You are here:

Assessing Elementary In-Service Teachers’ STEM-Centric Lesson Plans


Journal of STEM Education Volume 19, Number 2, ISSN 1557-5284 Publisher: Laboratory for Innovative Technology in Engineering Education (LITEE)


National and state-based science and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) initiatives expect educators to incorporate inquiry- and design-based practices into their STEM-centric lesson planning. While this is a new expectation and may be a challenge for all, it is an even more prohibitive barrier for elementary teachers who often find STEM outside of their comfort zones. Graduate coursework sensitive and attentive to elementary teachers\u2019 needs is essential to prepare teachers for these instructional demands. The Elementary STEM Instructional Leadership (ESIL) graduate program at McDaniel College, a small, liberal arts school in Maryland, developed such a program in conjunction with Carroll County Public Schools and the National Institute of Aerospace. The pilot cohort of elementary teachers for the ESIL program was the audience for this quantitative study. Lesson plans developed by this cohort were assessed to gauge the teachers\u2019 proficiencies in planning STEM-centric lessons. A proportion of agreement consensus and test of hypothetical value provided results that suggest that the sample population demonstrated proficient planning abilities for targeted standards. Findings from this research not only add to the field\u2019s knowledge of elements in the promotion of graduate coursework that leads to elementary in-service teachers\u2019 proficiency in planning STEM-centric lessons, but also have broader implications for teacher education at large. The McDaniel College ESIL model could frame flexible K-12 teacher education as it promotes analytical thinking and self-reflection.


Bowers, S. & Ernst, J. (2018). Assessing Elementary In-Service Teachers’ STEM-Centric Lesson Plans. Journal of STEM Education, 19(2),. Laboratory for Innovative Technology in Engineering Education (LITEE). Retrieved March 26, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Almendarez-Cadena, S. (2014). A hybrid model of professional development for high school teachers (Doctoral
  2. Banilower, E.R., Gess-Newsome, J., & Tippins, D. (2014). Supporting the implementation of ngss through research: Professional development. National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
  3. Capobianco, B.M. & Rupp, M. (2014). STEM Teachers’ Planned and Enacted Attempts at Implementing Engineering Design-Based Instruction. School Science and Mathematics, 114(6), 258-270.
  4. Chai, C.S., Teo, T., & Lee, C.B. (2009). The change in epistemological beliefs and beliefs about teaching and learning: A study among pre-service teachers. AsiaPacific Journal of Teacher Education, 37(4), 351-362.
  5. Cunningham, C.M., & Carlsen, W.S. (2014). Teaching engineering practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(22), 197-210.
  6. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
  7. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1-44.
  8. Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R.C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council. Retrieved January 26, 2011, from NSDCstudy2009.pdf Education Press.
  9. Segedin, L., Ernst, J.V. & Clark, A.C. (2013). Transforming teaching through implementing inquiry: A national board-aligned professional development system.
  10. Zepeda, S.J. (2012). Professional development: What works. Larchmont, NY: Eyes on Education, Inc.
  11. Zepeda, S.J. (2015). Job-embedded professional development. New York, NY: Routledge. Dede, C., Ketelhut, D.J., Whitehouse, P., Breit, L., & McCloskey,
  12. E.M. (2009). A research agenda for online teacher professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 8-19.
  13. Duschl, R.A., Shouse, A.W., & Schweingruber, H.A.(2008). What research says about K-8 science learning and teaching. Education Digest, 73(8), 46-50.
  14. Epstein, D., & Miller, R.T. (2011). Slow off the mark: elementary school teachers and the crisis in stem education. The Education Digest, 4-10. Retrieved from
  15. Ernst, J.V., Segedin, L., Clark, A.C., & DeLuca, V.W. (2014). Technology, engineering, and design educator professional development system implementation:
  16. Fleiss, J.L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 37382.
  17. Garet, M.S., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L., Birman, B.F., & Yoon, K.S. (2001). What makes professional development effective: Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
  18. Guskey, T.R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 8(3/4), 381-391.
  19. Haney, J.J., & Lumpe, A.T. (1995). A teacher professional development framework guided by reform policies, teachers’ needs, and research. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6(4), 187-196.
  20. Knowles, M.S., Holton, E.F., & Swanson, R.A. (1998). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (5th ed.). Woburn: Butterworth-Heinemann.
  21. Learning Forward. (2015). Definition of professional development. Retrieved from http://learningforward.
  22. Maki, P.L. (2010). Assessing for learning: Building a sustainable commitment across the institution. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
  23. Maryland State Department of Education. (2012). STEM education definition. Maryland STATE STEM Standards of Practice. Baltimore, MD.
  24. Maryland State Department of Education. (2014). Maryland institutional performance criteria based on the redesign of teacher education. Annapolis, MD.
  25. McDaniel College. (2015). Elementary STEM education program description. Westminster, MD. McDaniel College. (2015b). Key assessment 3: Assessment of competence in planning. Westminster, MD. Michaels, S., Shouse, A.W., & Schweingruber, H.A. (2008). Ready, set, science! Putting research to work in K-8 science classrooms. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  26. National Science Teachers Association (2014). NGSS@ NSTA. Retrieved from Aspx
  27. National Research Council. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  28. National Research Council (2015). Guide to implementing the next generation science standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  29. National Staff Development Council. (2001). NSDC standards for staff development. Retrieved February 2, 2004, from Cfm.
  30. Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317328.
  31. Posnanski, T.J. (2002). Professional development programs for elementary science teachers: An analysis of teacher self-efficacy beliefs and a professional development model. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(2), 189-220.
  32. Pruitt, S.L. (2014). The next generation science standards: The features and challenges. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 145-156.
  33. Robelen, E.W. (2010). Panel moves toward ‘next generation’ science standards. Education Digest, 76(2), 32-33.
  34. Rogers, E.M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations. (4th ed., pp. 35-70). New York: The Free Press. And Theses

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact