View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Connected Learning in STEAM Classrooms: Opportunities for Engaging Youth in Science and Math Classrooms

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Connected Learning in STEAM Classrooms: Opportunities for Engaging Youth in Science and Math Classrooms
Language: English
Authors: Quigley, Cassie F. (ORCID 0000-0002-9502-3736), Herro, Dani, Shekell, Calli, Cian, Heidi, Jacques, Lori
Source: International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. Dec 2020 18(8):1441-1463.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 23
Publication Date: 2020
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Junior High Schools
Middle Schools
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Art Education, STEM Education, Learner Engagement, Middle School Students, Middle School Teachers, Youth, Design, Cooperative Learning, Context Effect, Learning Theories
DOI: 10.1007/s10763-019-10034-z
ISSN: 1571-0068
Abstract: STEAM education evolved to address the critical demand for creative transdisciplinary teaching that was under-realized in STEM programs. However, this novel concept has not been clearly conceptualized; this is likely attributed to the lack of a grounding theory to frame STEAM. We propose using connected learning theory to examine a previously developed STEAM conceptual model. This work explores the potential of connected learning theory to understand specific STEAM instructional practices. Using observations of 43 middle-grade teachers from 14 schools enacting STEAM practices in their classrooms, we examined what connected learning looked like in STEAM classrooms and how the STEAM conceptual model could be enhanced by analyzing implementation practices through the principles of connected learning. The qualitative data analysis of observations, video recorded data, and debriefing sessions with teachers after the observations included two rounds of analysis. This found significant overlap in ideas of connected learning and STEAM, notably a shared emphasis on design, collaboration, and contextualized learning.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2020
Accession Number: EJ1271920
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwE2ZEpFyLEW2Hw3189-0jIJAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDK9OYow_FjD4OXcC9QIBEICBmh3VQt_yiRHXQ7yxeAGOCvX9FeTpcBfEpvsAVxAXVPKSFrT-2GjCNu2r5dy8vH_n8REPiqcx_wRFjoBUTCua4ywdrIM1dYm3cqKsF2BHla-LhN_wviRk26B9BYJZsEkSofcG1HndfXxFWz7cxajZQoCJavI2JHwwad5LigcgJXdPpgDEw8ZFiJzSqY4e0MrmgAWFnxAeLUjnf-8=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0146390414;[3d0g]01dec.20;2020Oct14.04:24;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0146390414-1">Connected Learning in STEAM Classrooms: Opportunities for Engaging Youth in Science and Math Classrooms </title> <p>STEAM education evolved to address the critical demand for creative transdisciplinary teaching that was under-realized in STEM programs. However, this novel concept has not been clearly conceptualized; this is likely attributed to the lack of a grounding theory to frame STEAM. We propose using connected learning theory to examine a previously developed STEAM conceptual model. This work explores the potential of connected learning theory to understand specific STEAM instructional practices. Using observations of 43 middle-grade teachers from 14 schools enacting STEAM practices in their classrooms, we examined what connected learning looked like in STEAM classrooms and how the STEAM conceptual model could be enhanced by analyzing implementation practices through the principles of connected learning. The qualitative data analysis of observations, video recorded data, and debriefing sessions with teachers after the observations included two rounds of analysis. This found significant overlap in ideas of connected learning and STEAM, notably a shared emphasis on design, collaboration, and contextualized learning.</p> <p>Keywords: Connected learning; Professional development; STEAM</p> <p>Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s10763-019-10034-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.</p> <p>During the last decade, connected learning (CL) has been proposed as a way to conceptualize the impact of youth media production and expression across digital media networks, in particular when participants were creating or solving problems that they cared about. The CL framework (Ito et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref1">13</reflink>]), originally examined in out-of-school spaces, represents the overlapping space of relationships, interests, and opportunities for learning and includes two related principles. These two principles, learning and design, are interrelated in that the learning principles can influence the design principles; meanwhile, design can increase the opportunities for learning. The overlap between the principles intentionally provided multiple access and entry points for students who were often disconnected from traditional school settings, one of the related goals within STEAM education. Connected learning experiences often resulted in these deeper learning experiences, which included systems thinking, creativity, persistence, and self-reflection (Ito et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref2">13</reflink>])</p> <p>Educational researchers and schools are particularly interested in CL for its potential to motivate learners and offer deep learning as children pursue personal interests with the support of others who recognize their skills and accomplishments (e.g. youth who create personal blogs detailing their everyday experiences in neighborhoods that are losing green space). While CL is not common to formal K-12 schooling, a small, but growing number of innovative teachers are invested in the approach believing that students learn best when they are allowed to create and solve problems they care about (Connected Learning Alliance, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref3">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>CL utilizes the principals of authentic learning (Herrington & Oliver, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref4">10</reflink>]); however, expands on this work through its focus on creative technologies and making activities are a part of problem-solving that span and intertwine disciplines. That said, this integrated approach is reminiscent of other pedagogical approaches such as science, technology, and society (STS) and socioscientific issues (SSI). In the early 1980s, science educators advocated for an integrated approach of science, technology, and society (National Science Teachers Association [NSTA], [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref5">17</reflink>]) to support the integration of meaningful learning experiences into science; however, the adoption of STS was sporadic and often consisted of issues that were not overly connected to students' everyday lives (Zeidler, Sadler, Simmons, & Howes, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref6">26</reflink>]). One reason for lack of widespread adoption was the lack of unifying theoretical grounding, which created a disparate and incoherent purpose for STS (Ziman, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref7">27</reflink>]). As a result, a movement shifted away from STS towards SSI in science education occurred (Zeidler et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref8">26</reflink>]). The SSI "focuses on empowering students to consider how science-based issues reflect, in part, moral principles and elements of virtue that encompass their own lives, as well as the physical and social world around them" (Zeilder et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref9">26</reflink>], p. 357). However, CL does not rely on issues that are bound by using scientific inquiry but also historical or mathematical inquiries into solving problems. Additionally, CL focus on learning <emph>through</emph> design, which provides an opportunity for science and math educators to support youth in problem-solving with production-centered technologies. When we first became engaged in STEAM work, we recognized the overlapping visions between STEAM and CL to re-engage students through relevancy and creative problem-solving. Because of these related visions, we wanted to examine the ways in which CL could support teachers in understanding the importance of engaging youth in opportunities for media production and expression.</p> <p>Research on CL mainly has been situated outside of school settings. Much of the CL research has focused on how youth's media production for civic engagement, creative writing, and making activities bridged multiple learning contexts (Ito et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref10">14</reflink>]). However, the educational research community more broadly has taken an interest in theorizing the ways in which educators might "intentionally design digitally rich, production-oriented communities that bridge divides in access to robust learning environments" (Barron, Gomez, Pinkard, & Martin, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref11">2</reflink>] as cited in Ito et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref12">14</reflink>], p. 13). One study examined an out of school program using narratives and creating digital artifacts to spark interest in non-dominant girls' participation in STEM activities and disciplinary identities (Pinkard, Erete, Martin, & McKinney de Royston, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref13">20</reflink>]). They found co-designing stories, making, and engaging with online mentors assisted in identity formation in STEM and increased agency and interest. However, the difficulty of examining the dynamic nature of learning across contexts has limited the extent to which these ideas could be studied in K-12 settings (Kumpulainen & Sefton-Green, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref14">18</reflink>]). Furthermore, the demands of standardized testing led to the decline of two cornerstones of effective teaching: engagement and relevancy (Jennings & Lauen, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref15">16</reflink>]). Consequently, many STEM teachers created curricula disconnected from the ways in which students learned, as well as their interests. Not only are many STEM experiences restrictive in terms of student interest, they often fail to integrate the disciplines in ways that reflect current workforce demands (Becker & Park, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref16">3</reflink>]; Vaidyanathan, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref17">24</reflink>]; Williams, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref18">25</reflink>]). The result often includes inauthentic problems in which a content area is "added-on" instead of integrating them in creative ways that reflect problem solving in the field. Recent research suggested adding the "A" to STEM engaged students in creative work both in and outside of STEM fields. In fact, the field of engineering, recognizing the demand for products that excite emotion, is looking for employers to design such products with appeal beyond aesthetic (Sochacka, Guyotte, & Walther, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref19">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>Because of this twofold demand of extending STEM to include student interests and the demand for creative and critical thinking skills, STEAM education is emerging worldwide, but with several growing pains. Particularly in K-12 settings, STEAM educators are trying to distinguish their pedagogy from that of STEM education that simply adds artistic components to STEM programs or activities (Herro & Quigley, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref20">11</reflink>]; Jolly, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref21">16</reflink>]). One key difference is the notion of authentic transdisciplinarity, which includes equal ground for the disciplines. That is, the "arts" integrated into problem-solving instead of an afterthought (Quigley et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref22">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite the rise in adoption of STEAM education, it continues to suffer from conceptualization problems, particularly in K-12 settings. Therefore, researchers have relied on existing theories outside of the confines of these systems. We continue that line of work in this study by considering the STEAM conceptual model through the CL lens. We examined what CL looked like in STEAM classrooms and how the STEAM conceptual model could be enhanced by analyzing implementation practices through the principles of CL.</p> <hd id="AN0146390414-2">Purpose</hd> <p>In this paper, we examined what CL looked like in STEAM classrooms and how STEAM implementation practices are enhanced by analyzing implementation practices through the principles of CL. To do so, we expanded our current work to understand how CL (Ito et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref23">13</reflink>]) binds the instructional practices together, and also areas in which our STEAM conceptual model (Quigley et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref24">21</reflink>]) fell short of CL.</p> <hd id="AN0146390414-3">Research Question</hd> <p>The research question guiding our study was: In what ways can STEAM instruction offer opportunities for connected learning in classrooms?</p> <hd id="AN0146390414-4">Understanding the Connected Learning Framework</hd> <p>Connected learning is a powerful examination of how students learn outside of school settings. As a result, "connected learning addresses the gap between in-school and out-of-school learning, intergenerational disconnects, and new equity gaps arising from the privatization of learning" (Ito et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref25">13</reflink>], p. 4). It looks to uncover and to build collective capacity, identities, and opportunities. It acknowledges the variety of pathways that students bring into a learning experience and suggests these pathways are often connected. To date, much of the focus of CL has been on informal learning programs and online communities in order to understand how youth learn outside of the confines of a prescribed curriculum (Ahn et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref26">1</reflink>]). Purposefully, this theory is focused on an equity agenda by examining the ways youth learn given their wider access to "information, technology, and interest-driven communities" (Ahn et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref27">1</reflink>], p. 2). Ito and her colleagues (2013) examined cases in which students who typically were unengaged from school were solving complex, real-world problems using technology, resources, and collaborative spaces. The cases were quite powerful, and as a result, educational researchers are interested to understand if such theories translate into formal schooling.</p> <p>In the learning sciences, there is a growing body of research examining how learning is connected across settings, particularly in- and out-of-school learning. Drawing on sociocultural and situated learning theory (Lave, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref28">19</reflink>]), the premise of CL is that to understand learning, one must understand the social processes that are situated in and across contexts—emphasizing social learning "situations" and processes in everyday life. The CL framework (Ito et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref29">13</reflink>]), as well as the relationship between the principles and the spheres (noted in parentheticals) follows (see Fig. 1, used with permission).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Connected learning framework (Reprinted with permission Ito et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref30">13</reflink>])</p> <p>Learning principles (peer-supported, interest-powered, and academically oriented) make up the context for learning and can extend learning across home, community, and school settings. Design principles (production-centered, shared purpose, between active learning and how people participate). Connected learning describes merging together what Ito et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref31">13</reflink>], p. 62) termed three "spheres of learning." These include students' peer cultures, their interests, and the academic realm. They noted the three do not traditionally overlap, but CL can occur at the intersection of all three. The peer-supported context includes students' interactions with one another to provide feedback, ask questions of one another, and socialize. Interest-powered contexts center around students' interests—interests are the foundation of the work; there are supports for them to become experts in their areas of interests, and that their work around those interests is shared and valued. Finally, the academically oriented context includes linking students' work with one another around their interests to adult experts, career opportunities, and their communities. Part of this includes adults valuing the work and providing pathways for students to see the academic relevance of their interests. The core properties, then, are the features that are evident when the contextual "spheres" overlap. Production-centered refers to the students' need to "do" by "actively creating, making, producing, experimenting, remixing, decoding, performing, and designing" (Ito et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref32">13</reflink>], p. 75). The products of students' engagement in making can be shared publicly via social media or other outlets. The production-aspect of CL is centered around a shared purpose. When the three spheres are overlapping, it may not be reasonable to expect the scenario to be strictly academic. Rather, it is more likely that students are engaged in real-life contexts that are not contrived for academic purposes. This aspect, then, does not require that all students are working on the same problem at the same time. Instead, they are working together to achieve some goal that has many facets with varying academic ties. The final core property is that the learning environments are openly networked. This applies to the resources students can access, the locales from which they might access them (home, school, or community), and the ways in which they share their work with the world. In this sense, students' learning experiences can extend beyond the school walls and the school-based community. In this framework, technology is seen as the catalyst that provides opportunities for students as it fosters engagement and self-expression, increases accessibility, and expands social supports and diversity during interest-based learning.</p> <p>The overlap between these principles intentionally demonstrates there are opportunities for students to enter into learning spaces in several ways, either through relevancy, opportunities to be supported by peers, rigorous content, involving a shared purpose, and opportunities for students to produce, or promote their work openly. In this way, CL experiences often result in these deeper learning experiences, which include systems thinking, creativity, persistence, and self-reflection (Garcia et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref33">8</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0146390414-5">Exploring STEAM Conceptual Model</hd> <p>Some argue STEAM teaching, particularly in K-12, is represented in strong STEM programs over the years through creativity and innovation in teaching methods and presentation options (Eguchi, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref34">7</reflink>]; Vaidyanathan, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref35">24</reflink>]; Williams, 2013). These educators suggested STEAM learning is demonstrated, for example, in engineering challenges that might be solved and shown in student-created videos, or by offering students elective courses in computer programming or coding. However, these programs are often only offered after-school, or to a select group of students instead of infused into the traditional school day. In general, these conversations resulted in predictive reports or articles detailing classroom examples focused on sharing ideas. While necessary, the descriptions and plans are not comprehensive enough to offer teachers a model for implementing STEAM education in their classrooms. Instead, what often happens is teachers utilize existing STEM curriculum and call it STEAM by adding in a component of art (e.g. drawing, coloring, designing). The results of this type of implementation are mixed: students either saw this as so similar to their science and math classrooms that it did not engage them or they did not see how the arts could be used beyond the visual arts. Infusing the arts, all of them, into STEAM instruction can provide greater opportunity for <emph>all</emph> students to access and benefit from cross-disciplinary, problem-based learning experiences.</p> <p>In response, our STEAM education approach provides a transdisciplinary model that can be used in K-8 classrooms. The STEAM education conceptual model (Authors, 2017) describes a conceptual model which offers specific strategies for teachers to create STEAM curricula, mimicking skills found in STEM-related careers. The model supports teachers in designing problem-based curricula, roots scenarios within real-world issues, and draws on students' interests in digital technology activities as part of the problem-solving process. Offering opportunities during the school day to all students is one way to broaden participation, as well as to increase participation through relevant problem-solving.</p> <p>The STEAM conceptual model includes seven instructional approaches that shape the classroom environment. These include a problem-based approach, authentic tasks, multiple solutions, student choice, technology integration, teacher facilitation, and discipline integration. For full details on the research methods used to develop this model, see (Quigley et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref36">21</reflink>]). A summary of these approaches is described below.</p> <p>Problem-based approach. This component describes the ways in which the teachers present material from multiple disciplines or content areas in relevant, real-world ways from which a problem is proposed. To deliver content in a problem-based approach, we utilized problem-based learning (Hmelo-Silver, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref37">12</reflink>]), which frames learning in a problem or issues where there is not one correct answer.</p> <p>Authentic tasks<emph>.</emph> Once the teacher designed the problem, they aligned the tasks to the scenario in an authentic way. For example, students examined how to solve the problem of a new animal for an empty zoo enclosure, the students went to the zoo to measure the enclosure and then compared that information with the space requirements for a variety of animals.</p> <p>Multiple solutions<emph>.</emph> A critical component of the model was to promote multiple solutions to solve a problem in order to avoid privileging one way of knowing or doing. If the problem was indeed a real-world situation, there would be multiple ways to solve it. When students were allowed to pursue different ways to solve a problem, this ensured multiple abilities were valued in solving the problem, which increased who participated and ways to demonstrate their knowledge.</p> <p>Student choice<emph>.</emph> Similarly, student choice helped to provide opportunities for students to express themselves in a variety of ways. To create a context for learning, CL can be focused on these different ways of expression by creating interest-powered environments where learners can contribute expertise, ideas, and questions related to something that is personally satisfying to them.</p> <p>Technology integration<emph>.</emph> Technology integration is a critical component of STEAM and CL. In STEAM, the focus is on shifting from students as consumers of technology to producers of technology because it is the way students primarily use technology outside of school. By doing so, we changed the focus from learning the technique of "how to" use technology to <emph>enhancing</emph> student learning through technology.</p> <p>Teacher facilitation. When teachers perceived the goal of STEAM education as being a way to create an environment where peers will work together, this shifted the learning to ways that were less teacher-directed and more student-centered. The reason for this shift was to support the students in inquiry-rich problems to solve.</p> <p>Discipline integration<emph>.</emph> Discipline integration is the way in which teachers connected multiple disciplines or content areas through a problem-based unit. While the model posits the goal of STEAM as transdisciplinary, it also looks at the different levels of discipline integration (one content area or discipline, multiple disciplines, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary).</p> <hd id="AN0146390414-6">Methodology</hd> <p>This qualitative study examined the ways in which CL theory aligned to STEAM education practices in middle school math and science teachers (<emph>N</emph> = 43) during a 2-year study. To do this, we analyzed the data using the following spheres for CL: peer supported, interest powered, academically orientated, production-centered, shared purpose, and openly networked.</p> <hd id="AN0146390414-7">Program and Participants</hd> <p>The participants in the study were all in service teachers who enrolled in a series of four STEAM classes taught by the first and second authors. The courses were titled STEAM Instructional Design, STEAM Transdisciplinary Teaching, STEAM Enacted, and STEAM Assessment. For details of the courses, see previous work (Herro & Quigley, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref38">11</reflink>]). The teachers worked at 14 middle schools in a school district in the Southeastern USA. The school district was a large public-school district that encompassed both suburban and rural areas. It had a vested interest in re-engaging all learners in school and was working to transition most of its STEM or science-focused magnet schools to STEAM in an effort to meet that goal. The CL framework was not explicitly a part of the program. Of the 14 middle schools, all of the schools received Title 1 funding. The STEAM district coordinator recruited the 43 middle school teachers in total (22 science teachers and 21 math teachers). Of those 43 teachers, six were certified in multiple content areas (2 science/Social Studies; 1 math/ELA; 3 science/technology). Eighty-four percent of the teachers identified as White, 11% as Black, 4% as Asian, and less than 1% as Eastern European. In terms of the participants' pre-conceptions of STEAM, the majority of the teachers (93% or 40/43) discussed STEAM as "STEM with the Arts." The remaining teachers discussed the need for authentic integration of the subjects and solving problems. We noted their preconceptions were peripherally aligned with CL. In Table 1, we provided their years of teaching experience. In Table 2, we included their previous experience with STEAM. In Table 3, we provided the subjects that they were teaching at the time of the study.</p> <p>Participants' years of teaching and types of STEAM certifications/training</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th colspan="2"><p>Participants' Teaching Experience</p></th><th colspan="5"><p>Type of STEAM Certification/Training</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Years teaching</p></td><td><p>Number of participants</p></td><td><p>None</p></td><td><p>Graduate school or technology course</p></td><td><p>District STEAM PD</p></td><td><p>National week-long training</p></td><td><p>Certified in multiple content areas</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>0-3</p></td><td><p>8</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>4</p></td><td><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>3-6</p></td><td><p>9</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>7-12</p></td><td><p>9</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>13-20</p></td><td><p>11</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>20+</p></td><td><p>6</p></td><td><p>4</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Total</p></td><td><p>43</p></td><td><p>10</p></td><td><p>9</p></td><td><p>7</p></td><td><p>11</p></td><td><p>6</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Teacher participants' grade level/ subjects taught</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th><p>Grade level</p></th><th><p>Number of teachers at this grade level</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>6th</p></td><td><p>19</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>7th</p></td><td><p>17</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>8th</p></td><td><p>15</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Teacher participants' subjects taught</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th><p>Subject type</p></th><th><p>Number of teachers</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Science</p></td><td><p>21</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Algebra</p></td><td><p>8</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Honors Math/8</p></td><td><p>3</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Honors Math/7</p></td><td><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Honors Math/6</p></td><td><p>6</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>6<sup>th</sup> grade Math</p></td><td><p>8</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>7<sup>th</sup> grade Math</p></td><td><p>8</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>8<sup>th</sup> grade Math</p></td><td><p>9</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Several teachers taught more than one grade level and subject type.</p> <hd id="AN0146390414-8">Content of Teaching Environments</hd> <p>Each of the teachers designed a problem scenario that aligned to their standards (science and/or math), incorporating the STEAM conceptual model of technology integration, discipline integration, student choice, authentic tasks, and so on. Each of these problem scenarios varied to make them locally relevant. However, an example here is included to provide insight into what these scenarios looked like. For a full list of the problem scenarios and the standards they aligned to, see supplementary material. Note: several teachers co-designed problem-scenarios, and therefore, the total number of unique scenarios was 31.</p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2"><p><italic>Plant species such as English Ivy and Wisteria are beautiful to the casual observer. However, these plants and many more are a nuisance to existing habitats. Many invasive plants were brought over from other countries and while they thrive well in their native homeland, for several reasons, they do not live harmoniously with the plant life in their new environment. XX has over 80 species of plants that are invasive and damaging to the regions in which they are found. These invasive plants are known to affect homes, gardens, local buildings, and crops. How can a plant cause so much destruction? Aren't plants supposed to be beautiful and smell good? Once you learn what to look for, you will be able to spot these plants in your community and maybe even in your own backyard. Your job is to find out more about these plants that are harming the local region. You will create an informational ad using Canva (or another tech tool such as Piktochart, iMovie, Google Slides) to communicate the dangers, along with possible solutions and action steps, that will be distributed to the community.</italic></p><p><italic>Essential Question: How can I communicate potential dangers and act to slow the growth of invasive species in XX?</italic></p><p><italic>NGSS Standards:</italic><bold><italic>MS-LS2-1.</italic></bold><italic>Analyze and interpret data to provide evidence for the effects of resource availability on organisms and populations of organisms in an ecosystem. [Clarification Statement: Emphasis is on cause and effect relationships between resources and growth of individual organisms and the numbers of organisms in ecosystems during periods of abundant and scarce resources.]</italic><bold><italic>MS-LS2-2</italic></bold><italic>. Construct an explanation that predicts patterns of interactions among organisms across multiple ecosystems. [Clarification Statement: Emphasis is on predicting consistent patterns of interactions in different ecosystems in terms of the relationships among and between organisms and abiotic components of ecosystems. Examples of types of interactions could include competitive, predatory, and mutually beneficial.</italic></p><p><italic>Common Core ELA Standards:</italic><bold><italic>R7.</italic></bold><italic>Integrate and evaluate content presented in diverse formats and media, including visually and quantitatively, as well as in words.</italic><bold><italic>SL2</italic></bold><italic>. Integrate and evaluate information presented in diverse media and formats, including visually, quantitatively, and orally.</italic><bold><italic>SL4.</italic></bold><italic>Present information, findings, and supporting evidence such that listeners can follow the line of reasoning and the organization, development, and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience.</italic><bold><italic>SL5.</italic></bold><italic>Make strategic use of digital media and visual displays of data to express information and enhance understanding of presentations.</italic></p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>In this example, the teacher who taught seventh-grade science, integrated the disciplines of English Language Arts through evaluation of media and communicating evidence, as well as Social Studies through mapping plant species into the science unit. She also provided a technology-rich environment through the creation of the informational ad. Student choice was encouraged through the plant choice, technology choice, and the solutions. Authentic tasks included research about the plants, experiments designed about the plant growth locations, and the informational ad to communicate the results. The scenario was problem-based and relevant in that it was locally situated in the students' area and was a real-world problem that the city was attempting to solve.</p> <hd id="AN0146390414-9">Data Sources, Collection, and Analysis</hd> <p>The data sources included observations using an observation rubric (see supplementary material), video-recorded data, and debriefing sessions after the observations. We observed teachers twice during a 16-week period, except for two teachers who did not schedule a second observation for a total of 82 classes. The researchers trained on the observation rubric by using the following steps: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref39">1</reflink>) Researchers individually reviewed the rubric and then met together to discuss any areas of confusion. (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref40">2</reflink>) Two researchers conducted the first observation together. After the observation and before they met with the teacher, they discussed their individual assessment and resolved any differences (inter-rater reliability was 84%). The researchers reached consensus after discussion. 3. The third researcher reviewed the video data from the observation individually to determine if she was able to score the rubric reliably (inter-rater reliability was 87%). (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref41">4</reflink>) The three researchers met to discuss differences. When this training was complete, the researchers individually observed the teachers. After the observations, the researchers met with the teachers to discuss the lesson. Observational notes from the rubrics-guided debriefing conversations, which took place in person or via e-mail. Regularly, the debriefing sessions focused on areas of growth for teachers or points of success in implementation. We shared the observation notes with the teachers, and these notes served as the primary data source. As a secondary data source, we videoed the observations.</p> <p>Before determining what CL looked like in STEAM classrooms and how the STEAM conceptual model could be enhanced by analyzing implementation practices through the principles of CL, we needed to first document if the STEAM practices were present in the classrooms. Therefore, our analysis included two levels of coding: first to determine whether STEAM practices were implemented and second to examine what CL looked like in STEAM classrooms.</p> <p>First-level analysis: Evidence of STEAM education practices<emph>.</emph> Our primary data source, the observation notes, and video were analyzed first using a priori codes and categories of codes derived from the observation rubric (Quigley et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref42">21</reflink>]). We used the a priori codes from the STEAM conceptual model. These included discipline integration, problem-based approach, authentic tasks, multiple methods, student choice, technological integration, and teacher facilitation. We began by coding the observation notes (Table 4).</p> <p>Dimension of category, code, and boundaries of codes, and data example</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th><p>STEAM codes</p></th><th><p>Percent of teachers using this strategy</p></th><th><p>Code descriptors</p></th><th><p>Data example</p></th><th><p>Number of coded events</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Problem-based approach (PB)</p><p>Authentic Tasks (AT)</p><p>Multiple Solutions (MS)</p><p>Student Choice (SC)</p><p>Technological Integration (TI)</p><p>Teacher Facilitation (TF)</p></td><td><p>83%</p><p>74%</p><p>18%</p><p>83%</p><p>74%</p><p>70%</p></td><td><p>Any mention of a real or realistic problem, including relevance to student lives</p><p>The "tasks" contributed to developing a response to the problem scenario</p><p>Students were using multiple approaches to tackle the problem</p><p>Students had choice in product and/or process of solving problem</p><p>Technology was used to develop products or gather information</p><p>Teacher actions that supported a student-centered learning environment</p></td><td><p>PB: Problem constructed was clearly related to real-world problems, and students were interested in travel.—Teacher 1, obs 2</p><p>AT: The "excavating artifacts" lab sheet was directly connected to the problem-scenario—Teacher 2 & Teacher 3, obs 1</p><p>MS: Teacher provided plenty of opportunities for students to explore the content of roller coasters before they ever began to plan, design, scale model, construct and perform their time trials. Students explored the content by researching and discovering what others had learned about roller coasters—Teacher 11, obs 2</p><p>SC: Students were able to choose their own color schemes/flowers etc. They also were able to choose how they would present the information about their project design—Teacher 24, obs 1</p><p>TI: Students made PSA and had the choice to use iMovie or a PowerPoint to make it—Teacher 42, obs 1</p><p>TF: While introducing the project, teacher asked formative content questions about geological time</p><p>Throughout class the teacher circulated to answer questions to clarify content or project requirements.—Teacher 9, obs 2</p></td><td><p>101</p><p>69</p><p>24</p><p>84</p><p>56</p><p>69</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Discipline integration (DI)</p></td><td><p>58%</p></td><td><p>School content or standards explicitly connected to problem; there was an obvious integration of disciplines such that the knowledge from disciplines contributed to the task</p></td><td><p>DI: The integration of ELA standards and science was pretty seamless with students all throughout the lesson - looking up words and learning new vocabulary. Science- fungus and what made something alive? What needed to happen to a banana before it grew? How can I make the banana different? Engineering- Asked students to consider cloning bananas and what would be involved—Teacher 42, obs 1</p></td><td><p>34</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>We coded one school to develop our coding system, then we coded in sets of 1–3 schools at a time before meeting to discuss disagreements and further refine coding decisions. Infrequently, the researchers tagged the data with multiple codes when more than one component of STEAM was evident. Thus, we coded all observation notes and reviewed every coding difference to reach consensus. During the coding discussions, the boundaries and definitions of the codes were defined and refined. This data is represented in Table 1, column titled % of teachers using this strategy.</p> <p>Second level analysis: connected learning in STEAM classrooms<emph>.</emph> Next, we utilized the CL principles to examine how they were enacted in STEAM classrooms. To do this, we coded using the following spheres of CL's learning and design principles: peer supported, interest powered, academically orientated, production-centered, shared-purpose, and open-networked. Ito and her colleagues (2013) posited that when these learning and design principles were evident that CL occurred. Table 1 provides examples of the how the data were coded, including the code descriptors, the frequency of teachers utilizing this strategy, and an example including the data tag.</p> <hd id="AN0146390414-10">Results</hd> <p>Table 2 provides examples of what CL looked like for each of the STEAM components. Below, we provide narrative descriptions of the ways CL was represented in the STEAM classrooms. Note: All data represents observational data. The debriefing data was utilized to clarify the observational data.</p> <p>Connected learning in STEAM classrooms</p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th><p>Core prop</p></th><th><p>Spheres for learning</p></th><th><p>Alignment to STEAM</p></th><th><p>Example</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="11"><p>Learning Principles</p></td><td rowspan="3"><p>Peer supported</p></td><td><p>Student choice</p></td><td><p>Working in peer-supported contexts (collaborative groups) that students were able to choose</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Technology integration</p></td><td><p>Peer review using technology of in-progress work</p><p>Technology was used to promote problem solving, which was demonstrated by students' co-creation of materials, ideas, and presentations.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Teacher-facilitation</p></td><td><p>Designing problems that encouraged students to collaborate with peers to solve the problem</p></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5"><p>Interest-powered</p></td><td><p>Discipline integration</p></td><td><p>Interest does not just fall along content lines. However, when there was no context for application, it became too academically oriented and students lost interest.</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>Authentically blending the ideas to incorporate multiple ideas.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Problem-based approach</p></td><td><p>Problems were relevant to students' lives.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Student choice</p></td><td><p>Teachers incorporated student choice throughout the units, offering multiple ways to collect and disseminate the information they gathered.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Technology integration</p><p>Multiple solutions</p></td><td><p>Several teachers saw technology as a way to connect their students with experts outside the classroom.</p><p>As problems required more than one solution, the students aligned their interests in multiple ways through their research or the way they displayed their knowledge</p></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3"><p>Academically orientated</p></td><td><p>Discipline integration</p></td><td><p>Explicitly drawing out the content areas to make students aware of these connections.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Problem-based approach</p></td><td><p>Problems connected civic engagement, social engagement, or connections to real-world careers.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Authentic tasks</p></td><td><p>We noted that when the tasks were authentic to solving the problem, the connections to real-world application was more apparent. However, not all tasks were relevant to solving the problem, and this disconnect often created frustration for both the students and teacher.</p></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3"><p>Design Principles</p></td><td><p>Production-centered</p></td><td><p>Technology integration</p><p>Multiple solutions</p></td><td><p>Students do tasks digitally that typically they would have done non-digitally. They have the opportunity to create and remix their work.</p><p>Promoting multiple ways of knowledge types supported students access to digital production tools.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Shared purpose</p></td><td><p>Student choice</p></td><td rowspan="2"><p>When students were allowed to group according to their interest, a shared purpose formed which provided a cohesion to the group and the problem solving.</p><p>When the authority is shifted from the teacher to the students, there is opportunity for ownership and leadership that is shared by the students.</p><p>At times, the technology supported resources that allowed for sharing ideas and resources. However, being truly "open" in terms of sharing their final products was problematic for schools due to privacy concerns. Students did share their products in the school in more open ways such as on the morning school news.</p><p>Explicitly designing curricula that incorporates online tools that encourage multiple solutions promotes multiple access and entry points for students.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Openly-networked</p></td><td><p>Teacher facilitation</p><p>Technology integration</p><p>Multiple solutions</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Figure 2 provides a visual of the overlap between CL principles and STEAM Conceptual model. This figure demonstrates the areas that have multiple level alignment to the STEAM conceptual model. For example, peer supported was evidenced through student choice, technological integration, and teacher facilitation. Similarly, production centered was supported through technological integration and authentic tasks.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 STEAM components aligned onto connected learning principles</p> <hd id="AN0146390414-11">Learning Principle of Peer-Supported Opportunities</hd> <p>In STEAM classrooms, the opportunities for peer support were constructed through student choice, technology integration, and teacher-facilitation. In our observations, all the STEAM units provided opportunities for collaboration, including opportunities to share work, the way they would solve the problem, and possibilities to engage in social experiences, and many of the teachers allowed for choice in this. At times, they would enable students to choose their groups or decide to work within a peer-supported setting at different points in the process (i.e. peer-feedback). In this way, we observed that students were supported by their peers when given opportunities to work together or receive feedback on their work. In CL, peers regularly engage in experiences that involve sharing and giving feedback which incorporates a fluidity between tasks.</p> <p>Connected learning relies heavily on the integration of technology and technology can provide peer-supported opportunities. In this study, technology was used as a tool to support peer-to-peer interaction both with and around the technology (in all classrooms during observations), to provide feedback on in-progress work (<emph>n</emph> = 8), to promote collaboration and media creation (<emph>n</emph> = 32), and to promote problem-solving around the content specifically (<emph>n</emph> = 8). For classrooms in which all students had access to individual devices (<emph>n</emph> = 8), collaboration was evident through Google docs or other similar platforms. The students demonstrated this during co-creation of materials, ideas, and presentations. For example, students collaboratively created, discussed, posed questions, and communicated ideas within STEAM problem-solving scenarios (e.g. researching infectious diseases and the locations of the banana plantations). These types of experiences contributed to engaging students in meaningful activities and projects that extended outside of the classroom and moved beyond learning how to use the tools.</p> <p>One important component to the problem-solving scenario that teachers noted that allowed the technology to be used for collaboration was that each student had a unique task that was crucial to the problem-solving process. This design feature meant all students had a contribution to make, their strengths could be highlighted, and collaboration was built into the scenarios. In this way, the notion that everyone could participate was enhanced with technology. Moreover, the context became peer-supported when teachers created environments focused on interactional skills. In addition to teachers demonstrating this strength in designing their units, the fact that all of the classrooms were using the technology as a tool to accomplish some other goal as opposed to for assessment or instructional purposes was a positive.</p> <p>In the STEAM classrooms, teacher facilitation included aspects of how teachers design instructional activities and classroom spaces to promote student-guided learning. When the teacher developed the problem, tasks, and classroom environment to promote student-guided learning that relied on peer support and collaboration, the teacher noted that student engagement within the curricula was high. This engagement, in turn, helped to promote teacher facilitation as the students "directed much of the learning," as noted by one science teacher. More specifically, by developing problems that impelled students to reach out to peers for assistance and work collaboratively, teachers encouraged developmentally appropriate levels of social and emotional engagement in learning, a component of CL (peer-supported contexts). Teachers used particular strategies to increase student-directed learning. These included arranging the classroom to make collaboration easier and teaching lessons focused on a specific content area. As students discovered gaps in knowledge and skills, these teachers helped them take responsibility for the inquiry process while ensuring they had adequate resources, skills, and opportunities to be successful.</p> <hd id="AN0146390414-12">Learning Principle of Interest-powered Opportunities</hd> <p>In our study, we found when teachers created opportunities for discipline integration, problem-based approaches, student choice, technology integration, and multiple solutions, it fueled students' interests. Of the 38 teachers that incorporated multiple content areas, 25 connected the ideas to the problem-solving scenario based on students' interests. Doing so provided a platform to integrate the disciplines that were interest-powered. When attempting to implement STEAM units that involved multiple disciplines, we found it was important that content connected the problem of study in a meaningful way, otherwise learning the content failed to become a part of the problem-solving and the students lost interest.</p> <p>Of the 43 teachers, 36 implemented a problem-based approach where students learned by studying a relevant problem. These questions varied regarding relevance to the students' lives and plausibility. In this way, teachers were creating a space that was interest-powered. For example, in the zoo enclosure scenario from above, the teacher asked students to generate a list of suitable animals, develop an educative tool to inform other students of the choices, survey the school about which animal should be selected, and create a presentation to tell the zoo of the selection.</p> <p>To create a context for learning, CL can focus on interest-powered environments where learners can contribute expertise, ideas, and questions related to something that is personally satisfying to them. One way that STEAM education supported this environment was through student choice. Regularly (<emph>n</emph> = 38), teachers incorporated student choice throughout the units, offering options for ways to collect and disseminate their information. Similarly, when the technology was focused on production (e.g. movie making, podcasting, creating a game), it was often connected to students' interests. The teachers noted that when the students had previous experience with these types of technologies, they were more engaged in the problem-solving.</p> <p>Ensuring that the learning was meaningful to students required that students be given opportunities to decide on the ways in which they solved problems or displayed their knowledge. Teachers provided space for students to do this by ensuring that the problems they were solving were inquiry-rich and allowed for multiple solutions. This aligns to the ideas of interest-powered approaches if the students are able to connect their interests to the ways they solve the problem. In this study, we observed that 28 of the teachers that the students connected the paths of their investigations to their interests. Similarly, during the observations, 36 of the teachers encouraged students to demonstrate these solutions in multiple ways.</p> <hd id="AN0146390414-13">Learning Principle of Academically-Orientated Opportunities</hd> <p>In the STEAM classrooms, we found the learning principle of academically orientated could be supported through discipline integration, problem-based approaches, and authentic tasks. The academically oriented context included linking students' work with one another around their interests to adult experts, career opportunities, and their communities. Part of this included adults valuing the student work and providing pathways for students to see the academic relevance of their interests. Many teachers (<emph>n</emph> = 29) integrated disciplines when they explicitly helped the students draw the links between the content and the problem-solving. For example, in an investigation about the decrease in sea turtle birth rates, sixth-grade science and math teachers outlined the math content (proportions and percent change) and science content (life cycles of sea turtles and human impacts on the environment) and discussed how each was needed to solve the problem. In this way, students could see how academic studies and civic engagement related; both components of the academically oriented sphere of CL.</p> <p>One of the components of creating an academically orientated space was creating opportunities for students to see the connection to civic engagement and careers. We found that 32 of the teachers regularly discussed authentic approaches to problem-solving, including student-led inquiries and those designed by teachers. In one eighth-grade math classroom, students used geological data and crowd-sourcing sites such as earth-quaketrack.com to predict the likelihood of an earthquake in their local area. During the debriefing session, the teacher remarked how this led to a discussion on percent error and prediction techniques that scientists readily use, which were not only necessary for solving the problem but also part of the standards for the course. Importantly, this provided a context for learners to develop expertise around their interest and an intentional connection of learning through work on projects and activities. In the example of the crowd-sourcing activities, the students quickly realized that they often contributed in crowd-sourcing on many of the social media sites in which they were actively involved. Their everyday experiences coincided with the school setting because the task was authentic.</p> <hd id="AN0146390414-14">Design Principle of Production-Centered Opportunities</hd> <p>Production-centered referred to the students' needs to create and produce products. The products of students' engagement in making could be shared publicly via social media or other media outlets. In the STEAM classrooms, we noted production-centered opportunities were created by integrating technology and encouraging multiple solution paths.</p> <p>One technique to create production-centered opportunities was to integrate technology to do tasks digitally that typically students would have done non-digitally or to create production-centered properties. In the classes that we examined, we noted there were many opportunities for students to build music videos, podcasts, and infographics to demonstrate their knowledge. In this way, 36 teachers used digital tools as a summative assessment. At times, the students would suggest alternative uses of technology, showing their understanding of both the technology and the problem-solving task. For example, in the banana project, the teacher suggested that the students create a Public Service Announcement using iMovie. In this way, the production-centered aspects also supported an interest-powered setting.</p> <p>One of the goals of CL was it is an opportunity to engage students in learning; the reason to intentionally connect learning environments is so everyone can participate. When examining STEAM teaching practices, we found promoting multiple methods to solve a problem as critical to value all contributions. Therefore, an instructional strategy that supported various methods or ways to address an issue was readily aligned with a learning environment that invited participation from all students in ways that made sense to them.</p> <hd id="AN0146390414-15">Design Principle of Shared Purpose</hd> <p>A shared purpose bound the students together in the learning process. In CL, this was often through problems that the students wanted to solve together. However, in STEAM classrooms, teachers created relevant problems for students to solve that aligned to their curriculum. This was supported by providing opportunities for student choice and teacher facilitation. When students were allowed to group according to their interests (<emph>n</emph> = 6), a shared purpose formed which provided a cohesion to the group and the problem solving. For the teachers that did group students this way, they noted that the students seemed more focused on solving the problems. Similarly, when the authority was shifted from the teacher to the students, opportunity for ownership and leadership was shared by the students. There was less of a need for the teachers to direct the specific research lines as the students were able to do this because of their shared interest in the problem or pathway to solve the problem. However, when the teacher resorted to directing the learning, they often (<emph>n</emph> = 12) noted this interest waned.</p> <hd id="AN0146390414-16">Design Principle of Openly Networked Opportunities</hd> <p>Being truly "openly networked" in terms of sharing their final products was challenging for schools due to privacy concerns. Therefore, teachers created ways that "mimicked" the openly networked world. For example, students shared their products in the school in more open ways such as on the morning school news, the online newspaper, or posting videos to a shareable site. In this way, students were able to impact their school community by sharing what they learned during the STEAM problem-solving. However, in CL, the goal is to share with a much wider audience that crosses multiple demographics. Similarly, explicitly designing curricula that incorporates online tools that encourage multiple solutions promotes multiple access and entry points for students to engage in more openly networked spaces. However, we did not see <emph>completely</emph> openly networked opportunities in our study, and so the ideas of technology integration and multiple solutions are opportunities for teachers to extend this work.</p> <hd id="AN0146390414-17">Discussion</hd> <p>Exploring how CL looked in STEAM classrooms assisted us in determining ways that teachers can provide opportunities for engagement and deeper learning in schools, work that is largely understudied (Kumpulainen & Sefton-Green, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref43">18</reflink>]). In this regard, this study is informed by this analysis of the STEAM conceptual model. We hope to propose ways to draw on students' interests and capitalize on wider access to information and technology (Ahn et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref44">1</reflink>]) to increase STEAM learning in traditional settings. Thus, we used our results to discuss opportunities for CL in STEAM classrooms, returning to the four core components of the CL framework.</p> <hd id="AN0146390414-18">Connected Learning in STEAM Classrooms</hd> <p>Teachers' STEAM instructional practices created an environment for peer supported and interest-powered learning. The STEAM scenarios that teachers created were clearly academically oriented, and they often brought in industry experts to serve as mentors and help students make connections to future careers. We also noted the conceptual model encouraged production-centered work; however, we did not see an emphasis on a "shared purpose" or the openly networked features of CL experience (Ito et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref45">13</reflink>]). This points towards several implications for "connected" STEAM-centered classrooms.</p> <p>Relevant STEAM scenarios. To allow for peer support, interest driven, and academically focused instruction, a way forward is to create locally relevant STEAM problem scenarios for students to solve. We observed several ways that the teachers who were successful in aligning the conceptual model and CL achieved relevance. First, they presented scenarios directly related to students' local environments to increase their interest before connecting the problem solving to national or global issues (e.g. life cycle of sea turtles if they lived on the coast and actually saw sea turtles). In essence, the teachers made sure the scenario felt authentic to the students, not just to the broader community. However, an important consideration moving forward is to allow teachers (i.e. consider common planning time, pacing and scheduling) to co-design STEAM units across subject areas in order to ensure that discipline integration or transdisciplinarity can be achieved. This echoes the work of Gardner and Tillotson ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref46">9</reflink>]) who found that in order to create robust, relevant, interdisciplinary STEM units that the teachers needed peer support during the planning process.</p> <p> <emph>Authentic roles and peer review</emph>. One way to increase authenticity, peer support, and instilling a sense of shared purpose is embedding authentic roles for students in the problem scenarios (e.g. architects, engineers, videographers), which allows for natural collaboration (i.e. mimicking how design, scientific, medical, or engineering teams solve problems in the real world). Another way to strengthen peer support that was apparent in some, but not all of the 43 classrooms were efforts to have students peer-review one another's work and provide feedback. In both of these situations, the students develop skills to become self-learners and assist with problem-solving skills because teachers cannot over-instruct (Chung & Behan, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref47">5</reflink>]). When creating STEAM units, attention to purposeful opportunities for peer interaction with teachers serving as "facilitator" would further encourage peer support.</p> <p> <emph>Production-centered</emph>. A natural overlap with peer-supported learning was the classroom environment component of the STEAM conceptual model that encouraged students' production. We noted that when teachers designed the classroom environment around student choice and technology integration, students were encouraged to work together to co-create materials that demonstrated their understanding of a topic. Together, they produced a variety of media. Jolly ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref48">16</reflink>] noted that production-centered experiences provide opportunities for cross-cultural learning creating a wide variety of media, knowledge, and cultural content. These characteristics are closely aligned with the skills that citizens need and that employers cite as desirable for workplace readiness, such as professionalism/work ethic, oral and written communications, teamwork/collaboration, and critical thinking/problem solving (Casner-Lotto & Barrington, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref49">4</reflink>]). In our analysis, we also saw students regularly working in groups; however, the extent to which the collaboration aided in problem-solving was not clear. As Ito et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref50">13</reflink>]) described, peer-supports require "contributing, sharing and giving feedback on inclusive social experiences that are fluid and highly engaging" (p. 12). This implies that STEAM education has the potential to support this type of production-centered, peer network, but teachers need to better understand how to serve as facilitators, determine ways to increase opportunities for multiple solutions to problem-solving, and tap into established peer networks similar to those seen in YOUmedia Learning Labs (<ulink href="http://youmedia.org/about/">http://youmedia.org/about/</ulink>).</p> <hd id="AN0146390414-19">Design Principles Inform the Intentional Connecting of Learning Environments</hd> <p>Teachers designing STEAM instruction using our conceptual model were able to use design principles when developing the STEAM unit in a manner that provided intentional connections. In fact, of the four core components of CL this alignment was the tightest. The STEAM instruction almost always allowed for authentic tasks (although, as noted above, they were often authentic in terms of what could happen, but not always interest-based or highly relevant to students). This created a platform where students could learn intentionally as their problem solving was useful in the real world. They were also solving problems or proposing solutions in which all members of the group were asked to participate in the process. The solutions mattered to someone, and the students were often challenged in different ways throughout the research, planning, design, production, or presentation. As Jolly ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref51">16</reflink>]) describes, "connected learning calls for education to provide youth with opportunities to engage in socially supportive learning that is also personally interesting and relevant, while connecting academics to civic engagement and career opportunities."</p> <p>Similarly, when the teachers connected the ideas from multiple content areas to the problem-solving, students saw how the skills and knowledge learned from one content related to solving the problem outside of a specific content area. Students were offered numerous ways to see how ideas were interconnected and given a variety of ways to solve the problem. However, this had implications for the structure of schooling. Planning time, resources, and flexibility are needed to assist teachers in bridging this integration and intentionality. This suggests that teachers need practice designing curricula that supports open-ended or guided inquiry to promote opportunities for students to engage in problem-solving using self-regulation techniques (Schunk & Zimmerman, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref52">22</reflink>]). That said, we find authentic integration as one of the unique aspects of STEAM education and providing this focus could be a consistent way for teachers to enact CL.</p> <hd id="AN0146390414-20">Limitations</hd> <p>We note several limitations of this qualitative study. First, this research was limited to science and math teachers' middle school implementation of STEAM education practices; therefore, we acknowledge the alignment to CL would look different if the teachers taught different subject areas or grade levels. Therefore, the implications of this study are bound to science and math middle school teachers. Finally, the research and analysis were conducted through our interpretive lenses, informed by our intimate knowledge as authors of the STEAM education conceptual model, and we recognize ambiguities, inherent in language, may occur in the analysis, as well as the unintended researcher influence when working closely with teachers, which may positively skew results (Creswell, 2007). Therefore, these results should be interpreted in light of the potential biases.</p> <hd id="AN0146390414-21">Implications and Conclusions</hd> <p>As schools recognize the power of CL for students' learning, they are attempting to translate this into formal curricula. However, for schools to be able to implement CL, educators need a platform that can be aligned to the requirements of formal education. STEAM education offers ways to support teachers using CL as a guidepost. By tapping into CL, teachers can take how students learn out-of-school—studying their interests, working on relevant problems, and choosing solution paths—and infuse these skills into their classrooms. This requires teachers to think about how they instructionally structure their classrooms and incorporate students' interests. In our research, we found there were several ways to support rethinking such structuring in the classroom. Specifically, when teachers included problem-based approaches, authentic tasks, multiple ways to solve the problem, student choice, technology integration, and teacher facilitation, this created an environment for "connected" STEAM instruction.</p> <p>Using the lens of CL, we illustrated how STEAM maps onto and can be enhanced by CL components. We included the ways in which drawing on students' interests and peer networks outside of the classroom as part of the instructional design, honoring where and how youth learn can improve STEAM education. Broadening the notion of relevance, or authentic problem-solving to include not just local issues, but issues students care about, along with preferred methods of demonstrating knowledge is a way forward that may increase the participation of all students. In part, employing CL may address overcoming the challenge of teacher-directedness in a manner that privileges the student and assists teachers in designing STEAM problem-scenarios using effective facilitation strategies. Examining these STEAM instructional practices through the lens of CL illustrated some areas in which teachers might more explicitly connect the three spheres of learning for students. Doing so could promote more inclusive STEAM classrooms as well as more meaningful, interest-driven learning opportunities for all students, a mutual goal of STEAM and CL. Future work highlights these overlaps in CL and our STEAM conceptual model, as well as provides more explicit professional development in the areas in which teachers demonstrated need is key to this line of research.</p> <hd id="AN0146390414-22">Electronic supplementary material</hd> <p>Graph: (PDF 329 kb)</p> <p>Graph: (DOCX 53 kb)</p> <ref id="AN0146390414-23"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref26" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ahn, J, Subramaniam, M, Bonsignore, E, Pellicone, A, Waugh, A, & Yip, J. (2014). "I want to be a game designer or scientist": Connected learning and developing identities with urban,African-American youth. In J. L. Polman, E. A. Kyza, D. K. O'Neill, I. Tabak, W. R. Penuel, A. S. Jurow, K. O'Connor, T. Lee, & L. D'Amico (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2014) (Vol. 2, pp. 657-664). Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref11" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Barron, B, Gomez, K, Pinkard, N, & Martin, C. K. (2014). The digital youth network: Cultivating digital media citizenship in urban communities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref16" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> 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 Education: Innovations and Research, 12(5/6), 23-37.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref41" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Casner-Lotto, J, & Barrington, L. (2006). Are they really ready to work? Employers' perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century US workforce. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. 1 Massachusetts Avenue NW Suite 700, Washington, DC 20001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref47" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Chung HM, Behan KJ. Peer sharing facilitates the effect of inquiry-based projects on science learning. The american biology Teacher. 2010; 72; 1: 24-29. 10.1525/abt.2010.72.1.7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref3" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Connected Learning Alliance. (2019). Digital Media and Learning Research Hub of the University of California Humanities Research Institute. Retrieved May 20, 2019, from https://clalliance.org</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref34" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Eguchi A. RoboCupJunior for promoting STEM education, 21st century skills, and technological advancement through robotics competition. Robotics and Autonomous Systems. 2016; 75: 692-699. 10.1016/j.robot.2015.05.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref33" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Garcia A, Cantrill C, Filipiak D, Hunt B, Lee C, Mirra N, Peppler K. Teaching in the connected learning classroom. 2014: Irvine, CA; Digital Media and Learning Research Hub</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref46" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Gardner M, Tillotson JW. Interpreting integrated STEM: Sustaining pedagogical innovation within a public middle school context. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2019; 17; 7: 1283-1300. 10.1007/s10763-018-9927-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Herrington J, Oliver R. An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational technology research and development. 2000; 48; 3: 23-48. 10.1007/BF02319856</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Herro, D, & Quigley, C. (2017). Exploring teachers' perceptions of STEAM teaching through professional development: Implications for teacher educators. Professional Development in Education, 43(3), 416-438.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational psychology review, 16(3), 235–266.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ito, M, Gutiérrez, K, Livingstone, S, Penuel, B, Rhodes, J, Salen, K,.. Watkins, S. C. (2013). Connected learning: An agenda for research and design. In Report for MacArthur Foundation Digital Media and Learning Research Hub. Retrieved from https://dmlhub.net/wp-content/uploads/files/Connected_Learning_report.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ito M, Soep E, Kligler-Vilenchik N, Shresthova S, Gamber-Thompson L, Zimmerman A. Learning connected civics: Narratives, practices, infrastructures. Curriculum Inquiry. 2015; 45; 1: 10-29. 10.1080/03626784.2014.995063</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jennings JL, Lauen DL. Accountability, inequality, and achievement: The effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on multiple measures of student learning. RSF. 2016; 2; 5: 220-241. 10.7758/RSF.2016.2.5.11</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jolly, A. (2015). STEM vs. STEAM: Do the arts belong? Education Week: Teacher. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2014/11/18/ctq-jolly-stem-vs-steam.html">http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2014/11/18/ctq-jolly-stem-vs-steam.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumpulainen K, Sefton-Green J. What is connected learning and how to research it?. International Journal of Learning and Media. 2012; 4; 2: 7-18. 10.1162/IJLM_a_00091</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lave J. Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. 1988: Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Science Teachers Association. (1982). Science – technology – society: Science education for the 1980's. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pinkard N, Erete S, Martin CK, McKinney de Royston M. Digital youth divas: Exploring narrative-driven curriculum to spark middle school girls' interest in computational activities. Journal of the Learning Sciences. 2017; 26; 3: 477-516. 10.1080/10508406.2017.1307199</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quigley, C. F, Herro, D, & Jamil, F. M. (2017). Developing a conceptual model of STEAM teaching practices. School Science and Mathematics, 117(1-2), 1-12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schunk, D. H, & Zimmerman, B. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. Oxfordshire, UK: Taylor & Francis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sochacka NW, Guyotte KW, Walther J. Learning together: A collaborative autoethnographic exploration of STEAM (STEM + the arts) education: A collaborative autoethnographic study of STEAM education. Journal of Engineering Education. 2016; 105; 1: 15-42. 10.1002/jee.20112</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaidyanathan S. Fostering creativity and innovation through technology. Learning & Leading with Technology. 2012; 39; 6: 24-27</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams, J. (2011). STEM education: Proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 16(1), 26-35.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeilder, D. L, Sadler, T. D, Simmons, M. L, & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science education, 89(3), 357–377.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ziman, J. (1994). The rationale of STS education is in the approach. In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: International perspectives on reform (pp. 21-31). New York: Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Cassie F. Quigley; Dani Herro; Calli Shekell; Heidi Cian and Lori Jacques</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref52"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1271920
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Connected Learning in STEAM Classrooms: Opportunities for Engaging Youth in Science and Math Classrooms
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Quigley%2C+Cassie+F%2E%22">Quigley, Cassie F.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9502-3736">0000-0002-9502-3736</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Herro%2C+Dani%22">Herro, Dani</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shekell%2C+Calli%22">Shekell, Calli</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cian%2C+Heidi%22">Cian, Heidi</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jacques%2C+Lori%22">Jacques, Lori</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22International+Journal+of+Science+and+Mathematics+Education%22"><i>International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education</i></searchLink>. Dec 2020 18(8):1441-1463.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 23
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Junior+High+Schools%22">Junior High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Art+Education%22">Art Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22STEM+Education%22">STEM Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learner+Engagement%22">Learner Engagement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Middle+School+Students%22">Middle School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Middle+School+Teachers%22">Middle School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Youth%22">Youth</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Design%22">Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cooperative+Learning%22">Cooperative Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Context+Effect%22">Context Effect</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Theories%22">Learning Theories</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10763-019-10034-z
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1571-0068
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: STEAM education evolved to address the critical demand for creative transdisciplinary teaching that was under-realized in STEM programs. However, this novel concept has not been clearly conceptualized; this is likely attributed to the lack of a grounding theory to frame STEAM. We propose using connected learning theory to examine a previously developed STEAM conceptual model. This work explores the potential of connected learning theory to understand specific STEAM instructional practices. Using observations of 43 middle-grade teachers from 14 schools enacting STEAM practices in their classrooms, we examined what connected learning looked like in STEAM classrooms and how the STEAM conceptual model could be enhanced by analyzing implementation practices through the principles of connected learning. The qualitative data analysis of observations, video recorded data, and debriefing sessions with teachers after the observations included two rounds of analysis. This found significant overlap in ideas of connected learning and STEAM, notably a shared emphasis on design, collaboration, and contextualized learning.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1271920
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1271920
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10763-019-10034-z
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 23
        StartPage: 1441
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Art Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: STEM Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learner Engagement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Middle School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Middle School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Youth
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cooperative Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Context Effect
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Theories
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Connected Learning in STEAM Classrooms: Opportunities for Engaging Youth in Science and Math Classrooms
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Quigley, Cassie F.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Herro, Dani
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Shekell, Calli
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cian, Heidi
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jacques, Lori
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2020
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1571-0068
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 18
            – Type: issue
              Value: 8
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1