Exploring Students' STEM Characterizations in Two
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
“It’s What We Use as a Community”: Exploring Students’ STEM Characterizations In Two Montessori Elementary Classrooms A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Alaina Hopkins Szostkowski IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS Julie C. Brown June 2017 © Alaina Hopkins Szostkowski, 2017 Acknowledgements My deepest thanks to Dr. Julie Brown, an unfailing source of support, ideas, and feedback throughout the process of conceptualizing and carrying out this project. I also acknowledge the members of my committee, Dr. Nina Asher and Dr. Bhaskar Upadhyay, for their insight and expertise. Katie Ibes provided me with vision, advice, and insight into the philosophy of Montessori STEM. Most of all, my gratitude to April Zoll Close and Erin Allen for their generosity and collaboration, and to all of the young people who shared their ideas and experiences with me. Last but not least, my housemates, STEM colleagues, parents, and partner Daniel Raskin, who made sure I had my all my fundamental human needs met. i Dedication This thesis is dedicated to my grandparents, William and Dorothy Hopkins, whose love and generosity made so many other lives possible. ii Abstract Integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education promises to enhance elementary students’ engagement in science and related fields and to cultivate their problem-solving abilities. While STEM has become an increasingly popular reform initiative, it is still developing within the Montessori education community. There is limited research on STEM teaching and learning in Montessori classrooms, particularly from student perspectives. Previous studies suggest productive connections between reform-based pedagogies in mainstream science education and the Montessori method. Greater knowledge of this complementarity, and student perspectives on STEM, may benefit both Montessori and non-Montessori educators. This instrumental case study of two elementary classrooms documented student characterizations of aspects of STEM in the context of integrated STEM instruction over three months in the 2016- 2017 school year. Findings show that the Montessori environment played an important role, and that students characterized STEM in inclusive, agentive, connected, helpful, creative, and increasingly critical ways. Implications for teaching and future research offer avenues to envision STEM education more holistically by leveraging the moral and humanistic aspects of Montessori philosophy. iii Table of Contents Acknowledgements i Dedication ii Abstract iii Table of Contents iv List of Tables vii List of Figures viii Chapter 1 : Introduction 1 Rationale for Study 4 Theoretical Framework 6 Significance of the Study 7 Overview of the Chapters 8 Chapter 2 : Review of Related Literature 10 Constructivism in Elementary Science Education 10 The Montessori Method 15 Research in Montessori Schools in the United States 17 Reform-based Science and STEM Education 22 Elementary STEM Education 24 Connecting Montessori and STEM 31 Conclusion 38 Chapter 3 : Methodology 39 Method 39 The Case Study Approach 40 Context of Study 43 iv Participants 45 Research Design 53 Data Sources 54 Analysis 61 Trustworthiness 69 Role of the Researcher 72 Limitations 75 Conclusion 76 Chapter 4 : Findings 78 Lower Elementary Case 78 The Learning Context 78 STEM Characterizations According to Whole Class Tasks: E1 90 E1 Focus Student Narratives 117 E1 Case Assertions 148 Upper Elementary Case 152 The Learning Context 152 STEM Characterizations According to Whole Class Tasks: E2 162 E2 Focus Student Narratives 188 E2 Case Assertions 211 Chapter 5 : Discussion and Implications 215 Review of the Study 215 Common Themes 217 Lessons Learned 233 Implications for Practice 235 v Implications for Research 238 Conclusion 241 References 243 Appendix A: MM-DAST(E) Protocol 248 Appendix B: STEM Questionnaire (STEMQ1/STEMQ2) 250 Appendix C: Student Interview Script 252 Appendix D: Letter of Exemption, University of Minnesota Internal Review Board 254 vi List of Tables Table 3.1 Consenting sample demographics, E1 and E2, North Star Montessori ........... 50 Table 3.2 Research design, including research question, student data source, and analysis approach ..................................................................................................... 54 Table 3.3 Timeline of student data collection activities ................................................... 55 Table 3.4 Coding strategies, sample codes, and data exemplars ..................................... 68 Table 4.1 E1 STEM lesson series ...................................................................................... 85 Table 4.2 E1 MM-DAST(E) descriptive code frequencies, September and December, 2016........................................................................................................................... 92 Table 4.3 Major themes in E1 students' characterizations of aspects of STEM, September and November, 2016 ................................................................................................. 99 Table 4.4 E2 STEM lesson series .................................................................................... 157 Table 4.5 E2 MM-DAST(E) descriptive code frequencies, September and December, 2016......................................................................................................................... 163 Table 4.6 Major themes comprising E2 Students' characterizations of aspects of STEM, September and November, 2016 ............................................................................. 169 vii List of Figures Figure 3.1. Example STEMQ code frequency table. ......................................................... 65 Figure 3.2. Sample code spreadsheet for Ruthie’s pre-interview. .................................... 67 Figure 4.1. Sketch of E1 classroom floor plan, showing work tables and shelves. .......... 80 Figure 4.2. E1 Classroom environment and tool area, North Star Montessori. ............... 81 Figure 4.3. Montessori E1 STEM lessons. At left, a teacher-made material for constructing atomic models. At right, students making a bar graph, with hermit crabs in the foreground. ............................................................................................ 89 Figure 4.4. Drawing by second-year male student of three gender amorphous scientists of various skin colors in a lab, with a caption entitled “Welcome.” ............................ 95 Figure 4.5. Third-year male student’s December Engineer drawing, showing Engineering Design Process graphic, with the caption “I will fix this problem”. ....................... 97 Figure 4.6. Tuna’s first MM-DAST(E) drawing, a portrait of her engineer father, at left. Her second drawing, at right, shows him as a scientist mixing chemicals in a lab. ................................................................................................................................. 120 Figure 4.7 Max’s first and second MM-DAST drawings, Bob (left) and Finn (right), laboratory scientists with glasses, modeled after his brother and himself. ............ 126 Figure 4.8. Julia’s MM-DAST(E) drawings of Megan (left) and Alea (right) in the lab. 136 Figure 4.9. Elexor’s MM-DAST(E) drawings of herself and her two neighbors. ........... 143 Figure 4.10. Sketch of floor plan of the E2 classroom at North Star Montessori ........... 154 Figure 4.11. E2 science shelf with ship model (left) and student poster on Galileo (right). ................................................................................................................................. 155 viii Figure 4.12 Jake’s MM-DAST(E) of a scientist standing in the shadows. ..................... 191 Figure 4.13. Ruthie’s first (left) and second (right) MM-DAST(E) drawings of Josie Fisher ...................................................................................................................... 198 Figure 4.14. Courtney’s first scientist (left) and second engineer (right) MM-DAST(E) drawings. ................................................................................................................. 203 Figure 4.15. Jordi’s first (left) and second (right) MM-DAST(E) engineer drawings ... 208 ix Chapter 1 : Introduction Since the turn of the millenium, integrated science, technology, engineering and mathematics education—known by the acronym “STEM”—has become a flagship initiative in science education reform (Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014). Policymakers concerned about student achievement and declining participation rates in degree programs and careers have called on educators to engage young people in STEM (Committee on Science and Technology, 2008). Despite a dramatic increase in funding for programs and interventions, there remains limited consensus on the meaning of STEM (Bybee, 2013). Moreover, scholars are just beginning to operationalize conceptual models for STEM integration across school settings (Kelley & Knowles, 2016). Structural features, such as separate classes for each discipline, specialized teachers, and testing considerations, make multidisciplinary programs a challenge in secondary schools (Honey et al., 2014). Elementary classrooms in which teachers already teach multiple subject areas may be an ideal place to further develop STEM integration (Daugherty, Carter, & Swagerty, 2014). Furthermore, elementary school is a critical time for students to establish foundational knowledge and positive attitudes