Integrated STEM and Partnerships: What to Do for More Effective Teams in Informal Settings
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Theoretical Framework and Background Literature
1.1.1. Integrated STEM
1.1.2. Partnerships
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
3.1. Microbes Team
3.1.1. Integrated STEM—Microbes Team
We were pretty in sequence. [Meg] obviously took charge of more the actual, like, physical design and layout, where I took control over, like, the electronics and the motors and stuff like that. But we still had to work very closely together, and it was very integrated, what we did. Or, like, the stuff was very reliant on each other. We had to test them with both parts.
Well, I’ve realized, and this is something you would never learn in an engineering classroom, that you can have all these ideas, and they could be a really good idea, look super pretty on paper, but they’re not actually practical. And I went through so many different designs, and I was like, oh this is awesome! And then I’d show it to [Mike] and he’d be like, yeah, but that and that and that…and I’d be like, yeah, that’s a really good point. Gotta change it. So, I don’t know, I think my understanding of the engineering process overall definitely improved. Um, like, I think there was an opportunity for me to gain a better understanding of, like, the electronic components, except I didn’t really take [Mike] up on that. But it was a potential.
It helps me understand the project more when I’m trying to explain it to other people… I think it helped me realize, like, the good parts and the bad parts of the payload, like the parts I wasn’t really able to explain? Those were the parts that I should reevaluate.
3.1.2. Partnerships and Teamwork
We kind of put the [lesson plans] on the education major at the last minute. And uh, because they kind of had to show up and then take charge of all that. While me and [Meg] were working on the actual payload from uh, since back in January, so that was a little separated, but that was just kind of because of the events that unfolded this semester, or this year.
Just like because of COVID, and it being kind of like scared to be together for the first part of the spring, and in the summer. It was hard to work together, me and [Mike], I think. In normal times, I think we would have done a lot better, having a good solid team foundation.
I think at the beginning in the spring, when it was [former team member, Mike] and I, I think there was a lot more integration. We would have weekly Zoom meetings or whatever where we would just discuss where we were all at. Maybe give each other ideas of what to look for, what to do. But then, I can’t really say what happened, but then there was just this time that we were all kind of separated and kind of just working on our own stuff. We would come to the weekly meetings, or on Zoom, during the summer. But I don’t know, there wasn’t a whole lot of integration…and I don’t know if it would have been different if we were more in-person, if COVID wasn’t a thing.
I feel like the [roles] were pretty separate. Like, they pretty much did the engineering, they figured out all that. Of course, they did all that before I even joined the project so there wasn’t really a place for me within that. Um, and I felt like, you know, my teaching aspect was completely separate from what they were doing. Other than, you know, I have to integrate the payload and the balloon launch into the lessons.
3.2. GPS Team
3.2.1. Integrated STEM
Well, I didn’t have much of an understanding at all before the idea was presented. I had never heard of radio occultation. I had never known too much about GPS either. Um, so definitely my understanding developed as we did more research.
I was definitely impressed with the way my team did research. I just couldn’t think of a single idea…and they really left the chart with that. And that was impressive to me. Um, how they had an idea, without having a real teacher or curriculum or anything, just like grab on to an idea and then learn a bunch about it.
3.2.2. Partnerships and Teamwork
But I think we were on the same page for most of it. I don’t think that’s bad, like I think that we all knew what was happening and no one was getting left out. But we just had our separate jobs to do.
3.3. Cell Signal Team
3.3.1. Integrated STEM
Did a good job of explaining, like, how the pieces of our payload operated. And, like, what the technology was. And we talked about circuitry and all of those things. And so, we really did bring in a lot of those technological engineering pieces.
[Carla] did a really good job of coming in and understanding and asking the right questions to make sure she understood, and then the activities that she was able to put together I thought were really good as far as, like, helping the kids to learn about it as well.
I would have liked to go a little bit more in depth on, like, how our payload worked. I think that would have been interesting for students to actually get to look at our boards and at our antennas and learn about how all of these different pieces come together.
3.3.2. Partnerships
I wish that we would have incorporated with each other or worked with each other more. Um, because it felt sometimes that like [Carol] and [Cal] were their own separate team and then it was me. And I was just trying to grab at all the ideas that they were getting, um, I’m surprised we weren’t more of a unit.
3.4. Cross-Case Analysis
4. Discussion
- Activities/projects/programs (products created, both lesson plans and payload);
- Benefit each team member perceived.
- Focus of interaction;
- Trust and respect;
- Locus of influence;
- Team structures, strategies, and access to information.
- Time and orientation;
- Written agreements and contracts.
5. Conclusions
- Focus of Interactions—Teams develop and implement activities together to assist in team building, unified objectives, and end targets;
- Activities/Projects/Programs—Teams develop integral activities/projects/programs that grow directly out of common skills and interests to create cohesion;
- Time and Orientation—Teams work on open ended and goal-oriented problems and can explain short- and long-term objectives and the overall mission;
- Benefit—Teams (not just an individual) are able to become more than what they would be alone and should be able to articulate this accomplishment;
- Trust and Respect—Teams build mutual trust and respect with all members through expectations and norms;
- Organizational Structure—Teams work together, not as separate individuals, but instead as coordinated and transparent interactions with all members;
- Organizational Strategies and Information Access—Teams develop activities/projects/programs together and sensitive information is promoted together;
- Locus of Influence—Teams share the responsibility, based on expertise, to create tasks and actions for the whole team assisting with whole team ownership;
- Written Agreements—Teams write out areas of interest, expectations, and commitments to each other and review them periodically for continued growth;
- Conflict Management—Teams watch for conflicts and follow expectations and norms in discussing feelings, actions needed, or soliciting outside intervention.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Graduate STEM Education for the 21st Century; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Research Council. A Framework of K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Van Laar, E.; Van Deursen, A.J.; Van Dijk, J.A.; De Haan, J. The relation between 21st-Century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 72, 577–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balcar, J. Is it better to invest in hard or soft skills? Econ. Labour Relat. Rev. 2016, 27, 453–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NGSS Lead States. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Burrows, A.; Lockwood, M.; Borowczak, M.; Janak, E.; Barber, B. Integrated STEM: Focus on informal education and community collaboration through engineering. Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agogino, A.M.; Shuang, S. Triangulation of indicators of successful student design teams. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 2006, 22, 617–625. [Google Scholar]
- Dong, A. The latent semantic approach to studying design team communication. Des. Stud. 2005, 26, 445–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giel, L.I.S.; Noordzij, G.; Wijnia, L.; Noordegraaf-Eelens, L.; Denktaş, S. When birds of the same feather fly together: The impact of achievement goal compatibility in collaborative learning. Educ. Psychol. 2021, 41, 79–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, H.; Gero, J.S. Comparing two approaches to studying communications in team design. In Design Computing and Cognition ’16; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 301–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kristof-Brown, A.L.; Stevens, C.K. Goal congruence in project teams: Does the fit between members’ personal mastery and performance goals matter? J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 1083–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Locke, E.A.; Latham, G.P. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. Am. Psychol. 2002, 57, 705–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Louw, L.; Duncan, Q. Teaching industrie 4.0 technologies in a learning factory through problem-based learning: Case study of a semi-automated robotic cell design. Procedia Manuf. 2020, 45, 265–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marks, M.A.; Mathieu, J.E.; Zaccaro, S.J. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2001, 26, 356–376. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/259182 (accessed on 16 October 2021). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mathieu, J.E.; Heffner, T.S.; Goodwin, G.F.; Salas, E.; Cannon-Bowers, J.A. The influence of shared mental models on eam process and performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2000, 85, 273–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Paletz SB, F.; Chan, J.; Schunn, C.D. Dynamics of micro-conflicts and uncertainty in successful and unsuccessful design teams. Des. Stud. 2017, 50, 39–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yang, M.C. Consensus and single leader decision-making in teams using structured design methods. Des. Stud. 2010, 31, 345–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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.; Routlege: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 3–16. [Google Scholar]
- Woods, D.R. PBL: An evaluation of the effectiveness of authentic problem-based learning (aPBL). J. Chem. Eng. Educ. 2012, 46, 135–144. [Google Scholar]
- Merritt, J.; Lee, M.Y.; Rillero, R.; Kinach, B.M. Problem-Based learning in K-8 mathematics and science education: A literature review. Interdiscip. J Probl. -Based Learn. 2017, 11, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Spuck, T. Putting the “authenticity” in science learning. In Einstein Fellows: Best Practices in STEM Education; Spuck, T., Jenkins, L., Dou, R., Eds.; Peter Lang: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 118–156. [Google Scholar]
- Newell, C.; Bain, A. Team-Based Collaboration in Higher Education Learning and Teaching: A Review of the Literature; Springer: Singapore, 2018; p. 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koro-Ljungberg, M.; Yendol-Hoppey, D.; Smith, J.J.; Hayes, S.B. (E)pistemological awareness, instantiation of methods, and uninformed methodological ambiguity in qualitative research projects. Educ. Res. 2009, 38, 687–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burrows, A.; Slater, T. A proposed integrated STEM framework for contemporary teacher preparation. Teach. Educ. Pract. 2015, 28, 318–330. [Google Scholar]
- Johns, G.; Mentzer, N. STEM integration through design and inquiry. Technol. Eng. Teach. 2016, 76, 13–17. [Google Scholar]
- Rehmat, A.P.; Hartley, K. Building engineering awareness: Problem-Based learning approach for STEM integration. Interdiscip. J. Probl.-Based Learn. 2020, 14, n1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karaçöp, A. Effects of student teams-achievement divisions cooperative learning with models on students’ understanding of electrochemical cells. Int. Educ. Stud. 2016, 9, 104–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abramczyk, A.; Jurkowski, S. Cooperative learning as an evidence-based teaching strategy: What teachers know, believe, and how they use it. J. Educ. Teach. 2020, 46, 296–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Leeuwen, A.; Janssen, J. A systematic review of teacher guidance during collaborative learning in primary and secondary education. Educ. Res. Rev. 2019, 27, 71–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strauß, S.; Rummel, N. Promoting interaction in onine distance education: Designing, implementing, and supporting collaborative learning. Inf. Learn. Sci. 2020, 121, 251–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, H.A.; Kilgore, W.; Warren, S.J. Care, communication, learner support: Designing meaningful online collaborative learning. Online Learn. 2017, 21, 29–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ryu, M.; Mentzer, N.; Knoblach, N. Preservice teachers’ experiences of STEM integration: Challenges and implications for integrated STEM teacher preparation. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2019, 29, 493–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albar, S.B.; Southcott, J.E. Problem and project-based learning through an Investigation lesson: Significant gains in creative thinking behaviour within the Australian Foundation (preparatory) Classroom. Think. Ski. Creat. 2021, 41, 100853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mustofa, R.F.; Hidayah, Y.R. The Effect of Problem-Based Learning on Lateral Thinking Skills. Int. J. Instr. 2020, 13, 463–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.H.; Yang, Y.C. Revisiting the effects of project-based learning on students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis investigating moderators. Educ. Res. Rev. 2019, 26, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellingsen, P.; Tonholm, T.; Johansen, F.R.; Andersson, G. Learning from problem-based projects in cross-disciplinary student teams. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mann, L.; Chang, R.; Chandrasekaran, S.; Coddington, A.; Daniel, S.; Cook, E.; Crossin, E.; Cosson, B.; Turner, J.; Mazzurco, A.; et al. From problem-based learning to practice-based education: A framework for shaping future engineers. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2021, 46, 27–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burghardt, M.D.; Hecht, D. Designing Informal vs. Formal Education Activities—What We’ve Learned. Int. J. Des. Learn. 2020, 11, 39–45. [Google Scholar]
- Kilty, T.; Burrows, A.C.; Welsh, K.; Kilty, K.; McBride, S.; Bergmaier, P. Transcending disciplines: Engaging college students in interdisciplinary research, integrated STEM, and partnerships. J. Tech. Sci. Ed. 2021, 11, 146–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siverling, E.A.; Suazo-Flores, E.; Mathis, C.A.; Moore, T.J. Students’ use of STEM content in design justifications during engineering design-based STEM integration. Sch. Sci. Math. 2019, 119, 457–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magen-Nagar, N.; Shonfeld, M. The impact of an online collaborative learning program on students’ attitude towards technology. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2018, 26, 621–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nathan, M.J.; Srisurichan, R.; Walkington, C.; Wofgram, M.; Williams, C.; Alibcli, M.W. Building cohesion across representations: A mechanism for STEM integration. J. Eng. Educ. 2013, 102, 77–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stake, R.E. The Art of Case Study Research; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Merriam, S.B.; Tisdell, E.J. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation, 4th ed.; Jossey-Bass: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Mullinix, B.B. Nurturing partnership: A Southern African continuum of flexible stages in partnership development. Curr. Issues Comp. Educ. 2001, 3, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Couso, D.; Simarro, C. STEM education through the epistemological lens: Unveiling the challenge of STEM transdisciplinarity. In Handbook of Research on STEM Education; Johnson, C.C., Mohr-Schroeder, M.J., Moore, T.J., English, L.D., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 17–28. [Google Scholar]
- Burrows, A.C. Secondary Teacher and University Partnerships: Does Being in a Partnership Create Teacher Partners? Doctoral Dissertation, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
Team Members (Pseudonyms) | Major Area of Study | Project Description | STEM Integration |
---|---|---|---|
May (Female) Meg (Female) Mike (Male) | Science Education Mechanical Engineering Civil Engineering | Microbes: Collect microbes at high altitude | S = microbes background knowledge T = payload, high-altitude balloon E = design mechanism to collect data M = coding, programming Arduino (&T) |
Gabe (Male) Glen (Male) Gail (Female) | Science Education Computer Engineering Physics | GPS: Measure occultation of GPS signal at high altitude | S = occultation and weather prediction T = program raspberry pi E = build payload M = works with T, coding, angles |
Carla (Female) Carol (Female) Cal (Male) | English Education Mechanical Engineering Physics | Cell Signal: Determine nature of cell phone signals at high altitude | S = nature of cell signals T = payload, high-altitude balloon E = build payload, collect data M = interpret and display data as graph |
Team Member and Major | Summary of Learning Learned from or by… | Successes | Challenges |
---|---|---|---|
Meg: Mechanical Engineer | Others Teamwork Teaching Independent research | Integrated relationship of integrated STEM and teamwork | Impact of loss of team member |
Mike: Civil Engineer | Doing Others (remotely) Teaching | Teamwork was separate but coordinated | Impact of loss of team member Teamwork was remote |
May: Geology, Secondary Science Education | Others Independent research “The Engineers” | Teamwork was a relationship | Felt separate, “them and me” Joined team late Longed for more involvement |
Team Member and Major | Summary of Learning Learned from or by… | Successes | Challenges |
---|---|---|---|
Glen: Computer Engineering | Experts Independent research | Taught teammates | Integration and teamwork “difficult” Disciplines remained separate |
Gail: Physics | Experts Doing Teammates | Learned skills outside major, e.g., soldering, building payload, software | COVID restrictions kept team from in-person classroom experience |
Gabe: Physics and Secondary Education | Experts Hands-on activities Profs and online community | Jigsaw—did not know all the pieces, but understood enough Developed a team | Team “rarely worked together” but “on the same page” Team roles defined and separate |
Team Member and Major | Summary of Learning Learned from or by… | Successes | Challenges |
---|---|---|---|
Carol: Mechanical Engineer | Others Teaching Independent research | Teamwork is crucial Took steps to improve | Communication a “struggle” |
Cal: Physics | Doing Experts Teaching | Perceived content as interdisciplinary, complex | Would have liked more collaboration Teamwork difficult because “online” |
Carla: English Secondary Education | Others Independent research Experts Communicating | Took leadership role in K-12 class, earned respect from teammates. In turn, recognized others’ expertise, appreciated explanations | Felt separate, “them and me” “Didn’t question” separate discipline dynamic |
Dimension | Pre-Partnership | Partnership | Partnership |
---|---|---|---|
Focus of Interaction | Getting to know each other | Working to achieve mutually valued objectives (payload and lessons) | Developing and implementing payload and lessons together |
Activities/Projects/Programs (Payload and Lessons) | Limited—specifically defined relationships which allow teams to become acquainted with each other | Opportunistic—teams work together because it is convenient and appropriate (a good match) | Integral—teams develop joint payload and lessons that grow directly out of common skills and interests |
Time and Orientation | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Benefit | Increased Networking—teams develop relationships and skills | Increased capacity—teams able to do more and/or access more resources than they could alone | Increased status—teams able to become more than what they would be alone |
Trust and Respect | Building trust and earning respect | Trust and respect exist among some team members | Mutual trust and respect throughout team |
Team Structures, strategies, and information access | Completely autonomous and separate | Separate but coordinated | Appropriately integrated and developed together |
Locus of Influence | Separate | Shared or differentiated according to expertise and capacity | Integrated with acknowledgement of expertise and capacity |
Written Agreements or Contracts | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kilty, T.J.; Burrows, A.C. Integrated STEM and Partnerships: What to Do for More Effective Teams in Informal Settings. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 58. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12010058
Kilty TJ, Burrows AC. Integrated STEM and Partnerships: What to Do for More Effective Teams in Informal Settings. Education Sciences. 2022; 12(1):58. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12010058
Chicago/Turabian StyleKilty, Trina J., and Andrea C. Burrows. 2022. "Integrated STEM and Partnerships: What to Do for More Effective Teams in Informal Settings" Education Sciences 12, no. 1: 58. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12010058