Teachers’ self-efficacy and engagement in classroom teaching play critical roles in making the integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education happen. However, the potential factors influencing teachers’ self-efficacy and engagement in STEM teaching have yet to be examined. This study constructed a hypothesized model including teaching self-efficacy, pedagogical design self-efficacy, discipline knowledge, administration support, and collegial support and investigated their structural effects on teacher engagement based on the survey of 458 Chinese teachers. Results of structural equation modeling revealed teaching self-efficacy, pedagogical design self-efficacy, and collegial support were the important predictors of teachers’ engagement in STEM teaching. Meanwhile, teachers’ discipline knowledge and administration support positively influenced teaching self-efficacy which in turn influenced teacher engagement. Findings of this study suggested that to enhance teachers’ engagement in STEM teaching, further studies on teacher professional development are needed to explore how to enhance teachers’ pedagogical design competencies and collaboration consciousness. This study provides some implications and recommendations for school administrators and teacher educators to successfully enhance teachers’ engagement and competencies in STEM education.
Keywords: In-service teachers Engagement in STEM teaching Teaching self-efficacy Pedagogical design School supportAl Salami, M. K., Makela, C. J., & Miranda, M. A. D. (2017). Assessing changes in teachers’ attitudes toward interdisciplinary stem teaching. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27, 1–26.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191.
Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weis, A. (2013). Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
Bayer, J. A. (2009). Perceptions of science, mathematics, and technology education teachers on implementing an interdisciplinary curriculum at Blaine Senior High (Doctoral dissertation, Thesis). University of Wisconsin–Stout, Menomonie WI: Retrieved May 11, from http://www.uwstout.edu/lib/thesis/2009/2009bayerj.pdf).
Brown, M. W. (2011). The teacher–tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work (pp. 37–56). London: Routledge.
Brown, R., Brown, J., Reardon, K., & Merrill, C. (2011). Understanding STEM: Current perceptions. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(6), 5.
Camburn, E. M., & Han, S. W. (2017). Teachers’ professional learning experiences and their engagement in reflective practice: A replication study. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28(4), 527–554.
Chachashvili-Bolotin, S., Milner-Bolotin, M., & Lissitsa, S. (2016). Examination of factors predicting secondary students’ interest in tertiary STEM education. International Journal of Science Education, 38(3), 366–390.
Chacon, C. T. (2005). Teachers’ perceived efficacy among English as a foreign language teachers in middle schools in Venezuela. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(3), 257–272.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher learning: What matters? Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46–53.
Ding, L., Kim, C., & Orey, M. (2017). Studies of student engagement in gamified online discussions. Computers & Education, 115, 126–142.
Ekici, D. I. (2018). Development of pre-service teachers’ teaching self-efficacy beliefs through an online community of practice. Asia Pacific Education Review, 19(1), 27–40.
El-Deghaidy, H., Mansour, N., Alzaghibi, M., & Alhammad, K. (2017). Context of STEM integration in schools: Views from in-service science teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(6), 2459–2484.
Erawan, P. (2010). A comparison of teaching efficacy, commitment to teaching profession and satisfaction with program effectiveness of teacher students under the 5 year-program curriculum and those under the 4 + 1 year program curriculum. European Journal of Social Science, 14(2), 250–261.
Eun, B., & Heining-Boynton, A. L. (2007). Impact of an English-as-a-second-language professional development program. The Journal of Educational Research, 101(1), 36–49.
Fan, S. C., & Yu, K. C. (2017). How an integrative STEM curriculum can benefit students in engineering design practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(1), 107–129.
Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for windows: Advanced techniques for the beginner. London: Sage publications Ltd.
Fischer, C., Fishman, B., Dede, C., Eisenkraft, A., Frumin, K., Foster, B., et al. (2018). Investigating relationships between school context, teacher professional development, teaching practices, and student achievement in response to a nationwide science reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 72, 107–121.
Frost, D. (2012). From professional development to system change: Teacher leadership and innovation. Professional Development in Education, 38(2), 205–227.
Gamse, B. C., Martinez, A., & Bozzi, L. (2017). Calling STEM experts: How can experts contribute to students’ increased STEM engagement? International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(1), 31–59.
Gunter, G. A., & Reeves, J. L. (2017). Online professional development embedded with mobile learning: An examination of teachers’ attitudes, engagement and dispositions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(6), 1305–1317.
Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 63–69.
Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate stem instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952–984.
Jarvel, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2014). Designing for learning: Interest, motivation, and engagement. In D. Keith Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 668–685). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jho, H., Hong, O., & Song, J. (2016). An analysis of STEM/STEAM teacher education in Korea with a case study of two schools from a community of practice perspective. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(7), 1843–1862.
Jones, M. G., & Carter, G. (2007). Science teacher attitudes and beliefs. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1067–1104). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
Kangas, M., Siklander, P., Randolph, J., & Ruokamo, H. (2017). Teachers’ engagement and students’ satisfaction with a playful learning environment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 274–284.
Keller, J. M. (2008). An integrative theory of motivation, volition, and performance. Technology, Instruction, Cognition, and Learning, 6(2), 79–104.
Kim, C., Park, S. W., Cozart, J., & Lee, H. (2015). From motivation to engagement: The role of effort regulation of virtual high school students in mathematics courses. Educational Technology and Society, 18(4), 261–272.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
Knight-Bardsley, A., & Mcneill, K. L. (2016). Teachers’ pedagogical design capacity for scientific argumentation. Science Education, 100(4), 645–672.
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Lim, W. Y. (2017). Teacher professional development for TPACK-21CL: Effects on teacher ICT integration and student outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(2), 172–196.
Lai, C. L., Hwang, G. J., Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2016). Differences between mobile learning environmental preferences of high school teachers and students in Taiwan: A structural equation model analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(3), 533–554.
Lakkala, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Teachers’ pedagogical designs for technology-supported collective inquiry: A national case study. Computers & Education, 45(3), 337–356.
Lam, S. F., Cheng, W. Y., & Choy, H. C. (2010). School support and teacher motivation to implement project-based learning. Learning & Instruction, 20(6), 487–497.
Langworthy, M., Shear, L., & Means, B. (2010). The third lever. Educational Research and Innovation, 105–124.
Lee, C. J., & Kim, C. M. (2017). A technological pedagogical content knowledge based instructional design model: A third version implementation study in a technology integration course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 4, 1–28.
Lin, K. Y., & Williams, P. J. (2016). Taiwanese preservice teachers’ science, technology, engineering, and mathematics teaching intention. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(6), 1021–1036.
Ludvigsen, S., Lund, A., Rasmussen, I., & Säljö, R. (2010). Introduction: Learning across sites; new tools, infrastructures and practices. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, I. Rasmussen, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning across sites (pp. 13–26). London: Routledge.
Michaluk, L., Stoiko, R., Stewart, G., & Stewart, J. (2017). Beliefs and attitudes about science and mathematics in pre-service elementary teachers, stem, and non-stem majors in undergraduate physics courses. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1, 1–15.
Nadelson, L. S., & Seifert, A. (2013). Perceptions, engagement, and practices of teachers seeking professional development in place-based integrated STEM. Teacher Education and Practice, 26(2), 242–266.
Nadelson, L., Seifert, A., Moll, A., & Coats, B. (2012). i-STEM summer institute: An integrated approach to teacher professional development in STEM. Journal of STEM Education, 13(2), 69–83.
National Research Council [NRC]. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Nie, Y., Tan, G. H., Liau, A. K., Lau, S., & Chua, B. L. (2013). The roles of teacher efficacy in instructional innovation: Its predictive relations to constructivist and didactic instruction. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 12(1), 67–77.
Rohaan, E. J., Taconis, R., & Jochems, W. M. (2012). Analyzing teacher knowledge for technology education in primary schools. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(3), 271–280.
Saka, M., Bayram, H., & Kabapinar, F. (2016). The teaching processes of prospective science teachers with different levels of science-teaching self-efficacy belief. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 16(3), 915–941.
Sang, G., Tondeur, J., Chai, C. S., & Dong, Y. (2016). Validation and profile of Chinese pre-service teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge scale. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 44(1), 49–65.
Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323–338.
Sellami, A., El.Kassem, R. C., Al-Qassass, H. B., & Al-Rakeb, N. A. (2017). A path analysis of student interest in STEM, with specific reference to Qatari students. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(9), 6045–6067.
Sias, C. M., Nadelson, L. S., Juth, S. M., & Seifert, A. L. (2017). The best laid plans: educational innovation in elementary teachers generated integrated stem lesson plans. Journal of Educational Research, 110, 1–12.
Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated stem education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28–34.
Tan, A. L., & Leong, W. F. (2014). Mapping curriculum innovation in STEM schools to assessment requirements: Tensions and dilemmas. Theory Into Practice, 53(1), 11–17.
Thibaut, L., Knipprath, H., Dehaene, W., & Depaepe, F. (2018). The influence of teachers’ attitudes and school context on instructional practices in integrated STEM education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 190–205.
Toma, R. B., & Greca, I. M. (2018). The effect of integrative stem instruction on elementary students’ attitudes toward science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 14(4), 1383–1395.
Tsai, C. C., & Chai, C. S. (2012). The “third”-order barrier for technology-integration instruction: Implications for teacher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(6), 1057–1060.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248.
Wang, M. T., & Eccles, J. S. (2013). School context, achievement motivation, and academic engagement: A longitudinal study of school engagement using a multidimensional perspective. Learning and Instruction, 28(3), 12–23.
Watermeyer, R., & Montgomery, C. (2018). Public dialogue with science and development for teachers of stem: Linking public dialogue with pedagogic praxis. Journal of Education for Teaching International Research and Pedagogy, 44(1), 1–17.
Wysession, M. W. (2015). Next generation science standards: Preparing students for careers in energy-related fields. Leading Edge, 34(10), 1166–1176.
Yin, H., Han, J., & Lu, G. (2017). Chinese tertiary teachers’ goal orientations for teaching and teaching approaches: The mediation of teacher engagement. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(7), 766–784.
Yu, R., & Singh, K. (2018). Teacher support, instructional practices, student motivation, and mathematics achievement in high school. Journal of Educational Research, 111(1), 1–14.
Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 981–1015.