A Study of Disposition, Engagement, Efficacy, and Vitality of Teachers in Designing Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education

Abstract

This study proposes and tests a theoretical model of how perceptions of disposition, engagement, and efficacy of teachers for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) e-learning can predict their sense of vitality when they designed STEM education. Upon the proposition, we developed and validated an instrument for examining the relationships between these variables. The participants were 122 secondary teachers of STEM education from Hong Kong. The instrument included four design aspects as follows: (i) disposition, (ii) lesson design engagement, (iii) efficacy for designing STEM e-learning, and (iv) vitality of teachers after attending a series of STEM professional development activities. To analyze the relationships among the variables, partial least squares structural equation modeling was employed. The disposition of teachers predicted lesson design engagement and both of these factors, in turn, predicted efficacy for designing STEM e-learning. In other words, if teachers have a high proposition toward designing learning activities, their engagement in the lesson design process may enhance their capacities in designing and implementing such activities. Also, the disposition of teachers and lesson design engagement predicted their vitality, revealing that well-suited STEM teachers should not only be able to design a STEM curriculum but also have a positive perception of STEM education.

Modeling Chinese Teachers’ Efficacies for the Teaching of Integrated STEM With Interdisciplinary Communication and Epistemic Fluency

“…More importantly, the SEM indicated that GE and EE are predictive of teachers’ EF and IC. This provides support for our hypotheses that EF and IC are more advanced forms of competencies based on previous studies ( Fackler et al, 2021 ; Lin et al, 2021 ; Pressley and Ha, 2021 ).…”

“…Overall, the SEM indicated that teachers’ self-efficacy in teaching (i.e., GE and EE) could be viewed as the foundations for the development of more advanced competencies. The inclusion of EF and IC implies the processes that teachers need to be engaged in, which current literature suggests to be involving teachers in a community of practice for interdisciplinary collaborative design ( Jho et al, 2016 ; Chai et al, 2020 ; Lin et al, 2021 ). With community-based professional development, teachers are likely to develop the competencies needed for iSTEM.…”

“…Teachers with higher self-efficacy believe that they are able to use effective instructional strategies and engage students in learning ( Tschannen-Moran et al, 1998 ; Künsting et al, 2016 ; Fackler et al, 2021 ). Previous studies have also indicated that teachers’ self-efficacy is related to the generation of new teaching ideas ( Ross and Bruce, 2007 ; Lin et al, 2021 ), implementation of alternative teaching strategies to address students’ needs ( Fackler et al, 2021 ; Pressley and Ha, 2021 ), greater efforts to foster thinking skills (e.g., creative thinking and critical thinking), and motivating students ( Dilekli and Tezci, 2016 ; Burić and Kim, 2020 ). Thus, this study considers teachers’ self-efficacy as being related to their general teaching effectiveness and student engagement.…”

“…Teachers’ efficacy for designing integrated and interdisciplinary STEM learning has been examined ( DeCoito and Myszkal, 2018 ; Chai, 2019 ; Pressley and Ha, 2021 ). These studies also indicated that teachers’ efficacy for designing STEM learning is associated with their disposition toward designing STEM learning activities and participating in designing STEM activities ( DeCoito and Myszkal, 2018 ; Lin et al, 2021 ). Nonetheless, the specific capacities contributing to integrated STEM lesson designs need further exploration ( Chai, 2019 ).…”

Creative methods in STEM for secondary school students: Systematic literature review

“…From twentytwo articles chosen, seventeen articles (77%) used qualitative approach in existing literature of creative thinking. Obviously, qualitative approach has dominated the design used in existing literature of creative thinking where it is used most frequently (Attard et al, 2021;Beswick & Fraser, 2019;Chen & Lin, 2019;Chu et al, 2019;Contradty & Bogner, 2020;Diego-Mantecon et al, 2021;Harris & de Bruin, 2018;Kaspersen & Ytterhaug, 2020;Leung, 2018;Lin et al, 2021;Morrison et al, 2021;Nasri et al, 2020;Robinson et al, 2021;Sutaphan & Yuenyong, 2019;Vale et al, 2020;Vossen et al, 2020;Wang et al, 2020). Last but not least, only a few studies used quantitative approach where only five articles (23%) in existing literature of creative thinking.…”