View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

STEM-Themed Pathways within Elementary Preservice Methods Coursework: Benefits and Challenges Associated with Designing and Implementing Integrated STEM Projects

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: STEM-Themed Pathways within Elementary Preservice Methods Coursework: Benefits and Challenges Associated with Designing and Implementing Integrated STEM Projects
Language: English
Authors: Deepika Menon (ORCID 0000-0002-8652-7019), Allison M. Johnson, Derek Cox, Ursula Nguyen, Minji Jeon, Amanda Thomas
Source: School Science and Mathematics. 2026 126(2):176-188.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: STEM Education, Preservice Teacher Education, Preservice Teachers, Methods Courses, Science Projects, Student Projects, Science Teachers, Elementary School Science, Integrated Curriculum, Interdisciplinary Approach, Problem Solving, Practicums
DOI: 10.1111/ssm.18321
ISSN: 0036-6803
1949-8594
Abstract: With the rapid advancements in science and technology, there is a growing emphasis on preparing high-quality elementary science teachers with a deeper understanding of integrating Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines into their classrooms. Despite ongoing reform efforts of rethinking ways in which preservice elementary teachers (PSTs) are currently prepared, STEM is not always the central focus of their training programs. This article highlights the STEM pathways threaded throughout the concurrent elementary science, mathematics, and technology methods courses within a dedicated STEM semester. This approach allows PSTs to experience integrated STEM directly. Specifically, we discuss PSTs' planning and implementation of integrated STEM projects that explicitly blend multiple STEM disciplines to design solutions to problems situated within a local context under the theme of sustainability. The practicum experience played a pivotal role in helping PSTs realize the benefits and challenges associated with teaching STEM. Drawing from PSTs' written reflections, we provide evidence of how varied STEM engagements enhance their knowledge of STEM integration and shape their perceptions of successes and challenges associated with STEM teaching. Finally, we offer implications for practice and recommendations for future teacher educators to reshape elementary education programs to better integrate STEM.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1502628
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwE_XiFae6sTtU8oew7WtGxOAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKoSIlL5nJnNIaVW3wIBEICBm8u_LulDtmkW4MvPlQpvM4EL_WxTdstZ4KtBQvvEVwGT__jkteNu6s4CgxCv9DCY2FriKRS0B1ElZcpr8OYohjiWgkq9t_AfG6bJrFK5HH0VZiod2t1nr_a1kKdOyrmxhV6lv7dU9Wfkcs1k5N-U4V7IA6SrN2tH9LDm1X_cjSfwt5k6hTHhR-paWqExw4KGW5IMw3AlzJkRUdpS
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0192956348;ssm01apr.26;2026Apr15.02:40;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0192956348-1">STEM‐themed pathways within elementary preservice methods coursework: Benefits and challenges associated with designing and implementing integrated STEM projects </title> <p>With the rapid advancements in science and technology, there is a growing emphasis on preparing high‐quality elementary science teachers with a deeper understanding of integrating Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines into their classrooms. Despite ongoing reform efforts of rethinking ways in which preservice elementary teachers (PSTs) are currently prepared, STEM is not always the central focus of their training programs. This article highlights the STEM pathways threaded throughout the concurrent elementary science, mathematics, and technology methods courses within a dedicated STEM semester. This approach allows PSTs to experience integrated STEM directly. Specifically, we discuss PSTs' planning and implementation of integrated STEM projects that explicitly blend multiple STEM disciplines to design solutions to problems situated within a local context under the theme of sustainability. The practicum experience played a pivotal role in helping PSTs realize the benefits and challenges associated with teaching STEM. Drawing from PSTs' written reflections, we provide evidence of how varied STEM engagements enhance their knowledge of STEM integration and shape their perceptions of successes and challenges associated with STEM teaching. Finally, we offer implications for practice and recommendations for future teacher educators to reshape elementary education programs to better integrate STEM.</p> <p>Keywords: integrated STEM; preservice elementary; preservice STEM preparation</p> <hd id="AN0192956348-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Recent efforts to reform K‐12 Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education highlight a growing emphasis on integrating STEM disciplines (National Research Council, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref1">30</reflink>]; Ring‐Whalen et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref2">37</reflink>]). However, challenges regarding insufficient preparation of elementary teachers in STEM persist across the United States (Banilower et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref3">2</reflink>]; Shernoff et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref4">39</reflink>]). While there is increased attention on incorporating STEM interventions into elementary teacher training, science, mathematics, and technology methods, courses are often taught in isolation, with little focus on integrated STEM (iSTEM) approaches (Bartels et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref5">3</reflink>]). For instance, more often, methods courses are taught by content areas (for example, mathematics, science, and language arts) with fewer connections across disciplines (Madden et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref6">19</reflink>]). Consequently, elementary preservice teachers (PSTs) often lack adequate preparation and confidence in teaching iSTEM (Margot & Kettler, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref7">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>Additionally, scholars have conceptualized STEM in many different ways, resulting in diverse interpretations of what constitutes STEM education (Fields & Naizer, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref8">11</reflink>]; Shernoff et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref9">39</reflink>]). For instance, one approach to STEM integration is "content integration," where knowledge from multiple content areas is combined into one unit (Roehrig et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref10">38</reflink>]). Another approach, "context integration," involves using contexts from various disciplines to enhance and enrich the content from one discipline (Moore & Smith, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref11">28</reflink>]). This variation creates additional challenges for educators in designing and implementing iSTEM instruction for preservice teacher preparation programs (Bryan et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref12">4</reflink>]; Kelley & Knowles, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref13">15</reflink>]). Regardless of different conceptualizations, previous research has recognized the benefits of iSTEM approaches for K‐12 students, including enhanced foundational knowledge in STEM subjects (Ültay et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref14">41</reflink>]), increased interest and positive attitudes toward STEM disciplines (Nesmith & Cooper, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref15">31</reflink>]; Wieselmann et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref16">43</reflink>]), and improved problem‐solving, creativity, and critical thinking skills (Martín‐Páez et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref17">22</reflink>]; Miller, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref18">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>Given the benefits, it is crucial to re‐envision elementary teacher preparation toward a cohesive and integrated approach to STEM education rather than traditional siloed methods courses (Galanti & Holincheck, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref19">13</reflink>]; Moore et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref20">27</reflink>]). This shift is essential to fulfill the demand for preparing the next generation of elementary teachers with the competence and confidence to teach iSTEM effectively (Menon, Al Shorman, et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref21">23</reflink>]). Moreover, the <emph>Next Generation Science Standards</emph> (NGSS Lead States, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref22">33</reflink>]) has underscored the necessity for designing instruction that seamlessly and strategically blends interdisciplinary knowledge using the three‐dimensional model (disciplinary core ideas, science and engineering practices, and crosscutting concepts). Despite the imperative to create such opportunities within elementary teacher preparation programs, resources available for teacher educators to develop STEM activities are often limited (Corp et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref23">8</reflink>]). In response to this challenge, in this article, we describe an elementary STEM semester redesign led by a team of multi‐disciplinary STEM teacher educators. Specifically, we discuss the design features of the two STEM‐themed pathways that run across the STEM block coursework and the benefits and challenges of iSTEM identified by PSTs following their engagement in the STEM semester.</p> <hd id="AN0192956348-3">PARTICIPANTS AND CONTEXT FOR THE STUDY</hd> <p>Participants were enrolled in the three cohorts (<emph>n</emph> = 78) in Fall 2023 at a large research‐intensive public university located in the Midwest. Each cohort consisted of 26 PSTs. Undergraduates who are officially enrolled in the elementary education program are generally in their junior year and have completed the science course requirements prior to their official entry into the program. The STEM semester is the first semester of their methods coursework and three semesters away from the student teaching (end of the program). Participants take three concurrent methods courses (each course is three credits): mathematics education, science and engineering education, and Innovative Learning Technologies (ILT) methods course. Participants are also enrolled in two other courses, including a mathematics content course and a two‐day weekly practicum in a local elementary school.</p> <p>Our iSTEM redesign efforts, including the framework for iSTEM instruction (Menon, Bauer, et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref24">24</reflink>]), utilized existing models of STEM integration (Kelley & Knowles, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref25">15</reflink>]) involving scientific inquiry (Sotiriou et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref26">40</reflink>]), engineering design process (Lottero‐Perdue, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref27">18</reflink>]), and designing solutions to complex real‐world problems by integrating science, mathematics, and technological tools (Kennedy & Odell, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref28">16</reflink>]; Menon, Bauer, et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref29">24</reflink>]). We draw upon Nadelson and Seifert's ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref30">29</reflink>]) definition of integrated STEM, which is described as "the application of knowledge and practices from multiple disciplines to address or solve transdisciplinary problems" (p. 221). Figure 1 illustrates the framework of iSTEM, where we positioned scientific inquiry at the center with strong ties to other disciplines such as mathematics, engineering, and technology, providing a context for meaningful science learning to PSTs. In addition, pedagogies that promote iSTEM knowledge construction utilizing NGSS science and engineering practices (NGSS Lead States, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref31">33</reflink>]) for active engagement and problem‐solving, social discourse (Deniz et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref32">10</reflink>]), collaborative teamwork (Akaygun & Aslan‐Tutak, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref33">1</reflink>]), and reflective practices (Menon & Ngugi, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref34">25</reflink>]) are central to the framework.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SSM/01apr26/ssm18321-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ssm18321-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Integrated STEM framework Adopted from Menon, Al Shorman, et al., [23])." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The 16‐week STEM semester is divided into four cross‐course themes running concurrently in the three courses: Disciplinary and pedagogical foundations of STEM (weeks 1–4), Coding and Robotics (weeks 5–8), Engineering Design (weeks 9–12), Creativity and Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics (STEAM) (13–16). As a collaborative instructional team, we made strategic decisions on selecting the four themes and their order of occurrence based on the existing perspectives and reform‐based practices supporting iSTEM. Below, we describe one of the cross‐course themes, engineering design. We deliberately chose the theme of engineering design for two key reasons. First, engineering practices have been emphasized in the NGSS through the K‐12 science curriculum (NGSS Lead States, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref35">33</reflink>]). Despite this increased emphasis, engineering is still not adequately addressed in preservice teacher programs, leaving them underprepared to teach lessons contextually situated within design challenges (Cunningham & Kelly, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref36">9</reflink>]; Nesmith & Cooper, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref37">32</reflink>]). Second, existing literature on engineering education within preservice teacher programs either describes engineering activities integrated into science methods courses or in a separate course focused specifically on engineering design (Capobianco et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref38">6</reflink>]; Perkins Coppola, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref39">36</reflink>]; Webb & Lofaro, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref40">42</reflink>]). Our STEM semester model, which integrates engineering throughout all methods courses, contrasts the single‐course approach and provides PSTs with a comprehensive experience of engineering within the iSTEM context (Nguyen et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref41">34</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0192956348-5">Engineering design: A cross‐course theme</hd> <p>During the 4 weeks (weeks 9–12), engineering design was emphasized in all the methods courses. In the science methods course, for instance, PSTs engaged in an engineering design process to design a contraption using everyday materials like balloons, small cups, and paperclips to navigate a ping‐pong ball down a zipline while utilizing scientific concepts, such as forces and energy involved in a zipline, measuring the distance zipline traveled, and the time taken for a zipline to start and stop (see Figure 2). Based on the data, PSTs revised their models and re‐tested their ziplines. In the mathematics methods course, PSTs applied engineering design principles to devise cost‐effective solutions related to sustainability (flood mitigation strategies) while also exploring elementary math concepts. For example, PSTs designed spaghetti towers within a budget that could withstand simulated hurricane winds. In the ILT methods course, prospective teachers worked together to optimize paths using programming languages and robotics (see Figure 3). The Dash bots were programmed to act as tour guides along the path situated in the context of a science topic (e.g., solar system, hydrologic cycle). In each course, PSTs also read several practitioner‐based articles focused on relevant pedagogy and textbook chapters (for example, Contant et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref42">7</reflink>]) that led to discussions on pedagogies relevant to teaching iSTEM in the classroom.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SSM/01apr26/ssm18321-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ssm18321-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 PST constructing zipline contraption using everyday materials." /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SSM/01apr26/ssm18321-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ssm18321-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 PSTs optimizing paths using programming languages and robotics." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0192956348-8">iSTEM project: A STEM‐themed pathway</hd> <p>After engaging PSTs in various iSTEM experiences, they were asked to work collaboratively to design an iSTEM experience for K‐5 learners (refer to Appendix A). Working in grade‐level groups, each group consisting of 3–4 PSTs, they worked on iSTEM projects over a span of 3 weeks.</p> <hd id="AN0192956348-9">Week 1</hd> <p>During the first week, PSTs were given a chance to read the project description before class available via the course management site (refer to Appendix A). Instructors of the technology methods course then provided a detailed introduction to the iSTEM project and facilitated the formation of grade‐level groups. Within their groups, students met during class to begin brainstorming topics for their iSTEM project. During this introductory brainstorming session, course instructors provided clarification, addressed student questions, and provided in‐the‐moment feedback as students generated ideas for their projects.</p> <hd id="AN0192956348-10">Week 2</hd> <p>In the second week, students were expected to arrive at their technology class with a workable idea for their iSTEM projects. Throughout the class, student groups continue to develop and refine their ideas, ensuring that they are focusing on integrating all four STEM disciplines in meaningful ways into a cohesive project. Some student groups also started creating prototypes and testing engineering designs to be incorporated into their projects. Course instructors offered ongoing feedback and assisted student groups with troubleshooting and compiling a list of materials needed to implement their projects with elementary‐aged students.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SSM/01apr26/ssm18321-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ssm18321-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 Fourth grade‐level iSTEM project on pollution in Nebraska waterways." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0192956348-12">Week 3</hd> <p>During the third and final week of class time dedicated to iSTEM project work, several groups were able to refine and complete their projects. Using a slide template provided by the instructor, student groups organized descriptions of their work. Throughout this process, course instructors offered ongoing formative feedback, clarification, and additional resources to support students in their project work.</p> <p>In total, there were 18 collaborative groups, 6 groups in each of the three cohorts. The iSTEM project required PSTs to choose a topic that relates to the overarching theme of <emph>sustainability</emph> (e.g., wind as a source of renewable energy, pollution in Nebraska waterways (Figure 4), crop irrigation systems (Figure 5), astronomy, and light pollution), and create an iSTEM lesson that was appropriate for their grade level. Students also connected their lessons to K‐5 Common Core math standards (content and practice), Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), and technology connections (see Appendix A). Next, PSTs engaged elementary students in their iSTEM lessons during their practicum. Because iSTEM is not part of the core curriculum at the practicum site, lessons were implemented during elementary students' special rotations in the media center. PSTs taught their iSTEM lessons (refer to Table 1 for the sample group projects) to groups of students from their grade levels but not necessarily students they knew from the practicum classrooms in which they were placed. At the end of the semester, STEM block instructors (<emph>n</emph> = 6) collaboratively and synchronously evaluated the projects and growth reflections, which we describe below.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SSM/01apr26/ssm18321-fig-0005.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ssm18321-fig-0005.jpg" title="5 Second grade‐level iSTEM project on crop irrigation systems." /> </p> <p></p> <p>1 TABLE Integrated STEM projects: Description and alignment with the standards.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Description of the project</th><th align="left">NGSS connections (science and engineering standards)</th><th align="left">Mathematics connections (common Core state standards for mathematics)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">K</td><td align="left">Pollution in Waterways: The students will conduct an experiment that shows the effect of water pollution on wildlife. They will discuss solutions to help prevent water pollution</td><td align="left">K‐ESS3‐3 Earth and Human Activity —Communicate solutions that will reduce the impact of humans on the land, water, air, and/or other living things in the local environment</td><td align="left">K.MD.A.1 Describe measurable attributes of objects, such as length K.MD.A.2 Directly compare two objects with a measurable attribute in common</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">Ecosystems: Students will create an ecosystem of their favorite animal and graph the frequency of each ecosystem. Videos will be shown on each ecosystem to inform students of the unique differences of each system</td><td align="left">1‐ls1‐1. Use materials to design a solution to a human problem by mimicking how plants and/or animals use their external parts to help them survive, grow, and meet their needs</td><td align="left">1.D.2 Analyze Data and Interpret Results: Students will analyze the data and interpret the results 1.D.2.a Ask and answer questions about the total number of data points, and how many are in each category, and compare categories using a picture graph</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">Crop irrigation systems: Students design, build, and evaluate a model of an irrigation system using plastic cups and straws</td><td align="left">2‐LS2‐1 Plan and conduct an investigation to determine if plants need sunlight and water to grow2‐ETS1‐2 Develop a simple sketch drawing, or physical model to illustrate how the shape helps it function</td><td align="left">2.MD.A.1 Measure the length of an object by selecting and using appropriate tools such as rulers, yardsticks, meter sticks, and measuring tapes2.MD.A.3 Estimate lengths using units of inches, feet, centimeters, and meters</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">Wind Turbine Power:Students design pinwheels and test the stability of pinwheels and how wind affects them.</td><td align="left">SC.3.1 Forces and interactions: Motion and stability</td><td align="left">MA 3.3.1 Characteristics: Students will identify and describe geometric characteristics and create two‐ and three‐dimensional shapes</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4</td><td align="left">Pollution in NE waterways: Students utilize a water pollution model and design and test various solutions to remove oil from the water. They will also calculate the amount of drinkable water left as a result</td><td align="left">4‐ESS3‐1: Obtain and combine information to describe that energy and fuels are derived from natural resources and their uses affect the environment</td><td align="left">4.MD.4 Make a line plot to display a data set of measurements in fractions of a unit (½, ¼, 1/8). Solve problems involving addition and subtraction of fractions</td></tr><tr><td align="left">5</td><td align="left">Fighting fertilized water: Students engineer and create models to remove fertilizer from water (removing as much pepper representing pollutant fertilizer mixed in water) and measure the clean water levels</td><td align="left">5‐ESS3‐1. Obtain and combine information about ways individual communities use science ideas to protect the Earth's resources and environment.3‐5‐ETS1‐1. Engineering Design: Define a simple design problem that includes specified criteria for success and constraints on materials, time, or cost.</td><td align="left">Represent and interpret data. 2. 5.MD.B.2 Make a line plot to display a data set of measurements in fractions of a unit. Use operations on fractions for this grade to solve problems involving information presented in line plots</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0192956348-14">STEM growth reflections</hd> <p>To encourage reflection and gain insight into PSTs' perceptions of growth for teaching iSTEM, they were asked to write an individual STEM growth reflection (see Appendix B) at the end of the semester. As a celebration of their learning of teaching STEM, the reflection asked PSTs to think about their learning and experiences throughout the STEM semester. More specifically, the STEM Growth reflection required PSTs to address specific prompts about teaching and learning STEM in elementary grades. To support the claims made in STEM Growth reflections, PSTs also provided artifacts of their work (e.g., photographs, and descriptions of a certain experience) from various methods courses in the STEM semester. These reflections also asked PSTs to describe the potential benefits and challenges of teaching iSTEM in elementary grades.</p> <hd id="AN0192956348-15">RESULTS</hd> <p>We utilized thematic analysis (Nowell et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref43">35</reflink>]) to analyze participants' STEM Growth reflections to uncover their perceptions related to implementing iSTEM in future elementary classrooms. The analysis was carried out by a multidisciplinary team of six researchers (three faculty and two graduate students) using a three‐step process. First, the research team developed a strategic plan to determine the unit of analysis, that is, to analyze excerpts related to the benefits and challenges of iSTEM identified by participants. We created a spreadsheet with columns for reporting benefits and challenges and associated excerpts. Second, each researcher randomly selected and coded two participants' STEM growth reflections. Then, the researchers met to discuss and compare similarities and differences. Third, the codes were revisited and further grouped into categories representing patterns related to the benefits and challenges of teaching iSTEM. Throughout, we employed multiple procedures to ensure data trustworthiness and analytical rigor, including revisiting the data to confirm or refute the evidence, reaching consensus via multiple sessions of discussion on codes between six researchers, and gathering supporting evidence from student artifacts (e.g., iSTEM projects, photographs), leading to the triangulation of the findings.</p> <hd id="AN0192956348-16">Benefits of integrated STEM</hd> <p>It appears that planning iSTEM projects and practicum experience of engaging elementary kids in STEM activities allowed PSTs to recognize the benefits of iSTEM in elementary classrooms, which were grouped into six categories (see Table 2 for categories and representative excerpts). While reflecting on their field experiences, several participants noted in their reflections that STEM activities kept young learners more engaged and interested in solving complex problems. One participant noted that elementary students were challenged to learn about various topics (e.g., energy transfer) not just from a scientific perspective, but also using engineering, mathematics, and technology lenses, which consequently made learning more relatable and real to them.</p> <p>2 TABLE Categories for benefits of teaching integrated STEM in elementary classrooms.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Categories</th><th align="left">Excerpts</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Positive dispositions on engaging students in STEM</td><td align="left">As for having the lessons more engaging, incorporating subjects together can help students who may find a specific subject boring or hard can at least connect to another subject they like. They are more likely to participate when there is variety in the way the subjects are being taught.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Relevance to the real‐world</td><td align="left">One major benefit of teaching Integrated STEM in the classroom is that it is relevant to the real world. Once students leave the classroom, they need to know how to handle situations that happen in everyday life</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Meaningful connections between subjects: Interdisciplinary knowledge</td><td align="left">An engaging lesson is directly correlated with the students ability to make connections. In my elementary school experience. I never remember making many connections between subjects. Being able to implement all these subjects into one lesson expands knowledge to a whole new level</td></tr><tr><td align="left">STEM career interest and awareness</td><td align="left">One of the benefits to teaching Integrated STEM is that you are introducing a concept that may lead students to a career. The STEM field is ever growing and so is the need for workers. The introduction to STEM in classrooms could lead to the next leap in human life.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Critical thinking and collaboration</td><td align="left">Another benefit of teaching Integrated STEM is critical thinking and socialization. In the world we live in, being able to think smart and communicate is crucial. Elementary students who are engaged in Integrated STEM learn to analyze problems and work with group members to solve them</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Spark curiosity and creativity</td><td align="left">Two benefits of teaching integrated STEM to elementary students are their curiosity and creativity. Elementary students are experiencing a lot of things in the world for the first time and, naturally, they are going to have many questions. Similarly, elementary students have a lot of creativity, so when they are discovering these concepts and coming up with ideas and designs to accommodate those concepts, they are likely to think outside of the box</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>For many PSTs, it was their first experience with designing and implementing iSTEM, so they appreciated the opportunity to "see" what worked in the classroom. One participant mentioned, "I worked with a group of three to create a STEM lesson to perform with the fourth‐grade students. We had a lot of fun creating and implementing this lesson plan and the students had lots of fun as well" (Participant 1, reflection paper). Other benefits PSTs discussed were the opportunities for elementary students to build a foundation for STEM career interest and awareness, and develop skills such as problem‐solving, critical thinking, and collaborative learning for the future. As one participant wrote, "In the world we live in, being able to think smart and communicate is crucial. Elementary students who are engaged in iSTEM learn to analyze problems and work with group members to solve them" (Participant 6, reflection paper).</p> <hd id="AN0192956348-17">Challenges associated with integrated STEM</hd> <p>While participants were supportive of iSTEM, unsurprisingly, they noted challenges related to STEM teaching at the K‐5 level. These challenges were grouped into six categories (see Table 3 for categories and representative excerpts). Participants noted time as a constraint considering planning for iSTEM could be new and possibly overwhelming for elementary teachers. Others noted that adequate support, training, and resources are crucial particularly "if teachers are not able to deter from the curriculum" (Participant 10, reflection paper). Another participant shared that at times "higher‐ups are unwilling to be flexible and don't allow teachers to coordinate STEM lessons" (Participant 4, reflection paper).</p> <p>3 TABLE Categories for challenges in implementing integrated STEM.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Categories</th><th align="left">Excerpts</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Time constraints (planning)</td><td align="left">To make a thought‐out, meaningful STEM lesson that incorporated everything well takes more time than teachers are typically allowed during their lesson planning time</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Fit into strict curriculum</td><td align="left">It is often very hard to stick to a routine even when the subjects schedules are so strict. So, implementing multiple subjects into one lesson may be very time consuming. It may also be difficult to implement these STEM lessons with curriculum standards because those can be very strict as well</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Affordability of materials</td><td align="left">Although many of the activities we practiced throughout STEM block were extremely interesting, most of them required an abundance of expensive materials; specifically, the education robots we got exposed to. All of these materials would be very useful in creating an engaging lesson but not all schools are going to be able to afford all of these things</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Lack of resources (technology)</td><td align="left">Lack of resources occurs especially in lower‐income areas. Not all students have access to technology at home or outside of school. When teachers are using technology to teach subjects and assign homework online, it can be a challenge for students to complete their work or understand how to use certain online sources when they are not at school</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Differentiation</td><td align="left">Elementary classrooms are diverse, with students having varying levels of prior knowledge, interests, and learning styles. Tailoring STEM activities to meet the needs of every student can be challenging, especially when some students might have different levels of educational backgrounds and varying degrees of familiarity with STEM concepts</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Administrative support</td><td align="left">Restricted lessons that are required to be taught by the district can also cut off creativity. If higher‐ups are unwilling to be flexible and do not allow teachers to coordinate STEM lessons, the students will not get to see the wonder of integration</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Affordability of materials and technology was also a common theme in participants' responses, particularly in rural schools or low‐income areas. One of the participants reflected on her teaching practicum and shared that "Elementary students in this school are not able to take home their computers, so online access at home was a challenge I saw directly in the classroom" (Participant 7, reflection paper). During their classroom observations, PSTs also observed diversity in students regarding learning styles, levels of prior knowledge, interests, and learning abilities. Participants were concerned about facilitating and adapting iSTEM to fit in with <emph>all</emph> learners in the classroom, which can pose additional challenges for an elementary teacher.</p> <hd id="AN0192956348-18">DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS</hd> <p>Redesigning preservice elementary teacher preparation programs to prioritize iSTEM education holds promise for preparing the next generation of competent and confident STEM teachers. Our efforts in reforming STEM curricula were successful, providing PSTs with opportunities not only to participate in STEM activities but also to plan and teach iSTEM lessons to elementary students. This endeavor involved a unique partnership among instructors teaching multidisciplinary methods courses, enabling the integration of diverse perspectives and the co‐development of cross‐curricular STEM‐themed pathways. In our study, we observed that these iSTEM interventions allowed PSTs to recognize the value and significance of iSTEM instruction, as well as their ability to teach iSTEM in the future. This, in turn, has the potential to bolster student engagement and foster early interest in STEM careers among elementary students.</p> <p>The strategic design of the STEM‐themed pathways across the three methods courses allowed PSTs to develop a shared understanding of STEM via social discourse and teamwork. Specifically, the iSTEM projects focused on real‐world issues rooted in Nebraska's context, fostering a deeper engagement as students applied knowledge from various STEM disciplines and designed solutions to problems related to crop irrigation and the impact of fertilizer use on water pollution and the ecosystem. Existing literature emphasizes the importance of integrating pedagogies that involve problem‐solving within a local context using approaches that blend interdisciplinary knowledge, scientific inquiry, and engineering design principles (Grubbs & Strimel, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref44">14</reflink>]; Maiorca & Mohr‐Schroeder, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref45">20</reflink>]). Through implementing iSTEM projects with elementary students, PSTs had the opportunity to witness the impact of integrated STEM. Additionally, debriefing sessions with mentor teachers, peers, and methods course instructors, and engaging in reflective practices on iSTEM implementation facilitated a deeper understanding of the strengths and limitations of iSTEM planning and instruction.</p> <p>While many participants benefitted from planning and executing iSTEM projects, several challenges persisted. For many PSTs, the STEM‐themed pathways introduced them to "newer" pedagogies, which was their first exposure to witness and experience iSTEM in action. The question arises whether one semester or one‐time practice teaching iSTEM is enough to build PSTs' confidence. Moreover, PSTs may lack contextual knowledge about school and district cultures, curriculum requirements, and the needs of future students, leaving them feeling inadequately prepared to teach iSTEM. Some PSTs reported that their practicum placements lacked emphasis on STEM, making it challenging for them to observe STEM practices in action. Perhaps a strategic approach to practicum placements is necessary, allowing PSTs to observe their mentors (classroom teachers) teaching STEM. This first‐hand experience could enhance their pedagogical knowledge and feelings to be better prepared to deal with challenges related to teaching STEM (Kurup et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref46">17</reflink>]). Additionally, methods course instructors should facilitate debrief sessions to discuss complexities associated with implementing STEM practices in the classroom.</p> <p>While time constraints in planning for STEM integration and fitting STEM integration into a strict curriculum are not new challenges, we echo the recommendations described by Margot and Kettler's ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref47">21</reflink>]) literature review to address these challenges, including increasing teachers' access to high‐quality STEM curricula and professional development. Furthermore, opportunities to intentionally collaborate and plan with other educators through their school districts or buildings can also provide teachers with the necessary support to overcome these challenges (Burton et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref48">5</reflink>]; Margot & Kettler, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref49">21</reflink>]). These strategies are also pertinent to address the challenges articulated by PSTs surrounding the affordability of materials and lack of (technological) resources, such that collaborative planning with others can lead to creative iSTEM lessons that leverage low‐cost and low‐tech materials (Fraser et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref50">12</reflink>]). We note that this set of challenges is important to address given that they can be most pronounced in diverse educational settings (e.g., rural and urban communities with limited resources). In our context, we view these raised concerns as opportunities for reflection, including asking PSTs to reflect on possible modifications to their iSTEM lessons that utilize low‐cost (or household) materials. In turn, these strategies may further strengthen PSTs' confidence in iSTEM teaching.</p> <hd id="AN0192956348-19">CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL TAKEAWAYS</hd> <p>While we are enthusiastic about sharing the redesign of our preservice elementary STEM program, we recognize that there are a range of possibilities for incorporating STEM. Our redesign of a STEM semester included intentional planning of the two shared pathways that ultimately provided PSTs with the opportunities to plan, and practice teaching iSTEM to elementary students and reflect on their STEM learning and teaching experiences across the STEM semester. Yet, it is important to note, for those considering preservice elementary methods coursework or curriculum redesign for iSTEM, that we encountered practical limitations and feasibility issues. These included challenges like scheduling meeting times and negotiating among instructors for the design of methods courses and STEM‐themed pathways. We realize, however, that despite the complexities inherent in collaboration across multiple disciplines, any effort to incorporate STEM instruction in preservice methods coursework will better prepare the next generation of teachers.</p> <p>It is also important to note that there are direct implications for future research. For instance, longitudinal studies examining PSTs' iSTEM practices during student teaching and beyond could provide deeper insights into how their understanding of iSTEM translates into classroom practice. This study did not collect PSTs' classroom teaching observations or K‐12 student learning data to assess the student performance to determine the effectiveness of PSTs' STEM teaching, as it was beyond the scope of this study. Additionally, while this study relied on qualitative methods, incorporating quantitative data, such as surveys, could further enhance our understanding of PSTs' confidence in and benefits and challenges related to iSTEM teaching, thereby improving the generalizability of the findings.</p> <hd id="AN0192956348-20">A APPENDIX INTEGRATED STEM PROJECT DESCRIPTION</hd> <p>For this assignment, you will take part in and analyze an integrated STEM experience that would be appropriate for K‐5 elementary students. You will work with a grade‐level team throughout the project and reflect individually at the conclusion of the project.</p> <p>You should choose a topic that relates to the overarching theme of sustainability and create an integrated STEM learning experience for your grade level. Examples include but are not limited to:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Wind as a source of renewable energy</item> <p></p> <item> Agricultural crop monitoring</item> <p></p> <item> Ethanol production and use for fueling vehicles</item> <p></p> <item> Crop residue burning and air quality</item> <p></p> <item> Pollution in Nebraska waterways</item> <p></p> <item> Tolerance and management of predatory wildlife (e.g., coyotes, wolves, mountain lions)</item> <p></p> <item> Astronomy and light pollution</item> <p></p> <item> Crop irrigation and groundwater</item> </ulist> <p>Your project will include the following GROUP components using the components of the template below (Feel free to choose any slide theme and as many slides as your group would like)</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Devise one or more big questions to problematize and guide your project.</item> <p></p> <item> Anchor your project to K‐5 Common Core math standards (content and practice), NGSS science standards, Engineering design connections, and Technology connections.</item> <p></p> <item> Explore your topic through reputable, available resources. This should include background knowledge and applicable math and science content relevant to your topic. Cite/identify at least 3 outside sources.</item> <p></p> <item> Identify one specific focus question/problem that your project will investigate/attempt to solve.</item> <p></p> <item> Describe the overall project (setting, time required, individual/group work, what will students learn and do, how will the teacher provide guidance). Questions and a 5E structure in the slides template provide additional detail for planning.</item> <p></p> <item> Apply math content to contextualize and/or solve your project's focus question.</item> <p></p> <item> Apply science content to contextualize and/or solve your project's focus question.</item> <p></p> <item> The project should include opportunities for students to meaningfully engage with engineering design and technology to model or investigate your project's focus question.</item> <p></p> <item> Enact your project with students in the practicum setting as arranged with your practicum supervisor.</item> <p></p> <item> Create and turn in a slide deck (using the template) to showcase your project. Please make a copy of the slides and attend to all aspects of what is shown on the template. You may change the theme or add additional slides, as needed. Feel free to include images to enhance and explain your project description throughout, but do not include photos with any identifiable information about students (e.g., images, names)</item> </ulist> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SSM/01apr26/ssm18321-gra-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ssm18321-gra-0001.jpg" title="." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0192956348-22">B APPENDIX STEM GROWTH REFLECTIONS DESCRIPTION</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0192956348-23">B.1 RATIONALE</hd> <p>The STEM Growth Project is a celebration of your learning about teaching STEM to children from K‐6th grade. Each of you came to the course with your own unique experiences and ideas about STEM concepts and STEM teaching and learning. Over the course of the semester, you have been presented with new ideas, experiences, and perspectives, which have further shaped your ideas. What you have "learned" this semester, then, consists of the ways in which you have grown in your thinking and/or changed your ideas. This project builds on the reflection practices you have engaged in as part of the STEM Methods Block.</p> <p> <emph>Note</emph>: <emph>The project is designed to capture your progress over time, not just a snapshot of where you are at the end of the course</emph>.</p> <p>For this project, you will describe and illustrate what you have learned across methods courses throughout the semester. You will draw on examples from your coursework or practicum experience this semester to illustrate this growth. You should provide specific examples of your work throughout the semester to show how your knowledge, teaching skills, and dispositions in Science, Technology, and Engineering, Mathematics, and integrated STEM have grown since the beginning of the semester. For example, you might draw from readings, examples of assignments, class discussions, videos and experiments/class activities, posters or snapshots of work (do NOT include any student names or images of students).</p> <p>Please answer the following prompts:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What are the two benefits and two challenges of teaching Integrated STEM to elementary students? (200–250 words)</item> <p></p> <item> How have you grown with respect to integrating across STEM subjects? (Refer back to your beliefs/perceptions about STEM integration from the beginning of the semester.) (200–250 words)</item> <p></p> <item> How will you continue to grow in your ability to integrate across STEM subjects in the future? (200–250 words)</item> <p></p> <item> From your experience in the STEM Methods Block, what five aspects do you think would be necessary for teaching elementary STEM effectively? Describe why each of these aspects are important and why they are essential for STEM, in particular. (200–250 words)</item> <p></p> <item> What contributed to your knowledge, understanding, and confidence about integrated STEM? Include artifacts from at least two different STEM Block classes to support your response. (200–250 words)</item> </ulist> <ref id="AN0192956348-24"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref33" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> [Correction added on 27 October 2025, after first online publication: The copyright line was changed.]</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0192956348-25"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> Akaygun, S., & Aslan‐Tutak, F. (2020). Collaboratively learning to teach STEM: A model for learning to integrate STEM education in preservice teacher education. In V. L. Akerson & G. A. Buck (Eds.), Critical questions in STEM education (pp. 147–163). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref3" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Banilower, E., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I., Malzahn, K., Plumley, C., Gordon, E., & Hayes, M. (2018). Report of the 2018 NSSME+. Horizon Research, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref5" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bartels, S. L., Rupe, K. M., & Lederman, J. S. (2019). Shaping preservice teachers' understandings of STEM: A collaborative math and science methods approach. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(6), 666–680. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2019.1602803</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref12" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bryan, L. A., Moore, T. J., Johnson, C. C., & Roehrig, G. H. (2016). Integrated STEM education. In C. C. Johnson, E. E. Peters‐Burton, & T. J. Moore (Eds.), STEM road map: A framework for integrated STEM education (pp. 23–37). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref48" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Burton, M., Maiorca, C., & Tripp, L. O. (2022). The relationship between teacher candidates' affective dispositions and instructional planning actions in STEM. Education Sciences, 12(2), 82.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref38" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Capobianco, B. M., Radloff, J., & Clingerman, J. (2022). Facilitating preservice elementary science teachers' shift from learner to teacher of engineering design‐based science teaching. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(4), 747–767.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref42" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Contant, T. L., Tweed, A., Bass, J. E., & Carin, A. A. (2018). Teaching science through inquiry‐based instruction (13th ed.). Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref23" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Corp, A., Fields, M., & Naizer, G. (2020). Elementary STEM teacher education: Recent practices to prepare general elementary teachers for STEM. In C. C. Johnson, M. J. Mohr‐Schroeder, T. J. Moore, & L. D. English (Eds.), The handbook of research on STEM education (pp. 337–348). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429021381-32</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref36" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cunningham, C. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2017). Epistemic practices of engineering for education. Science Education, 101(3), 486–505. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21271</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deniz, H., Yesilyurt, E., Newman, S. J., & Kaya, E. (2020). Toward defining nature of engineering in the next generation science standards era. In V. L. Akerson & G. A. Buck (Eds.), Critical questions in STEM education (pp. 33–44). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fields, M., & Naizer, G. (2020). Elementary STEM teacher education: Recent practices to prepare general elementary teachers for STEM. In Handbook of research on STEM education (pp. 337–348). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fraser, S., Beswick, K., & Crowley, S. (2019). Responding to the demands of the STEM education agenda: The experiences of primary and secondary teachers from rural, regional and remote Australia. Journal of Research in STEM Education, 5(1), 40–59.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Galanti, T. M., & Holincheck, N. (2022). Beyond content and curriculum in elementary classrooms: Conceptualizing the cultivation of integrated STEM teacher identity. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00358-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grubbs, M., & Strimel, G. (2015). Engineering design: The great integrator. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 50(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.30707/JSTE50.1Grubbs</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kennedy, T. J., & Odell, M. R. (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science Education International, 25(3), 246–258.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kurup, P., Li, X., Powell, G., & Brown, M. (2019). Building future primary teachers' capacity in STEM: Based on a platform of beliefs, understandings and intentions. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(10), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0164-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lottero‐Perdue, P. S. (2017). Engineering design into science classrooms. In J. Settlage, S. A. Southerland, L. K. Smetana, & P. S. Lottero‐Perdue (Eds.), Teaching science to every child (pp. 207–266). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315652511</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madden, L., Beyers, J., & O'Brien, S. (2016). The importance of STEM education in the elementary grades: Learning from pre‐service and novice teachers' perspectives. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 20(5), 1–18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maiorca, C., & Mohr‐Schroeder, M. J. (2020). Elementary preservice teachers' integration of engineering into STEM lesson plans. School Science and Mathematics, 120(7), 402–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12433</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers' perception of STEM integration and education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martín‐Páez, T., Aguilera, D., Perales‐Palacios, F. J., & Vílchez‐González, J. M. (2019). What are we talking about when we talk about STEM education? A review of the literature. Science Education, 103(4), 799–822. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21522</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Menon, D., Al Shorman, D. A., Cox, D., & Thomas, A. (2023). Preservice elementary teachers' conceptions and self‐efficacy for integrated STEM. Education Sciences, 13(5), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13050529</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Menon, D., Bauer, A. S., Hasseler, E. V., Johnson, K., Thomas, A., Martinez, R., & Trainin, G. (2023). Greater than the sum of its parts: Centering science in the STEM era. In S. Al‐Balushi, L. Martin‐Hansen, & Y. Song (Eds.), Reforming science teacher education programs in the STEM era. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27334-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Menon, D., & Ngugi, R. (2022). Preservice secondary STEM Teachers' reflective practice in microteaching: An analysis of journal writing and video‐mediated reflections. Teacher Education Quarterly, 49(1), 29–52.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, J. (2019). STEM education in the primary years to support mathematical thinking: Using coding to identify mathematical structures and patterns. ZDM, 51(6), 915–927. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01096-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, T. J., Johnston, A. C., & Glancy, A. W. (2020). STEM integration: A synthesis of conceptual frameworks and definitions. In C. C. Johnson, M. J. Mohr‐Schroeder, T. J. Moore, & L. D. English (Eds.), The handbook of research on STEM education (pp. 3–16). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429021381</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, T. J., & Smith, K. A. (2014). Advancing the state of the art of STEM integration. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 15(1), 5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nadelson, L. S., & Seifert, A. (2013). Perceptions, engagement, and practices of teachers seeking professional development in place‐based integrated STEM. Teacher Education and Practice, 26(2), 242–266.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Research Council. (2014). STEM integration in K‐12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18612</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nesmith, S. M., & Cooper, S. (2020). Elementary STEM learning. In C. C. Johnson, M. J. Mohr‐Schroeder, T. J. Moore, & L. D. English (Eds.), The handbook of research on STEM education (pp. 101–114). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429021381</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nesmith, S. M., & Cooper, S. (2021). Connecting engineering design and inquiry cycles: Impact on elementary preservice teachers' engineering efficacy and perspectives toward teaching engineering. School Science and Mathematics, 121(5), 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12469</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nguyen, U., Menon, D., Jeon, M., & Thomas, A. (2024). Board 169: Purposefully designing integrated STEM learning experiences within elementary teacher education (work in progress). In 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. American Society of Engineering Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perkins Coppola, M. (2019). Preparing preservice elementary teachers to teach engineering: Impact on self‐efficacy and outcome expectancy. School Science and Mathematics, 119(3), 161–170.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ring‐Whalen, E., Dare, E., Roehrig, G., Titu, P., & Crotty, E. (2018). From conception to curricula: The role of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in integrated STEM units. International journal of education in mathematics. Science and Technology, 6(4), 343–362. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.440338</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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 Mathematics, 112(1), 31–44.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shernoff, D. J., Sinha, S., Bressler, D. M., & Ginsburg, L. (2017). Assessing teacher education and professional development needs for the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 4, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0068-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sotiriou, S., Bybee, R., & Bogner, F. (2017). Pathways—A case of large‐scale implementation of evidence‐based practice in scientific inquiry‐based science education. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(2), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v6n2p8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ültay, N., Zivali, A., Yilmaz, H., Bak, H. K., Yilmaz, K., Topatan, M., & Kara, P. G. (2020). STEM‐focused activities to support student learning in primary school science. Journal of Science Learning, 3(3), 156–164.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Webb, D. L., & LoFaro, K. P. (2020). Sources of engineering teaching self‐efficacy in a STEAM methods course for elementary preservice teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 120(4), 209–219.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wieselmann, J. R., Dare, E. A., Ring‐Whalen, E. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2020). "I just do what the boys tell me": Exploring small group student interactions in an integrated STEM unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(1), 112–144. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21587</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Deepika Menon; Allison M. Johnson; Derek Cox; Ursula Nguyen; Minji Jeon and Amanda Thomas</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref50"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1502628
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: STEM-Themed Pathways within Elementary Preservice Methods Coursework: Benefits and Challenges Associated with Designing and Implementing Integrated STEM Projects
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Deepika+Menon%22">Deepika Menon</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8652-7019">0000-0002-8652-7019</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Allison+M%2E+Johnson%22">Allison M. Johnson</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Derek+Cox%22">Derek Cox</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ursula+Nguyen%22">Ursula Nguyen</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Minji+Jeon%22">Minji Jeon</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Amanda+Thomas%22">Amanda Thomas</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22School+Science+and+Mathematics%22"><i>School Science and Mathematics</i></searchLink>. 2026 126(2):176-188.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– 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="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22STEM+Education%22">STEM Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preservice+Teacher+Education%22">Preservice Teacher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preservice+Teachers%22">Preservice Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Methods+Courses%22">Methods Courses</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Projects%22">Science Projects</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Projects%22">Student Projects</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Teachers%22">Science Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Science%22">Elementary School Science</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Integrated+Curriculum%22">Integrated Curriculum</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interdisciplinary+Approach%22">Interdisciplinary Approach</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Problem+Solving%22">Problem Solving</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Practicums%22">Practicums</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/ssm.18321
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0036-6803<br />1949-8594
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: With the rapid advancements in science and technology, there is a growing emphasis on preparing high-quality elementary science teachers with a deeper understanding of integrating Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines into their classrooms. Despite ongoing reform efforts of rethinking ways in which preservice elementary teachers (PSTs) are currently prepared, STEM is not always the central focus of their training programs. This article highlights the STEM pathways threaded throughout the concurrent elementary science, mathematics, and technology methods courses within a dedicated STEM semester. This approach allows PSTs to experience integrated STEM directly. Specifically, we discuss PSTs' planning and implementation of integrated STEM projects that explicitly blend multiple STEM disciplines to design solutions to problems situated within a local context under the theme of sustainability. The practicum experience played a pivotal role in helping PSTs realize the benefits and challenges associated with teaching STEM. Drawing from PSTs' written reflections, we provide evidence of how varied STEM engagements enhance their knowledge of STEM integration and shape their perceptions of successes and challenges associated with STEM teaching. Finally, we offer implications for practice and recommendations for future teacher educators to reshape elementary education programs to better integrate STEM.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1502628
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1502628
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/ssm.18321
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 176
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: STEM Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preservice Teacher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preservice Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Methods Courses
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Projects
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Projects
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Science
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Integrated Curriculum
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interdisciplinary Approach
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Problem Solving
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Practicums
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: STEM-Themed Pathways within Elementary Preservice Methods Coursework: Benefits and Challenges Associated with Designing and Implementing Integrated STEM Projects
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Deepika Menon
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Allison M. Johnson
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Derek Cox
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ursula Nguyen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Minji Jeon
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Amanda Thomas
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0036-6803
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1949-8594
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 126
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: School Science and Mathematics
              Type: main
ResultId 1