Learn more about the EdExchange  

Search and Filter

Submit a paper

Not yet affiliated? Have a paper you wish to post? Check out the EdWorkingPapers' scope and FAQs, and then submit your manuscript here.

Strengthening STEM Instruction in Schools: Learning from Research

Kathleen Lynch,
Heather C. Hill,
Kathryn E. Gonzalez,
Cynthia Pollard

More than half of U.S. children fail to meet proficiency standards in mathematics and science in fourth grade. Teacher professional development and curriculum improvement are two of the primary levers that school leaders and policymakers use to improve children’s science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) learning, yet until recently, the evidence base for understanding their effectiveness was relatively thin. In recent years, a wealth of rigorous new studies using experimental designs have investigated whether and how STEM instructional improvement programs work. This article highlights contemporary research on how to improve classroom instruction and subsequent student learning in STEM. Instructional improvement programs that feature curriculum integration, teacher collaboration, content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and how students learn all link to stronger student achievement outcomes. We discuss implications for policy and practice.

Keywords
teachers, professional development, curriculum, mathematics, science, STEM
Education level
Post-secondary education
Topics
Student Learning
Tags
Science education,
Mathematics education,
Professional development
Download 10/2019
Document Object Identifier (DOI)
10.26300/4ad1-wy32
EdWorkingPaper suggested citation:
Lynch, Kathleen, Heather C. Hill, Kathryn Gonzalez, and Cynthia Pollard. (). Strengthening STEM Instruction in Schools: Learning from Research. (EdWorkingPaper: -142). Retrieved from Annenberg Institute at Brown University: https://doi.org/10.26300/4ad1-wy32

Machine-readable bibliographic record: RIS, BibTeX

Published Edworkingpaper:
(2019). Strengthening STEM Instruction in Schools: Learning from Research, 6(2), 236–242