Educator Edition

2012 National Survey on STEM Education

Written and Published By:

Interactive Educational Systems Design, Inc. [email protected]

In Collaboration with

Daylene Long and Scott Long STEM Market Impact, LLC [email protected]

Sponsored by: Learning.com

About the Educator Edition This Educator Edition is sponsored by Learning.com, an industry leader in proven content, powerful tools, and practical services for developing 21st century learners. Learning.com’s flexible STEM solutions engage students with project-based learning and higher-order problem-solving skills education, and empower teachers and administrators with customized implmentation, tools, and support. Whether you are new to STEM or a seasoned veteran, our professional services team makes it easy to assess your needs, leverage your existing resources, and pinpoint the right tools you need to get you where you want to go. We’ll be there every step of the way with professional development and support to ensure that your STEM programs are a success. Please visit www.learning.com/gostem for more information, or call 877-284-0160 to speak with an expert.

Permitted Use, Limitations on Use You may access and download the 2012 National Survey on STEM Report—the Educator Edition, retaining all copyright and other notices as they appear within the report. Usage Rights for the Educator Edition of the 2012 STEM Report You may print copies of the STEM Report to share with other educators, retaining all notices as they appear within the report. Usage Restrictions for the Educator Edition of the 2012 STEM Report You may not republish all or part of the Report or distribute the Educator Edition electronically. Also, you may not post the STEM Report to be downloaded or read by the public via the Internet. If you would like to refer other educators to the report, please direct them to http://www.learning.com/stem/2012-stem-report/

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved Co-developed and distributed by STEM Market Impact, LLC at www.stemreports.com, [email protected]

2012 National Survey on STEM Education Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 3 Key Findings .........................................................................................................................................................3 Most Important Challenges Facing STEM Education ..................................................................................4 STEM Integration: Currently and in the Next 1-3 Years ..........................................................................5 STEM Courses Offered Currently and Likely to Be Implemented in the Next 1-3 Years ...............6 Bring-Your-Own-Device (BYOD) Model Implementation: Current and in the Next 1-3 Years ....7 Educator Suggestions for STEM Technology Products..............................................................................8 Tablet Devices.....................................................................................................................................................8 Non-Profit Organizations Identified as Providing the Most Valuable Products/Services for STEM Education ...................................................................................................................................9 Projections of Teacher Professional Development (PD) Activity for STEM Education.....................9 STEM Professional Development (PD) Judged Most Helpful to Educators ..........................................9

Findings in Detail ........................................................................................................... 10 Respondents’ Roles in Science/STEM Education...................................................................................... 10 Education Levels for Which Respondents Were Responsible.............................................................. 11 Most Important Challenges Facing STEM Education ............................................................................... 12 Implementation of STEM Education ............................................................................................................ 14 Likelihood of Integrating STEM in the Next 1-3 Years........................................................................... 17 STEM Courses Offered Currently and Likely to Be Implemented in the Next 1-3 Years………20 Implementation of Bring-Your-Own-Device (BYOD) Model ............................................................... 21 Likelihood of Implementing Bring-Your-Own-Device (BYOD) Model in the Next 1-3 Years..... 22 Educator Suggestions for STEM Technology Products........................................................................... 24 Adoption of Tablet Devices .......................................................................................................................... 25 Choice of Tablet Device ................................................................................................................................ 27 Barriers to iPad/Tablet Adoption ................................................................................................................ 29 Non-Profit Organizations Identified as Providing the Most Valuable Products/Services for STEM Education ................................................................................................................................ 31 Projections of Teacher Professional Development (PD) Activity for STEM Education.................. 33 STEM Professional Development (PD) Judged Most Helpful to Educators ....................................... 36

Appendix ............................................................................................................................. 38

INTRODUCTION In this report, Interactive Educational Systems Design (IESD), Inc., in collaboration with STEM Market Impact, LLC, summarizes the findings from an online survey conducted during December 2011. This survey of K-12 district and school STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) leaders and educators focused on the following:  The most important challenges facing STEM education  Implementation of STEM education and types of STEM courses offered, currently and in the near future  Funding and spending on STEM  Implementation of the bring-your-own-device (BYOD) model, currently and in the near future  Suggestions for technology-based products educators would like to see developed for STEM education  Adoption of tablet devices currently and in the near future, and perspectives on tablet devices  Non-profit organizations identified as providing the most valuable products and services for STEM education  Projections of teacher professional development activity for 2012-2013 and STEM PD that would be most helpful to educators, including the projected importance of PD about the Next Generation of Science Standards.

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

1

This national survey is the third in a series of annual online surveys conducted by IESD. Where noteworthy, a comparison to results from one or both of these two previous surveys is reported. A total of 1,079 educators responded to the survey, with more than 800 educators answering most survey questions. 1 Based on the first two survey questions, results for subsequent questions were cross-tabulated and analyzed by respondents’ roles in science or STEM education (district level science or STEM supervisors, school level science or STEM department chairs or coordinators, and teachers2) and, within the teacher category, by the education levels for which teachers were responsible. Noteworthy findings based on these cross-tabulations are reported in the Findings in Detail section but not in the Executive Summary section. The margins of error at the 95% confidence level varied depending on the number of respondents to a question and/or in a particular sub-sample. For example: Sample Size Complete sample of 807 respondents (Question 17) Subsample of 518 teachers (Question 19) Subsample of 333 senior high school teachers (Question 15) Subsample of 196 school level science or STEM department chairs/coordinators (Question 7) Subsample of 119 district level science or STEM supervisors (Question 4)

Margin of Error 3.5% 4.3% 5.4% 6.9% 9.0%

1

Exceptions included 2 questions (#5 and #10) to which only a subset of respondents were routed, depending on their answers to previous questions, and one open-response question (#13) about technology-based products respondents would like to see developed for STEM. There were fewer respondents to these questions. 2 Numbers of respondents for other roles were too small for meaningful comparison. © IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is an executive summary of key findings from an IESD national online survey of K-12 district and school STEM leaders and educators conducted during December of 2011. This is the third in a series of annual online surveys conducted by IESD in collaboration with STEM Market Impact, LLC. A total of 1,079 educators responded to the survey, with more than 800 educators responding to most survey questions. For additional details, including noteworthy distinctions among different respondent groups—district-level science/STEM supervisors, school-level science/STEM supervisors, and teachers at the elementary, middle/junior high, and senior high levels—see the Findings in Detail section of this report.

Key Findings  Funding. As in the 2010 and 2011 National Surveys, many STEM leaders and educators in 2012 viewed funding for STEM in K-12 education as inadequate. Despite this, a large majority reported that spending in most districts and schools is likely to stay the same or decrease in 2012-2013 compared to 2011-2012.  Professional development. Teacher professional development (PD) was a funding priority for most STEM leaders and educators, and many perceived current funding to be insufficient. This was also true in the 2010 and 2011 National Surveys.

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

3

 Technology. STEM leaders and educators see technology as playing an important role in STEM education. Several technology-focused courses were identified by a majority of respondents as either currently offered or very likely to be offered in the next 1-3 years in their schools or districts. Several technologies were among the most frequently mentioned funding priorities, including probeware, simulation software, and iPads.

Many STEM leaders and educators also offered suggestions for technology-based products they’d like to see developed related to iPads and other tablets and to probeware. However, only about 1 out of 5 reported that tablets were widely adopted in their school or district or were very likely to become widely adopted in the near future. Commonly reported barriers to their adoption included equity issues, security/theft prevention, and concern about breakage.

Most Important Challenges Facing STEM Education The most commonly selected challenges facing STEM education in the U.S. included the following:  Funding in K-12 specifically designated for STEM education is insufficient (48.4%).  STEM education in K-8 is lacking or inadequate (46.5%).  Professional development for STEM teachers is insufficient (46.4%).

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

4

STEM Integration: Currently and in the Next 1-3 Years  About half of the respondents (48.7%) reported that their schools or districts had one or more programs that integrate core concepts of STEM.  Another 30.6% reported that their schools or districts were somewhat likely or very likely to integrate core concepts of STEM in the next one to three years. STEM Integration: Currently and in the Next 1-3 Years

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

5

STEM Courses Offered Currently and Likely to Be Implemented in the Next 1-3 Years Based on information from district science/STEM supervisors: Looking across the 2011 and 2012 National Surveys, the same 3 categories of STEM courses were identified by a majority of respondents as being offered in their schools or districts (career and technical education programs, intro to technology courses, and computer science/intro to programming courses).

 A majority reported that their schools or districts currently offered career and technical education programs (68.2%), intro to technology courses (64.0%), and computer science/intro to programming courses (63.6%).  A majority indicated that their schools or districts either currently offered or were very likely to offer career and technical education programs (77.6%), intro to technology courses (77.5%), computer science/intro to programming courses (76.4%), robotics (73.2%), energy and the environment courses (65.4%), biomedical technology courses (58.6%), and agricultural science courses (53.3%) in the next 1-3 years.  A majority indicated that their schools or districts either currently

Courses most frequently cited as very likely to be offered in the next 1-3 years include energy and the environment, software engineering, and biomedical technology.

offered or were very likely to offer middle school STEM courses (57.3%). Almost half indicated that their schools or districts currently offered or were very likely to offer elementary level STEM courses (45.6%) in the next 1-3 years.  Courses most frequently cited as very likely to be offered in the next 1-3 years included energy and the environment (26.2%), software engineering (20.2%), and biomedical technology (19.8%).

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

6

Bring-Your-Own-Device (BYOD) Model Implementation: Current and in the Next 1-3 Years  Most of the respondents (87.0%) indicated that their schools or districts had not implemented a bring-your-own-device (BYOD) model for computers, tablets and smart phones.  Of the respondents from schools or districts that did not have a BYOD model in place, a large majority (75.9%) reported that their schools or districts were somewhat unlikely or very unlikely to implement a BYOD model in the next one to three years. Bring-Your-Own-Device (BYOD) Model Implementation: Current and in the Next 1-3 Years

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

7

Educator Suggestions for STEM Technology iPads and other tablets and apps for mobile devices were newly valued categories of STEM technology products in the 2012 National Survey, compared to the 2010 National Survey when this question was last asked. Probeware and data-collection software was a valued category in both the 2010 and 2012 National Surveys.

Products When respondents described technology-based products they would most like to see developed for STEM education, the most frequently mentioned product categories included:  iPads and other tablets (30.9% of respondents)  Probeware and data-collection software (20.8% of respondents)  Apps for mobile devices (18.6% of respondents)

Tablet Devices  Only 21.8% of the respondents indicated that tablet devices were currently widely adopted in their school or district or that it was very likely that they would be widely adopted by 2014-2015.

Apple’s iPad was the most frequent choice of e-book reader technology in the 2011 National Survey, and the most common choice of tablet device in the 2012 National Survey.

 36.7% thought it was somewhat likely that tablet devices would be widely adopted.  41.5% thought it was somewhat unlikely or very unlikely that tablet devices would be widely adopted.  Asked to choose a type of tablet device to purchase for their district or school today, respondents most frequently chose iPad (59.5%), followed by Android tablet (12.4%). 28.2% had no preference.  Asked about barriers to iPad/tablet adoption, respondents most frequently identified equity issues (65.5%), security/theft prevention (57.7%), and concern about breakage (48.4%).

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

8

Respondents in both the 2011 and 2012 National Surveys identified the same 5 non-profit organizations as providing the most valuable products and services for STEM education.

Non-Profit Organizations Identified as Providing the Most Valuable Products/Services for STEM Education Non-profit organizations most frequently identified as providing the most valuable products and services for STEM education included the National Science Teachers Association, the American Association of Physics Teachers, Project Lead the Way, the American Chemical Society, and the American Society for Engineering Education.

Projections of Teacher Professional Development (PD) Activity for STEM Education 2012-2013  For several types of Internet-based PD—webinars, video-based training While use of webinars, video-based training via the web, and web-based workshops is projected to increase, on-site vendor workshops and conferences are projected to stay the same or decrease.

via the web, and web-based workshops sponsored by organizations or universities—more than 40% of the respondents projected that the activity level would increase from 2011-2012 to 2012-2013, and most of the rest (also more than 40%) projected that it would stay the same.  A majority of the respondents projected that the activity level of district led workshops would stay the same (56.7%), with most of the rest projecting that it would increase somewhat or increase significantly (28.2%).  A majority of the respondents projected that the activity level of on-site vendor workshops and conferences would stay the same, with about onefourth projecting that the activity level of these 2 categories of PD would decrease.

STEM Professional Development (PD) Judged Most Helpful to Educators PD on Next Generation of Science Standards was the type of STEM PD most often identified as most helpful to educators (34.5%), followed by content knowledge (26.3%) and PD on pedagogy (22.8%).

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

9

FINDINGS IN DETAIL Respondents’ Roles in Science/STEM Education Respondents were asked to identify their role(s) in science or STEM education, and were directed to indicate more than one role if applicable.  54.6% of the respondents identified themselves as teachers.  19.1% characterized themselves as school level science or STEM department chairs or coordinators.  11.4% reported that they were district level science or STEM supervisors.  Smaller percentages identified themselves as state level science or STEM supervisors (4.0%), higher level district leaders (3.6%), and school principals (1.9%).  22.3% identified themselves as Other, including a variety of educators involved in STEM curriculum development at the school or district level; school, district, and state-level administrators; and educators responsible for STEM professional development. Figure 1. Respondents’ Roles in Science/STEM Education

(See Table 1 in the Appendix.)

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

10

Education Levels for Which Respondents Were Responsible Respondents were asked to identify the education level(s) for which they were responsible, and were directed to indicate more than one level as applicable.  60.8% were responsible for the senior high level.  44.9% were responsible for the middle/junior high level.  30.0% were responsible for the elementary level. Note that some respondents were responsible for multiple education levels. Figure 2. Education Levels for Which Respondents Were Responsible

(See Table 2a in the Appendix.)

Education Levels for Which Teachers Were Responsible Among respondents who identified themselves as teachers and who also identified the education level for which they were responsible:  62.7% were responsible for the senior high level.  33.8% were responsible for the middle/junior high level.  16.5% were responsible for the elementary level. Note that some teachers were responsible for multiple education levels. (See Table 2b in the Appendix.) © IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

11

Most Important Challenges Facing STEM Education When respondents were asked to select up to three of the most important challenges facing STEM education in the U.S., the most commonly selected options were as follows:  Funding in K-12 specifically designated for STEM education is insufficient (48.4%).  STEM education in K-8 is lacking or inadequate (46.5%).  Professional development for STEM teachers is insufficient (46.4%).  Best practices for STEM education are not clearly defined (35.3%).  Number of qualified STEM education teachers is too low (33.2%). Figure 3. Most Important Challenges Facing STEM Education

(See Table 3a in the Appendix.)

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

12

Analysis by Role in K-12 Education Noteworthy differences are described in the table below. Table 3-1. Most Important Challenges—Noteworthy Differences by Role Answer Option

Noteworthy Difference(s) by Role

Funding in K-12 specifically designated for STEM education is insufficient.

District science/STEM supervisors were more likely than teachers to identify this as a challenge (57.5% v. 48.2%).

STEM education in K-8 is lacking or inadequate.

School science/STEM supervisors were more likely to identify this as a challenge than either district science/STEM supervisors (55.5% v. 39.2%) or teachers (43.6%).

Science education will not be adequately funded unless it is tested under AYP.

District science/STEM supervisors were more likely to identify this as a challenge than either school science/STEM supervisors (36.7% v. 23.0%) or teachers (21.5%).

(See Table 3b in the Appendix.)

Analysis by School Level Noteworthy differences are described in the table below. Table 3-2. Most Important Challenges—Noteworthy Differences by School Level Answer Option

Noteworthy Difference(s) by Level

Funding in K-12 specifically designated for STEM education is insufficient.

Teachers at the elementary level were more likely to identify this as a challenge than teachers at either the middle/junior high level (62.4% v. 44.2%) or the senior high level (48.9%).

STEM education in K-8 is lacking or inadequate.

The lower the school level, the more likely teachers were to identify this as a challenge (elementary level: 60.2%; middle/junior level: 48.9%; senior high level: 38.6%).

Best practices for STEM education are not clearly defined

Teachers at the elementary level were less likely to identify this as a challenge than teachers at either the middle/junior high level (23.7% v. 36.3%) or the senior high level (38.0%).

(See Table 3c in the Appendix.)

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

13

Implementation of STEM Education Slightly less than half of the respondents (48.7%) indicated that their schools or districts had one or more programs that integrate core concepts of STEM. Figure 4. Implementation of Program(s) That Integrate STEM Core Concepts

(See Table 4a in the Appendix.)

Analysis by Role in K-12 Education While 71.4% of district science/STEM supervisors reported that their districts had one or more programs that integrate core concepts of STEM, only 46.7% of school science/STEM supervisors and 41.8% of teachers indicated that they had such a program. This dramatic difference is likely explained by differences in responsibilities among the three roles. District-level respondents were likely to respond positively if there were an integrated STEM program in even only one or a few schools in their district, whereas many schoollevel respondents would have responded positively only if there were an integrated STEM program in their specific school. (See Table 4b in the Appendix.) © IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

14

Analysis by School Level Teachers at the elementary and middle/junior high levels were more likely to report that their districts or schools had one or more programs that integrate core concepts of STEM—51.6% and 49.6%, respectively, compared to 37.4% of teachers at the senior high level. (See Table 4c in the Appendix.)

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

15

Likelihood of Integrating STEM in the Next 1-3 Years Respondents from schools or districts that did not have a STEM program were asked how likely their school or district was to integrate core concepts of STEM in the next one to three years.  A majority (59.8%) reported that their schools or districts were somewhat likely (45.5%) or very likely (14.3%) to do so. Figure 5. Likelihood of Integrating STEM Core Concepts in the Next 1-3 Years (based on respondents who answered “No” to Question 4)

(See Table 5a in the Appendix.)

Analysis by Role in K-12 Education No noteworthy differences by role were identified. (See Table 5b in the Appendix.)

Analysis by School Level No noteworthy differences by school level were identified. (See Table 5c in the Appendix.)

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

16

STEM Courses Offered Currently and Likely to Be Implemented in the Next 1-3 Years This section focuses on separate results for district and school science/STEM supervisors and excludes results for teachers because respondents in supervisory roles were more likely than teachers to possess accurate information and because responses from supervisors at the district and school levels represent fundamentally different data sets for this question. For more complete information across all roles and levels, see Tables 6a, 6b, and 6c in the Appendix.

Results from District Science/STEM Supervisors  A majority of district science/STEM supervisors reported that their schools or districts currently offered the following STEM courses: − Career and technical education programs (68.2%) − Intro to technology (64.0%) − Computer science/intro to programming (63.6%)  A majority indicated that their schools or districts either currently offered or were very likely to offer the following STEM courses in the next 1-3 years: − Career and technical education programs (77.6%) − Intro to technology (77.5%) − Computer science/intro to programming (76.4%) − Robotics (73.2%) − Energy and the environment (65.4%) − Biomedical technology (58.6%) − Agricultural science (53.3%)  A majority indicated that their schools or districts either currently offered or were very likely to offer middle school STEM courses (57.3%). Almost half indicated that their schools or districts currently offered or were very likely to offer elementary level STEM courses (45.6%) in the next 1-3 years. © IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

17

 Courses most frequently cited as very likely to be offered in the next 1-3 years included the following: − Energy and the environment (26.2%) − Software engineering courses (20.2%) − Biomedical technology (19.8%) Figure 6a. STEM Courses Offered Currently and Likely to Be Implemented in the Next 1-3 Years—District Science/STEM Supervisors

(See Table 6b in the Appendix.)

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

18

Results from School Science/STEM Supervisors  A majority of school science/STEM supervisors reported that their schools or districts currently offered the following STEM courses: − Computer science/intro to programming (56.4%) − Career and technical education programs (53.1%) − Intro to technology (51.6%)  In addition, a majority indicated that their schools or districts either currently offered or were very likely to offer the following STEM courses in the next 1-3 years: − Computer science/intro to programming (68.6%) − Intro to technology (63.7%) − Career and technical education programs (62.5%) − Energy and the environment (56.4%) − Robotics (51.8%)  Almost half indicated that their schools or districts either currently offered or were very likely to offer middle school STEM courses (45.4%). About one-quarter indicated that their schools or districts currently offered or were very likely to offer elementary level STEM courses (25.7%) in the next 1-3 years.  Courses most frequently cited as very likely to be offered in the next 1-3 years included the following: − Robotics (18.9%) − Energy and the environment (17.8%) − Software engineering courses (16.0%) In general, percentages for course categories reported by school-level science/STEM supervisors were lower than those reported by districtlevel supervisors. One likely explanation is that district supervisors might have responded positively if such courses were offered in even only one or a few schools in their district, whereas many school-level supervisors would have responded positively only if a course were offered in their specific school. © IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

19

Figure 6b. STEM Courses Offered Currently and Likely to Be Implemented in the Next 1-3 Years—School Science/STEM Supervisors

(See Table 6b in the Appendix.)

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

20

Implementation of Bring-Your-Own-Device (BYOD) Model Most of the respondents (87.0%) indicated that their schools or districts had not implemented a bring-your-own-device (BYOD) model for computers, tablets and smart phones. Figure 7. Implementation of Bring-Your-Own-Device (BYOD) Model

(See Table 7a in the Appendix.)

Analysis by Role in K-12 Education No noteworthy differences by role were identified. (See Table 7b in the Appendix.)

Analysis by School Level No noteworthy differences by school level were identified. (See Table 7c in the Appendix.)

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

21

Likelihood of Implementing Bring-Your-OwnDevice (BYOD) Model in the Next 1-3 Years Respondents from schools or districts that did not have a BYOD model in place were asked how likely their school or district was to implement a BYOD model in the next one to three years.  Most of the respondents (75.9%) reported that their schools or districts were somewhat unlikely (30.4%) or very unlikely (45.6%) to do so.  Only 24.1% said their schools or districts were somewhat likely (21.0%) or very likely (3.1%) to do so. Figure 8. Likelihood of Implementing BYOD Model in the Next 1-3 Years (based on respondents who answered “No” to Question 7)

(See Table 8a in the Appendix.)

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

22

Analysis by Role in K-12 Education Combined totals were similar across roles for the combined category of somewhat unlikely plus very unlikely. However, within that combined category:  District science/STEM supervisors were more likely than school science/STEM supervisors to select somewhat unlikely (36.4% v. 23.8%).  School science/STEM supervisors were more likely to select very unlikely than district science/STEM supervisors (56.9% v. 41.4%) and teachers (48.3%). (See Table 8b in the Appendix.)

Analysis by School Level No noteworthy differences by school level were identified. (See Table 8c in the Appendix.)

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

23

Educator Suggestions for STEM Technology Products Respondents were asked to describe one or more technology-based products they would most like to see developed for STEM education. Based on analysis of the responses, the most frequently mentioned recurring themes were as follows:  iPads and other tablets (30.9% of respondents)  Probeware and data-collection software (20.8% of respondents)  Apps for mobile devices (18.6% of respondents) In addition, more than 10% of the respondents mentioned:  STEM instructional resources (14.2% of respondents)  Simulation software/virtual labs (13.0% of respondents)  Web-based content (12.5% of respondents)

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

24

Adoption of Tablet Devices Respondents were asked whether they thought (looking ahead 3 years to the 2014-2015 school year) that tablet devices (e.g., iPads and Android tablets) would be widely adopted in their school or district.  Only 21.8% of the respondents indicated that tablet devices were currently widely adopted in their school or district (2.7%) or that it was very likely (19.1%) that they would be widely adopted.  36.7% thought it was somewhat likely that tablet devices would be widely adopted.  41.5% thought it was somewhat unlikely (21.9%) or very unlikely (19.5%) that tablet devices would be widely adopted. Figure 9. Adoption of Tablet Devices

(See Table 9a in the Appendix.)

Analysis by Role in K-12 Education Noteworthy included the following:  District science/STEM supervisors were more likely than teachers to indicate either that tablet devices were currently widely adopted or that © IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

25

it was very likely that they would be widely adopted (31.0% v. 16.6% for the combined categories).  District science/STEM supervisors were less likely to consider widespread tablet adoption unlikely than either school science/STEM supervisors (29.3% v. 44.7% for the combined categories of very unlikely and somewhat unlikely) or teachers (49.1% for the combined categories). (See Table 9b in the Appendix.)

Analysis by School Level The lower the school level, the more likely teachers were to think it was very likely that tablet devices would be widely adopted (elementary level: 23.5%; middle/junior level: 18.6%; senior high level: 12.5%). (See Table 9c in the Appendix.)

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

26

Choice of Tablet Device Respondents were asked to choose a type of tablet device to purchase for their district or school today.  iPad was the most frequently selected tablet device (59.5%).  Android tablet was selected by 12.4%.  28.2% had no preference. Figure 10. Choice of Tablet Device

(See Table 10a in the Appendix.)

Analysis by Role in K-12 Education No noteworthy differences by role were identified. (See Table 10b in the Appendix.)

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

27

Analysis by School Level  The lower the school level, the more likely teachers were to choose iPad (elementary level: 66.3%; middle/junior level: 55.9%; senior high level: 52.6%).  Middle/junior high level teachers were more likely than elementary level teachers to have no preference (33.0% v. 22.1%). (See Table 10c in the Appendix.)

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

28

Barriers to iPad/Tablet Adoption When respondents were asked to identify barriers to adoption of iPads/tablets in their schools or districts, the most frequently selected barriers were as follows:  Equity issues (i.e., not all students can afford them) (65.5%)  Security/theft prevention (57.7%)  Concern about breakage (48.4%) Figure 11. Barriers to iPad/Tablet Adoption

(See Table 11a in the Appendix.)

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

29

Analysis by Role in K-12 Education Noteworthy differences are described in the table below. Table 11-1. Barriers to iPad/Tablet Adoption—Noteworthy Differences by Role Answer Option

Noteworthy Difference(s) by Role

Concern about breakage

District science/STEM supervisors were less likely to identify this as a barrier than either school science/STEM supervisors (39.4% v. 50.3%) or teachers (53.5%).

(See Table 11b in the Appendix.)

Analysis by School Level Noteworthy differences are described in the table below. Table 11-2. Barriers to iPad/Tablet Adoption—Noteworthy Differences by School Level Answer Option

Noteworthy Difference(s) by Level

Security/theft prevention

Teachers at the elementary level were less likely to identify this as a barrier than teachers at either the middle/junior high level (46.8% v. 59.3%) or the senior high level (62.8%).

Concern about breakage

Teachers at the middle/junior high level were more likely to identify this as a barrier than teachers at either the elementary level (61.7% v. 46.8%) or the senior high level (51.4%).

(See Table 11c in the Appendix.)

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

30

Non-Profit Organizations Identified as Providing the Most Valuable Products/Services for STEM Education Respondents were asked to identify up to three non-profit organizations they thought provided the most valuable products and services for STEM education from a list. The most frequently identified organizations included:  National Science Teachers Association  American Association of Physics Teachers  Project Lead the Way  American Chemical Society  American Society for Engineering Education (See Table 17 in the Appendix.)

Analysis by Role in K-12 Education Noteworthy differences are described in the table below. Table 12-1. Non-Profit Organizations Providing Value for STEM Education— Noteworthy Differences by Role Answer Option

Noteworthy Difference(s) by Role

Project Lead the Way

District science/STEM supervisors were more likely to select this non-profit organization than either school science/STEM supervisors (41.8% v. 20.0%) or teachers (19.2%).

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

31

Analysis by School Level Noteworthy differences are described in the table below. Table 12-2. Non-Profit Organizations Providing Value for STEM Education— Noteworthy Differences by School Level Answer Option

Noteworthy Difference(s) by Level

National Science Teachers Association

Teachers at the senior high level were less likely to select this non-profit organization than teachers at either the elementary level (73.6% v. 86.4%) or the middle/junior high level (83.6%).

American Association of Physics Teachers

Teachers at the senior high level were more likely to select this non-profit organization than teachers at either the elementary level (38.4% v. 9.1%) or the middle/junior high level (19.3%).

American Chemical Society

Teachers at the senior high level were more likely to select this non-profit organization than teachers at the middle/junior high level (28.8% v. 20.0%).

American Society for Engineering Education

Teachers at the middle/junior high level were more likely to select this non-profit organization than teachers at the senior high level (25.7% v. 16.8%).

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

32

Projections of Teacher Professional Development (PD) Activity for STEM Education 2012-2013 Respondents were asked whether the activity level for STEM education PD is likely to change or stay the same when comparing 2012-2013 to 2011-2012. For several types of Internet-based PD, more than 40% of the respondents projected that the activity level would increase, and most of the rest of the respondents projected that it would stay the same:  Webinars (increase somewhat or increase significantly: 52.3%; stay the same: 42.1%)  Video-based training via the web (increase somewhat or increase significantly: 47.3%; stay the same: 45.4%)  Web based workshops sponsored by organizations or universities (increase somewhat or increase significantly: 42.7%; stay the same: 48.6%) A majority of the respondents projected that the activity level of district led workshops would stay the same (56.7%), with most of the rest projecting that it would increase somewhat or increase significantly (28.2%) A majority of the respondents projected that the activity level of the following types of PD activities would stay the same, and about one-fourth projected that it would decrease:  On-site vendor workshops (stay the same: 64.5%; decrease somewhat or decrease significantly: 23.7%)  Conferences (stay the same: 52.5%; decrease somewhat or decrease significantly: 25.9%) (See Table 18a in the Appendix.) © IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

33

Analysis by Role in K-12 Education District science/STEM supervisors were the most likely respondents to predict that several categories of PD activities would increase in 20122013, compared to 2011-2012. Noteworthy differences are described in the table below. Table 13-1. Projections of Teacher PD Activity for STEM Education 2012-2013— Noteworthy Differences by Role Answer Option

Noteworthy Difference(s) by Role

Webinars

District science/STEM supervisors were more likely to project that this PD activity would increase somewhat or increase significantly than school science/STEM supervisors (69.3% v. 50.8%), who in turn were more likely to make this projection than teachers (42.6%).

Video-based training via the web

District science/STEM supervisors were more likely to project that this PD activity would increase somewhat or increase significantly than school science/STEM supervisors (57.4% v. 46.6%), who in turn were more likely to make this projection than teachers (39.1%).

Web based workshops sponsored by organizations or universities

District science/STEM supervisors were more likely to project that this PD activity would increase somewhat or increase significantly than either school science/STEM supervisors (53.1% v. 39.2%) or teachers (33.9%).

District led workshops

District science/STEM supervisors were more likely to project that this PD activity would increase somewhat or increase significantly than either school science/STEM supervisors (35.1% v. 24.5%) or teachers (21.3%).

On-site vendor workshops

District science/STEM supervisors were more likely than teachers to project that this PD activity would increase somewhat or increase significantly (17.0% v. 7.6%).

(See Table 13b in the Appendix.)

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

34

Analysis by School Level Teachers at the middle/junior high level were more likely than teachers at the senior high level to predict that several categories of PD activities would increase in 2012-2013, compared to 2011-2012. Noteworthy differences are described in the table below. Table 13-2. Projections of Teacher PD Activity for STEM Education 2012-2013— Noteworthy Differences by School Level Answer Option

Noteworthy Difference(s) by Level

Webinars

Teachers at the middle/junior high level were more likely to project that this PD activity would increase somewhat or increase significantly than teachers at the senior high level (50.0% v. 40.2%).

Video-based training via the web

Teachers at the senior high level were less likely to project that this PD activity would increase somewhat or increase significantly than teachers at either the elementary level (36.6% v. 48.8%) or the middle/junior high level (44.9%).

Web-based workshops sponsored by organizations or universities

Teachers at the middle/junior high level were more likely to project that this PD activity would increase somewhat or increase significantly than teachers at the senior high level (39.8% v. 30.7%).

(See Table 13c in the Appendix.)

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

35

STEM PD Judged Most Helpful to Educators Respondents were asked to choose the type of STEM PD that would be the most helpful to educators in their school or district, from a list of 4 options. Results were divided, as shown below:  PD on Next Generation of Science Standards (34.5% of the respondents)  Content knowledge (26.3%)  PD on pedagogy (22.8%)  Product training (16.3%) Figure 14. STEM Professional Development Judged Most Helpful to Educators

(See Table 14a in the Appendix.)

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

36

Analysis by Role in K-12 Education Noteworthy differences are described in the table below. Table 14-1. STEM PD Judged Most Helpful to Educators—Noteworthy Differences by Role Answer Option

Noteworthy Difference(s) by Role

Content knowledge

District science/STEM supervisors were more likely than school science/STEM supervisors to value this type of STEM PD most highly (29.6% v. 18.5%).

Product training

District science/STEM supervisors were less likely to value this type of STEM PD most highly than either school science/STEM supervisors (11.3% v. 20.6%) or teachers (20.8%).

(See Table 19b in the Appendix.)

Analysis by School Level Noteworthy differences are described in the table below. Table 14-2. STEM PD Judged Most Helpful to Educators—Noteworthy Differences by School Level Answer Option

Noteworthy Difference(s) by Level

PD on Next Generation of Science Standards

Teachers at the middle/junior high level were more likely to value this type of STEM PD most highly than teachers at the elementary level (37.8% v. 25.3%).

Content knowledge

The lower the school level, the more likely teachers were to value this type of STEM PD most highly (elementary level: 33.7%; middle/junior level: 23.8%; senior high level: 21.8%).

PD on pedagogy

Teachers at the senior high level were more likely to value this type of STEM PD most highly than teachers at the middle/junior high level (24.8% v. 16.3%).

(See Table 14c in the Appendix.)

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

37

Appendix: Data Tables Table 1. Respondents’ Roles in Science/STEM Education

Other: 1.

Education Consultant, specializing in STEM education

2.

PTE Department Chair

3.

informal educator

4.

Director of Curriculum & Instruction

5.

Professor

6.

Administrator Higher Education - Developing STEM Project

7.

STEM coordinator

8.

Computer Technology Teacher/Network Admin

9.

university science education faculty

10.

Director NASCAR STEM Initiative

11.

Professor of Science Education (now representing STEM education)

12.

college professor

13.

Teacher Education

14.

University and professional development provider

15.

chemistry professor

16.

Pre-college science professional development provider

17.

Technology Coordinator

18.

Staff and Curriculum Development Coordinator BOCES

19.

University Professor

20.

gifted/talented specialist

21.

Science Education Consultant

22.

Technology Intergrator

23.

informal educator at nature park

24.

Professional development provider

25.

responsible for school-wide technology in the curriculum

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

38

26.

Regional science specialist

27.

Assistant Director Office of Instruction

28.

State Governent

29.

Curriculum and Professional Development Specialist for a state-wide out of school STEM program

30.

science center director/ teacher trainer

31.

STEM specialist

32.

volunteer in STEM lab

33.

Tech Support/Staff Development

34.

Chief Technology Officer

35.

STEM Program Coordinator

36.

Training & Instructional Specialist - STEM K-12

37.

District Admin - STEM

38.

District Instructional Technology Coordinator

39.

school assistant principal

40.

informal educator partnering with school teachers

41.

math support for Career & Technical Education

42.

Curriculum and resource coordinator

43.

University Faculty, STEM teacher education, STEM professional development

44.

STEM college professor

45.

Commercial product development of hands-on STEM products and activities

46.

AAIMS Science Content Director

47.

Regional Service Agency Director - STEM

48.

lead Arizona STEM Network

49.

state level science coordinator

50.

College faculty member in physics

51.

GEAR UP Supervisor/Tutor

52.

STEM director

53.

Roe consultant

54.

STEM department chair

55.

STEM ollege science professor

56.

NAVY civilian K-12 STEM Coordinator

57.

grant program coordinator at a university

58.

Science/STEM curriculum consultant

59.

Informal science center outreach

60.

Instructional Facilitator

61.

Assistant Professor

62.

University instructor

63.

Environmental educator county parks

64.

Not involved in STEM but a professional educator in English and Humanities. As a former park ranger, I do volunteer environmental education.

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

39

65.

STEM Education Professional Support

66.

Higher Education STEM Leader

67.

STEM instructional Coach at Intermediate Unit

68.

Director of Professional Development and Academic Enrichment

69.

Assistant professor in secondary mathematics education

70.

science education, college

71.

Pre-service teacher educator

72.

STEM Curriculum provider

73.

Teacher Trainer and Science Education Consultant

74.

student enrichment resource

75.

Technology Facilitator

76.

Technology Facilitator

77.

University Professor in science education

78.

Teach for a STEM grant run through UCCS

79.

community college Basic Skills administrator

80.

Consultant

81.

Consultant for St. Clair RESA and St. Clair TEC

82.

State Park Educator

83.

Director of Instructional Technology

84.

coordinate student summer programs and summer professional development programs

85.

STEM ourteach coordinator

86.

Curriculum and Professional Development Specialist

87.

Teacher Librarian

88.

Program Officer for Texas-STEM

89.

higher education

90.

Program Director

91.

University teacher educator

92.

New STEM school organization committee

93.

Pre-service College Educator

94.

Music Teacher interested in STEAM education

95.

University faculty

96.

Educational consultant - teacher training

97.

Univeristy Support

98.

Government STEM Education

99.

Science Teacher Educator at University

100.

University professor for content and science education

101.

university outreach director BioSci

102.

Science Education Consultant

103.

college professor

104.

PD Provider

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

40

105.

Professional development provider; discipline based education researcher

106.

Manager of a STEM outreach program

107.

Science Education Consultant

108.

retired secondary math/science consultant

109.

author of biology textbooks

110.

Technology Education - Project Lead the Way/STEM teacher

111.

Professor of Chemistry, teach pre-service teachers

112.

Consultant

113.

National Camp Director/Consultant

114.

County Level, Muli-district Consultant

115.

Science education consultant/retired science teacher

116.

Professional developer in informal science institution

117.

NGO science education and curriculum specialist

118.

Professional development provider

119.

Gifted Programming Specialist, Teacher Trainer for Math Science Partnership

120.

medical technologist

121.

Supt.

122.

Instructional Coach

123.

Higher Education Administrator

124.

Informal Educator

125.

consultant

126.

College Faculty

127.

educational consultant in science and math for both teachers and students

128.

State Department of Education

129.

college science professor

130.

Science Teaching Specialist

131.

Teacher Alliance Secretary - Outreach

132.

College physics lab and demonstration manager

133.

College, school of education

134.

Higher education STEM Education Center

135.

mentor to new teachers in stem school

136.

university faculty

137.

Informal educator that works with schools to incorporate STEM

138.

professional development provider non profit

139.

Executive director and teachere of a county-wide supplemental science program

140.

Science teacher and PhD student in Ed Leadership/STEM Ed

141.

Technology integrationist

142.

School Coordinator

143.

Consultant for STEM

144.

Consultant and curriculum writer

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

41

145.

Instructional Technologist

146.

Evaluator for an NSF Noyce Fellows grant to Mills College

147.

After school teacher

148.

University faculty

149.

STEM module author

150.

District math instructional supervisor

151.

Director, Instructional Tech & Library Services

152.

College Professor

153.

Director Student Watershed Research Project

154.

K-12 Science Program Manager for state level initiative

155.

Professor of Education/Teacher Preparation

156.

Science Ed Professional Development Provider

157.

District Technology Resource Teacher & STEM Sister coordinator

158.

STEM specialist for educational non profit

159.

Director of STEM Education campus serving 6 school districts

160.

Science Instructional Specialist at STEM Center

161.

Teacher Educator

162.

Consultant

163.

Retired district level science supervisor

164.

Math/science professional development provider

165.

District level manager

166.

Curriculum Specialist

167.

foundation leader

168.

implementation specialist

169.

Director

170.

Non-profit informal science educator

171.

Curriculum developer

172.

School Science Fair Coordinator

173.

Science Consultant and Teacher Center Associate

174.

math department chair

175.

District Technology Teacher on Special Assignment

176.

University faculty-science education

177.

informal educator, provider of teacher PD

178.

NSF STEM education grant program specialist

179.

Math Teacher/Department Chairperson

180.

Technology Coordinator

181.

Executive Board - NJ Science Teachers Association

182.

Higher Ed STEM Research Asst

183.

curriculum director

184.

Education Specialist at national science lab Ed Off

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

42

185.

Student Teacher & after school STEM program consultant

186.

teacher leader

187.

Curriculum Specialist

188.

Higher education STEM coordinator

189.

Professional Development Provider

190.

Staff Developer / Science Specialist

191.

STEM Center Director

192.

university administrator of K-12 STEM professional development

193.

State Level Professional Development

194.

Project director for a STEM grant funded by NSF

195.

Outdoor science school program coordinatro

196.

Technology Coordinator for Diocese

197.

market research manager at education technology firm

198.

Department Chair, College Chemistry

199.

retired STEM teacher

200.

Education Non Profit

201.

Association (League for Innovation)

202.

Science Education Center

203.

professor, chemistry department

204.

STEM director

205.

Assistant Principal

206.

curriculum provider

207.

Consultant

208.

Educational Advocate/Community Collaborator

209.

college physics professor

210.

PLTW state university affiliate director

211.

Education Non Profit Executive Director

212.

Private 4 year college STEM advocate

213.

Regional Science Specialist at ESD

214.

University science professional development provider

215.

Robotics Coach

216.

University Physics Department Chair

217.

Education arts agency

218.

Provider of K-20 teacher professional development

219.

Environmental Educator - informal education

220.

District level science resource teacher

221.

Program Administrator NSF-funded program IHE

222.

Science Consultant for Metro Parks

223.

Education Specialist

224.

NSF project coordinator at university

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

43

225.

District level Technology Integrator (focused on STEM)

226.

IT Manager

227.

specialist

228.

Out of school STEM program manager

229.

Leader of Professional Development

230.

I have created STEM modules for my district and for myself.

231.

Technology Director

232.

Educational Consultant

233.

Instructional Coach

234.

Professional development provider and curriculum specialist

235.

Director of Education at a Botanic Garden

236.

Science Education Administrator at a DOE National Laboratory

237.

District Level Curriculum Master Teacher

238.

College professor

239.

Instructional Technology Resource Teacher

240.

district level science curriculum specialist and state-level STEM master teacher

241.

Intermediate unit science coordinator

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

44

Table 2a. Education Levels for Which Respondents Were Responsible

1.

Other:

2.

K-16

3.

College

4.

College

5.

Higher Ed

6.

parent

7.

Undergraduate Preservice Teachers and Graduate Level Inservice teachers

8.

undergraduate and graduate

9.

University level Teacher Education

10.

K-20 professional development

11.

university, undergraduate level

12.

K - 12 science

13.

K-20

14.

K-12

15.

community college with linkages to secondary programs

16.

K- College

17.

PreK - 12

18.

Teachers of PreK-12

19.

grade an online course for physics teachers at a university

20.

college freshman

21.

Teachers and Administrators

22.

Adult Education

23.

K12

24.

District level

25.

None

26.

All levels Pre-K - 12 grades

27.

college

28.

Community College

29.

College - undergraduate

30.

Pre-K thru 12

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

45

31.

University, preparation of teachers at all levels

32.

college

33.

College courses in summer

34.

higher education (graduate)

35.

K-12

36.

k-20

37.

1ST YEAR COLLEGE

38.

college

39.

Used to be K-12, was not replaced

40.

K-12

41.

K-14

42.

Pre-K

43.

K-12

44.

K-8

45.

college

46.

K-12

47.

university / graduate students

48.

Small liberal arts college

49.

Undergraduate

50.

adults/teacher trainer

51.

Community College, general public, and adults

52.

K-12 Education (Teacher PD)

53.

Preservice and inservice math teachers

54.

College level

55.

k-12

56.

Post Secondary

57.

university

58.

Post Secondary

59.

university

60.

Also teach Elementary Science Methods at UCCS

61.

GED preparation and transition programming for adults

62.

K to 16

63.

General

64.

k-12

65.

adjunct college class at high school

66.

K-12

67.

K-12 Science

68.

technical, 2 yr, 4yr

69.

College

70.

graduate students

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

46

71.

Pre-service College

72.

teacher training

73.

Community College

74.

K-12

75.

K-12

76.

Teacher Education

77.

College

78.

graduate level

79.

I consult for grades K-Higher Ed

80.

Helping train future science teachers and professional development of current teachers

81.

PreK

82.

Adjunct Chemistry Teacher at Community College

83.

university and teacher training

84.

Higher Education

85.

College Science and Education

86.

College

87.

post secondary

88.

college

89.

Visit college and levers 4 to 12

90.

College

91.

College

92.

student and inservice teachers

93.

K-12

94.

in-service teacher professional development, college

95.

All (we teach K to 12)

96.

Mentoring future STEM teachers through NOYCE scholarship program

97.

K-12

98.

college

99.

K-12

100.

Teacher Education

101.

College and graduate school

102.

Graduate School

103.

Undergraduate and Graduate level PSU

104.

Work with teachers in grades PreK-16

105.

higher ed

106.

K -12

107.

Post Grads

108.

K-12 Science

109.

college

110.

Teacher Education

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

47

111.

University

112.

Was responsible for K-12 Science ed.

113.

College

114.

College Level

115.

Community College

116.

GED prep

117.

Junior College

118.

Community College

119.

teacher PD

120.

Pre-school

121.

Community college

122.

community college, university

123.

PK-16

124.

Dual Credit College Course

125.

PreK and K

126.

K-16

127.

Higher Education

128.

PreK-Preservice

129.

adult

130.

K-12

131.

University

132.

College

133.

Community college

134.

post-graduate

135.

college

136.

All levels

137.

k-12

138.

all of them

139.

first two years of postsecondary

140.

post-secondary

141.

higher education

142.

inservice teacher pd

143.

4 year college

144.

undergraduate

145.

adult education

146.

college

147.

Community College

148.

Family programs, Scouts, Senior Citizens

149.

higher education

150.

PreK

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

48

151.

K12

152.

Adult education

153.

Professional Development

154.

college (4 year)

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

49

Table 2b. Education Levels for Which Respondents Were Responsible: Teachers Only

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

50

Table 3a. Most Important Challenges Facing STEM Education

Other: 1.

Competing with the teaching of science principals which are very necessary

2.

STEM is mostly seen as a science field, the T & E need the help from Technology & Engineering education teachers (formerly Technology Education)

3.

Successful STEM education is a tactile learning process. Schools lack the equipment and teachers lack the knowledge to succeed in effective STEM teaching.

4.

Where and how will STEM be defined in the K-12 educational system, need to a stantardized integrated model...but not specific curriculum

5.

Defining the concept. The emphasis of science and math over the E and T

6.

The public does not know what STEM is!

7.

First concerned about time for science first. Mathematics has an appropriate amount of time in K-5

8.

What is the goal of STEM and where does it fit?

9.

STEM and the role of Technology Education is GROSSLY misunderstood by administratorsat the district AND state level, legislators and the general public

10.

The technology and engineering portions of STEM is left out of most STEM endeavors

11.

You need to bring together CTE and Science

12.

public thinking STEM means only science

13.

class sizes

14.

Understanding of STEM education is not clear

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

51

15.

Standardized testing at the senior high level, in math and science leaves very little time to fully explore the applications of these disiplines. Protecting one's area also is standing in the way of forming groups of cooperating teachers.

16.

Number of students who drop out at the college level is too high

17.

Need more emphasis on engineering and the real uses of technology

18.

Quality STEM teaching requires energy that is not considered and compensated appropriately. Also STEM requires field experience that is unfunded.

19.

State and district focus seems to be only reading and math and not enough time is available during the day for STEM lessons, activities, assessments.

20.

Education as a whole is not funded adequately so unfortunately STEM is not going to be either

21.

Not enough time allowed for Science

22.

time to prepare lessons

23.

STEM is defined differenlty for different group

24.

The fact-driven curriculum leaves little time for quality labs and does not reward teachers who spend time doing labs.

25.

Lack of time in student schedules under 4x4 graduation requirements

26.

Adequate time for teachers to take the PD for STEM is inadequate and there needs to be timely followup for trainings involving technology.

27.

Unless the fun factor is emphasized most students have difficulty putting math and concepts into application.

28.

Policy makers and many teachers do not accept thte research on best practices

29.

External dictates on how STEM is presented instead of letting teachers implement best practices for their particular situation. Plus standardized testing is ruining STEM.

30.

prepartation of STEM education teachers is inadequate or nonexistent.

31.

Not all students should go to college therefore make it relevant and appropriate to all careers and personal ties

32.

Material and equipment needs at the K-8 have limited funding

33.

No clear definition of what STEM truly is.

34.

Public school is more worried about passing the PSSAs than taking the time to teach skills

35.

We lack a sustainable model for teacher development that supports quality STEM over a career.

36.

Teaching and P D in STEM is not inquiry based and especially at high school level it is difficult to change teacher's practices when testing is feared and coverage is the focus

37.

Technology and Engineering confused with Science and Math

38.

Student motivation/interest is lacking.

39.

Validation of current high-quality efforts, sharing of best practices

40.

in addition to funding, time is being siphoned from STEM areas to those tested under AYP (Like LA)

41.

Common definition and standards for STEM education

42.

Funding for purchasing new/aligned materials is absent.

43.

Teaching STEM well requires widespread understanding of the fact that regardless of the packaging, STEM competence flows from hard work.

44.

Engineering jobs are being outsourced. I cannot in good conscience advise students to pursue a STEM carreer.

45.

Emphasis on testing instead of learning; project-based classrooms instead of test-based classrooms

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

52

46.

Lack of consensus as to what STEM actually is

47.

State objectives still too abstract, too focused on sci literacy rather than creating oppty for critical thinking

48.

insufficient math skills in adults

49.

Level of effort of US students lags behind international students; competition from extracurriculars and jobs; lack of support by parents for rigorous study

50.

staffing and resources are cut to unmanageable levels

51.

Materials to teach hands-on STEM lessons is costly and everyone is in a budget crisis

52.

an already overpacked curriculum that does not allow time for this

53.

Teachers do not have a clear perception of what STEM education is and how to implement it.

54.

Lack of infrastructure to support T&E - falls on the backs of many science teachers who are not trained or equipped.

55.

students continue to be scared of Science

56.

Due to NCLB the focus is on Reading and Math Scores

57.

buy-in from math teachers

58.

Talented folks are directed to careers other than teaching

59.

Nobody really knows what it is. If the goal is to produce more and better engineers, that will never happen at the high school level - it is a collegiate responsibility. Most of us high school teachers who have any wisdom and experience view the whole thing as just another misguided bureaucratic program that lacks definition and direction and is, therefore, a phenomenol waste of taxpayer $$$

60.

Student interests in thinking

61.

Lack of STE applications in math instruction and narrow math instructor prep

62.

no universally accepted definition of STEM exists!

63.

not sure what makes STEM so special when we already teach science and math

64.

curricula definition of STEM is poorly clarified. Is it a course or a style of teaching? To what level of integration for S/T/E/M is required?

65.

What is STEM---perhaps lots of people have been doing activities re; STEM and don't know it. Too many innovations and not enough direction. Look at the science dev of the 60s and 70s.

66.

Funding K-12

67.

Not sure any above are accurate. Few science jobs available for graduates except in medicine.

68.

Societal misunderstanding that scientific thinking is only valuable for future scientists and engineers.

69.

People who don't teach trying to tell teachers how to do it because they have read the latest educational research which is usually just the latest fad.

70.

Funding is a problem - a hybrid of the funding options above

71.

Teaching model is outdated and not relevant to use of STEM in real world

72.

Pa is still struggling with how to test STEM

73.

funding for equipment and materials to teach STEM effectively is lacking

74.

some states ignore the engineering part of STEM

75.

Policy decision makers do not seem aware of best practices for STEM education

76.

focus needs to be on teacher content knowledge and practice not more gadgets)code for STEM initiatives)

77.

Number of STEM jobs, Lack of federal funding for basic research

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

53

78.

Metric system is not sufficiently implemented

79.

I don't believe there is one best way to teach, but there are some common ingredients. Content knowledge, whole class interaction, regular assessments, writing for understanding, classroom management

80.

Funding for general science supplies is lacking in rural schools. Too much focus is placed on innovative ideas and not enough on basic supplies needed for STEM topics.

81.

A focus on real intergration - Science and Math teachers working together!

82.

so many techers feel nunaure about their own STEM knowledge

83.

inadequate time for collaboration, planning and PD

84.

Too many definitions of what STEM education is.

85.

Many best practices have been identified, but these are not widely known.

86.

Overall combo of above with the main focus being the testing mentality of our teachers and the district mandates for achievement which keep them from pursuing what they know is best.

87.

Best practices are known, but not widely or well disseminated. Poor teacher preparation. Poor administrative support and preparation.

88.

colleges reluctant to realign & restructure undergraduate science, math, and engineering courses to reflect STEM priorities - a disconnect many students can't overcome - courses identical in content to those from the sputnik era

89.

what gets measured gets done!

90.

opposition from fundamentalist religion and science denialists

91.

Not enough research on best methods nor frameworks for implementing best methods

92.

Lack of motivation from teachers and parents

93.

STEM teachers need more content training to keep up with the changing requirements. We are teaching in middle school what many of us learned in high school.

94.

Changing the current teaching practice from individual subject to integrating and applying STEM skills throughout the curriculum.

95.

funds to support field based science inquiry research

96.

Curriculum seems focused on state test mastery

97.

Time alotted and importance placed on STEM education in grades K-5; teacher education for STEM teachers often does not align well with best practices

98.

Technology failure/repair costs/technology support

99.

Publishers or educational vendors need to carefully examine the intent of the new Conceptual Framework for developing materials that align with NGSS. They should recruit and utilize good science educators who understand the language of the framework and know how instructional materials that are aligned would look.

100.

No common definition of STEM

101.

STEM education has not found its place inthe curriculum.

102.

STEM is not clearly defined, what is STEM and what is the target

103.

Dissemination of best practices to STEM teachers is lacking

104.

The emphasis is being put on preparing teachers in high school. We need to integrate computational thinking and science at lower levels of learning and train all K-12 teachers

105.

Funding is necessary, but testing with multiple choice is not leading to quality instruction

106.

Proper use/integration of online learning

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

54

107.

No time is spent on science and science is taught as a side topic rather than as a focus

108.

There is a general lack of knowledge about what STEM includes.

109.

Lab work versus book work should be important at lower grades

110.

inspiration by leaders in community and government position

111.

students unwilling to take hard subjects

112.

STEM itself is not clearly defined.

113.

college requirements to become a teacher is insufficient

114.

Many people (including educators) do not even have a clue as to what a good STEM lesson even looks like. This needs to be addressed.

115.

STEM teachers are more education based in their degrees and experiences than science industry based

116.

Most STEM teachers have not done creative work in science, math, or engineering themselves and therefore do not have the experience to lead students in engaging in the creative work in the STEM disciplines. This is a systemic problem for STEM education.

117.

no one knows exactly what STEM is

118.

Coordinating curriculum and materials to meet both STEM and state standards

119.

Not enough professionals with careers in STEM moving into teaching (I am doing that now)

120.

There is such strong emphasis placed on AYP and scores that teachers are forced to teach only what will be tested.

121.

STEM initiatives are not supported by state standards and graduation requirements

122.

Non-public schools not included in industry initiatives

123.

NCLB emphasis on Reading and Math and time

124.

All of the above

125.

Demands on teacher time is often too great for them to dedicate the necessary time to be effective teachers of STEM

126.

Teaching to test

127.

Funding is inadequately prioritized by school state and local systems

128.

Misdesigned high stakes test shoulder out engaging and relevant instruction.

129.

Lack of employer initiative in training and retaining STEM professionals.

130.

Lack of parental care or involvement in their students' education.

131.

Lack of support from Microsoft bigoted, uncertified, semi-professional, 20th century IT departments.

132.

Change of mindset for many teachers

133.

Unclear how STEM is different from good science instruction

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

55

Table 3b. Most Important Challenges Facing STEM Education: By Role

Total respondents by role were as follows: district science/STEM supervisors: 120; school science/STEM supervisors: 200; teachers: 571.

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

56

Table 3c. Most Important Challenges Facing STEM Education: Teachers by School Level

Total respondents by level were as follows: elementary teachers: 93; middle/junior high teachers: 190; senior high teachers: 350.

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

57

Table 4a. Implementation of Program(s) That Integrate STEM Core Concepts

Table 4b. Implementation of Program(s) That Integrate STEM Core Concepts: By Role

Total respondents by role were as follows: district science/STEM supervisors: 119; school science/STEM supervisors: 197; teachers: 567.

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

58

Table 4c. Implementation of Program(s) That Integrate STEM Core Concepts: Teachers by School Level

Total respondents by level were as follows: elementary teachers: 93; middle/junior high teachers: 189; senior high teachers: 348.

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

59

Table 5a. Likelihood of Integrating STEM in the Next 1-3 Years (based on respondents who answered “No” to Question 4) How likely is your school or district to integrate core concepts of STEM in the next one to three years?

Answer Options

Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely

Response Percent

Response Count

14.3%

70

45.5%

222

23.6%

115

16.6%

81

answered question

488

skipped question

591

Table 5b. Likelihood of Integrating STEM in the Next 1-3 Years: By Role (based on respondents who answered “No” to Question 4)

Total respondents by role were as follows: district science/STEM supervisors: 35; school science/STEM supervisors: 102; teachers: 313.

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

60

Table 5c. Likelihood of Integrating STEM in the Next 1-3 Years: Teachers by School Level (based on respondents who answered “No” to Question 4)

Total respondents by level were as follows: elementary teachers: 40; middle/junior high teachers: 94; senior high teachers: 208.

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

61

Table 6a. STEM Courses Offered and Likely to Be Implemented

Table 6a (cont’d.). STEM Courses Somewhat Unlikely or Very Unlikely to Be Implemented

Other: 1.

PTW Principles of Engineering Design

2.

NA - at the state level

3.

Energy

4.

Automotive science

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

62

5.

PLTW Principles of Engineering Design

6.

Science Olympiad

7.

Robotics only offeret to GT kids

8.

Some of the titles are included in other content areas not specificlly called what is listed here

9.

PLTW curriculumn is being followed at the MS and HS levels

10.

College dual enrollment courses

11.

CNC, Weather, Eco-Architechture, Applied Physics, Plastics & Polymers

12.

I do not work in a school district

13.

Lego League

14.

none, to my knowledge

15.

The ones I did not check I don't know whether they are offered in the district or not. We do have two tech schools, but I am not familiar with their entire curriculum.

16.

Other STEM classes are offered, but not at every site

17.

Science research

18.

Health and Medical Sciences - nonBioengineering

19.

Biology, Chemistry, Physics

20.

there will be a STEM presentation to teachers, parents and students in our school this month

21.

May only be offered on one loation, not district wide

22.

Project Lead the Way

23.

High School STEM Courses

24.

there is a program in the high school, not sure its name

25.

NA

26.

Currently offer PLTW courses at our 3 high schools and Career Center

27.

Robotics is a club not a class

28.

I do project work at the regional level (for several districts)

29.

Project Lead the Way Courses - IED, POE, DE, CEA, EDD

30.

N/A

31.

Aviation studies

32.

I work with 20 districts. The offered check represents only a tiny fraction of the total number of students that could be participating.

33.

not sure

34.

Not currently affiliated with a district

35.

We are in the planning stages so can't answer these.

36.

I'd like nanotechnology - I look for training so I can push it

37.

I am an informal educator not a classroom teacher.

38.

Biomedical technology is likely being cut in our district next year

39.

Project Lead the Way and New Tech High School programs for grades 9-12 for a limited number of students

40.

Digital fabrication and scientific design

41.

Few if any courses offered for training STEM to teachers

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

63

42.

Technical ed through outsourcing to a technical school, STEM classes offered as plain reading and math are not sufficiently STEM.

43.

Exploring Science

44.

our district does not make many moves into new vistas. Admin is stuck in the 19th century and sees no need for change

45.

These are offered in the state, some with very low frequency

46.

I am not in a school district so these answers were reflective of what we see broadly in Maine's K-12 schools

47.

Rocketry, Wright Flight at middle school

48.

Gaming Technology

49.

Not aware of specifics

50.

N/A - I'm not employed in a K-12 school

51.

alternative energies

52.

This does not apply to my position, I cannot answer the question.

53.

Not a district employee

54.

Project Lead the Way Engineering Courses

55.

microsystems education

56.

many science and math courses at the high school level; comprehensive use of technology K-12

57.

Higher Education training relative to STEM

58.

Digital electronics

59.

Engineering in general currently offered

60.

Project Lead The Way (considering for middle school)

61.

This question does not apply to my situation

62.

Integrated sciences, environmental sciences

63.

Research and Writing of proposals, presentation skills of STEM subjects

64.

I work with 40+ districts, all with various curricula

65.

Research Course that integrates Engineering Principles/Robotics/Stats

66.

Engineering integrated across the curriculum through Children's Engineering of VA

67.

Math Counts and PBL

68.

entrepreneurship & STEAM

69.

PLTW curriculum provides all these options in KY

70.

Introduction to Engineering

71.

STEM is not defined in this survey. Like 'inquiry' everyone carries their own definition.

72.

Not Applicable

73.

computer modeling and simulation, computational science

74.

We have a science research program 7-12 but it is limited to one course per school mostly.

75.

Local resources will determine focus

76.

We have supplied STEM equipment to teachers to implement STEM activities into present classes.

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

64

Table 6b. STEM Courses Offered and Likely to Be Implemented: By Role

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

65

Table 6b (cont’d.). STEM Courses Offered and Likely to Be Implemented: By Role

Total respondents by role varied in number from course to course as follows: district science/STEM supervisors: 92 to 112; school science/STEM supervisors: 131 to 172; teachers: 389 to 474. © IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

66

Table 6c. STEM Courses Offered and Likely to Be Implemented: Teachers by School Level

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

67

Table 6c (cont’d.). STEM Courses Offered and Likely to Be Implemented: Teachers by School Level

Total respondents by level varied in number from course to course as follows: elementary teachers: 62 to 79; middle/junior high teachers: 125 to 166; senior high teachers: 239 to 303. © IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

68

Table 7a. Implementation of a Bring-Your-Own Device (BYOD) Model for Computers, Tablets, and Smart Phones Some schools/districts have implemented a bring-yourown-device (BYOD) model for computers, tablets and smart phones. Does your school or district have a BYOD model? Answer Options Yes No

Response Percent 13.0% 87.0% answered question skipped question

Response Count 122 817 939 140

Table 7b. Implementation of a Bring-Your-Own Device (BYOD) Model for Computers, Tablets, and Smart Phones: By Role

Total respondents by role were as follows: district science/STEM supervisors: 116; school science/STEM supervisors: 194; teachers: 537.

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

69

Table 7c. Implementation of a Bring-Your-Own Device (BYOD) Model for Computers, Tablets, and Smart Phones: Teachers by School Level

Total respondents by level were as follows: elementary teachers: 85; middle/junior high teachers: 181; senior high teachers: 336.

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

70

Table 8a. Likelihood of Adopting a Bring-Your-Own Device (BYOD) Model for Computers, Tablets, and Smart Phones (based on respondents who answered “No” to Question 7) How likely is your school or district to adopt a bringyour-own-device model in the next 1-3 years? Answer Options Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely

Response Percent 3.1% 21.0% 30.4% 45.6% answered question skipped question

Response Count 25 170 246 369 810 269

Table 8b. Likelihood of Adopting a Bring-Your-Own Device (BYOD) Model for Computers, Tablets, and Smart Phones: By Role (based on respondents who answered “No” to Question 7)

Total respondents by role were as follows: district science/STEM supervisors: 99; school science/STEM supervisors: 160; teachers: 466.

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

71

Table 8c. Likelihood of Adopting a Bring-Your-Own Device (BYOD) Model for Computers, Tablets, and Smart Phones: Teachers by School Level (based on respondents who answered “No” to Question 7)

Total respondents by level were as follows: elementary teachers: 76; middle/junior high teachers: 159; senior high teachers: 289.

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

72

Table 9a. Adoption of Tablet Devices (iPad and Android)

Table 9b. Adoption of Tablet Devices (iPad and Android): By Role

Total respondents by role were as follows: district science/STEM supervisors: 116; school science/STEM supervisors: 190; teachers: 525.

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

73

Table 9c. Adoption of Tablet Devices (iPad and Android): Teachers by School Level

Total respondents by level were as follows: elementary teachers: 85; middle/junior high teachers: 177; senior high teachers: 328.

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

74

Table 10a. Top Tablet Choices

Other: 1.

These devices do not focus on technology.

2.

Would not purchase a tablet device

3.

One with FLASH

4.

Local control - state can not endorse one over another

5.

I am unfamiliar with both and would need to understand them to see which I prefer.

6.

There are more software apps for the Apple iPAD at this time

7.

apple device

8.

iphone

9.

Acer netbooks

10.

I would not waste the money on these toys. I would get a real computer.

11.

Laptops

12.

would need to do some research to decide

13.

Needs to have USB ports

14.

very difficult and tedious to set up and manage

15.

Something that is truly open source/open hardware.

16.

I'm waiting for a pen-enabled system w/ detachable keyboard

17.

Hp, toshiba, lenovoa tablet/laptop

18.

It depends on the software available and the use to which it would be put.

19.

We presently have hp computers 1 to 1 --I love it!!

20.

no idea

21.

I have no preference as long as the software and internet search functions are simple and straightforward

22.

Lap top computer please

23.

I have no loyalty to I anything because the basic item is ridiculously priced and everything that is added on costs another fortune

24.

If the device is internet dependent, not all students have access to internet.

25.

My school is 1:1 with tablet pcs, may change...up in air with new supt.

26.

PC netbook

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

75

27.

don't know

28.

Our district has purchased iPADS - problem is the incompatibility with Adobe Flash limts many video applications.

29.

Some sort of open platform, less proprietary

30.

I think it will be whatever the district can afford

31.

We are a PC district, so no iPads/iTouches. Not happy with the android platform, and what it can do for us, either.

32.

iPad does not have the necessary applications to fully support a student

33.

Kindle Fire

34.

We eliminated our tablet program this year. Ineffective.

35.

Something that runs java and flash

36.

I want a Windows operating system, so I'll wait for Windows 8

37.

Samsung Galaxy Tab

38.

Money will decide this

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

76

Table 10b. Top Tablet Choices: By Role

Total respondents by role were as follows: district science/STEM supervisors: 118; school science/STEM supervisors: 193; teachers: 531.

Table 10c. Top Tablet Choices: Teachers by School Level

Total respondents by level were as follows: elementary teachers: 86; middle/junior high teachers: 179; senior high teachers: 333.

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

77

Table 11a. Barriers to iPad/Tablet Adoption

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

78

Table 11b. Barriers to iPad/Tablet Adoption: By Role

Total respondents by role were as follows: district science/STEM supervisors: 99; school science/STEM supervisors: 173; teachers: 477.

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

79

Table 11c. Barriers to iPad/Tablet Adoption: Teachers by School Level

Total respondents by level were as follows: elementary teachers: 77; middle/junior high teachers: 162; senior high teachers: 296.

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

80

Table 12. Top Non-Profits for STEM Which of the following non-profit organizations do you think provide the most valuable products and services for STEM education? (Select up to the 3 most valuable.) Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

76.1% 27.9% 24.9% 23.8% 21.9%

614 225 201 192 177

National Science Teachers Association American Association of Physics Teachers Project Lead the Way American Chemical Society American Society for Engineering Education

Other: 1.

I have picked AAPT because I have some familiarity with it but otherwise I don't really know

2.

International Technology and Engineering Educators Association

3.

NASA

4.

National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC)

5.

International Technology and Engineering Educators Association

6.

The Need Organization

7.

Minnesota's state Science standards have included engineering. National programs, listed above, provide national content that is usually not well aligned to my state's standards.

8.

not sure

9.

Ten80 Foundation with Ten80 Student Racing Challenge: NASCAR STEM Initiative (PLtW uses our program for their engineering component in my systems).

10.

pHET,

11.

no idea

12.

don't know anything about any of them

13.

not sure

14.

don't know

15.

Not certain on this point

16.

I.N.E.L Idaho National Engineering Laboratories.

17.

I have no idea

18.

International Technology and Engineering Educators Association, STEM Center for Teaching and Learning

19.

Technology Student Asssociation

20.

ITEEA, ACTE

21.

I am unfamiliar with the benefits most of these organizations provide

22.

Not sure

23.

None of the above

24.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

25.

don't know

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

81

26.

I do not know

27.

International Technology and Engineering Educators Assocation

28.

I've only heard of National Science Teachers Association and they charge for most of their work...

29.

Natural Resource companies, agencies, organizations. Environmental Education providers.

30.

NSF, UMASS, Consortium for ocean leadership

31.

Not sure

32.

haven't heard of most of them

33.

NASA

34.

MIT

35.

NSF

36.

systemsgo

37.

not sure; the projects I have worked with have been funded by different groups

38.

Local and state universities such as Purdue.

39.

have no experience with any of the above

40.

MIT Blossums

41.

Unknown

42.

ITEEA

43.

Physics of Everyday Thinking (PHET) at U.C. Boulder

44.

NCTM

45.

National Math Science Initiative

46.

Computer Science Teachers Association

47.

Technology Associations

48.

ITEEA

49.

National Defense Education Program

50.

ISTE

51.

Laying The Foundation and the National Math and Science Initiative (NMSI)

52.

NRC, AAAS

53.

PHET

54.

I am not familiar with most of these and I teach at a STEM school. How do we get in contact with some of these organizations for help??

55.

PER (physics education research). This is the greatest thing that has happened in America to improve science education.

56.

ACE Mentoring Program

57.

Modeling Instruction at Arizona State University

58.

NASA

59.

don't know

60.

Phet, NEED

61.

PBS TeacherLine, NASA

62.

In our local region (Southern Colorado) the PIPES program at UCCS

63.

don't know

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

82

64.

i do not know

65.

not aware of the services any of these offer

66.

do not know for sure, but these are in place and relate to my subject matter

67.

American Geological Institute

68.

Do not know

69.

Penn State progams

70.

Annenburg

71.

I really do not know the answer to this question.

72.

Project 2061

73.

National Science Foundation

74.

NEED

75.

FIRST LEGO League

76.

University of Colorado PhET project

77.

International Technology Engineering Education Associaiton

78.

don't know

79.

not sure

80.

no idea

81.

Arizona State University (Modeling Instruction - modeling.asu.edu)

82.

Astronomical Society of the Pacific

83.

Do not know

84.

Not aware of the other non-profits listed.

85.

Not sure

86.

Spectroscopy society of Pittsburgh

87.

The above two are the only ones we are aware of.

88.

NOT SURE

89.

I like many of the things available on YouTube (which is blocked at my school). Being able to see how something works in a video is often quite helpful. Also, Open Courseware from MIT, other universities' contributions to free on-line lectures, Khan Academy (not sure yet), for-profit suppliers who include uses of equipment that they sell that can be duplicated at a much less expensive price if a few materials are available.

90.

Arizona State Modeling Program for Teachers

91.

Vernier Customer Service

92.

I really don't know

93.

American Modeling Teachers Association

94.

Phet - University of Colorado at Boulder - Simulations

95.

I don't have a basis for an opinion on this.

96.

Howard Hughes Institute

97.

I don't know.

98.

Boston Museum of Science, Exploratorium, BSCS, NRC, AAAS

99.

AMTA - American Modeling Teachers Association

100.

ITEEA

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

83

101.

Edutopia

102.

Phet and NLVM

103.

American Modeling Teachers Association

104.

AMTA/modeling; others listed are good, I use a number of them

105.

FLL /F.I.R.S.T. Robotics

106.

Not sure

107.

don't know

108.

Association Middle Level Educators

109.

Have not done enough research to choose

110.

American Modeling Teachers Association: http://modeling.asu.edu/ or http://www.modelingteachers.org/

111.

don't know

112.

NAEP, PHet, NASA, Univ. of Florida has a very nice list serve

113.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

114.

CSTA

115.

California Science teachers association

116.

The Works Museum Bloomington MN

117.

Vernier

118.

Rice University STEM Scopes

119.

Edutopia

120.

The Futures Channel

121.

PS - ACS is an organization interested in political lobby and industry profits.

122.

National Assoc. of Biology Teachers

123.

Lego Education

124.

Not aware enough to answer.

125.

Local Engineers and agencies

126.

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

127.

Interesting list of organizations...hard to answer fairly unless one is familiar with them all...and I am not.

128.

STEM Academy

129.

Thinkfinity.org

130.

www.stemedcoalition.org/

131.

American Modeling Teachers Association

132.

Colorado PHET

133.

Not sure

134.

I have heard of the others, but I don't know what they do for STEM education. Battelle use to provide a competition for high school students to attend the Intel ISEF but I think that part of their budget was cut. The competition encouraged STEM

135.

PHET

136.

American Geological Institute; National Earth Science Teachers Association

137.

vernier

138.

SuccessLink

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

84

139.

League for Innovation (www.league.org/stemtech)

140.

locally, Delaware Nature Society

141.

None

142.

National Center or Technological Literacy at MOS Boston

143.

I don't know.

144.

National STEM Digital Library

145.

Bio-Link, BABEC, CSTA

146.

NASA Endeavor Fellowship

147.

No contact or awareness of most of them

148.

NMSI

149.

University of Utah and University of Arizona

150.

Unfamiliar with the above non-profits

151.

Vernier Software

152.

Not familiar with any of these organizations

153.

phet website at University of Colorado

154.

NCTM

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

85

Table 13a. Professional Development Activity for STEM Education

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

86

Table 13b. Professional Development Activity for STEM Education: By Role

Total respondents by role varied in number from activity to activity as follows: district science/STEM supervisors: 112 to 115; school science/STEM supervisors: 185 to 189; teachers: 497 to 511.

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

87

Table 13c. Professional Development Activity for STEM Education: Teachers by School Level

Total respondents by level varied in number from activity to activity as follows: elementary teachers: 80 to 82; middle/junior high teachers: 164 to 168; senior high teachers: 314 to 324. © IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

88

Table 14a. Professional Development Most Helpful to STEM Educators

Table 14b. Professional Development Most Helpful to STEM Educators: By Role

Total respondents by role were as follows: district science/STEM supervisors: 115; school science/STEM supervisors: 189; teachers: 518.

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

89

Table 14c. Professional Development Most Helpful to STEM Educators: Teachers by School Level Which type of STEM professional development would be the MOST helpful to educators in your school/district? For which education level(s) are you responsible? (Please select all that apply.) Elementary Middle/junior Senior high Response Response Answer Options level high level level Percent Count Content knowledge 28 41 71 24.1% 123 PD on pedagogy 17 28 81 20.9% 107 PD on Next Generation of Science 21 65 110 34.2% 175 Standards Product training 17 38 64 20.7% 106 511 answered question skipped question 66

Total respondents by level were as follows: elementary teachers: 83; middle/junior high teachers: 172; senior high teachers: 326.

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

90

This Educator Edition is sponsored by:

www.learning.com/gostem

© IESD, Inc. All Rights Reserved—Educator Edition

91