Exploring Advocacy Self-efficacy Among K-12 STEM Teacher Leaders

Abstract

Advocacy is an emergent dimension of teacher leadership, given its growing importance in shaping policy and facilitating reform efforts in American K-12 education. In 2014, the National Academies called for advancing advocacy-based activities and leadership among K-12 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) teachers, who are presently understudied. The purpose of this embedded single-case case study was to explore STEM teachers’ development of self-efficacy in advocacy for STEM education. Contextualizing the case, participants consisted of 11 STEM teacher leaders who were part of the STEM Teacher Ambassadors (STA) program, a year-long advocacy-focused leadership development fellowship program, jointly sponsored by the National Science Teaching Association and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Employing case study research methodology, primary data were collected using semi-structured interviews, while secondary data were sourced via focus group interview and documents to triangulate interview data. Utterances (i.e., participant statements, groups of statements, or segments of statements) from transcribed data were coded a priori and analyzed via four constructs of self-efficacy theory: enactive master experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal. Results revealed 157 utterances coded to self-efficacy building within STEM education advocacy. Findings suggest that STEM teacher leaders’ participation in professional development programs that specifically focus on development of policy knowledge and advocacy activities help to develop and sustain STEM teacher leaders’ advocacy self-efficacy, given that participating teachers have numerous opportunities to fully engage in mastery experiences in STEM education advocacy. Implications and recommendations for policy and suggestions for further studies are discussed.

Divining the professional development experiences of K-12 STEM master teacher leaders in the United States

“…Their lived experiences offer examples to how STEM teachers have thrived in the profession despite an abject lack of national and institutional supports. Hence, research on this population of nationally recognised STEM teachers, at the pinnacle of their professional performance, offers insights into what a PD system should provide and when to support STEM master teacher leader development (Galosy et al 2017, Velasco et al 2021.…”

Integrated professional development for mathematics teachers: A systematic review

“…Out of the 20 articles, 12 utilized the workshop design type, which was the most often implemented for STEM professional programs. According to Velasco et al (2022), STEM professional programs conducted as workshops can impart direct experience to teachers and promote hands-on learning through exposure to STEM educational activities that support teaching in the classroom. Along the same line, Berisha and Vula (2021) argued that the design of professional development programs should be appropriate, focused, and geared toward developing teachers' knowledge and skills in STEM integration, as many teachers still lack the pedagogical knowledge and skills needed to integrate STEM into the classroom.…”

“…Such programs are essential for improving teachers' knowledge of the content, pedagogical knowledge, and understanding of changes in the educational system (Brown & Bogiages, 2017;Nesmith & Cooper, 2019). Currently, the educational system's goal tends to focus on student engagement in STEM-related learning and activities, which in turn increases their interest in STEM-related career paths (Velasco et al, 2022), and teachers must understand how to encourage such engagement. In addition, teacher professional programs can increase the competence of the teachers and further the development of the teaching profession (Thomson et al, 2020).…”

“…Factors involving the teacher that influence the effectiveness of professional programs for STEM education have been discussed in numerous studies (e.g., Mohammad Hasim et al, 2022;Owens et al, 2019;Thibaut et al, 2018;Velasco et al, 2022). Researchers have noted some of these important factors, such as teacher involvement and motivation (Maass & Engeln, 2019;Saadati et al, 2021;Velasco et al, 2022), teacher commitment during activities (Al Salami et al, 2015;Owens et al, 2019;Thomson et al, 2020), teacher attitudes during and after professional programs (Aldahmash et al, 2019;Chai et al, 2020;Gardner et al, 2019), and teachers' self-efficacy regarding their ability to implement teaching based on knowledge and skills learned during a professional program (Aguirre-Muñoz & Pando, 2021;Al Salami et al, 2015;Nesmith & Cooper, 2019), but this list is not all-inclusive. In addition, the designed activities implemented during STEM professional programs must improve self-efficacy and teaching practices and support teachers' ability to integrate 228 STEM education in line with the goals of the curriculum.…”

Research on English Learners’ Self-efficacy in Rural Junior High Schools from the Perspective of Rural Revitalization

“…For example, Taylor, a foreign scholar in the field of learners' self-efficacy, insisted that career decision-making self-efficacy (CDMSE) was found to be moderately and negatively related to vocational indecision and locus of control whereas a moderate positive relationship was found between CDMSE and vocational decidedness and occupational self-efficacy (Taylor, 1999). At the same time, Richard, another researcher abroad who explored advocacy self-efficacy among K-12 STEM teacher leaders has drew a conclusion that STEM teacher leaders' participation in professional development programs that specifically focus on development of policy knowledge and advocacy activities help to develop and sustain STEM teacher leaders' advocacy self-efficacy, given that participating teachers have numerous opportunities to fully engage in mastery experiences in STEM education advocacy (Richard, 2021). Jeffrey, who fixed his eyes on cognitive modeling and self-efficacy, and has emphasized and highlighted that the cognitive modeling groups made more references to teacher activity, and the self-efficacy groups made more references to student activity in their protocols (Jeffrey, 1990).…”