Barriers to Implementing STEM in K-12 Virtual Programs Free

Engineering in K-12 education is an important phenomenon that is the foundation for discussions regarding science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in education (Katehi, Pearson, & Feder, 2009). The National Science Foundation is “blurring the lines between science and technology by using design and inquiry interchangeably as pedagogic approaches” in order to promote scientific and technological literacy in students (Lewis, 2006, p. 256). As jobs requiring knowledge of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics are growing, the number of students choosing to major in these areas is decreasing (Just & Thomas, 2011). The United States needs of 400,000 college graduates in STEM fields by 2015 (Just & Thomas, 2011). With this in mind, STEM degrees will be a ticket to a good career (Morrison & Bartlett, 2009).

The educational system, whether public or private, needs to implement effective engineering programs to satisfy growing demands. Part of the issue with implementing a quality STEM program is not necessarily the academic content, but rather providing equitable access to all students (Morrison & Bartlett, 2009). Limited research exists relating to the importance of STEM. In addition, there is a lack of research regarding the barriers for implementing a STEM program in K-12 virtual education. This article will address what STEM is, why STEM is important, barriers for successful implementation in a virtual program, and possible solutions based on virtual educator recommendations.

The term STEM originated in the early 1990s, created by the NSF (Sanders, 2009). STEM stands for the four separate fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (Sanders, 2009). STEM education rep-resents a “symbiotic relationship” between the four fields (Basham & Marino, 2013, p. 9). Together the subjects alter a typical lec-ture-based curriculum and require the implementation of inquiry and projectbased, hands-on learning experience (Breiner, Johnson, Harkness, & Koehler, 2012).

STEM activities represent a constructivist, hands-on learning approach in education (Sanders, 2009). There are four cognitive themes driving an integrative STEM curriculum. The themes are: learning is a constructive process; motivation and beliefs drive cognition; social interaction; and knowledge, strategies, and expertise are critical (Bruning, Schraw, Norby, & Ronning, 2004). To successful integrate and implement these themes into a K-12 virtual program, the technology and the end user must be considered.

Stakeholders are individuals or groups who are significantly influenced by the decisions and actions organizations make (Coulter, 2008). Stakeholders can include, but are not limited to, the government investing funds into the programs, the teachers expected to teach the STEM curriculum, parents who may not understand the requirements for learning STEM, businesses who are in need of STEM employees, and the students who ultimately make the entire effort work (Breiner, Harkness, Johnson, & Koehler, 2012). Hence, the strategic decisions for instructional design will deal will multiple stakeholders (Coulter, 2008).

TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 EDUCATION Many reasons exist as to why one school system lags behind the other in regards to technology as part of their core function (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008). The inequity of technology is a challenge that most school systems face. Budget is probably the lead cause of the inequity. Regardless of the inequity, teachers and school systems must use the resources available to prepare today's students for tomorrow's challenges.

With Millenials as the primary stake-holders, distance educators must be very familiar in order to design effective STEM instruction (Moore, 2007). Millenials are the “current learners in virtual K-12 schools” (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright & Zvacek, 2012, p. 234). Millenials will be the students participating in the virtual learning environments discussed.

There is a major push to implement online distance education programs for K-12 schools (Archambault & Crippen, 2009). In 2008, the Florida State Legislature passed a law requiring all school districts to implement a virtual program for K-8 students (Just & Thomas, 2011). Pinellas County, Florida has been offering STEM courses through the course management system, Moodle, for just over 3 years (Just & Thomas, 2011). Moodle is a free course management system very similar to Black-board and Angel (Just & Thomas, 2009; Maikish, 2006; Martin-Blas & Serrano-Fer-nandez, 2009). The Pinellas County school system has now expanded the program to offer courses at the high school level (Just & Thomas, 2011). With both the push and the mandates, school systems, including the teachers need to be prepared to work in virtual learning environments and engage students in virtual learning communities and explore all opportunities.

A virtual learning environment, also known as a course management system, is a “software system designed to assist in the management of educational courses for students” (Simonson et al., 2012, p. 162). The virtual learning environment is the platform for online learning. Online learning refers to a course being “partially or entirely through the Internet” (Ko & Rossen, 2010, p. 3). A virtual learning environment is delivered through the vehicle of online learning and provides a platform for the virtual learning community.

In a virtual learning environment, a virtual learning community may exist. The virtual learning community consists of a holistic environment involving student learning, peer synergy, and academic knowledge (Oosterhof, Conrad, & Ely, 2008). The collaborative communication a virtual learning environment permits enables students to communicate without having to physically talk or engage with one another (Czarnecki, 2008). For those who may have self-confidence or selfesteem issues, the virtual learning environment allows everyone to have an equal opportunity to communicate their knowledge (Tatli & Ayas, 2013). To have a successful virtual learning environment and learning community, effective instructional design must take place.

By definition, effectiveness is “measuring the degree to which learners accomplish objectives for each unit or a total course” (Morrison, Ross, Kalman, & Kemp, 2011, p. 474). Instructional design is using a systematic process to design a course based on learning theories, information technology, systematic analysis, educational research, and management methods (Morrison et al., 2011). To implement an effective course, there are six basic principles of design to consider: balance, center of interest, emphasis, unity, contrast, and rhythm (Simonson et al., 2012). When designing a course, the instructional designer must consider these six principles, as well as teaching strategies, design principles, and the expected learning outcomes (Ko & Rossen, 2010).

In an online course, there is a shift in the approach to learning. Virtual classrooms focus around how the course is structured and what teaching materials are used (Archambault & Crippen, 2009). To teach a subject effectively, teachers need to know the frequent struggle areas for students, the age of students and student backgrounds (Archambault & Crippen, 2009). Understand the needs for course design and the needs of students can help to minimize barriers.

In order to minimize the barriers for implementing a successful online STEM program, programs need an effective and efficient online course design. What approach is taken will depend on school preference, instructional needs, instructional objectives, time, and available resources (Morrison et al., 2011). Curriculum and standards, as well as academic rigor, need to be two of the primary considerations when designing a STEM curriculum.

For STEM teachers, need to create an engaging curriculum with a range of “metacognitive and content-specific instructional support” must be present (Basham & Marino, 2013, p. 9). Specifically for engineering, the courses must include systems thinking, creativity, collaboration, and communication (Basham & Marino, 2013). Online teachers not only need to have a strong understanding of their con-tent area, they need to have an appreciation for how technology affects the content and pedagogy of what they are trying to teach (Archambault & Crippen, 2009).

Engineers engage in tasks on a daily basis that require the application of STEM content knowledge (Brophy, Klein, Portsmore, & Rogers, 2008). These requirements include both quantitative and qualitative reasoning, which is outlined in the national standards (Brophy et al., 2008). The growing concern for STEM in K-12 education stems from concerns regarding the quantity, quality, and diversity of future engineering applicants (Brophy et al., 2008). According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, technology jobs will have increased approximately 24% between the years 2006 and 2016 (Just & Thomas, 2009). The United States ranks 27th in science and 30th in math based upon the results of an international student assessment (Baldi et al., 2007). The federal government has made STEM a top priority in funding educational systems, due to the predicted 400,000-candidate shortage by 2014 (Breiner et al., 2012).

Each of the individuals interviewed stated the importance of a STEM education in preparing today's youth for growing career fields. Erica Beerbower, a middle school science teacher, explained a STEM education can make the curriculum more relevant to students and see how the material is used in the real world. The application of engineering design will provide students the opportunity to explore STEM related occupations and possibly have access to job-shadowing opportunities (Basham & Marino, 2013).

Not only will STEM allow for preparation in a real-world context, a STEM program will help to prepare students for the standardized assessments (Czarnecki, 2008). In 2014-2015, states that adopted Common Core will be administering the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (PARCC), which will be an online, standardized assessment for students up through 12th grade. The PARCC consortium consists of 22 states and over 24 million students (PARCC, 2013). The purpose is to build “a pathway for college and career readiness” (PARCC, 2013).

Several barriers exist for implementing a K-12 virtual STEM program. First, there are a large number of educators expected to retire. Second is the large number of inadequately prepared individuals who are not qualified to teach STEM courses (Hailey, Erekson, Becker, & Thomas, 2005). Solid instruction of scientific inquiry, specifically in engineering, is difficult to implement due to nonscience teachers teaching science (Ketelhut & Nelson, 2010). Political implications, budget limitations, time, and available resources can be problematic (Basham & Marino, 2013). Additionally, the United States has a diverse student population and the instructional content does not reflect this (Hailey et al., 2005).

After conducting interviews with K-12 virtual educators, additional themes arose when asking about barriers to successful implementing. The themes included lack of funding, lack of accessibility to tangible objects, which would appear in a traditional science classroom, and teacher training. Additionally, an Florida Virtual School instructor stated, “The time demands placed on the teachers are strenuous. I am very busy answering my phone, calling all students every week, calling parents one time a month and then grading a barrage of assignments within 48 hours. I am not sure I would have the time to implement STEM activities even if I was able to” (J. Miller, personal communication, April 14, 2013). Educators realize the importance of STEM, but due to a lack of time and resources did not appear to feel a successful virtual STEM program is feasible at this time.

Real objects, or tangible objects, are an important part of the instructional process and allow learners to involve students in a hands-on process (Smaldino, Lowther, & Russell, 2012). One online instructor stated the lack of accessible tangible objects can take away the meaning from the lesson (A. Geeter, personal communication, April 19, 2013). Although some virtual programs deliver real objects to student homes, for STEM and the intensity of critical thinking, additional materials maybe needed.

Given the extent of content knowledge required, educators must have expertise in science, mathematics, and technology, as well as the pedagogical knowledge to be effective STEM teachers (Sanders, 2009). Few individuals are aware of what STEM is. Katehi, Pearson, and Feder (2009) noted the “E” in STEM is the least understood. If stakeholders are not aware of what the program is, buy-in can be difficult. However, most stakeholders involved have a general understanding of the meaning of STEM (Breiner et al., 2012).

Several methods for bridging the gap of inequitable course offerings for students may be by providing STEM educational programs through distance education. A Florida Virtual School school instructor stated that some of the barriers maybe minimized through training from professionals in the engineering fields. Additionally, having a blended program whereby the virtual instructors periodically meet with the STEM students (J. Reyes, personal communication, April 17, 2013). Universal design for learning can allow for varying learning styles and abilities to participate (Basham & Marino, 2013). Finally, there is the concept of virtual laboratories.

Because teachers are more familiar with the content they teach, personal professional development may not be geared toward understanding the between tech-nological content and technological pedagogy (Archambault & Crippen, 2009). Learning how to teach online is an “ongoing process” that includes the mastery of new skills (Ko & Rossen, 2010, p. 28). Addi-tionally, online teachers need to review, reflect, and evaluate the content of the course and the design of the course (Ko & Rossen, 2010).

Three areas need to be considered to plan training. These areas to consider

include, appropriateness of the training, competencies of the trainees, and what benefit does the training have to the overall organization (Morrison et al., 2011). Once teachers are able to analyze the learner's needs, then the professional development can be built aimed at achieving student success (Just & Thomas, 2011).

A blended or hybrid course has a combination of online and face-to-face delivery, meaning 30% to 79% of the course content is delivered through online delivery (Simonson et al., 2012). While some believe blended learning can be easier than full online teaching, some find blended learning is actually more difficult (Ko & Rossen, 2010). Blending learning is a compromise for most since it does not reject the values of teachers and students who believe a traditional brick and mortar institution is more effective (Moore, 2007).

Universal design for learning offers the opportunity for all levels of learners to participate by eliminating the one-size-fits-all approach (Center for Applied Special Technology, 2013). Universal design for learning uses both instructional practices and modern instruction, which includes the use of technology. The overall purpose of universal design for learning is to “enable each learner to actively engage in targeted learning, with a specific focus on making all learners “expert learners” (Basham & Marino, 2013).

Virtual laboratories, where students simulate a real laboratory, offer students the opportunity to apply theoretical knowledge into practical knowledge by conducting experiments (Woodfield, 2005). There are several advantages to utilizing a virtual laboratory compared to a traditional brick-and-mortar science lab. A virtual lab minimizes safety concerns, allows individuals with little or no experience to attempt labs who may normally have a lack of self-confidence, allows for labs where a lack of equipment can be an issue, and having additional time—no time lost for cleaning up (Tatli & Ayas, 2013).

Further research is required in order to understand the full-scale potential of STEM in K-12 virtual programs. Additional research is required to analyze the barriers for implementing STEM in a K-12 virtual learning environment and whether or not the barriers can be minimized. Several important questions must be addressed to the participants including “What is the knowledge of STEM?,” “Why is STEM important to K-12 education?,” and “What are the noticeable barriers for implementing a successful STEM program in K-12 virtual schools?” Researchers need to look at the infrastructure of the institution, stake-holder information, and the demand for STEM career placements in the geographical study area.

STEM is the new push so the United States can remain competitive with emerging countries in the field of engineering (Breiner et al., 2012). Limited research was located relating to the importance of STEM and the barriers for implementation. This article addressed what STEM is, why STEM is important, barriers for successful implementation in a virtual program, possible solutions based on virtual educator recommendations, as well as recommenda-tions for future research for the new phe-nomenon.

There are barriers for any new phenom-enon. The barriers existing for implementing a K-12 virtual STEM program are not much different from other educational entities. Budgets and funding, political implications, diversity, time, and available resources affect numerous facets of the economy in the United States. The key is preparing the current K-12 students with the tools necessary to pursue a desirable career field and helping to minimize the 400,000-job candidate shortage by the year 2015 and thereafter (Just & Thomas, 2011).

Education is commodity high in demand. Without education, individuals cannot be prepared for any job or career in the future (Ko & Rossen, 2010). Katehi et al. (2009) recommended K-12 education focus on engineering design and the acquisition of knowledge in mathematics, science, and technology. Morrison and Bartlett (2009) stated that STEM needs to be a unitary idea rather than just a grouping of the four academic disciplines. Regardless, there is a paradigm shift from compartmentalizing subjects to integrating these four disciplines (Breiner et al., 2012). If STEM is successfully implemented into the K-12 curriculum, more students will be exposed to the possibilities, thereby increasing the percentage of students who later pursue STEM subjects and STEM careers (Sanders, 2009).