You are here:

Technology-Supported Science Instruction Through Integrated STEM Guitar Building: The Case for STEM and Non-STEM Instructor Success

, San Diego State University, United States ; , Wilkes University, United States

CITE Journal Volume 17, Number 4, ISSN 1528-5804 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA


With a national emphasis on integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education in K-16 courses, incorporating technology in a meaningful way is critical. This research examines whether STEM and non-STEM teachers were able to incorporate technology in STEM courses successfully with sufficient professional development. The teachers in this study consisted of faculty from middle schools, high schools, and colleges recruited for STEM Guitar Building institutes held between 2013 and 2016. Each teacher participated in a 50-hour professional development opportunity in the manufacture of a solid-body electric guitar and received instruction on how to teach integrated STEM Modular Learning Activities (MLAs), which are aligned with the Common Core mathematics standards and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). The data collected include pre- and postassessment from 769 students in three grade bands (grades 6-8, 9-12, and undergraduate level from 15 states). The results showed statistically significant gains at the p < 0.05 level across all 12 of the core MLAs, with no statistically significant difference between STEM and non-STEM instructors for all except two MLAs. The two MLAs that did reveal a statistically significant difference were more technical—Set Up and Computer Aided Design/Computer Aided Manufacturing Systems (CAD/CAM). These results show non-STEM and STEM teachers alike in this study were able to successfully incorporate technology in NGSS-aligned integrated STEM lessons, as evidenced by student learning gains.


Hauze, S. & French, D. (2017). Technology-Supported Science Instruction Through Integrated STEM Guitar Building: The Case for STEM and Non-STEM Instructor Success. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 17(4), 483-503. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved March 26, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Atkinson, R. (2013). A short and long-term solution to America’s STEM crisis [Weblog post]. Retrieved from
  2. Bernstein, R., & Bernstein M. (2011). Turning STEM into STREAM: Writing as an essential component of science education. Retrieved from the National Writing Project website:
  3. Burrows, A.C., Borowczak, M., Slater, T.F., & Haynes, J.C. (2012). Teaching computer science and engineering through robotics: Science and art form. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 47, 6-15.
  4. Burrows, A., & Slater, T. (2015). A proposed integrated STEM framework for contemporary teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Practice, 28(2-3), 318-330.
  5. Casner-Lotto, J., & Barrington, L. (2006). Are they really ready to work: Employers perspectives on the knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century U.S. Workforce. Washington, DC: Partnership for 21st Century Skills.
  6. Frase, K.G., Latanision, R.M., Pearson, G. (2016). Committee on engineering technology education in the United States. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 497
  7. Hauze, S., French, D., Castaneda-Emenaker, I., French, M., & Singer, T. (2017, January). Quantifying K-12 and college student learning outcomes of STEM guitar building. Paper presented at the IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC), Princeton, NJ.
  8. Heitin, L. (2012). Project-based learning helps at-risk students. Education Week, 31(29), 1-6.
  9. Hmelo-Silver, C.E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-265.
  10. Hodges, C.B., Gale, J., & Meng, A. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy during the implementation of a problem-based science curriculum. Contemporary Issues in Technology& Teacher Education, 16(4), 434-451. Retrieved from DASHDASH
  11. Jones, G.M., & Leagon, M. (2014). Science teacher attitudes and beliefs: Reforming practice. In N.G. Lederman& S.K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2; pp. 830-847). New York, NY: Routledge.
  12. Kelly, B. (2012, April 27). What STEM is—and why we care [Weblog post]. Retrieved from
  13. Koro-Ljungberg, M., Yendol-Hoppey, D., Smith, J.J., & Hayes, S.B. (2009). (E)pistemological awareness, instantiation of methods, and uninformed methodological ambiguity in qualitative research projects. Educational Researcher, 38(9), 687-699.
  14. Kuenzi, J.J. (2008). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: Background, federal policy, and legislative action. Congressional Research Services Reports, 35.
  15. Litowitz, L.S. (2014). A curricular analysis of undergraduate technology& Engineering teacher preparation programs in the United States. Journal of Technology Education, 25(2), 73-84.
  16. Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K.E., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. (2010). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics, third edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
  17. Mossuto, M. (2009). Problem-based learning: Student engagement, learning and contextualized problem-solving. Adelaide, AU: National Centre for Vocational Education Research.
  18. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D.C: The National Academies Press. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 17(4)
  19. National Science Board. (2006). America's pressing challenge— Building a stronger foundation. A companion to Science and Engineering Indicators 2006, 1, Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED490850)
  20. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  21. Tseng, K-H., Chang, C-C., Lou, S-J., Chen, W-P. (2013). Attitudes towards science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in a project-based learning (PjBL) environment. International Journal of Technology& Design Education, 23(1), 87-102.
  22. Wei, R.C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andrew, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the U.S. And abroad. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education is an online journal. All text, tables, and figures in the print version of this article are exact representations of the original. However, the original article may also include video and audio files, which can be accessed online at

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