Creative approaches for 21st‐century Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics teacher education: From theory to practice to policy

This special issue addresses two crucial questions that teacher educators have been grappling with for nearly half a century: What qualities, attitudes, and skills should be nurtured in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) teachers during their education (Ben-David Kolikant et al., 2020a, 2020b)? Additionally, how can we effectively connect research, practice, and policy in STEM teacher education to incorporate innovative 21st-century approaches? The authors contributing to this special issue aimed to explore creative strategies and programs for STEM teacher preparation and professional development, made possible by the advancements in educational technology, STEM education research, and our evolving understanding of student engagement in STEM learning. In the early stages (2009 to 2014), the subjects of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics played a dominant role, and these subjects were considered to be the core of STEM education. Over time, science subjects such as computer science, arts, physics, and environmental science were gradually incorporated into the STEM education integration pathway. In the post-2019 period, more and more research has emerged in the humanities and social sciences. Future work should prioritize the articulation of STEM subject integration between K-12 education and higher education. At the K-12 level, it is necessary to enhance vocational education appropriately, while in higher education, reducing the attrition rate of STEM majors may become a crucial issue. Additionally, attention to multi-discipline teacher collaboration and professional development, high-quality curricula design, and regional policy support should continue to be emphasized. However, achieving these goals means overcoming the challenges, such as (a) breaking away from subject silos to recognize interconnections between STEM fields; (b) collaborating with colleagues across diverse disciplines; (c) developing authentic curricula that seamlessly integrate elements from various STEM areas; (d) understanding and incorporating different epistemologies into teaching practices; (e) encouraging divergent thinking among students; (f) increasing awareness among policymakers; and (g) ensuring funds for new initiatives. Despite the growing interest in STEM education, teacher preparation and professional development remain compartmentalized, leaving many educators with limited training in different STEM subjects and their effective integration (Krushelnycky & Karrow, in this volume). As a result, the implementation of STEM courses and curricula varies significantly worldwide, reflecting different national and local education policies. Consequently, teacher education programs and school curricula differ in their approach to integrating STEM disciplines: Some follow a more traditional model, offering separate courses for each subject—often referred to as the ‘S.T.E.M. approach’. In contrast, others adopt multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, or transdisciplinary methods, enabling students to draw on knowledge and skills from multiple disciplines to tackle real-world problems (Martinovic & Milner-Bolotin, 2022). This variation highlights the complexity and challenges of embedding STEM education within existing educational frameworks. While it is evident that nations need ‘teachers and educators who are able to successfully teach foundational STEM knowledge and skills in an integrated and inspirational manner’ (Siekmann, 2016, p. 3), achieving this goal is far from simple. It is even more challenging to ensure that new STEM curricula are built on a solid foundation of subject-matter knowledge and grounded in STEM education research (Milner-Bolotin, 2018a). Consequently, teachers and teacher educators across the globe face significant pressure as they navigate these largely uncharted waters. In the last few years, we explored five distinct models for designing integrated STEM education (Martinovic & Milner-Bolotin, 2022). We concluded that ‘to integrate STEM fields effectively, teachers should experience STEM education as learners’ (p. 154). Teacher education is uniquely positioned to provide a space where STEM content, epistemologies, and pedagogies can be learned, compared, and practiced within a cohesive framework. Berlin and White (2010, 2012) found that integrating disciplines tends to appeal more to inexperienced educators, such as preservice or novice teachers, than to veteran practitioners. They suggested that effective integration can be modeled for preservice teachers by explicitly linking concepts across subjects, such as connecting ‘the mathematical mean of a distribution, the scientific concept of the fulcrum, and the [engineering] design of a playground teeter-totter or seesaw’ (Berlin & White, 2012, p. 112). Developing a deep understanding of STEM and the ability to make connections across its subfields can be daunting for both teacher educators and teachers. However, Michael Marder (2013) encourages educators to ‘approach STEM more as an opportunity than a threat […; to] identify a common core of scientific practices that integrate science, mathematics, engineering, and technology, and make this core a goal for every educated citizen’ (p. 150). Realizing this vision necessitates collaboration among all stakeholders, including STEM instructors, teacher educators, subject matter experts, and policymakers. A critical step in this process is reaching a consensus on what integrated STEM, or its common core, entails, as there is no universal agreement on the definition or scope of STEM education (Ben-David Kolikant et al., 2020a; Martinovic et al., 2019; Martinovic & Milner-Bolotin, 2022). As researchers and teacher educators, we were aware that STEM content, pedagogies, and epistemologies form the foundation of STEM teacher education, whereas school practicums allow preservice teachers to apply these theoretical foundations in practice. Our examination of the overlap among K-12 STEM curricula, teacher education, and education in STEM disciplines revealed that modeling is central to effective integration (Martinovic & Milner-Bolotin, 2021, figure 3, p. 291) and that it presents a key pedagogy rooted in STEM disciplines. Consequently, we developed an educational framework for modeling in STEM (Martinovic & Milner-Bolotin, 2021, Table 3, p. 293), which outlines how modeling can be implemented in STEM teacher education and in-service professional learning. This framework emphasizes student responsibility for learning, with teachers initially providing more guidance to ensure meaningful engagement at all stages. It serves as a valuable resource for teacher educators, teachers, researchers, and policymakers engaged in STEM fields. In Martinovic et al. (2019), we identified three challenges that teachers of STEM subjects face in both their preparation and practice. These challenges include (a) a growing dissatisfaction from the public and governments with the quality of mathematics and science education in public schools, leading to frequent curricular reforms; (b) decreasing support from families as students progress to higher grade levels; and (c) the growing expectation that teachers trained in one STEM discipline should be capable of teaching other STEM subjects, further adding to the demands of an already challenging profession. As government expectations continue to rise, while funding for STEM programs remains constrained, schools are often compelled to innovate within limited resources (Xu et al.’s paper, this volume). Faculties of education face even harsher constraints, frequently hampered by internal conflicts over ideologies, goals, and interdepartmental policies. While funded research can support the experimentation and evaluation of new ideas, there is often a considerable delay between the piloting of initiatives and their influence on educational practice and policy. Given the widespread challenges across different geographies and educational systems, sharing creative approaches to STEM education, teacher preparation, and professional development is invaluable. Many of these approaches leverage modern educational technologies and innovative methods of teacher engagement, such as online programs for teacher professional development (Saville et al., 2024), incorporation of smartphone application in STEM to conduct authentic research, and the use of novel technologies to promote creativity in STEM education (Milner-Bolotin, 2018b; Milner-Bolotin & Milner, 2023b). Successful models of STEM teacher education, their definitions of success, and adaptability for international contexts. Effective inter or multidisciplinary education models that could enhance STEM teacher education. Necessary skills and competencies for teachers across various educational levels (elementary to postsecondary) for effective STEM curriculum implementation. Research methodologies for exploring content, curriculum, and pedagogy in STEM teacher education. The impact of contemporary technology (e.g., AI, smartphone applications) on global STEM teacher education. The implications of having STEM specialists versus content-specific educators who engage in interdisciplinary collaboration. Comparison of courses taught by STEM-focused educators versus generalists on teacher education outcomes. Visions for the future of STEM teacher education, including research and policy initiatives. The contributions in this issue underscore the critical need for collaboration between educators, policymakers, and researchers to address the ongoing challenges in STEM education (Milner-Bolotin, 2011; Milner-Bolotin et al., 2019). The papers in the issue also highlight the role of technology in addressing the challenges of STEM education, particularly in increasing student engagement and providing opportunities for hands-on STEM learning to students in schools with limited access to science equipment and STEM expertise. In their paper ‘Increasing student science, technology, engineering and mathematics engagement through Phyphox activities: Three practical examples’, the authors describe how creative use of students' smartphones in the classroom can turn a ‘traditional physics classroom’ into an inquiry-based lab that promotes the development of 21st-century skills through modeling of authentic data generated by the students in their own inquiry project. The authors describe the use of a freely available Phyphox app in secondary and postsecondary STEM classrooms, in teacher education, as well as during the University of British Columbia Physics Olympics outreach event (Milner-Bolotin et al., 2019; Milner-Bolotin & Milner, 2023a). While the paper offers multiple pedagogical opportunities for incorporating smartphones in STEM education, it also underscores the importance of teacher professional development and collaboration. In the following paper ‘Investigating pedagogical opportunities of educational technologies in developing countries: Physics Education Technology workshops for Bangladeshi science, technology, engineering and mathematics teachers’, Mohosina Toma and her colleagues highlight how access to research-based STEM education tools, such as PhET simulations (Wieman et al., 2010), is still insufficient to encourage teachers to use them. The authors describe a series of professional development workshops for Bangladeshi teachers that aimed at supporting teachers' adoption of virtual labs utilizing PhET simulations. The researchers underscored that the access to these tools does not necessarily imply that teachers will use them in the classes and investigated the barriers and opportunities of PhET implementation by STEM teachers from developing countries. The next paper, titled ‘Unleashing creativity in STEM teacher education through scripting task pedagogy’, focuses not on the new tools in STEM education but on the new scripting task pedagogy (Zazkis & Herbst, 2018) approach for STEM teacher education. The scriptwriting tasks described in this paper ask future STEM teachers to create imaginary dialogs addressing specific pedagogical challenges, such as conceptual difficulties, misconceptions, or unexpected questions that might arise during instruction. This paper highlights three issues: (a) nurturing creativity in STEM educators does not necessarily require new tools but new approaches to teacher education and professional development; (b) pedagogical creativity in STEM teachers should be nurtured from their time in teacher education; and (c) scriptwriting encourages educators to connect research with their practice in a supportive way, thus reducing the barriers to implementing novel pedagogies in their classrooms. The paper, ‘Expanding Teacher's technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge with funds of knowledge: An exploratory STEM professional development model using video creation workshops’, by Tembrevilla et al. examines how modern technology can serve as a catalyst for professional growth of rural teachers in developing countries, drawing on their cultural and science knowledge. The paper emphasizes that technology such as video creation tools coupled with smartphones can help turn STEM teachers into active designers of novel pedagogical approaches. In this process, they expand their pedagogical content knowledge, as well as gain ownership of innovative pedagogical approaches (Shulman, 1986). Experienced educators possess unique knowledge that is not only culturally relevant but also draws on their knowledge of their own students. While the research in this paper is situated in the rural schools of the Philippines, the findings and approaches might be relevant to other schools as well. The paper, ‘Understanding the perspectives of a teacher educator and pre-service teachers toward an immersive STEM experience’, by Nash et al. describes a course provided to Australian preservice teachers intended to enrich their understanding of the STEM disciplines and prepare them as advocates for STEM education in their future classrooms. The course was conducted over 5 weeks in 6-h blocks offering hands-on activities, real-world applications, and enriching field trips (i.e., immersive approach) on topics related to cities of the future, biodiversity, and sustainable water practices. The instructor chose to engage preservice teachers with a small number of STEM education experiences at depth (i.e., intensive approach). The authors explore how this method can help to mold personal identities by merging generalist teaching roles with specialized skills in STEM education. Solano and Ramanathan's paper, ‘Bridging the gap in early career teachers' STEM pedagogy: Exploring micro-credentials as a possible creative solution’, describes a project conducted in the USA. Their participants were 36 preservice elementary school teachers and early in-service teachers who were also completing a master's degree in educational technology. The participants revealed that their formal teacher education did not offer opportunities for developing integrated STEM experiences. Although they preferred to attend short and purposeful in-person professional development, they also expressed interest in attending online or blended micro-credential courses, as cost-effective, personalized, and competency-based way to increase their STEM teaching skills. Xu et al.’s paper, ‘Horticulture in education: A comprehensive insight into school gardening’, explores the benefits and challenges schools encounter when introducing gardening as a STEM learning opportunity. The authors' extensive literature review allows for the comparison between initiatives to apply school gardens in different regions across the globe, and in particular, in China. They also provide experience of Chinese schools in this regard. Among other practical recommendations to those who would like to implement school garden programs, of particular interest for this issue are suggestions to cover the school gardens in teacher education and professional development initiatives. In their paper, ‘Science, technology, engineering, & mathematics, curricular integration, and the story form’, Krushelnycky and Karrow argue that Egan's Story Form Model may be a useful approach in generalist preservice STEM education. They base this argument on the years in which they introduced their elementary preservice generalist teachers to STEM curriculum integration. The authors use the story form model as a hook for their students, the one that provides entry points for all, followed by steps that ensure faithfulness to this method, and ways in which to present scientific (i.e., STEM) topics in the more personalized, emotional, and imaginative ways. The paper, ‘Cultivating STEAM teachers: A regional resource-based model for normal university students in Chongqing’, by Lin and Li proposes a three-tiered STEAM teacher training model that leverages regional resources. At the macro level, it promotes collaboration among government entities, educational institutions, businesses, and the community. At the meso level, it offers a comprehensive four-year curriculum aimed at enhancing preservice teachers' interdisciplinary thinking and pedagogical skills. At the micro level, it investigates effective teaching methods for implementing STEAM projects in real-world contexts. The model seeks to cultivate STEAM competencies among preservice teachers by utilizing local resources within a collaborative educational framework. Initial results from the pilot implementation show an increase in both confidence and competence in integrating STEAM concepts into their teaching practices. In ‘Good Luck, Have Fun: The Need for Video Game Pedagogy in Teacher Education’, Richardson analyzes data from a case study involving elementary preservice teachers enrolled in a science education course at an Ontario university. The study aimed to explore how video games can be utilized as learning tools in teacher education programs, the impact of integrating video games into a science education class on preservice teachers' intentions and understanding of using video games in their future classrooms, and how preservice teachers can be effectively supported in recognizing the potential of video games as educational resources. The findings indicate that video games act as catalysts for learning, enabling preservice teachers to collaboratively engage with STEM concepts. They are encouraged to reflect—both during and after gameplay—on how these games can be applied in their future teaching. This study offers valuable insights for teacher educators on leveraging video games to enhance preservice teachers' efficacy in STEM education. The contributions to this issue highlight that ‘there [is no] one way to ‘do STEM’ (Dare & Ring-Whalen, 2021, Facilitator Reflections on Activities, Para. 1). Instead, they showcase a variety of creative approaches to effective STEM education, offering valuable support for 21-st century teachers and students worldwide. Moreover, the diverse perspectives and approaches presented in this special issue underscore the tensions between training STEM teachers versus specialists in individual STEM disciplines. The papers emphasize the necessity for a well-informed, research-based policy for STEM teacher education. With the rapid advancement of technologies, including modern AI tools (Bayly-Castaneda et al., 2024; Ogunleye et al., 2024a, 2024b; Pesovski et al., 2024), STEM teachers will encounter unprecedented opportunities to broaden their knowledge across various STEM fields. Concurrently, they will face the challenge of guiding students in evaluating the credibility, accuracy, and appropriateness of AI-generated content. While this topic is of great significance to STEM educators, it currently falls outside the primary scope of this special issue. We encourage readers to explore the diverse perspectives offered in this issue and to consider how these ideas might be applied in their own classrooms or research. As STEM education continues to evolve, the need for ongoing innovation and collaboration will remain. We hope this issue will offer valuable and insights for STEM teacher educators, teachers, and educational to STEM education in the K-12 while teachers to tackle ongoing and future teacher preparation and professional development, we to educators to adopt approaches to STEM that students for the demands of the As we it is crucial to expand the of STEM education. innovative teaching strategies and novel technologies, while interdisciplinary we can the next with the skills and knowledge to in an and The authors no conflicts of Milner-Bolotin is a in science education at the of Education at the University of British With a for and critical in science and mathematics education, teacher preparation, and the integration of innovative technologies to enhance science and mathematics learning. A Milner-Bolotin is to the next of educators and K-12 and postsecondary students to engage with science and is also in outreach such as the Physics Olympics and and in the has been an active of the British Columbia of Physics for more than Martinovic is a of Mathematics Education at the University of is a of the for Research in where as of the for Mathematics Education from to Additionally, is a of The and a of the series Mathematics Education in the Martinovic to the by on the of series and

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.