Preparing Integrated STEM Educators In PNG: The Enabling and Constraining Factors

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4903108/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Preparing Integrated STEM Educators In PNG: The Enabling and Constraining Factors

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4903108/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education is a high priority in many countries, seen to enable future economic growth and competitiveness. Teachers play a central role in this endeavour. This paper reports on an Australian government funded research project in Papua New Guinea evaluating the extent to which a post-graduate science teacher education course prepared future teachers as integrated Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) educators. We conducted 11 interviews to determine stakeholders’ current understandings of integrated Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths in education, what enables and constrains STEM education practices, and how they could be improved in Papua New Guinea. Margaret Archer’s emergent properties were used as a robust theoretical frame to analyse the data. While some enabling conditions were present, findings revealed a broad lack of understanding about integrated Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths, as well as significant structural constraints. Recommendations are made for how integrated Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths practices can be improved moving forward which include a coordinated national approach to increase integrated Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths understanding and integrated Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths teacher education.

STEM Education

Teacher Education

Integrated STEM

Developing Country

Internationally, STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education is seen as fundamental to national development and productivity and economic competitiveness (Freeman, et al., 2019; Ha et al., 2020, Ismail, 2018). The academic and social benefits of STEM education are considered as having broad implications for workers in STEM and non-STEM occupations (Ha et al., 2020). In response, STEM education has become a policy discourse for many developed and developing countries across the globe. For policymakers, STEM expertise is perceived as central to human capital competencies for 21st-century economies (Hsu & Fang, 2019). However, there is a lack of qualified STEM professionals who can contribute towards resolving a multitude of real-world issues (Anderson, 2020; Anderson et al., 2020). No where is this more evident than in least developed countries such as Papua New Guinea.

The PNG Government’s Vision 2050 policy (National Strategic Plan Taskforce, 2008) is to create a smart, wise, fair, and happy society by the year 2050. The first step to achieving this is introducing STEM education into schools to develop a population that thrives on innovation and creativity to propel the country forward. However, to date, PNG’s government has trialled STEM at the secondary education level in the National Schools of Excellence only (National Schools of Excellence Policy, 2020). For the PNG government to realise their societal goals, there is a need for qualified teachers that are fully equipped to lead and transform the teaching of STEM disciplines.

The focus of the present study was to evaluate the existing Post Graduate Diploma of Education (PGDE) course at one of PNGs principal providers of teacher education. To realise the PNG government’s agenda, it was perceived that teachers needed specialised training in STEM to be better equipped to lead and transform the teaching of STEM disciplines. The aim, therefore, was to identify how the university in PNG can better align their PGDE program with the new STEM curriculum, enhance integrated STEM education teaching and learning requirements, and provide a roadmap to develop a PGDE (STEM) teacher education program for 2024 and onwards. The research questions addressed in this paper are:

What are stakeholders’ current understandings of STEM?

What enables and constrains integrated STEM education practices in PNG?

How can integrated STEM education practices be improved in PNG?

In the sections that follow, we first outline existing academic literature related to STEM education in the Asia Pacific region. Then, Archer’s (2007) emergent properties, as the theoretical framework for this study are elaborated followed by the methods used for data collection. The findings are then explicated using the theoretical framework before the research questions are answered in the discussion. Finally, the conclusion makes recommendations for improving the enactment of STEM and STEM practices in education in PNG.

STEM education refers to an approach that focuses on four core academic disciplines: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Moore et al. (2014) defined integrated STEM education as "an effort to combine some or all of the four disciplines of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics into one class, unit, or lesson that is based on connections between the subjects and real-world problems" (p. 38). An integrated approach creates pathways for preparing students to be proficient in these subjects; developing the critical thinking, problem-solving, and collaboration skills required to succeed in today’s technology-driven world. STEM education aims to facilitate a deep understanding of both the natural and physical world, applying this understanding to real-world challenges (Scottish Government, 2020). Engaging students in hands-on, inquiry-based learning experiences can help them develop a strong foundation in the core concepts of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. When connected with real-world challenges, students take risks and learn from failures by applying their disciplinary knowledge and skills. This approach also promotes the development of skills in critical and creative thinking, communication, and collaboration skills, as students often must work in teams to solve complex challenges (Stehle & Peters-Burton, 2020).

While STEM education has many potential benefits, there are also some challenges and issues that schools (and Initial Teacher Education) need to address. Some of the significant challenges and issues of implementing integrated STEM education include (1) lack of teacher preparation and professional development; (2) poor teacher knowledge of curriculum design and assessment, and (3) inadequate funding for resource acquisition. In a systematic literature review on teachers’ perceptions of STEM education, Margot and Kettler (2019) reported that teachers identified the following as barriers for implementing a STEM integrated approach: (1) pedagogical challenges, (2) curriculum challenges, (3) structural challenges, (4) student concerns, and (5) assessment tools and planning time. Teachers believed that the following strategies would support them in their efforts to implement STEM (1) collaborative culture, (2) available quality curriculum, (3) school district support, (4) prior experiences and (5) professional development (Margot & Kettler, 2019).

STEM education is essential to prepare the next generation for future technological and scientific challenges. It is also important for building a workforce that can drive innovation and economic growth in a rapidly changing global market space (Freeman, et al., 2019; Ha et al., 2020). Thus, to address present and upcoming social and economic difficulties, educators, policymakers, non-governmental organizations, and business and industrial organisations emphasize the need to enhance STEM capabilities (Timms, et al., 2018). For these reasons, there is “an urgent desire to understand the challenges and obstacles to developing and implementing integrated STEM curricula and instruction” (Shernoff, et al., 2017, p. 1).

Better understanding these challenges and obstacles of STEM education will also support university based ITE programs that equip teachers with the necessary pedagogical skills for their classrooms. Effective ITE course design that equips teachers with integrated STEM pedagogy knowledge is crucial to developing teachers that can confidently deliver results with a STEM curriculum. Teacher education programs and the teachers that emerge from them play a central role in providing the foundational STEM skills and knowledge that will drive forward STEM focussed economic and education policies (Fakcharoenphol, et al., 2022).

Archer maintains that there are three distinct emergent properties that contribute to making decisions about how to act (Archer, 2007). These are personal, structural, and cultural emergent properties. Personal emergent properties (PEPs) in the context of this study, relate to knowledge and understanding of STEM as well as where education stakeholders sourced their knowledge. Structural emergent properties (SEPs) are systems, practices, resources, or policies such as curriculum documents. In these emerging conditions, these properties influence each other in enabling and/or constraining ways. Cultural emergent properties (CEPs) are prevailing beliefs, ideologies, and expectations of education systems or stakeholders; for example, how STEM is talked about by the education community. Archer’s emergent properties are used to analyse what personal, cultural, and structural conditions enable or constrain the enactment of STEM practices in PNG.

The PNG-based authors adopted an interview-based methodology to collect the data locally to answer the proposed research questions. Ethics approval was granted through the Human Research Ethics Committee of the university in PNG (approval no. 202234). Written, informed consent was obtained from each of eleven participants prior to individual 45–60-minute interviews being conducted. The eleven participants included school principals (P) (n = 2), teachers (T) (n = 2), university personnel (U) (n = 3), teachers that were previous initial teacher education students (TST) (n = 2) and postgraduate students (ST) (n = 2), all from Papua New Guinea. Participants were asked questions about their knowledge and understanding of STEM, where their knowledge came from, what existing practices were being focused on regarding STEM in universities and schools, how confident they were with STEM, what enabled and constrained STEM practices and how STEM could be improved going forward.

Interviews were transcribed verbatim, before, first being inductively coded into themes. The researchers were subdivided into smaller teams with members present from both universities. These teams of researchers then checked each other’s codes, and a consensus was reached through dialogue between all team members. Two of the researchers with expertise in Archer’s emergent properties classified the inductive findings according to this framework. This whole process was conducted with a high degree of openness to new interpretations. It was a strong collaborative and iterative process of sorting and resorting of the data to answer the research questions (See discussion).

In the findings section we first present the enabling and/or constraining PEPs. This same format is followed for presenting both the SEPs and CEPs.

Personal Emergent Properties

Two personal emergent properties (PEPs) were evident across participants’ responses, namely knowledge of STEM (enabling and constraining) and confidence in STEM teaching practices (constraining). The most dominant was knowledge of STEM or a lack thereof. Three participant groups - current students (ST), alumni (TST) (teachers who completed an ITE course with a STEM component) and teachers (T), tended to have more knowledge of STEM and STEM practices than the other education stakeholders. For example, ST1 stated that STEM was made up of “knowledge from the four main disciplines”, was “project-based learning” and “practically based.” Both T1 and T2 agreed that STEM was related to “project-based learning” and “involved 21st-century skills such as collaboration, innovation and creativity”. T1 specifically commented on STEM requiring “more coming from students [than] teachers” suggesting that this teacher believed in STEM using a student-centred approach where students are active in their own learning and not just the teacher “standing and telling”.

While the alumni and teachers were able to elaborate on STEM better than other participant groups, the example from ST2 highlighted a comprehensive view of what STEM might look like in practice:

If we… look at physics, we look at the different ways, displacement in waves. We talk about the amplitude, the wavelength, and the trough and all. Now how we can relate it to maths, we relate it by the sine wave. Then we can relate it to the graph of the wave. Now, this is what I mean, like collaborating on it and then how we can model it on a computer. That’s where technology comes in. And then we use it to calculate the application part of it in engineering, for instance, the building of copper ions and all those. So, what I mean is that it’s the integration or the collecting of knowledge from those forming disciplines into putting it into one to create an object or a project or something. (ST2)

This student was able to “integrate” the four disciplines explicitly and link to “project-based learning” revealing their sophisticated knowledge of STEM. Project-based learning is the signature pedagogy in STEM for addressing real-world problems. When these groups of participants were asked about where their knowledge about STEM came from, all responded that they had heard about a scholarship program at a PNG university provided by Australia Awards which they then googled to find out more:

I came across STEM when I was going through a national newspaper, and I saw that the program [was an] AusAID in-Country Scholarship program. (ST1)

The fact that students, alumni, and teachers could elaborate on STEM in terms of disciplines, skills and practices suggests that this knowledge might enable the development and enactment of STEM in PNG. Importantly, this knowledge could be seen as a first step in addressing one of the challenges associated with teacher preparation to implement and teach integrated STEM. Additionally, because the source of their knowledge was related to the Australia Award scheme, this program could be classified as an enabling structural emergent property (SEP).

However, the remaining stakeholder groups, principals and university personnel had limited knowledge about STEM, albeit to varying degrees. P1 stated “All I know is STEM is Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics more related to science than the arts”. Their knowledge about STEM was from “a circular [that] came from the education division” that focussed on STEM courses. U2, like P1, understood the acronym stating that it “stands for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics” but they did not elaborate on where they had learned about the concept. For P2, they became aware of STEM from a staff member who had engaged in in-service professional development related to STEM. However, the details of the nature of the in-service were not made clear.

For university personnel (academics), collectively their knowledge appeared superficial; U1 admitted that they didn’t really understand STEM but first heard about the concept at a conference at a PNG university in 2015 and since had conducted further research into STEM. U3’s knowledge came from outside of PNG, but again, they did not offer more than an explanation of the acronym as “incorporating science, technology, engineering and mathematics usage in teaching and learning”. This participant confidently asserted that “STEM education is a new concept for Papua New Guinea”. The cursory responses outlining STEM knowledge by both university staff and school principals can be seen as constraining the progression of STEM practices in PNG. According to Thibault, et al., (2018), a lack of knowledge from leadership can inhibit the development of a culture that inspires integrated STEM teaching and learning. This lack of knowledge is demonstrated through the general articulation of STEM as a group of interconnected disciplines versus a more robust explanation of STEM citing a transdisciplinary perspective. It appears that there needs to be investment of knowledge for leaders at universities and in schools if STEM practices are to be fully realised.

The second PEP evident in the data, albeit limited, was confidence in teaching STEM practices. Only two participant groups commented on this - the ITE students and teachers who were ITE graduates. Despite ST1 and ST2 elaborating on the sophisticated knowledge (PEP) of STEM, they admitted that they were not confident (PEP) to teach the STEM curriculum. ST2 said “…the [PGDE] ITE program hasn’t really prepared us to go and deliver STEM Education in… schools … It was tailored only for teaching us methods...believing that we came from other institutions and have the content.” They linked this lack of confidence to the quality of their ITE program (constraining SEP). One of the ITE graduates concurred stating that “I am not confident about teaching this ‘thing’ yet”. This is an important challenge to address, especially when considering the interrelatedness of teacher content knowledge and teacher performance. Reduced confidence in teaching STEM due to insufficient STEM content and pedagogical knowledge will have a significant impact on teacher performance.

Structural Emergent Properties (SEPs)

The Australia Awards program has already been highlighted as an enabling structural emergent property (SEP) (see previous section). The only participant group that mentioned any type of enablement for the enactment of STEM in PNG was the teachers. T1 noted that STEM in-service training had improved STEM education and T2 stated that they had STEM in-service training which had resulted in “marked increases in project-based teaching”. The participants implied that teachers gained confidence (PEP) in STEM practices from these professional learning sessions. Other stakeholders did refer to enabling conditions, but this was said in the context of “if we had” so we have categorised these as constraints.

Across the data, constraining structural emergent properties were much more evident than enablers and included infrastructure and access to resources. The amalgam and the interconnectedness of these constraining SEPs is highlighted in the quote from ST2 below:

[There] needs [to be] a lot of support from government and stakeholders…. the assistance in resource materials and the technical aspects on how to teach STEM. STEM ITE programs need government and stakeholder support, experts from overseas” universities to develop STEM programs … The university needs to build new infrastructures and bring in more staff and all the instruction materials. (ST2)

Each SEP and the participant groups that identified the property as constraining are now expanded upon.

Infrastructure. All five stakeholder groups provided responses related to declining infrastructure. The participant groups agreed that “good computer and science laboratories” (P1) were needed for teaching STEM. P2 referred to “ageing and inappropriate infrastructure”, ST1 concurring, that “the current labs are very old and contain out-of-date equipment”. T2 pointed out that only one lab is available in their school citing a need for “proper science labs and specialised labs” for project-based learning. TST1 indicated a need to build new facilities for STEM education. The consensus was that these infrastructural constraints were deterrents to the effective learning and teaching of STEM. P2 claimed most lessons were “theory based and less practical” and ST1 asserted that we need “specific STEM laboratories that can enable us to do practical based projects” (ST1). U1 pointed out that their university “does not provide facilities that are conducive for delivering STEM education”.

Another structural condition that constrained the learning and teaching of STEM in PNG was access to different types of resources. For clarity, we have divided access into physical resources and human resources.

Access to Physical Resources. All participant groups mentioned physical resources, either the national curriculum document for PNG, learning and teaching materials related to the curriculum, or money as constraining factors. What became apparent was that many of the participant groups did not have access to the national curriculum document - “no access to curriculum (TST1); [we] need to have the syllabus (U3), the student participants lamenting that “lecturers do not have access to the... STEM curriculum” and therefore “are not able to produce STEM course guides” (ST1). ST2 states this clearly saying, “National Department of Education has to allow the lecturers to access STEM curriculum to promote STEM integrated teaching”. P2 added that this restricted access to the national curriculum document has contributed to schools” inactive participation in STEM practices.

Related to the PNG national curriculum document, some participants talked about not having access to “STEM curriculum instructional materials” (ST1), U3 stating that “curriculum teaching materials should be made available to schools”. This is equally true for the university context, ST2 lamenting having “no resources such as textbooks and instructional materials”. This lack of access to physical resources for teaching, specifically the curriculum document was seen as a major constraining factor to the implementation of STEM practices.

Lastly, in relation to physical resources, all the participant groups except for teachers commented on financial resources as a structural constraint, either the overall lack of or the need for increased funding. Many statements from the participants revealed this – the “school budget is very small, and doesn’t adequately procure the required teaching and learning materials for their divisions” (U3); “lack of support from NDoE and funding as reasons for disparate or lacking existing practices for STEM education (P2); STEM education, they require a lot of money (TST2); “there are no proper STEM instructional materials here…the STEM PGDE program needs some funding and government backing” (ST2) and “we need lots of money” (U1). The comments highlight not just the need for funds directly but ancillary resources that can be provided through adequate and appropriate funding.

Access to Human resources. In addition to physical resources, human resources were also identified as structural constraints by four of the participant groups; university personnel, ITE students, teachers who previously attended an ITE STEM program and principals. U3 strongly expressed concern that the teachers who lead the ITE program are themselves in need of professional development. She stated, “I think most of them need to have some sort of training …to make them more competent and confident enough to better equip themselves before they start teaching the STEM curriculum”. She also believed that schoolteachers do not have … “basic practical skills” for STEM teaching.

The two STEM ITE students concurred with U3 claiming that the lecturers teaching STEM ITE courses should have adequate content knowledge and training in STEM Education, ST1 asserting that rather than being trained in STEM they were being “grounded in traditional approaches” to teaching “focused on generic… methods”. ITE alumni shared the same views as the current students saying that they were not taught specific STEM practices. They said that despite being on STEM scholarships, STEM training is not effectively implemented. TST2 gave her university preparation a “two out of 10” stating that “it did not adequately prepare me at all” to teach STEM. P1 also had reservations about the quality of instruction at the university, maintaining that their diploma was valued more than the current graduate’s qualifications. However, it was not clear if they were referring to STEM or discipline-specific courses.

Cultural emergent properties (CEPs)

Analysis of the data revealed two cultural emergent properties (CEPs) that appeared to be enabling, one for teachers and one for university personnel. The first one included teachers working collaboratively. Collaboration was evident in the words from T1, who as a non-STEM trained person, indicated that they try to work collaboratively on [STEM] projects. “I asked the maths teacher to come along. I did ask the other teachers. I said, ‘Hey come and let’s try and work on this thing and make it work’.” (T1)

The only other conditions that might be seen as enabling could be the mentions of current practices involving evaluating an ITE program and increasing awareness and implementation of a STEM curriculum. U3 mentioned that the National Department of Education has circulated a STEM curriculum …however, it is only currently used in the National Schools of Excellence. They also mentioned that the university is aligning its program structure to the new STEM curriculum. However, it is hard to determine if these conditions were enabling but this is an indication of an attempt at a coordinated STEM approach.

P2 was concerned that STEM curriculum implementation was not occurring at a national level but was restricted to the Schools of Excellence only. They said that this creates discrimination between Schools of Excellence and other secondary schools emphasising that STEM “should be rolled out to all Secondary Schools” across PNG. ST2 also wanted STEM to be thought about from a systems approach where teachers and parents are well-informed, and students can make informed career choices.

In response to RQ1, What are stakeholders’ current understandings of STEM?, the findings reveal that stakeholders had varied understandings of what STEM and STEM practices are. Current students had the most sophisticated knowledge and understanding of STEM despite acknowledging a lack of confidence in teaching STEM. The other two groups who had some foundational knowledge included ITE alumni and current teachers. University personnel and principals were the two groups where STEM knowledge was lacking. This finding is concerning considering it is university personnel and teacher educators who will educate the next generation of teachers and principals who have the power in schools to ensure STEM practices are enacted. Our findings are not in isolation. There is a growing body of literature that emphasises the important role teacher educators play and the importance of their skills and knowledge in pre-service teacher's development (Bourke et al., 2022; Nielsen et al., 2018; Weinberg et al., 2021).

The knowledge sources in this study included a scholarship advertisement, word of mouth from teachers who had participated in professional development and an education department circular. This tells us that knowledge sources about STEM in Papua New Guinea are, at present, ad hoc. None of the participants indicated that there are any official channels for the dissemination of information about STEM. This ambiguous and uncoordinated approach creates missed opportunities for the effective building of STEM pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) necessary for teacher development.

In response to RQ2, what enables and constrains STEM practices in PNG?

Table 1 presents a summary of the personal, structural, and cultural emergent properties that were seen as enabling and/or constraining across the education stakeholders’ transcripts.

Table 1

Personal, Structural and Cultural Emergent Properties
	Enabling	Constraining
Personal	Knowledge of STEM	Knowledge of STEM Confidence in teaching STEM practices
Structural	Awards programs In-service training	Lack of infrastructure Access - Physical resources - Human resources
Cultural	Collaboration by teachers Attempt at a coordinated approach	Lack of a national approach

Table 1

Personal, Structural and Cultural Emergent Properties

As can be seen from Table 1, structural emergent properties (SEPs) were the most influential contextual factors that constrained the enactment of STEM education in PNG. It was palatable in the stakeholders’ responses how the declining state or absence of labs, computers, curriculum documents and specialised qualified ITE personnel hindered the progress of STEM education in PNG. According to Mohr-Schroeder et al., (2020), access to quality learning resources is foundational to the development of STEM literacy. Their paper highlights that STEM literacy is essential for student development and future societal participation. Therefore, there is a distinct need to provide opportunities and access to resources that will effectively support STEM literacy development. The other constraining PEPs and CEPs included confidence in teaching STEM practices and a lack of a coordinated national approach. These points have already been alluded to in response to RQ1.

Across the emergent properties, knowledge of STEM, foreign aid programs, in-service training, teacher collaboration and attempting to establish a nationally coordinated approach were identified as enabling factors. However, despite all the best intentions, these enablers were muted by the constraints, especially the structural ones. It is worth reiterating that the only participant group that mentioned any type of enablement for the enactment of STEM in PNG was the teachers. All other groups’ responses were often prefaced with “if we had”.

Finally, in response to RQ3, how can STEM practices be improved? We make three recommendations based on what the stakeholders told us. The first is in relation to SEPs, the second to CEPs and the last to PEPs.

1. Investment in structures to support the enactment of STEM education.

A major barrier for all stakeholders was the absence of a publicly available national curriculum document to serve as a guideline for what needs to be taught. The absence of a national curriculum is only further compounded by either a lack of or a declining state of infrastructure including STEM-specific labs, equipment, resources, computers, and software needed for the effective teaching of STEM. In the systematic literature review by Margot and Kettler, (2019) teachers identified the lack of funding, and technological and instructional resources that support inquiry-based learning as significant challenges for the effective implementation of integrated STEM education.

The recommendation is for all these resources to be strategically distributed across the country as a national and coherent approach to implementing STEM education. Furthermore, for this to be successful, sustainable funding for the installation of computers and software packages for the teaching of STEM, as well as consistent and robust internet connectivity needs to be addressed by the PNG government. However, where funding is not available, conducting workshops targeting teachers to think of innovative ideas and approaches using household and readily available items, could be administered as a stop-gap measure until a wider strategic approach is implemented. An innovative workshop approach could also reinforce the problem based and authentic learning nature of STEM education. In a study focused on integrated STEM in South Africa, Makonye and Dlamini (2020, p. 172) reiterated the need for ongoing professional development to support teaching “STEM content in innovative and progressive ways” as a method of maintaining teacher quality and learning outcomes.

2. Implementation of wide-scale professional learning in STEM content and STEM pedagogical practices.

Addressing teachers’ integrated STEM understanding and knowledge as well as their self-efficacy is pivotal for supporting learning in STEM. In a recent Australian study (Berry, et al., 2018) preservice teachers worked alongside teacher educators in a series of STEM workshops for school-aged girls. The PSTs found the experience positively informed their self-perception and understanding as emerging STEM educators. In the current study, it was clear that many of the stakeholders involved in STEM education in PNG, either don’t have the required knowledge, or are not confident in applying their limited knowledge, to deliver integrated STEM education. Wide scale professional learning could take the form of communities of practice (Wenger, 1998) where different stakeholders from schools and universities collaborate for the betterment of STEM learning for university personnel, principals, teachers and students. Stakeholders proposed negotiating with local secondary schools to conduct STEM practical classes and engage students in project-based learning activities that apply to real-world issues.

3. Investment in the knowledge of the teacher educators.

Internationally there has been an increased focus on ITE programs and the relationship between quality teacher education and graduate outcomes (Alexander, 2018). Teacher-educators working in higher education play a significant role in the development of teachers through the development of learning experiences and research (Weinberg, et al., 2020). This is furthered by the globalised importance of ensuring students emerge from school with a strong foundation in STEM (Thibaut, et al., 2018). This is only achievable by ensuring that those who train the teachers have a specialist knowledge of integrated STEM education and that there is a sustainable pipeline of personnel. An approach that invests in teacher educators will strongly support coordinated and national efforts to increase STEM education across PNG. Improving personal, structural, and cultural conditions that will enhance STEM capabilities by producing more STEM-qualified lecturers will cultivate high-quality STEM teachers and leaders versed in quality STEM knowledge and practices.

This paper has outlined the perspectives of 11 stakeholders associated with STEM and STEM education in PNG. Our analysis has shown a lack of clear knowledge and understanding around integrated STEM and integrated STEM education practices among most stakeholders despite this being a government priority. This is not unique to PNG. This issue has also been identified and reported in various studies across the region. (Berry, et al., 2018 (Australia); Yip, et al., 2019 (Hong Kong); Yeh, et al., 2019 (Taiwan); Fakcharoenphol, et al., 2022 (Thailand)). Notwithstanding the structural constraints in terms of infrastructure and resourcing, a necessary first step is investing in the teacher educators, so they have the knowledge and skills to develop a sustainable pipeline of teachers for integrated inquiry-based STEM classrooms. If this is given priority, then such innovation might go some way to resolving PNG’s real-world issues and achieving the nation’s vision of a smart, wise, fair and happy society by 2050.

Author Contribution

KK, TB, VC, DB and DM all contributed to the conception and design of the research project. KK, JH, JH, SDB, JA, AZ, PS engaged in the collection of data. KK, MR, JH, JH, SDB, JA, AZ, PS, TB analysed and interpreted the data. TB, VC, DB, DM, MR were all contributors to the written manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgement

We acknowledge the Australian Government and Australia Awards PNG program for their support for this research. We are also grateful to the research participants for their input through the interviews.

Data Availability

The data that supports the findings of this study are not publicly available due to privacy restrictions as the information could compromise the privacy of research participants.

Anderson, J. (2020). The STEM education phenomenon and its impact on school curriculum. Curriculum Perspectives, 40(2), 217–223.
Anderson, D., Luczak-Roesch, M., Doyle, C., Li, Y. J., Glasson, B., Pierson, C., Christenson, D., Brieseman, C., Coton, M., & Boucher, M. (2020). Online Citizen Science in the Classroom: Engaging with real science and STEM to develop capabilities for citizenship. In A. Fitzgerald, C. Haeusler, & L. Pfeiffer (Eds.), Stem Education in Primary Classrooms (pp. 79–99). Routledge.
Archer, M. S. (2007). Making our way through the world: Human reflexivity and social mobility. Cambridge University Press.
Berry, A., McLaughlin, T., & Cooper, G. (2018). Building STEM self-perception and capacity in pre-service science teachers through a school-university Mentor program. In A. Barkatsas, N. Carr, & G. Cooper (Eds.), STEaM education: An emerging field of inquiry (pp. 190–207). Brill.
Bourke, T., Henderson, D., Spooner-Lane, R., & White, S. (2022). Teacher Educators as Agents of Change: New Tools as Enablers. In T. Bourke, D. Henderson, R. Spooner-Lane, & S. White (Eds.), Reconstructing the Work of Teacher Educators: Finding Spaces in Policy Through Agentic Approaches—Insights from a Research Collective (pp. 3–28). Springer Nature Singapore.
Fakcharoenphol, W., Dahsah, C., & Wannagatesiri, T. (2022). Teacher Professional Development and Education for STEM Teaching in Thailand: Challenges and Recommendations. In M. M. H. Cheng, C. Buntting, & A. Jones (Eds.), Concepts and Practices of STEM Education in Asia. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2596-2_14
Freeman, B., Marginson, S., & Tytler, R. (2019). An International View of STEM Education. In A. Sahin & M. J. Mohr-Schroeder (Eds.), STEM Education 2.0 (pp. 350–363). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004405400_019
Gorozidis, G. S., & Papaioannou, A. G. (2016). Teachers’ achievement goals and self-determination to engage in work tasks promoting educational innovations. Learning and Individual Differences, 49, 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.05.014
Ha, C. T., Thao, T. T. P., Trung, N. T., Van Dinh, N., & Trung, T. (2020). A bibliometric review of research on STEM education in ASEAN: Science mapping the literature in Scopus database, 2000 to 2019. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(10). https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/8500
Hsu, Y.-S., & Fang, S.-C. (2019). Opportunities and Challenges of STEM Education. In Y.-S. Hsu & Y.-F. Yeh (Eds.), Asia-Pacific STEM Teaching Practices (pp. 1–16). Springer.
Ismail, Z. (2018). Benefits of STEM Education. University of Birmingham.
Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y., & Froyd, J. E. (2020). Research and trends in STEM education: A systematic review of journal publications. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00207-6
Makonye, J., & Dlamini, R. (2020). Approaches to Effecting an iSTEM Education in Southern Africa: The Role of Indigenous Knowledges. In J. Anderson & Y. Li (Eds.), Integrated Approaches to STEM Education. Advances in STEM Education. (pp. 157–174) Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52229-2_9
Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6, 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2
Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., Bush, S. B., Maiorca, C., & Nickels, M. (2020). Moving toward an equity-based approach for STEM literacy. In Handbook of Research on STEM Education (pp. 29–38). Routledge.
Moore, T., Stohlmann, M., Wang, H., Tank, K., Glancy, A., & Roehrig, G. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. In S. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in Pre-College Settings: Synthesizing Research, Policy, and Practices (pp. 35–60). Purdue University Press.
National Strategic Plan Taskforce. (2008). The Papua New Guinea National Strategic Plan, 2010–2050. Final Report to National Development Summit, September 2008.
Nielsen, W., Georgiou, H., Howard, S., & Forrester, T. (2018). Perspectives on stem Education in Preservice Primary Teacher Education. In A. Barkatsas, N. Carr, & G. Cooper (Eds.), STEM education: An emerging field of inquiry (pp. 155–167). Brill.
Papua New Guinea National Department of Education. (2020). National Schools of Excellence Policy: 2020. Retrieved from https://www.education.gov.pg/documents/SOE-Policy.pdf
Scottish Government. (2020). STEM strategy for education and training in Scotland: Second annual report. https://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv:86056
Shernoff, D. J., Sinha, S., Bressler, D. M., & Ginsburg, L. (2017). Assessing teacher education and professional development needs for the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 4, 1–16.
Stehle, S. M., & Peters-Burton, E. E. (2019). Developing student. 21st Century skills in selected exemplary inclusive STEM high schools. IJ STEM Ed, 6, 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0192-1
Timms, M. J., Moyle, K., Weldon, P. R., & Mitchell, P. (2018). Challenges in STEM learning in Australian schools: Literature and policy review. Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). https://research.acer.edu.au/policy_analysis_misc/28
Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., Boeve-de Pauw, J., Dehaene, W., Deprez, J., De Cock, M., Hellinckx, L., Knipprath, H., Langie, G., Struyven, K., Van de Velde, D., Van Petegem, P., & Depaepe, F. (2018). Integrated STEM Education: A Systematic Review of Instructional Practices in Secondary Education. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/85525
Weinberg, A. E., Balgopal, M. M., & Sample McMeeking, L. B. (2021). Professional Growth and Identity Development of STEM Teacher Educators in a Community of Practice. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19(Suppl 1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10148-9
Yeh, Y. F., & Hsu, Y. S. (2019). Instructional knowledge of STEM: The voices of STEM teachers in Taiwan. In Y.-S. Hsu & Y.-F. Yeh (Eds.), Asia-Pacific STEM Teaching Practices: From Theoretical Frameworks to Practices (pp. 51–66).
Yip, V. W., & Chan, K. K. H. (2019). Teachers’ conceptions about STEM and their practical knowledge for STEM teaching in Hong Kong. In Y.-S. Hsu & Y.-F. Yeh (Eds.), Asia-Pacific STEM Teaching Practices: From Theoretical Frameworks to Practices (pp. 67–81).

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Revision requested
10 Oct, 2024
Reviews received at journal
10 Oct, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
10 Oct, 2024
Reviews received at journal
28 Sep, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
04 Sep, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
26 Aug, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
20 Aug, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
20 Aug, 2024
First submitted to journal
12 Aug, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Preparing Integrated STEM Educators In PNG: The Enabling and Constraining Factors

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Introduction

Literature Review

Theoretical Framework

Methodology

Findings

Personal Emergent Properties

Structural Emergent Properties (SEPs)

Cultural emergent properties (CEPs)

Discussion

Personal, Structural and Cultural Emergent Properties

Conclusion

Declarations

Author Contribution

Acknowledgement

Data Availability

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1