Building Successful STEM Partnerships in Education: Strategies for Enhancing Collaboration

This article presents a comparison of two qualitative case studies. The first case study is a partnership group involving two urban secondary school teachers working with one engineer and one education faculty member where they implemented several science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) lessons over the course of an academic year. The second case study is a partnership group involving undergraduate college students working together to build a data collection device attached to a high-altitude balloon to answer a scientific question or solve an engineering problem and translate the project into engaging lessons for a K-12/secondary student audience. The studies employed a socio-cultural theoretical framework as the lens to examine the individuals’ perspectives, experiences, and engineering meaning-making processes, and to consider what these meant to the partnership itself. The methods included interviews, focus groups, field notes, and artifacts. The analysis involved multi-level coding. The findings indicated that the strength of the partnership (pre, little p, or big P) among participants influenced the strength of the secondary engineering lessons. The partnership growth implications in terms of K-12/secondary and collegiate engineering education included the engineering lesson strength, partnership, and engineering project sustainability The participant partnership meanings revolved around lesson creation, incorporating engineering ideas into the classroom, increasing communication, and increasing secondary students’ learning, while tensions arose from navigating (not quite negotiating) roles as a team. A call for attention to school–university partnerships and the voices heard in engineering partnership building are included since professional skills are becoming even more important due to advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and other technologies.

Abstract licence: CC BY

40 more references, whose wording the paper’s licence keeps private.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.