California Department of Education, 2020). Student classification of primary home language being a language other than English was provided by parents/caregivers upon student enrollment. Not only was this district selected because it provided Scholars fieldwork experience working with a diverse student population of multilingual learners, but also because it placed an emphasis on developing and implementing approaches to STEM learning supportive of EL students. The school district’s curriculum is aligned to state standards in all four core content areas (i.e., English language arts, mathematics, science, and social science). The participating district has also embraced the California ELD standards and has structured its professional development model to explore research-based instructional strategies and to establish collaborative teacher environments for group discussions to accelerate language development through meaningful and grade-level appropriate training. Given this, in-service teachers within the district have received extensive training on EL practices and have demonstrated a commitment to incorporating flexible learning spaces and instructional technology designed with ELs in mind. C. Professional Development: All Noyce Scholars and Non-Noyce Scholars were asked to participate in several professional development activities facilitated by the university teaching credential program and the California Science Project (CSP). The teaching credential programming included workshops on: the CTC requirements (edTPA), a restorative justice workshop, and a mock interview/resume critique workshop. The CSP programming included four NGSS single subject science workshops focused on how to deliver engaging STEM pedagogy. Noyce Scholars were also required to participate in three specific EL professional development workshops, which were designed to provide integrated ELD-NGSS/Common Core training.Measures Used to Collect Data: All preservice teachers were rated on a scale of 1 to 4 (1 = Novice, 2 = Emerging, 3 = Exploring, 4 = Applying) by their supervisors (who were blinded to the grouping condition) using the Teaching Performance Expectations (TPE) rubric that spans six competence domains outlined generated by the state of California Teaching Commission (CTC) for credentialing requirements. The six critical teaching domains include: (1) engaging and supporting all students in learning, (2) creating and maintaining effective learning environments, (3) understanding and organizing subject matter, (4) planning instruction and designing learning experiences for all students, (5) assessing student learning, and (6) developing as a professional educator. Preservice teachers must meet the requirements of proficiency on these six TPE domains to be recommended for a preliminary teaching credential by the state’s credentialing program, (CTC, 2016). A mixed methods exit interview survey was also completed by each participant at the end of the final Spring 2023 quarter. Participants were asked to reflect and compare the start of the credential program to the end of the credential program through quantitative ratings scales and open-ended qualitative questions. Four additional questions on the impact of the added professional training were also asked of the Noyce Scholars-only utilizing the same quantitative ratings scale and open-ended qualitative questions. Demographic information was gathered from all participants as part of this survey as well.
Outcomes
Research Question 1: What was the impact of the EL supplemental training program on overall STEM teaching practices (TPE scores) on the participating STEM preservice teachers (Noyce Scholars)? RQ1: In response to research question 1: Between groups: Pairwise comparisons indicated that there was a significant difference between the Noyce Scholars and Non-Noyce Scholars in overall TPE scores at both the Fall and Winter time points (p < 0.05), with Non-Noyce Scholars having higher mean overall TPE scores. However, there was no significant difference between the groups at the Spring time point (p > 0.05), with the Noyce Scholars closing the gap in their overall TPE scores. Within Groups: Noyce Scholars had significant increases in their overall TPE scores across the three time points (p < 0.001) for Fall to Winter; Winter to Spring; and Fall to Spring. Non-Noyce Scholars had significant increases in their overall TPE scores from both Fall to Winter and from Fall to Spring (p < 0.001). However, unlike Noyce Scholars, there were no significant differences for the Non-Noyce Scholars group from Winter to Spring (p > 0.05), with scores seeming to plateau for them. Research Question 2: What was the amount of change (growth) at each of the three time points (Fall, Winter, Spring) between the STEM preservice teacher groups (Noyce Scholar and Non-Noyce control group) for the year-long program? What was the amount of change within the groups?RQ2: In research to research question 2: Noyce Scholars who received the added EL supplemental training and fieldwork had an increased rate of growth and eventually outperformed Non-Noyce Scholars on five of the six TPE domains by the end of the program in Spring. Noyce Scholars demonstrated overall almost double the amount of growth (M = 1.50) of Non-Noyce Scholars (M = 0.65), especially since they started the Fall quarter with lower TPE scores in each of the six domains, as compared to their Non-Noyce Scholar peers. Research Question 3: At program conclusion, will Noyce Scholars’ growth in confidence match or exceed that of the Non-Noyce control group regarding their ability to integrate support for EL students during STEM instruction? RQ3: All early career teacher participants reported that prior to the start of the credential program they did not have much experience instructing ELs. By the conclusion of the year-long program, Noyce Scholars reported that they understood how to use a wide range of adaptive instructional strategies, including more inclusive strategies, and felt more capable of supporting ELs during STEM instruction than control group Non-Noyce Scholar teachers. This qualitative reporting was reflected in greater growth for Noyce Scholars, as indicated by Mean Difference between program start and end (MD = 4.2) when compared to the Non-Noyce Scholar control group (MD = 4.03).Research Question 4: Will the added workload of supplemental training during a one-year teacher credential program adversely impact Noyce Scholars’ overall STEM instructional self-efficacy? RQ4: Noyce Scholars further reported that they developed confidence and felt more comfortable teaching STEM content in general between what they reported at the start (M = 5.6) and at the end (M = 8.2) of the program. This Noyce Scholar rate of growth was very similar to the growth reported by the control group between start (M = 5.3) and finish (M = 8.6) of the program. Thus, overall STEM teaching self-efficacy was not significantly adversely impacted by supplemental training workload.
Broader Impacts
This Noyce Scholar training program equipped STEM preservice teachers with efficacious teaching skills for delivering STEM content and meeting the needs of all students. Moreover, this training was able to provide preservice teachers with specialized skills and knowledge to better support EL students. This case study’s outcomes indicate that such supplemental pedagogical training for supporting the needs of diverse STEM students such as multilingual learners can be seamlessly woven in as part of early stages of teacher credential programming. Further, in light of our Noyce Scholars demonstrating an overall growth of almost double across measured teaching performance domains between start and end of their credential programming, such early interventions may even be of significant benefit to early career teachers. Furthermore, exit interviews with preservice teacher participants in the Noyce Scholar program indicated that providing such supplemental training also served as a method for improving their confidence in their ability to utilize those expanded STEM pedagogical skills as part of their future instruction. In all, these findings inform national educational models for how and when to introduce professional development training focused on best practices for supporting EL students as part of STEM instructional design and thus broaden STEM participation among the nation’s fastest growing demographic of potential STEM students.
