Contextualizing a University-School STEM Education Collaboration

Abstract

Implementing educational reform requires partnerships, and university-school collaborations in the form of investigative and experimental projects can aim to determine the practicalities of reform. However, there are funded projects that do not achieve intended outcomes. In the context of a new reform initiative in education, namely, science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education, this article explores the management of a government-funded project. In a university-school partnership for STEM education, how can leadership be distributed for achieving project outcomes? Participants included university personnel from different STEM areas, school teachers and school executives. Data collected included observations, interviews, resource materials, and video and photographic images. Findings indicated that leadership roles were distributed and self-activated by project partners according to their areas of expertise and proximal activeness to the project phases, that is: (1) establishing partnerships; (2) planning and collaboration; (3) project implementation; and (4) project evaluation and further initiatives. Leadership can be intentional and unintentional within project phases, and understanding how leadership can be distributed and self-activated more purposefully may aid in generating more expedient project outcomes.

Keywords

leadership management STEM education university collaboration

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Australian Research Council (2010) National Competitive Grants Program. Australian Government. Available at: http://www.arc.gov.au/

Avolio

Bass

(2002) Developing Potential Across a Full Range of Leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bass

(1990) Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications, 3 rd edn. New York: The Free Press.

Boseman

(2008) Effective leadership in a changing world. Journal of Financial Service Professionals 62(3): 36–38.

Brukardt

Holland

Percy

(2004) A Wingspread statement – a larger purpose – calling the question: is higher education ready to commit to community engagement? Wingspread conference, Institutionalizing University Engagement. Wingspread, Racine, Wisconsin.

Bryant

(2003) Cross-cultural perspectives on school leadership: themes from native American interviews. In: Bennett

Crawford

Cartwright

(eds) Effective Educational Leadership. London: Paul Chapman Publishing, 216–228.

Bryman

(1992) Charisma and Leadership in Organizations. London: SAGE.

Department for Children, Schools and Families (2010) Science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) programme. Available at: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/stem/.

Department of Education and Training (2003) Education and Training Reforms for the Future. Queensland Government. Available at: http://education.qld.gov.au/etrf/

10.

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) (2010) Education Reform Agenda. Australian Government. Available at: http://www.deewr.gov.au/schooling/Pages/Education_reform_agenda.aspx

11.

Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) (2007) Australian School Innovation in Science, Technology and Mathematics (ASISTM). Commonwealth of Australia. Available at: http://www.asistm.edu.au/asistm/

12.

English

Dawes

Hudson

(2009) Introducing engineering education in the middle school. Paper presented at the Research in Engineering Education Symposium, Palm Cover, Queensland.

13.

Fiedler

(1964) A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In: Berkowitz

(ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press, 150–191.

14.

Gronn

(2000) Distributed properties: a new architecture for leadership. Educational Management & Administration 28(3): 317–338.

15.

Gronn

(2002) Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. Leadership Quarterly 13(4): 423–451.

16.

Hittleman

Simon

(2006) Interpreting Educational Research: An Introduction for Consumers of Research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

17.

Hudson

English

Dawes

(2009) Analysing preservice teachers’ potential for implementing engineering education in the middle school. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education 15(3): 165–174.

18.

Hudson

Craig

(2006) Distributing leadership for initiating university-community engagement. Paper presented at the Australian Universities Community Engagement Alliance (AUCEA) Conference, Perth , WA.

19.

Hudson

(2008) Devising university-based programs for the wider educational community. Paper presented at the Paris International Conference on Education, Economy & Society, Paris.

20.

King

(2008) Addressing the supply and quality of engineering graduates for the new century. A Report to the Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, supported by the Australian Council of Engineering Deans.

21.

MacBeath

(2005) Leadership as distributed: a matter of practice. School Leadership and Management 25(4): 349–366.

22.

Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) (2008) Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Melbourne: MCEETYA.

23.

National Institutes of Health (2010) National institutes of health: summary of the FY 2011 president’s budget. Available at: http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/pdfs/FY11/Summary%20of%20the%20FY%202011%20Presidents%20Budget.pdf.

24.

Neuman

Simmons

(2000) Leadership for student learning. Phi Delta Kappan 82(1): 8–12.

25.

Peters

Le Cornu

(2007) Project leadership for educational redesign. Paper presented at the Australian Association of Research in Education conference, Fremantle , WA.

26.

Spillane

Halverson

Diamond

(2001) Investigating school leadership practice: a distributed perspective. Educational Researcher 30(3): 23–28.

27.

Teach Engineering (2009) Teach Engineering: Resources for K-12. National Science Foundation. Available at: http://www.teachengineering.org/