Suchergebnisse

STEM, an acronym for science, technology, engineering and mathematics, is widely used in science education. There is confusion, however, as to its provenance and meaning which is potentially problematic. This study examines the purpose and underlying philosophy of STEM practice in education in England and asks if there are differences in perceptions of STEM between science and mathematics educator stakeholders. The study's contribution to the literature is its unusual focus on those who were responsible for making and enacting national STEM policy. A two-phase qualitative approach was followed comprising an analysis of government documentation related to STEM initiatives together with semi-structured interviews with 21 key contributors to the science and mathematics education discourse in England. Using thematic analysis, recurring patterns were identified in the data. Findings suggest that there is a disconnect between the interpretations of the science and mathematics educators with a danger/advantage dichotomy to participation in STEM being perceived by the mathematics educators. Potential danger did not appear to be felt by science educators, possibly as science was perceived as dominant in STEM discourse. Broader early aims of the architects of the STEM agenda, including those of increasing diversity among STEM students, gave way to a focus on numbers of post-16 physics and mathematics students. We conclude that if the term STEM is to continue to be used then there is a need for greater clarity about what it represents in educational terms and a wider debate about its compatibility with the aims of science education for all.

STEM, an acronym for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, is widely used in science education. There is confusion, however, as to its provenance and meaning which is potentially problematic. This study examines the purpose of STEM practice in education in England and asks if there are differences in perceptions of STEM between science and mathematics educator stakeholders. The study's contribution to the literature is its unusual focus on those who were responsible for making and enacting national STEM policy. A two-phase qualitative approach was followed comprising an analysis of government documentation together with semi-structured interviews with key contributors to the science and mathematics education discourse. Findings suggest that there is a disconnect between the interpretations of the science and mathematics educators with a danger-advantage dichotomy to participation in STEM being perceived by the mathematics educators. Early aims of the STEM agenda, including increasing diversity, gave way to a focus on numbers of post-16 physics and mathematics students. We conclude that if the term STEM is to continue to be used then there is a need for greater clarity about what it represents in educational terms and a wider debate about its compatibility with the aims of science education for all.

Across the globe, governments, industry and educationalists are in agreement that more needs to be done to increase and broaden participation in post-16 science. Schools, as well as teachers, are seen as key in this effort. Previous research has found that engagement with science, inclination to study science and understanding of the value of science strongly relates to a student's science capital. This paper reports on findings from the pilot year of a one-year professional development (PD) programme designed to work with secondary-school teachers to build students' science capital. The PD programme introduced teachers to the nature and importance of science capital and thereafter supported them to develop ways of implementing science capital-building pedagogy in their practice. The data comprise interviews with the participating teachers (n = 10), observations of classroom practices and analyses of the teachers' accounts of their practice. Our findings suggest that teachers found the concept of science capital to be compelling and to resonate with their own intuitive understandings and experiences. However, the ways in which the concept was operationalised in terms of the implementation of pedagogical practices varied. The difficulties inherent in the operationalisation are examined and recommendations for future work with teachers around the concept of science capital are developed.

LAY SUMMARY Current conceptualizations of potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs) emphasize war atrocities (e.g., killing of children or civilians, witnessing abuse of prisoners of war). Additional research on PMIEs could inform provision of patient-centred care in pursuit of healing for those experiencing moral injury. The field would benefit from an operationalization of PMIEs that is not only grounded in empirical data and meaningful to clinicians but also accounts for the perspectives of the Veterans who experienced PMIEs. This study sought to gain a more in-depth understanding of and explore Veterans' experiences surrounding PMIEs.

Background: One goal of health systems seeking to evolve into learning health systems is to accelerate the implementation and sustainment of evidence-based practices (EBPs). As part of this evolution, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed the Innovation Ecosystem, which includes the Diffusion of Excellence (DoE), a program that identifies and diffuses Gold Status Practices (GSPs) across facilities. The DoE hosts an annual "Shark Tank" competition in which leaders bid on the opportunity to implement a GSP with 6 months of implementation support. Over 750 diverse practices were submitted in cohorts 2 and 3 of Shark Tank; 23 were designated GSPs and were implemented in 31 VA networks or facilities. As part of a national evaluation of the DoE, we identified factors contributing to GSP implementation and sustainment. Methods: Our sequential mixed methods evaluation of cohorts 2 and 3 of Shark Tank included semi-structured interviews with at least one representative from 30/31 implementing teams (N = 78/105 people invited) and survey responses from 29/31 teams (N = 39/47 invited). Interviews focused on factors influencing implementation and future sustainment. Surveys focused on sustainment 1.5-2 years after implementation. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) informed data collection and directed content analysis. Ordinal scales were developed inductively to rank implementation and sustainment outcomes. Results: Over 50% of teams (17/30) successfully implemented their GSP within the 6-month implementation period. Despite extensive implementation support, significant barriers related to centralized decision-making, staffing, and resources led to partial (n = 6) or no (n = 7) implementation for the remaining teams. While 12/17 initially successful implementation teams reported sustained use of their GSP, over half of the initially unsuccessful teams (n = 7/13) also reported sustained GSP use 1.5 years after the initial implementation period. When asked at 6 months, 18/27 teams with complete data accurately anticipated their future sustainability based on reported sustainment an average of 1.5 years later. Conclusions: Most teams implemented within 6 months and/or sustained their GSP 1.5 years later. High levels of implementation and sustainment across diverse practices and teams suggest that VHA's DoE is a successful large-scale model of diffusion. Team predictions about sustainability after the first 6 months of implementation provide a promising early assessment and point of intervention to increase sustainability.