9

ELEMENTARY STEM LEARNING

Suzanne M. Nesmith and Sandi Cooper

The foundational knowledge and experiences that students develop in science, technology, engi-
neering, and mathematics (STEM) are shaped early during their K-12 schooling and promote their
intellectual development, interests for future study, and potential choices of future careers (National
Research Council [NRC], 2011b). Proponents of early exposure to these STEM disciplines have
argued that foundational knowledge in STEM learning is best formed during the elementary years
(e.g., NRC, 2007).
Additionally, these early experiences develop a student’s capacity to make informed decisions as
a citizen and about their own lives. According to a report from the NRC (2011b), “the solutions
to some of the most daunting problems facing the nation will require not only the expertise of top
STEM professionals but also the wisdom and understanding of its citizens” (p. 1). Furthermore, the
report indicates that “literacy in STEM subjects is important both for the personal well-being of each
citizen and for the nation’s competitiveness in the global economy” (NRC, 2011b, p. 3).
This chapter addresses key issues concerning elementary STEM learning. The chapter begins
with the rationale and purpose for including STEM learning in elementary grades. Next, it offers an
overview of the identified benefits, drawbacks, and barriers to incorporating STEM in elementary
classrooms. Finally, it provides a synopsis of reported impacts of STEM experiences on and the influ-
ence of associated programs, practices, and partnerships.

Rationale for Elementary STEM Learning

Early exposure to STEM opportunities makes a difference for students. According to a recent report,
Early STEM Matters (Early Childhood STEM Working Group, 2017), educational experience in
STEM should start early to promote the benefits and future engagement in the STEM fields. Despite
a concerted national effort to promote effective early childhood education, the notion of STEM for
early learners is rarely discussed (Early Childhood STEM Working Group, 2017).
Chen (2011) found that children who were exposed to STEM learning experiences at a young
age actually perform better in science and mathematics than students lacking such opportunities.
Emphasizing STEM learning at an early age has been found to contribute to positive academic and
professional trajectories in the STEM fields (Ricks, 2012). Research also shows that an early STEM
learning experience prepares students for more independent innovation and develops critical think-
ing skills (Chen, 2011).

101
 Suzanne M. Nesmith and Sandi Cooper

Critical thinking, problem solving, and working collaboratively can be effectively nurtured
through STEM learning. STEM learning experiences support the development of independent, crit-
ical thinkers who are capable of making good decisions while working collaboratively with others
and provide opportunities for students to grow into responsible citizens (Isabelle, 2017). Proponents
argue that STEM learning experiences provide students with these 21st-century skills, all necessary
to become the next generation of innovative STEM professionals (Cotabish, Dailey, Robinson, &
Hughes, 2013).
Recent studies have found that interest in STEM-related careers may be influenced at an early
age (Foltz, Gannon, & Kirschmann, 2014; Wang, 2012). The National Science Board (2010) recom-
mended early exposure to inquiry-based learning, peer collaboration, and open-ended, real-world
problem solving, as well as engagement in STEM opportunities, in order to encourage students to
consider STEM-related careers.
In the interest of developing future STEM innovators, changes in elementary science programs are
necessary (Cotabish et al., 2013). Over two decades ago, Brandwein (1995) recommended that sci-
ence learning begin in the early grades and include “evocative instruction, stimulating idea-­enactive,
inquiry-oriented behavior” (p. 41) to develop a strong disposition for science content. Keeley (2009)
stressed the importance of science in the early grades to maximize the cumulative learning processes
involved in developing science talent that could potentially lead more students to choose advanced
science courses and science-related careers. More recently, Isabelle (2017) posited that the vision
of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) may not be achieved when many elementary
schools across the nation allot a very limited time to the teaching of science. To develop a strong
disposition toward science and STEM, science learning must be highly valued by school districts, to
the degree that they support quality science instruction by dedicating more time for science in the
elementary grades, providing science materials, and offering effective professional development (PD)
opportunities for elementary teachers (Isabelle, 2017).
Walker (2012) advocated that even young learners are capable of understanding basic STEM con-
cepts. Many educators feel STEM instruction in the early years of school can “boost overall learn-
ing, by tapping into children’s natural curiosity and interest in experimentation and engineering”
(Wheelcock College Aspire Institute, 2010, p. 9). Likewise, Lottero-Perdue, Lovelidge, and Bowling
(2010) found that integrated STEM education focused on hands-on and inquiry-based strategies
improved students’ self-management skills as well as supported the development of STEM concepts.
Finally, integrated STEM learning at the elementary level has the potential to support students
in making meaningful connections, developing 21st-century skills, and building overall confidence
(Claymier, 2014; Moore & Smith, 2014).

Perceptions of STEM Learning in Elementary Grades

Important to understanding how to cultivate early STEM learning is to consider the identified chal-
lenges, or perceived barriers, and benefits of STEM learning in the elementary grades.

Challenges or Perceived Barriers of STEM in Elementary Grades

Although many elementary classrooms are “self-contained”, there is still this notion that content be
taught separately (Shernoff, Sinha, Brassler, & Ginsburg, 2017). In addition, some elementary grade
levels are “departmentalized” where one teacher is responsible for teaching one or two subject areas
to rotating groups of students. This presents a primary challenge elementary schools face in teaching
STEM subjects in an integrated way.
Moore and Smith (2014) asserted that school change is needed to support STEM integration.
It is important for schools to work to allow students to learn how each of the STEM disciplines

102
 Elementary STEM Learning

are interconnected in ways they might encounter in real-world problems. In a needs assessment
conducted by Shernoff et al. (2017), teacher participants acknowledged that the school schedule
greatly impacted any opportunities for collaborative planning as well as instructional time for STEM
integration.
Sikma and Osborne (2014) examined teachers’ experiences in the year preceding the launch
of a new STEM magnet elementary school. Over the course of the year, the researchers examined
the teachers’ engagement with the activities required to establish and shape a new school and how
this evolved as they negotiated this process amidst the realities of curricular and accountability
pressures in literacy and mathematics instruction. As they developed a collected group vision,
the teachers took ownership of the curriculum and the change process itself and were able to
draw upon their own professional knowledge to create a STEM-focused curriculum aligned to
standards and their own understanding of best practice. Unfortunately, throughout the process
of shaping the STEM school, test score concerns were predominant, and these limitations set by
the district were in conflict with the vision of a student-centered school with a meaningful and
integrated curriculum.
Clearly, the testing environment diminishes time for the pedagogical approaches that STEM
instruction requires (Shernoff et al., 2017). When teachers and students are in the context of high-
stakes standardized testing, and the results of these tests determine school funding, school image, and
teacher performance pay, it is understandable that priority is focused on the subject areas that are
being tested, which are primarily mathematics and literacy (Blackley & Howell, 2015). Addition-
ally, teachers have difficulty visualizing how to implement a cross-disciplinary STEM instructional
approach while the accountability for within-subject content mastery remains a priority. It has been
widely reported that this testing environment reduces the time for creative and innovative instruc-
tional approaches that many teachers desire (Shernoff et al., 2017).
Although pressure applied in the testing environment is a challenge for STEM integration, many
teachers also explained that they simply did not know how to effectively integrate the STEM areas
(Shernoff et al., 2017). Teaching integrated STEM requires some fundamental knowledge of how to
facilitate an effective learning environment that supports the development of STEM concepts and
how these are integrated. Consequently, teachers who have limited knowledge or who are not will-
ing to learn the concepts are not likely to be willing or capable of supporting an integrated STEM
approach to teaching and learning (Nadelson & Seifert, 2017).
In 2016, Bennett organized a study to explore potential differences in elementary teachers’ sense
of self-efficacy related to teaching integrated STEM. Results indicated that these teachers had a
strong sense of self-efficacy with regard to teaching integrated STEM education in the elementary
grades. However, the qualitative data gathered from the study revealed that teachers identified their
need for more curricular support and training in STEM to increase their overall effectiveness.
Another area for consideration relative to challenges of quality STEM integration in elementary
classrooms is initial teacher preparation. Currently, initial teacher education programs that prepare
elementary teachers are not necessarily designed to include preparation specific to STEM integra-
tion. In most programs, there are discrete courses that specifically cover two of the subject areas, sci-
ence and mathematics, and may include some technology applications, but engineering has not been
a component included at this level (Blackley & Howell, 2015). According to Shernoff et al.’s (2017)
study, strengthening preservice teachers’ content knowledge in STEM fields and developing effec-
tive classroom management skills is an important element needed to efficiently facilitate integrated
STEM lessons. Other suggestions from this study include the examination of model or exemplar
STEM lessons, mentoring by teachers who are experienced in integrated approaches, and an empha-
sis on student-centered pedagogical approaches. Perhaps the most salient preliminary finding from
this study was that current teacher education does not adequately prepare teachers and would need
to be considerably reconceptualized for integrated STEM to flourish in schools.

103
 Suzanne M. Nesmith and Sandi Cooper

Benefits of STEM in Elementary Grades

STEM experiences in the elementary grades offer more student-centered, meaningful, engaging,
and less fragmented learning experiences that involve higher-level thinking and problem-solving
skills (Stohlmann, Moore, & Roehrig, 2012). Moore and colleagues (2014) add that combining the
disciplines of STEM is “based on connections between the subjects and real world problems,” and
more specifically entails “an effort by educators to participate in engineering design as a means to
develop technologies that require meaningful learning and an application of mathematics and/or
science” (p. 38). Furthermore, STEM learning can promote 21st-century transferable skills which
include inventiveness, creativity, critical thinking, collaboration, and problem solving. Research has
found that integrated STEM teaching encourages student-centered pedagogies (Roehrig, Moore,
Wang, & Park, 2012), a more authentic application of mathematics and science content (Stohlmann
et al., 2012), and a focus on interdisciplinary, contextualized, real-life problems (LaForce et al., 2016).
These learning experiences can support students to become independent, critical thinkers who are
able to make good decisions while working collaboratively with others.
STEM learning provides a more hands-on, inquiry-based approach that improves students’ self-
management, promotes more meaningful connections, allows students to learn concepts more deeply,
and builds confidence. Research has shown that students who experience STEM learning early
through hands-on experiences are best equipped to develop and maintain a greater understanding
of STEM concepts as they advance through school. By introducing STEM in the elementary grades,
students have the opportunity to establish a foundation of knowledge and skills necessary to become
successful in the STEM fields (Wheelcock College Aspire Institute, 2010).
In a 2015 study conducted by Alumbaugh, six STEM teachers were interviewed, and they shared
that students were much more interested in learning and applying STEM concepts when offered
hands-on learning coupled with real-life experiences. Moreover, because STEM education promotes
a more student-centered than teacher-centered environment, the students were more engaged in the
lessons. Alumbaugh (2015) further determined that students were more willing to learn in numerous
ways and were motivated to try to make sense through problem solving in a variety of ways.

Impact of STEM Learning on Elementary Students

The STEM For All initiative (Obama, 2009) affirms that all students, including those expressing
diverse learning needs, should be included in quality STEM education that allows them to develop
skills associated with STEM processes and expertise in STEM areas. However, global and national
indicators such as Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reveal that students in many countries continue to
perform poorly in science and mathematics, and that both socioeconomic status and ethnicity con-
tinue to play significant roles in score variance (Baldi, Jin, Skemer, Green, & Herget, 2007; Darling-­
Hammond, 2010; NCES, 2015; US Department of Education, 2015, 2017). In light of these matters,
it is certainly essential to explore the impact of STEM-focused processes and programs on the learn-
ing of all elementary students.

General Education Students

Several studies indicate that incorporating STEM opportunities in elementary classrooms yields
positive outcomes for general education students, or those students not identified as having special
learning needs. Becker and Park (2011) conducted a meta-analysis to explore the effects of integra-
tive approaches among STEM subjects on students’ learning. Ten percent of the studies included
in the analysis occurred in elementary contexts with general education students, and comparisons

104
 Elementary STEM Learning

of study effect size by grade level led the researchers to suggest that early exposure to integrative
approaches may yield higher achievement scores in STEM subjects and, thus, the approaches may be
better suited to young learners.
Though STEM education is appropriate and well suited at the elementary level, there are impli-
cations for teaching and curriculum design that must be considered when integrating STEM content
in elementary classrooms. For example, Glancy, Moore, Guzey, and Smith (2017) exposed fifth-grade
students to a STEM unit that included the application of data analysis and measurement skills in the
contexts of science and engineering. Although the students struggled with the application of these
skills, the authors cautioned against inferring that the integrated STEM content was too difficult
because students experienced success in articulating conclusions consistent with the science and
engineering concepts. Thus, the study highlights the importance of elementary teachers and cur-
riculum writers considering appropriate STEM concepts and skills and developing age-appropriate
STEM integrative approaches.
A 2018 study conducted by Acar, Tertemiz, and Taşdemir revealed that fourth-grade Turkish
students exposed to authentic, problem-based integrated STEM lessons in classroom settings scored
significantly higher than control group counterparts in tests of science and mathematics achieve-
ment. Results further indicated that students enjoyed the STEM experiences and developed posi-
tive attitudes towards STEM fields. Similar results were reported from an afterschool program that
included elementary-age children (Leas, Nelson, Grandgenett, Tapprich, & Cutucache, 2017). The
STEM lessons utilized in the program were designed to supplement and support the school day cur-
ricula, and examination of lesson observations revealed positive impacts on the students’ excitement,
attitudes about STEM, curiosity/inquiry, and understanding of STEM concepts (Leas et al., 2017).
Tolliver (2016) revealed somewhat different results from those previously delineated. Follow-
ing implementation of a STEM curriculum in fifth-grade classrooms in an urban district, Tolliver
compared the mathematics test scores for students in two demographically similar schools within the
district, one implementing the STEM curriculum and the other utilizing a traditional curriculum.
Results revealed no significant difference between the mathematics scores for the two groups.

Exceptionality Diverse Students

Scholars suggest that purposeful introduction and early exposure with learning experiences that
focus on STEM curricula enhance the recognition and talent development of high-ability students
(e.g.,  Dailey, Cotabish, & Jackson, 2018; Keeley, 2009). In support of this suggestion, Robinson,
Dailey, Hughes, and Cotabish (2014) found that implementation of a biography-focused STEM
curriculum alongside authentic problem-based science units increased gifted elementary students’
achievement in science concepts, content, and process skills. Similarly, a study of high potential
underrepresented minority students in grades 3–8 revealed that the incorporation of a long-term,
problem-based, integrated supplemental STEM enrichment program reduced the mathematics and
science achievement gap between disadvantaged high-potential minority and high-achieving major-
ity students and improved student representation and participation in advanced placement high
school courses (Olszewski-Kubilius, Steenbergen-Hu, Thomson, & Rosen, 2017). A 2017 study
by Young, Young, and Ford explored the impact of gifted education on fourth-grade Black girls’
achievement in STEM. Results revealed that Black girls who received gifted instruction significantly
outperformed Black girls who do not receive gifted instruction in both science and mathematics.
Moreover, though White girls who received gifted instruction also significantly outperformed White
girls who did not receive gifted instruction, the mean difference effect size was almost twice as large
for Black girls. In a study that explored the intersection of gifted education and gender, Kerr, Vuyk,
and Rea (2012) reported that the small differences between gifted boys and girls in achievement,
careers, and interests are often enhanced by gendered educational practices. With respect to STEM,

105
 Suzanne M. Nesmith and Sandi Cooper

these practices often fail to support gifted girls’ interests in STEM careers and ultimately result in
occupation choices that do not provide a sense of purpose (Kerr et al., 2012).
Students with disabilities often struggle in STEM-related courses and consistently underper-
form in STEM coursework, yet these students are capable of succeeding in STEM areas when their
instructional needs are met (AccessSTEM, 2007). Israel, Maynard, and Williamson (2013) promote
the integration of explicit literacy instruction within STEM education for elementary students with
disabilities because the practice provides students with tools to meaningfully access and comprehend
STEM text materials that often pose significant barriers to their learning. Other scholars suggest that
early integration of computational thinking and computer programming within STEM education
presents as a means of empowering students with disabilities (Israel, Wherfel, Pearson, Shehab, &
Tapia, 2015). Though the integration of computing education requires consideration of necessary
supports, technologies, and strategies to meet students’ special needs, benefits include enhanced
higher-order thinking skills, utilization of real-world applied contexts, and increased collaborative
problem solving (Israel et al., 2015).

Gender Diverse Students

Gender research in STEM education has sought to explore gender gaps in STEM fields, gender-
specific beliefs about STEM, and gender-based STEM educational practices. International studies and
reports reveal that the gender achievement gap in STEM-related fields has shrunk over the last twenty
years (Mullis, Martin, & Loveless, 2016), yet there remains a significant gender difference in choos-
ing STEM professions (Blažev, Karabegović, Burušić, & Selimbegović, 2017). Additionally, Blažev
and colleagues (2017) determined that gender-specific perceptions and stereotypes related to STEM
attitudes and careers form at a very early age and likely shape future career preferences and choices.
Recent studies have explored the role of gender stereotyping and parental occupations in shaping
STEM-based gender differences of elementary students. Bowden, Bartkowski, Xu, and Lewis (2018)
examined the degree to which parental occupation impacted students’ performance on standardized
mathematics tests. Results revealed that students with STEM-employed parent(s) performed signifi-
cantly better than students with non-STEM-employed parent(s), yet the advantage did not eliminate
the gender mathematics gap (Bowden et al., 2018). Likewise, a study of the gender-STEM stereo-
typed beliefs of elementary Croatian students revealed that regardless of prior STEM achievement,
the students endorsed the gender stereotyped belief that STEM-related subjects are more suitable to
boys than to girls (Blažev et al., 2017).

Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students

Linguistic mismatches contribute to educational opportunity gaps for linguistically diverse students
(Villegas, 1998) and, in STEM contexts, the mismatches often negatively impact student achievement
(Hyde & Mertz, 2009). Linguistic mismatches and resulting barriers are due in large part to the lan-
guage used in STEM educational settings and STEM fields. Lee (2002) developed a research program
to address these mismatches and thereby promote science learning and scientific inquiry among
culturally and linguistically diverse students. Fourth-grade linguistically diverse students involved in
the program experienced meaningful science and expressed enhanced science relevancy when their
teachers attended to cultural congruence (Lee, 2002).
Strong relationships exist between low socioeconomic status (SES), underachievement of youth
in STEM-related areas (Duodu, Noble, Yusuf, Garay, & Bean, 2017), and underrepresentation in
STEM careers (Douglas & Strobel, 2015). A Canadian-based, community-focused STEM program
for children in grades 3–8 revealed that the following factors contributed to the program’s suc-
cess and positive student outcomes: (1) community-based delivery, including attention to common

106
 Elementary STEM Learning

accessibility and affordability barriers associated with low-income communities; (2) consistent, sus-
tained engagement that allowed for positive group dynamics; and (3) engagement with STEM edu-
cators that allowed for positive youth-staff relationships (Duodu et al., 2017). Similar positive results
revealed through an in-school STEM program for low SES students of color. Fifth-grade students
in a campus with a predominantly low SES minority student population were provided opportuni-
ties to experience authentic integrated STEM activities and interact with community members and
experts in STEM fields. Results from the annual statewide science assessment revealed a substantive
increase in students’ scores for the first time in many years (Molina, Borror, & Desir, 2016).
In 2015, Douglas and Strobel utilized a unique approach to explore STEM education in diverse
urban communities of poverty through the lens of students’ level of hope in relation to STEM
careers. Recognizing that students’ level of hope has been shown to influence students’ academic
success (Ciarrochi, Heaven, & Davies, 2007), Douglas and Strobel developed and utilized the Hopes
and Goals Survey to assess the hope diverse elementary students in urban settings hold for their adult
lives and the connections they draw between their efforts in STEM fields and a fulfilling life. Results
revealed no significant mean difference between the racial groups of third- through fifth-grade
students in any of the hope factors and further provided a valid instrument for researching students’
hope in relation to STEM education.

Supporting Elementary STEM Educators

Elementary teachers are often referred to as the gatekeepers of future STEM innovators. However,
few elementary teachers participate in the in-depth, theme-based STEM PD programs necessary to
prepare them to effectively teach STEM curricula (NRC, 2011a). This problem is exacerbated by
the recent inclusion of engineering into standards at all grade levels because there now exists a need
to provide elementary teachers with opportunities to understand, experience, and incorporate con-
tent they have not previously encountered as students or educators. Moreover, though the number
and types of STEM experiences for elementary preservice teachers vary greatly by program, most
programs provide limited training in teaching mathematics and science and little to no training in
teaching engineering and technology (Epstein & Miller, 2011). Taken together, these issues highlight
the importance of exploring, developing, and providing elementary STEM educators with appropri-
ate forms of support to assure quality STEM instruction at the elementary level.

Teacher Education Programs

Reports from Epstein and Miller (2011) and DeJarnette (2012) highlight the crisis in elementary
STEM education and cite general recommendations specific to elementary preparation programs.
These recommendations include increasing the selectivity of programs that prepare elementary
educators; including additional mathematics and science content and pedagogy within elementary
programs; providing methodology in inquiry, problem-based learning, engineering design, and tech-
nology; and requiring candidates to pass mathematics and science sections of licensure exams.
One specific approach utilized to support STEM preservice teachers is the incorporation of
explicit components within traditional STEM courses. An afterschool STEM program for students
in grades 3–5 provided elementary preservice teachers with opportunities to explore science peda-
gogy through iterative cycles of enactment, a process where preservice teachers plan, teach, and ana-
lyze lessons with children (Bottoms, Ciechanowski, & Hartman, 2015). The afterschool STEM club
was embedded within a science methods course and situated within a culturally and linguistically
diverse school community. Bottoms and colleagues (2015) determined that participation in the itera-
tive cycles contributed to the preservice teachers’ confidence in their ability to teach science and pro-
vided opportunities to plan lessons, enact specific practices with children, and collaboratively analyze,

107
 Suzanne M. Nesmith and Sandi Cooper

reflect, and respond to their developing science competence. Additionally, by situating the learning
in context, the experience aided the preservice teachers in developing tools for culturally relevant
science practices and supported their ability to adapt their instruction in situ (Bottoms et al., 2015).
An alternative means of meeting the needs of elementary STEM preservice teachers is through
the development of specifically designed STEM programs. McIntyre et al. (2013) and DiFrancesca,
Lee, and McIntyre (2014) describe and report results from a STEM-focused elementary teacher
preparation program that included an extensive engineering component. The program combined
general education courses, conceptually focused methods courses, extensive field work, and integra-
tion of the engineering design process within all required content area methods courses. Candi-
dates reported recognizing the value of the program courses and appreciating the program structure,
strong field experience component, and the integration between coursework and field experiences
(Mc­Intyre et al., 2013). Specific to engineering, program evaluation interviews revealed evidence of
preservice teachers’ positive attitudes toward engineering alongside their recognition that the inclu-
sion of engineering in elementary school classrooms is a rarity (DiFrancesca et al., 2014).

Professional Development
A high-profile report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, substantiated that high-quality, content-
driven PD can have a significant impact on student achievement (Committee on Science, Engineer-
ing, and Public Policy, 2007). The impact was confirmed through a study conducted by Cotabish
et al. (2013) that revealed a significant increase in science process skills, concepts, and content knowl-
edge among elementary students whose teachers participated in an effective STEM PD program.
The study further substantiated the importance of PD that is intensive, sustained, content-focused,
well-defined, and effectively implemented and that provides opportunities for teachers to explore
effective curricula and instructional models (Yoon, Duncan, Lee, & Shapley, 2008).
A comparison of elementary and secondary STEM teachers’ views on and preferences for meet-
ing STEM PD needs revealed that elementary teachers place greater importance on improving their
teaching practices in terms of learning about new and innovative strategies, receiving feedback, and
learning from experts in the field (Owens, Sadler, Murakami, & Tsai, 2018). Additionally, Owens and
colleagues (2018) reported that elementary STEM teachers cited significantly less participation in
STEM PD and indicated feeling less supported by their principals for pursuing STEM PD.
In a needs assessment study conducted by Shernoff et al. (2017), many teachers suggested that
more PD was needed to help them better understand the integrated approaches to STEM education.
In addition, these teachers and administrators reported that it would be helpful to review exemplar
units that include key pedagogical strategies such as project-based learning, view video-recorded ses-
sions of integrated STEM lessons taught by experienced teachers, and experience problem solving
within an integrated STEM approach. (Shernoff et al., 2017).
A 2017 study conducted by Anderson and Moeed associated a STEM PD with successful imple-
mentation of the country’s new curriculum. The PD experience incorporated a scientist-teacher
partnership to address the misalignment between the aims and scope of the current New Zea-
land curriculum and primary teachers’ science knowledge and pedagogy. Providing teachers with
opportunities to work alongside scientists conducting authentic research has been shown to improve
teachers’ confidence in their understanding of contemporary science (Rennie, 2012) and improve
understanding and incorporation of scientific inquiry (McLaughlin & MacFadden, 2014), yet ele-
mentary teachers are commonly not participants in the scientific community. Participation in the
PD modified the teacher participants’ beliefs about science and science education from a focus on
science content to an emphasis on citizenship and informed decision-making—beliefs more closely
aligned with the country’s curriculum goal of developing science for citizenship.

108
 Elementary STEM Learning

It has been suggested that PD with a focus on engineering is essential to assure that elemen-
tary teachers are capable of implementing new standards that emphasize engineering practices
(Roehrig et al., 2012), yet much of the PD in engineering design has been directed toward sec-
ondary teachers, and studies of elementary engineering PD report varying results. Capobianco
and Rupp (2014) found that fifth- and sixth-grade teachers who participated in a science and
engineering design program were able to plan effective engineering design lessons but sometimes
struggled to enact all phases of the engineering design process and to apply scientific principles
during instruction. Similarly, a 2014 study of teachers who planned and implemented engineering
lessons in their third- through sixth-grade classrooms following a year-long engineering-focused
PD revealed that about half of the lessons were complete engineering lessons, many were design-
focused engineering lessons with a missing component, and a few of the lessons utilized the term
“design” but were, in fact, science activities (Guzey, Roehrig, Tank, Moore, & Wang, 2014). In
2017, Estapa and Tank utilized an engineering design focus in their PD experience, but their
analysis focused less on engineering design components and more on the integration of STEM
concepts. Results revealed that the PD supported participants’ identification of STEM content
within engineering design activities but failed to fully support their planning and enactment of the
content in an integrated manner.
Numerous studies utilized novel instruments to explore the impacts of elementary engineer-
ing PD experiences. Following a brief PD and the provision of a sample engineering lesson plan,
Kendall and Portsmore (2013) observed three elementary teachers’ implementations of the lessons
through the lens of teacher attention to student thinking. Analysis of the observations and follow-
up interviews using an attentional skills framework revealed that the elementary teachers some-
times struggled with deciding whether and how to deviate from the provided lesson plan, focused
more on noting student ideas as opposed to interrogating their ideas, and varied their responses to
student thinking depending on the stage of the engineering design process. The Level of Design
Rubric was utilized by Nadelson, Pfiester, Callahan, and Pyke (2015) to classify engineering lessons
with respect to levels of responsibility for student and teacher. Following participation in a STEM
program that included an emphasis on engineering design, elementary teachers from kindergarten
through fifth grade were observed implementing their teacher-designed engineering lessons via
level of design analysis. Results revealed that, on average, the teachers implemented engineering
design lessons in which they shared responsibility for the structure of the design elements with their
students (Nadelson et al., 2015). The STEM Integration Curriculum Assessment (STEM-ICA) tool
was developed to analyze the engineering design-based unit lessons developed by fourth- through
eighth-grade teachers following their participation in a year-long STEM integration PD program
(Guzey, Moore, & Harwell, 2016). Results revealed that the engineering challenge lessons focused on
physical science utilized more engaging and motivating contexts that those focused on life science
and earth science, and mathematics integration and communication of thinking did not strongly
contribute to the quality of the lessons (Guzey et al., 2016).
Though less common than science and engineering-focused STEM PD experiences, researchers
have attended to elementary STEM PD through the lenses of mathematics and linguistics. Recogni-
tion of both the typical supporting role that mathematics plays in STEM integration (Fitzallen, 2015)
and the potential and challenges associated with incorporating mathematical modeling in elementary
classrooms guided Baker and Galanti’s (2017) development of an elementary PD built upon the
design features of model-eliciting activities (MEAs). Participation in the PD allowed the teachers
to broadly envision mathematics content within STEM integration and resulted in expressions of
readiness to use MEAs in STEM integration. Similarly, researchers’ desire to reduce the linguistic and
cultural gaps in STEM pedagogy and practice caused by educators’ demarcation between reading, lit-
eracy, writing, and communication and STEM instruction led to their development of a STEM PD

109
 Suzanne M. Nesmith and Sandi Cooper

built upon culturally and linguistically responsive approaches (Charity Hudley & Mallinson, 2017).
Results revealed that participants learned “to view students’ rich and varied identities not as a deficit
but as a resource,” recognized challenges to meeting students’ linguistic and cultural needs, and felt
prepared to begin incorporating strategies to support and incorporate students’ diverse cultural back-
grounds within STEM experiences (Charity Hudley & Mallinson, 2017, p. 656).

Partnerships
Many of the aforementioned projects represent STEM partnerships between formal educational
entities including school districts, elementary campuses, universities, and education service centers
as well as informal institutions such as museums. Additionally, some of these projects have received
support from foundations, businesses, and community organizations. A report outlining criteria of
effective STEM schools and programs indicated that the success of STEM partnerships should be
determined based not on what is accomplished but, rather, on the convergence between the goals of
the school/district and the partner. Ultimately, the success of all partnerships must be based on the
degree to which the interests of the partners are served (NRC, 2011b).
A program that highlights elementary STEM is Engineering is Elementary (EiE). EiE is an engi-
neering curriculum developed by the school curriculum division of the Museum of Science of
Boston. A five-year study of EiE explored the efficacy of the program for over 14,000 students in
grades 3–5 and found that the curriculum enabled learners of every level, gender, and background to
improve in both science and engineering outcomes (Engineering is Elementary, 2018).

Conclusions
Certainly, building a STEM foundation in elementary grades can spark early interest and lead to
future enrollment in advanced STEM courses and potentially choosing STEM careers, and research
supports the need to expose children to appropriate STEM opportunities early in their education.
Advocates for early exposure to STEM concepts have contended that it develops critical thinking
and reasoning skills, supports overall academic growth, is vital for nurturing and stimulating elemen-
tary children’s curiosity, and enhances future interest in STEM-related careers (NRC, 2011b). STEM
education at the elementary thereby maximize the transformational power of STEM in the lives of
young children.

References
Acar, D., Tertemiz, N., & Taşdemir, A. (2018). The effects of STEM training on the academic achievement on
4th graders in science and mathematics and their views on STEM training teachers. International Electronic
Journal of Elementary Education, 10, 505–513. doi:10.26822/iejee.2018438141
AccessSTEM. (2007). Building capacity to include students with disabilities in science, technology, engineering, and math-
ematics fields. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED506543
Alumbaugh, K. M. (2015). The perceptions of elementary STEM schools in Missouri (Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion). Retrieved from ProQuest LLC. (Order No. 10031817)
Anderson, D., & Moeed, A. (2017). Working alongside scientists: Impacts on primary teacher beliefs and
knowledge about science and science education. Science & Education, 26, 271–298. doi:10.1007/s11191-
017-9902-6
Baker, C. K., & Galanti, T. M. (2017). Integrating STEM in elementary classrooms using model-eliciting activ-
ities: Responsive professional development for mathematics coaches and teachers. International Journal of
STEM Education, 4(1), 1–15. doi:10.1186/s40594-017-0066-3
Baldi, S., Jin, Y., Skemer, M., Green, P. J., & Herget, D. (2007). Highlights from Pisa 2006: Performance of U.S.
15-year-old students in science and mathematics literacy in an international context (NCES 2008–016). Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sci-
ences. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008016.pdf

110
 Elementary STEM Learning

Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Edu-
cation, 12(5&6), 23–37.
Bennett, J. M. P. (2016). An investigation of elementary teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching integrated science, technology, engi-
neering, and mathematics (STEM) education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Regent University, Virginia.
Blackley, S., & Howell, J. (2015). A STEM narrative: 15 years in the making. Australian Journal of Teacher Educa-
tion, 40(7), 8, 102–112. doi:10.14221/ajte.2015v40n7.8
Blažev, M., Karabegović, M., Burušić, J., & Selimbegović, L. (2017). Predicting gender-STEM stereotyped beliefs
among boys and girls from prior school achievement and interest in STEM school subjects. Social Psychology
of Education, 20, 831–847. doi:10.1007/s11218-017-9397-7
Bottoms, A. I., Ciechanowski, K. M., & Hartman, B. (2015). Learning to teach elementary science through itera-
tive cycles of enactment in culturally and linguistically diverse contexts. Journal of Science Teacher Education,
26, 715–742. doi:10.1007/s10972-016-9447-6
Bowden, M., Bartkowski, J. P., Xu, X., & Lewis, R. L. Jr. (2018). Parental occupation and the gender math gap:
Examining the social reproduction of academic advantage among elementary and middle school students.
Social Sciences, 7(1), 6. doi:10.3390/socsci7010006 
Brandwein, P. F. (1995). Science talent in the young expressed within ecologies of achievement (RBDM 9510). Storrs,
CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
Capobianco, B. M., & Rupp, M. (2014). STEM teachers; planned and enacted attempts at implementing engi-
neering design-based instruction. School Science and Mathematics, 114, 258–270. doi:10.1111/ssm.12078
Charity Hudley, A. H., & Mallinson, C. (2017). “It’s worth our time”: A model of culturally and linguistically
supportive professional development for K-12 STEM educators. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12,
637–660. doi:10.1007/s11422-016-9743-7
Chen, G. (2011). The rising popularity of STEM: A crossroads in public education or a passing trend? Retrieved from
http://www.publicschoolreview.com/articles/408.
Ciarrochi, J., Heaven, P. C. L., & Davies, F. (2007). The impact of hope, self-esteem, and attributional style on
adolescents’ school grades and emotional well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Personality, 41,
1161–1178. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s009265660700207
Claymier, B. (2014). Integrating STEM in the elementary curriculum. Children’s Technology & Engineering, 18.
doi:10.1186/s40594-017-0058-3
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and
employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved from
http://nap.edu/11463
Cotabish, A., Dailey, D., Robinson, A., & Hughes, G. (2013). The effects of a STEM intervention on elementary
students’ science knowledge and skills. School Science & Mathematics, 113, 215–226. doi:10.111/ssm12023
Dailey, D., Cotabish, A., & Jackson, N. (2018). Increasing early opportunities in engineering for advanced
learners in elementary classrooms: A review of recent literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 41(1),
93–105. doi:10.1177/0162353217745157
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our
future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
DeJarnette, N. K. (2012). America’s children: Providing early exposure to STEM (science, technology, engi-
neering, and math) initiatives. Education, 133(1), 77–84. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/281065932_America’s_Children_Providing_early_exposure_to_STEM_Science_Technology_
Engineering_Math_Initiatives
DiFrancesca, D., Lee, C., & McIntyre, E. (2014). Where is the “E” in STEM for young children? Engineering
design education in an elementary teacher preparation program. Issues in  Teacher Education, 23(1), 49–64.
Retrieved from https://www.itejournal.org/back-issues/spring-2014/09difrancescaetal.pdf
Douglas, K. A., & Strobel, J. (2015). Hopes and goals survey for use in STEM elementary education. International
Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25, 245–259. doi:10.1007/s10798-014-9277-9
Duodu, E., Noble, J., Yusuf, Y., Garay, C., & Bean, C. (2017). Understanding the delivery of a Canadian-based
after-school STEM program: A case study. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(20), 1–11. doi:10.1186/
s40594-017-0083-2
Early Childhood STEM Working Group. (2017). Early STEM matters: Providing high-quality STEM experi-
ences for all young learners: A policy report by the early childhood STEM Working Group. Chicago, IL: UChicago
STEM Education. Retrieved from https://50.erikson.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/STEM-Work
ing_Group_Report.pds
Engineering is Elementary. (2018, September 10). EiE, the curriculum division of the Museum of Science, Boston, launches
early childhood engineering effort with the release of two new curricula for use in pre-k and kindergarten. https://www.eie.
org/news/eie-curriculum-division-museum-science-boston-launches-early-childhood-engineering-effort

111
 Suzanne M. Nesmith and Sandi Cooper

Epstein, D., & Miller, R. T. (2011). Slow off the mark: Elementary school teachers and the crisis in STEM education. Report
from The Center for American Progress. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED536070.pdf
Estapa, A. T., & Tank, K. M. (2017). Supporting integrated STEM in the elementary classroom: A professional
development approach centered on an engineering design challenge. International Journal of STEM Education,
4(6), 1–16. doi:10.1186/s40594-017-0058-3
Fitzallen, N. (2015). STEM education:What does mathematics have to offer? In M. Marshman (Ed.), Mathematics
education in the margins. Proceedings of the 38th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research
Group of Australasia, Sunshine Coast, June 28—July 2 (pp. 237–244). Sydney: MERGA. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext /ED572451.pdf
Foltz, L., Gannon, S., & Kirschmann, S. (2014). Factors that contribute to the persistence of minority students in
STEM fields. Planning for Higher Education Journal, 42(4), 46–58.
Glancy, A. W., Moore, T. J., Guzey, S., & Smith, K. A. (2017). Students’ successes and challenges applying data
analysis and measurement skills in a fifth-grade integrated STEM unit. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Edu-
cation Research, 7(1), 68–75. doi:10.7771/2157-9288.1159
Guzey, S. S., Moore, T. J., & Harwell, M. (2016). Building up STEM: An analysis of teacher-developed engineer-
ing design-based STEM integration curricular materials. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research,
6(1), 10–29. doi:10.7771/2157-9288.1129
Guzey, S. S., Roehrig, G.,Tank, K., Moore,T., & Wang, H-H. (2014). A high-quality professional development for
teachers of grades 3–6 for implementing engineering into classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 114(3),
139–149. doi:10.1111/ssm.12061
Hyde, J. S., & Mertz, J. E. (2009). Gender, culture, and mathematics performance. Proceedings of the National Acad-
emy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 8801–8807. doi:10.1073/pnas.0901265106
Isabelle, A. D. (2017). STEM is elementary: Challenges faced by elementary teachers in the era of the next gen-
eration science standards. The Educational Forum, 81(1), 83–91. doi:10.1080/00131725.2016.1242678
Israel, M., Maynard, K., & Williamson, P. (2013). Promoting literacy-embedded, authentic STEM instruc-
tion for students with disabilities and other struggling learners. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(4), 18–25.
doi:10.1177/004005991304500402
Israel, M., Wherfel, Q. M., Pearson, J., Shehab, S., & Tapia, T. (2015). Empowering K-12 students with disabilities
to learn computational thinking and computer programming. Teaching Exceptional Children, 48(1), 45–53.
doi:10.1177/0040059915594790
Keeley, P. (2009). Elementary science education in the K-12 system. NSTA WebNews Digest. Retrieved from
http://www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=55954
Kendall, A., & Portsmore, M. D. (2013, June). Teachers’ attention to student thinking during the engineering design
process: A case study of three elementary classrooms. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering
Education.Atlanta,GA.Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/teachers-attention-to-student-thinking-during-
the-engineering-design-process-a-case-study-of-three-elementary-classrooms
Kerr, B. A., Vuyk, M. A., & Rea, C. (2012). Gendered practices in the education of gifted girls and boys. Psychology
in the Schools, 49, 647–655. doi:10.1002/pits.21627
LaForce, M., Noble, E., King, H., Century, J., Blackwell, C., Holt, S., . . . Loo, S. (2016). The eight essential ele-
ments of inclusive STEM high schools. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(21), 1–11. doi:10.1186/
s40594–016–0054-z.
Leas, H. D., Nelson, K. L., Grandgenett, N., Tapprich, W. E., & Cutucache, C. E. (2017). Fostering curios-
ity, inquiry, and scientific thinking in elementary school students: Impact of the NE STEM 4U interven-
tion. Journal of Youth Development, 12(2), 103–120. doi:10.5195/jyd.2017.474
Lee, O. (2002). Chapter 2: Promoting scientific inquiry with elementary students from diverse cultures and lan-
guages. Review of Research in Education, 26(1), 23–69. doi:10.3102/0091732X026001023
Lottero-Perdue, P. S., Lovelidge, S., & Bowling, E. (2010). Engineering for all. Science and Children, 47(7), 24–27.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43175601
McIntyre, E., Walkowiak, T., Thomson, M., Carrier, S., Lee, C., Greive, E., . . . DiFrancesca, D. (2013). A STEM-
focused elementary teacher preparation program: Candidate and alumni perceptions. Teacher Education and
Practice, 26, 670–687.
McLaughlin, C. A., & MacFadden, B. J. (2014). At the elbows of scientists: Shaping science teachers’ concep-
tions and enactment of inquiry-based instruction. Research in Science Education, 44, 927–947. doi:10.1007/
s11165–014–9408-z
Molina, R., Borror, J., & Desir, C. (2016). Supporting STEM success with elementary students of color in a low-
income community. Distance Learning, 13(2), 19–25.
Moore, T. J., & Smith, K. A. (2014). Advancing the state of the art of STEM integration. Journal of STEM
Education: Innovations & Research, 15(1), 5–10. Retrieved from https://karlsmithmn.org/wp-content/
uploads/2017/08/Moore-Smith-JSTEMEd-GuestEditorialF.pdf

112
 Elementary STEM Learning

Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M., Wang, H. H., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Roehrig, G. H. (2014). Implementa-
tion and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. In Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesiz-
ing research, policy, and practices (pp. 35–60). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & Loveless, T. (2016). 20 years of TIMSS: International trends in mathematics and
science achievement, curriculum, and instruction. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College, TIMSS and PIRLS Inter-
national Study Center.
Nadelson, L. S., Pfiester, J., Callahan, J., & Pyke, P. (2015). Who is doing the engineering, the student or
the teacher? The development and use of a rubric to categorize level of design for the elementary class-
room. Journal of Technology Education, 26(2), 22–45. doi:10.21061/jte.v26i2.a.2
Nadelson, L. S., & Seifert, A. L. (2017). Integrated STEM defined: Contexts, challenges, and the future. The
Journal of Educational Research, 110, 221–223. doi:10.1080/00220671.2017.1289775
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Trends in international mathematics and science study (TIMMS).
U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8. Washington,
DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2011a). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core
ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2011b). Successful K-12 STEM education: A workshop summary. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press.
National Science Board. (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: Identifying and developing our
nation’s human capital. NSB-10–33. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2010/nsb1033.
pdf
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
Obama, B. (November 23, 2009). Educate to innovate press conference. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.
gov/issues/education/educate-innovate.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Steenbergen-Hu, S., Thomson, D., & Rosen, R. (2017). Minority achievement
gaps in STEM: Findings of a longitudinal study of project excite. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(1), 20–39.
doi:10.1177/0016986216673449
Owens, D. C., Sadler, T. D., Murakami, C. D., & Tsai, C. L. (2018). Teachers’ views on and preferences for
meeting their professional development needs in STEM. School Science and Mathematics, 118, 370–384.
doi:10.1111/ssm.12306
Rennie, L. (2012). Evaluation of the scientists in schools project. Retrieved from http://www.scientistsinschools.edu.
au/downloads/SiSEvaluationReport2011-2012.pdf
Ricks, E. D. (2012). Cultivating early STEM learners: An analysis of mastery classroom instructional practices, motiva-
tion, and mathematics achievement in young children (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Howard University,
Washington, DC.
Robinson, A., Dailey, D., Hughes, G., & Cotabish, A. (2014). The effects of a science-focused STEM interven-
tion on gifted elementary students’ science knowledge and skills. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25, 189–213.
doi:10.1177/1932202X14533799
Roehrig, G. H., Moore, T. J., Wang, H.-H., & Park, M. S. (2012). Is adding the E enough? Investigating the
impact of K-12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM integration. School Science and Math-
ematics, 112(1), 31–44. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2001.00112.x
Shernoff, D. J., Sinha, S., Brassler, D. M., & Ginsburg, L. (2017). Assessing teacher education and professional
development needs for the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education. International Jour-
nal of STEM Education. doi:10.1186/s40594-017-0068-1.
Sikma, L., & Osborne, M. (2014). Conflicts in developing an elementary STEM magnet school. Theory Into
Practice, 53(1), 4–10. doi:10.1080/00405841.2014.862112
Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education.
Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28–34. doi:10.5703/1288284314653.
Tolliver, E. R. (2016). The effects of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education on elemen-
tary student achievement in urban schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Grand Canyon University,
Arizona.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). National assessment of educational progress (Science).
U.S. Department of Education. (2017). National assessment of educational progress (Mathematics).
Villegas, A. M. (1998). School failure and cultural mismatch: Another view. The Urban Review, 20, 253–265.
Walker, T. M. (2012). Engaging elementary students in summer STEM camp. Texas Science Teacher, 41(1), 6–14.
Wang, X. (2012). Why students choose STEM majors: Motivation, high school learning, and postsecondary
context of support. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 1081–1121. doi:10.3102/0002831213488622

113
 Suzanne M. Nesmith and Sandi Cooper

Wheelcock College Aspire Institute. (2010). Strengthening STEM education in the early years. Retrieved from
https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/07/03/foundationforfuturereport.pdf
Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S., & Shapley, K. (2008). The effects of teachers’ professional development on student
achievement: Findings from a systemic review of evidence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New York, NY. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/
southwest/pdf/REL_2007033.pdf
Young, J. L., Young, J. R., & Ford, D. Y. (2017). Standing in the gaps: Examining the effects of early gifted
education on black girl achievement in STEM. Journal of Advanced Academics, 28, 290–312. doi:10.1177/193
2202X17730549

114