Preservice Teachers’ Conceptualization and Understanding of STEM Activities
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.7333Keywords:
STEM education, STEM activities, STEM conceptualization, STEM integration, Preservice teachersAbstract
There are many different views on the conceptualization of STEM, and there is no consensus. The aim of this study is to investigate how pre-service teachers conceptualize STEM. They were also asked to describe the specific characteristics of a STEM activity. The research was designed as phenomenological research design . The study group comprised 37 senior pre-service science teachers, 32 females and five males. An open-ended questionnaire was used as the data collection tool. The data obtained were analyzed by content analysis. According to the findings, a significant part of the study group listed the possibility of problem-solving, being related to daily life, correctly associated with disciplines, and being student-centered when describing specific features of STEM activities. It was revealed that most pre-service teachers had challenges in associating disciplines in STEM integration.
References
Aydeniz, M., & Bilican, K. (2018). The impact of engagement in STEM activities on primary preservice teachers’ conceptualization of STEM and knowledge of STEM pedagogy. Journal of Research in STEM Education, 4(2), 213-234. https://doi.org/10.51355/jstem.2018.46
Bartels, S. L., Rupe, K. M., & Lederman, J. S. (2019). Shaping preservice teachers’ understandings of STEM: A collaborative math and science methods approach. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(6), 666-680. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2019.1602803
Berisha, F., & Vula, E. (2021, May). Developing pre-service teachers conceptualization of STEM and STEM pedagogical practices. In Frontiers in Education,6, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.585075
Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x
Brown, R. E., & Bogiages, C. A. (2019). Professional development through STEM integration: How early career math and science teachers respond to experiencing integrated STEM tasks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17, 111-128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9863-x
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The Case for STEM Education Challenges and Opportunities. NSTA Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Sage.
Dare, E. A., Ellis, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2018). Understanding science teachers’ implementations of integrated STEM curricular units through a phenomenological multiple case study. International Journal of STEM Education, 5, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0101-z
Dare, E. A., Keratithamkul, K., Hiwatig, B. M., & Li, F. (2021). Beyond content: The role of STEM disciplines, real-world problems, 21st century skills, and STEM careers within science teachers’ conceptions of integrated STEM education. Education Sciences, 11(11), 737, 2-22. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110737
Dare, E. A., Ring-Whalen, E. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2019). Creating a continuum of STEM models: Exploring how K-12 science teachers conceptualize STEM education. International Journal of Science Education, 41(12), 1701-1720. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1638531
English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM education, 3, 1-8. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1
Gao, X., Li, P., Shen, J., & Sun, H. (2020). Reviewing assessment of student learning in interdisciplinary STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00225-4
Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Jones, C. (2010). Interdisciplinary approach-advantages, disadvantages, and the future benefits of interdisciplinary studies. Essai, 7(1), 26.
https://dc.cod.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1121&context=essai
Guzey, SS., Ring-Whalen, EA., Harwell, M., & Peralta, Y. (2019). Life STEM: A case study of life science learning through engineering design. International Journal of Science and Mathematics, 17, 23-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9860-0
Harris, J., & Phillips, M. (2018, March). If there’s TPACK, is there technological pedagogical reasoning and action?. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2051-2061). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://scholarworks.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=educationbookchapters
Hsu, M. C., Purzer, S., & Cardella, M. E. (2011). Elementary teachers’ views about teaching design, engineering, and technology. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 1(2), 31-39. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314639
Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
Klein, J. T. (2008). Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: A literature review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), 116-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.010
Klein, J. T. (2004). Interdisciplinarity and complexity: An evolving relationship. E:CO Special Double Issue, 6(1), 2–10. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=bb8b820f9cb041144ad2fa53801f6a93ec9d4d8a
Kloser, M., Wilsey, M., Twohy, K. E., Immonen, A. D., & Navotas, A. C. (2018). “We do STEM”: Unsettled conceptions of STEM education in middle school STEM classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 118(8), 335-347. https://doi. org/10.1111/ssm.12304
Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: a systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2
Martin‐Páez, T., Aguilera, D., Perales‐Palacios, F. J., & Vílchez‐González, J. M. (2019). What are we talking about when we talk about STEM education? A review of literature. Science Education, 103(4), 799-822. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21522
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
MoNE (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3,4,5,6,7 ve 8. sınıflar) [ Science Course Curriculum (Primary and Secondary School 3,4,5,6,7 and 8th grades)]. Retrieved from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=325
Moore, T.J.; Johnston, A.C.; Glancy, A.W. STEM integration: A synthesis of conceptual frameworks and definitions. In Handbook of Research on STEM Education; Johnson, C.C., Mohr-Schroeder, M.J., Moore, T.J., English, L.D., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2020; pp. 3–16.
National Academy of Sciences(2014). STEM integration in K‐12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage Publications.
Pimthong, P., & Williams, J. (2018). Preservice teachers’ understanding of STEM education. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences., 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2018.07.017
Putra, P. D. A., Ahmad, N., Wahyuni, S., & Narulita, E. (2021). An analysis of the factors influencing of pre-service science teacher in conceptualization of stem education: self-efficacy and content knowledge. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 7(SpecialIssue), 225-230. http://jppipa.unram.ac.id/index.php/jppipa/index
Radloff, J., & Guzey, S. (2016). Investigating preservice STEM teacher conceptions of STEM education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25, 759-774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9633-5
Ring-Whalen. E., Dare, E., Roehrig, G., Titu P., Crotty, E. (2018). From conception to curricula: The role of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in integrated STEM units. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology (IJEMST), 6(4), 343-362. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1193439
Shaughnessy, J. M. (2013). Mathematics in a STEM context. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 18(6), 324-324. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5951/mathteacmiddscho.18.6.0324
STEM Task Force Report. (2014). Innovate: a blueprint for science, technology,engineering, and mathematics in California Public Education. Dublin, California: Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Vasquez, J., Sneider, C., & Comer, M. (2013). STEM lesson essentials, grades 3–8: Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Venville, G., Wallace, J., Rennie, L. J., & Malone, J. (1998). The integration of science, mathematics, and technology in a discipline-based culture. School Science and Mathematics, 98(6), 294–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1998.tb17424.x
Wang, H. H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 1(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314636
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of Research in Education and Science
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Articles may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Authors alone are responsible for the contents of their articles. The journal owns the copyright of the articles. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of the research material.
The author(s) of a manuscript agree that if the manuscript is accepted for publication in the International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), the published article will be copyrighted using a Creative Commons “Attribution 4.0 International” license. This license allows others to freely copy, distribute, and display the copyrighted work, and derivative works based upon it, under certain specified conditions.
Authors are responsible for obtaining written permission to include any images or artwork for which they do not hold copyright in their articles, or to adapt any such images or artwork for inclusion in their articles. The copyright holder must be made explicitly aware that the image(s) or artwork will be made freely available online as part of the article under a Creative Commons “Attribution 4.0 International” license.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
