NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
ERIC Number: ED566804
Record Type: Non-Journal
Publication Date: 2015
Pages: 305
Abstractor: As Provided
Reference Count: N/A
ISBN: 978-1-3394-8361-0
ISSN: N/A
A Comparative Case Analysis of the Innovation in Five STEM Schools Based on Zhao's Framework for 21st Century World Class Learners
Griffin, Patricia A.
ProQuest LLC, Ed.D. Dissertation, St. John's University (New York), School of Education and Human Services
STEM Schools purport to prepare students to learn and work in the 21st Century by providing students with innovative learning experiences through the interdisciplinary integration of science, technology, engineering, and math (Tsupros, 2009). Advocates of STEM and innovative school models argue that the traditional school system does not and cannot prepare students for the global or innovative economy (Wagner, 2010; Zhao, 2012). The purpose of this study was to research not only how STEM Schools are innovative but how an evaluative tool can be constructed and administered to determine a school's Taxonomy of Innovation. A multiple case-study was the appropriate method (Yin, 2014). As there is a lack of qualitative research regarding innovation in STEM Schools, this is the first study to determine how the degree of innovation in school design-school culture can be qualified. Additionally, the research design supported the development of the nomenclature to simultaneously deconstruct and synthesize the components and elements in each school, specifically, its school design-school culture (Smith, 2012), in order to determine the degree of innovation. Employing Zhao's (2012) 36 innovative indicators for world class education, the methodology relied on interviews, frameworks, and school artifacts. A case report for each school and a cross-case analysis provided the data for comparative analysis. The findings in the cross-case analysis indicated that STEM Schools are Mixed STEM Schools, traditional and innovative. The most innovative element was Product-based Learning. The most innovative components were Beliefs, Standards, Teachers, STEM, Community, Strength-based: Unique and Local, Authentic Products, Sustained and Disciplined Process, Personalization, and Mentoring. The components of Student Voice, Choice, Support, Global Orientation, Global Competence and the elements, Student Autonomy, and Global Campus were traditional. The Core of the Taxonomy of Innovation at the base of the U Path process, adapted from Senge's (2012) organizational theory and U Theory (Scharmer, 2009), part of the researcher's evaluative tool, recommends an upward move on the U Path so schools can challenge barriers to innovation, in order to repurpose, and develop the Core of Innovation, providing students with an innovative world class education. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]
ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway, P.O. Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Tel: 800-521-0600; Web site: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml
Publication Type: Dissertations/Theses - Doctoral Dissertations
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A