Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 1 – uploaded by Shoudong Feng

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
thirteen “Strong chose “Strongly Agree” on both reading and writing. In the post-assessment, no one chose y Disagree” or “Disagree” on either reading or writing. One participant chose “Neutral” on both reading and writing, five chose “Agree” on both reading and writing, and 19 chose “Strong y Agree” on both reading and writing. In summary, before the training, 18 participants chose “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” that it is their responsibility to integrate reading and writing into ST] EM areas. After the training, 24 participants chose “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” that it is their responsibility to integrate reading and writing into STEM classes. Figure I. Findings on perceptions about the importance of integrating reading and writing

Figure 1 thirteen “Strong chose “Strongly Agree” on both reading and writing. In the post-assessment, no one chose y Disagree” or “Disagree” on either reading or writing. One participant chose “Neutral” on both reading and writing, five chose “Agree” on both reading and writing, and 19 chose “Strong y Agree” on both reading and writing. In summary, before the training, 18 participants chose “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” that it is their responsibility to integrate reading and writing into ST] EM areas. After the training, 24 participants chose “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” that it is their responsibility to integrate reading and writing into STEM classes. Figure I. Findings on perceptions about the importance of integrating reading and writing

Related Figures (4)

Figure 2. Findings on participants’ beliefs about their responsibility to integrate literacy
Figure 2. Findings on participants’ beliefs about their responsibility to integrate literacy
On the last set of questions that examine the perception of change in classroom practice, it is a slightly different scenario. In the area of reading, there was a 24% increase in the number of teachers who believed that they regularly involve students in reading STEM materials after the training. In writing, 16% more teachers believed they regularly involve students in writing in STEM classes. After the training, 25% more teachers regularly taught vocabulary in STEM classes. Data indicates that the training changed many teachers’ classroom practice and 25% more teachers incorporated reading, writing, and vocabulary in STEM subjects. To measure the teacher implementation throughout the 3-year grant period, the first RTOP observation scores from year | were compared (as a baseline measure) to the last observation scores from year 3, providing a measure of change over time. An Independent Samples T Test was conducted on each of the three subscales of Lesson Design, Content Total, and Classroom Culture. Results on the Lesson Design Total subscale scores showed a statistically significant effect when comparing the two time periods (year 1 M=18.32, SD 5.91; year 3 M=15.04, SD = 2.46; t(32.63)= 2.54, p= .02). This indicates that over the three years of the professional development, teachers implemented significantly less of these elements into their practice. Results on the Content Total subscale scores show a statistically significant effect when comparing the two time periods (year 1 M=21.48, SD 4.25; year 3 M=34.22, SD = 3.44; t(46)= -11.35, p= .000). The data shows that over the three years of the professional development, teachers implemented significantly more of the elements into their classroom practice. Results on the Classroom Culture Total subscale scores showed a statistically significant effect when comparing the two time periods (year 1 M=24.32,
On the last set of questions that examine the perception of change in classroom practice, it is a slightly different scenario. In the area of reading, there was a 24% increase in the number of teachers who believed that they regularly involve students in reading STEM materials after the training. In writing, 16% more teachers believed they regularly involve students in writing in STEM classes. After the training, 25% more teachers regularly taught vocabulary in STEM classes. Data indicates that the training changed many teachers’ classroom practice and 25% more teachers incorporated reading, writing, and vocabulary in STEM subjects. To measure the teacher implementation throughout the 3-year grant period, the first RTOP observation scores from year | were compared (as a baseline measure) to the last observation scores from year 3, providing a measure of change over time. An Independent Samples T Test was conducted on each of the three subscales of Lesson Design, Content Total, and Classroom Culture. Results on the Lesson Design Total subscale scores showed a statistically significant effect when comparing the two time periods (year 1 M=18.32, SD 5.91; year 3 M=15.04, SD = 2.46; t(32.63)= 2.54, p= .02). This indicates that over the three years of the professional development, teachers implemented significantly less of these elements into their practice. Results on the Content Total subscale scores show a statistically significant effect when comparing the two time periods (year 1 M=21.48, SD 4.25; year 3 M=34.22, SD = 3.44; t(46)= -11.35, p= .000). The data shows that over the three years of the professional development, teachers implemented significantly more of the elements into their classroom practice. Results on the Classroom Culture Total subscale scores showed a statistically significant effect when comparing the two time periods (year 1 M=24.32,
https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/jste/vol55/iss1/3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.30707/JSTES5.1/ZQJK5370 Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20-26.
https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/jste/vol55/iss1/3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.30707/JSTES5.1/ZQJK5370 Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20-26.
Related topics:
PsychologyLiteracyPerceptionTeacher Education
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved