what is conceptual framework in education

• Privacy Policy

Home » Conceptual Framework – Types, Methodology and Examples

Conceptual Framework – Types, Methodology and Examples

Table of Contents

Conceptual Framework

Definition:

A conceptual framework is a structured approach to organizing and understanding complex ideas, theories, or concepts. It provides a systematic and coherent way of thinking about a problem or topic, and helps to guide research or analysis in a particular field.

A conceptual framework typically includes a set of assumptions, concepts, and propositions that form a theoretical framework for understanding a particular phenomenon. It can be used to develop hypotheses, guide empirical research, or provide a framework for evaluating and interpreting data.

Conceptual Framework in Research

In research, a conceptual framework is a theoretical structure that provides a framework for understanding a particular phenomenon or problem. It is a key component of any research project and helps to guide the research process from start to finish.

A conceptual framework provides a clear understanding of the variables, relationships, and assumptions that underpin a research study. It outlines the key concepts that the study is investigating and how they are related to each other. It also defines the scope of the study and sets out the research questions or hypotheses.

Types of Conceptual Framework

Types of Conceptual Framework are as follows:

Theoretical Framework

A theoretical framework is an overarching set of concepts, ideas, and assumptions that help to explain and interpret a phenomenon. It provides a theoretical perspective on the phenomenon being studied and helps researchers to identify the relationships between different concepts. For example, a theoretical framework for a study on the impact of social media on mental health might draw on theories of communication, social influence, and psychological well-being.

Conceptual Model

A conceptual model is a visual or written representation of a complex system or phenomenon. It helps to identify the main components of the system and the relationships between them. For example, a conceptual model for a study on the factors that influence employee turnover might include factors such as job satisfaction, salary, work-life balance, and job security, and the relationships between them.

Empirical Framework

An empirical framework is based on empirical data and helps to explain a particular phenomenon. It involves collecting data, analyzing it, and developing a framework to explain the results. For example, an empirical framework for a study on the impact of a new health intervention might involve collecting data on the intervention’s effectiveness, cost, and acceptability to patients.

Descriptive Framework

A descriptive framework is used to describe a particular phenomenon. It helps to identify the main characteristics of the phenomenon and to develop a vocabulary to describe it. For example, a descriptive framework for a study on different types of musical genres might include descriptions of the instruments used, the rhythms and beats, the vocal styles, and the cultural contexts of each genre.

Analytical Framework

An analytical framework is used to analyze a particular phenomenon. It involves breaking down the phenomenon into its constituent parts and analyzing them separately. This type of framework is often used in social science research. For example, an analytical framework for a study on the impact of race on police brutality might involve analyzing the historical and cultural factors that contribute to racial bias, the organizational factors that influence police behavior, and the psychological factors that influence individual officers’ behavior.

Conceptual Framework for Policy Analysis

A conceptual framework for policy analysis is used to guide the development of policies or programs. It helps policymakers to identify the key issues and to develop strategies to address them. For example, a conceptual framework for a policy analysis on climate change might involve identifying the key stakeholders, assessing their interests and concerns, and developing policy options to mitigate the impacts of climate change.

Logical Frameworks

Logical frameworks are used to plan and evaluate projects and programs. They provide a structured approach to identifying project goals, objectives, and outcomes, and help to ensure that all stakeholders are aligned and working towards the same objectives.

Conceptual Frameworks for Program Evaluation

These frameworks are used to evaluate the effectiveness of programs or interventions. They provide a structure for identifying program goals, objectives, and outcomes, and help to measure the impact of the program on its intended beneficiaries.

Conceptual Frameworks for Organizational Analysis

These frameworks are used to analyze and evaluate organizational structures, processes, and performance. They provide a structured approach to understanding the relationships between different departments, functions, and stakeholders within an organization.

Conceptual Frameworks for Strategic Planning

These frameworks are used to develop and implement strategic plans for organizations or businesses. They help to identify the key factors and stakeholders that will impact the success of the plan, and provide a structure for setting goals, developing strategies, and monitoring progress.

Components of Conceptual Framework

The components of a conceptual framework typically include:

• Research question or problem statement : This component defines the problem or question that the conceptual framework seeks to address. It sets the stage for the development of the framework and guides the selection of the relevant concepts and constructs.
• Concepts : These are the general ideas, principles, or categories that are used to describe and explain the phenomenon or problem under investigation. Concepts provide the building blocks of the framework and help to establish a common language for discussing the issue.
• Constructs : Constructs are the specific variables or concepts that are used to operationalize the general concepts. They are measurable or observable and serve as indicators of the underlying concept.
• Propositions or hypotheses : These are statements that describe the relationships between the concepts or constructs in the framework. They provide a basis for testing the validity of the framework and for generating new insights or theories.
• Assumptions : These are the underlying beliefs or values that shape the framework. They may be explicit or implicit and may influence the selection and interpretation of the concepts and constructs.
• Boundaries : These are the limits or scope of the framework. They define the focus of the investigation and help to clarify what is included and excluded from the analysis.
• Context : This component refers to the broader social, cultural, and historical factors that shape the phenomenon or problem under investigation. It helps to situate the framework within a larger theoretical or empirical context and to identify the relevant variables and factors that may affect the phenomenon.
• Relationships and connections: These are the connections and interrelationships between the different components of the conceptual framework. They describe how the concepts and constructs are linked and how they contribute to the overall understanding of the phenomenon or problem.
• Variables : These are the factors that are being measured or observed in the study. They are often operationalized as constructs and are used to test the propositions or hypotheses.
• Methodology : This component describes the research methods and techniques that will be used to collect and analyze data. It includes the sampling strategy, data collection methods, data analysis techniques, and ethical considerations.
• Literature review : This component provides an overview of the existing research and theories related to the phenomenon or problem under investigation. It helps to identify the gaps in the literature and to situate the framework within the broader theoretical and empirical context.
• Outcomes and implications: These are the expected outcomes or implications of the study. They describe the potential contributions of the study to the theoretical and empirical knowledge in the field and the practical implications for policy and practice.

Conceptual Framework Methodology

Conceptual Framework Methodology is a research method that is commonly used in academic and scientific research to develop a theoretical framework for a study. It is a systematic approach that helps researchers to organize their thoughts and ideas, identify the variables that are relevant to their study, and establish the relationships between these variables.

Here are the steps involved in the conceptual framework methodology:

Identify the Research Problem

The first step is to identify the research problem or question that the study aims to answer. This involves identifying the gaps in the existing literature and determining what specific issue the study aims to address.

Conduct a Literature Review

The second step involves conducting a thorough literature review to identify the existing theories, models, and frameworks that are relevant to the research question. This will help the researcher to identify the key concepts and variables that need to be considered in the study.

Define key Concepts and Variables

The next step is to define the key concepts and variables that are relevant to the study. This involves clearly defining the terms used in the study, and identifying the factors that will be measured or observed in the study.

Develop a Theoretical Framework

Once the key concepts and variables have been identified, the researcher can develop a theoretical framework. This involves establishing the relationships between the key concepts and variables, and creating a visual representation of these relationships.

Test the Framework

The final step is to test the theoretical framework using empirical data. This involves collecting and analyzing data to determine whether the relationships between the key concepts and variables that were identified in the framework are accurate and valid.

Examples of Conceptual Framework

Some realtime Examples of Conceptual Framework are as follows:

• In economics , the concept of supply and demand is a well-known conceptual framework. It provides a structure for understanding how prices are set in a market, based on the interplay of the quantity of goods supplied by producers and the quantity of goods demanded by consumers.
• In psychology , the cognitive-behavioral framework is a widely used conceptual framework for understanding mental health and illness. It emphasizes the role of thoughts and behaviors in shaping emotions and the importance of cognitive restructuring and behavior change in treatment.
• In sociology , the social determinants of health framework provides a way of understanding how social and economic factors such as income, education, and race influence health outcomes. This framework is widely used in public health research and policy.
• In environmental science , the ecosystem services framework is a way of understanding the benefits that humans derive from natural ecosystems, such as clean air and water, pollination, and carbon storage. This framework is used to guide conservation and land-use decisions.
• In education, the constructivist framework is a way of understanding how learners construct knowledge through active engagement with their environment. This framework is used to guide instructional design and teaching strategies.

Applications of Conceptual Framework

Some of the applications of Conceptual Frameworks are as follows:

• Research : Conceptual frameworks are used in research to guide the design, implementation, and interpretation of studies. Researchers use conceptual frameworks to develop hypotheses, identify research questions, and select appropriate methods for collecting and analyzing data.
• Policy: Conceptual frameworks are used in policy-making to guide the development of policies and programs. Policymakers use conceptual frameworks to identify key factors that influence a particular problem or issue, and to develop strategies for addressing them.
• Education : Conceptual frameworks are used in education to guide the design and implementation of instructional strategies and curriculum. Educators use conceptual frameworks to identify learning objectives, select appropriate teaching methods, and assess student learning.
• Management : Conceptual frameworks are used in management to guide decision-making and strategy development. Managers use conceptual frameworks to understand the internal and external factors that influence their organizations, and to develop strategies for achieving their goals.
• Evaluation : Conceptual frameworks are used in evaluation to guide the development of evaluation plans and to interpret evaluation results. Evaluators use conceptual frameworks to identify key outcomes, indicators, and measures, and to develop a logic model for their evaluation.

Purpose of Conceptual Framework

The purpose of a conceptual framework is to provide a theoretical foundation for understanding and analyzing complex phenomena. Conceptual frameworks help to:

• Guide research : Conceptual frameworks provide a framework for researchers to develop hypotheses, identify research questions, and select appropriate methods for collecting and analyzing data. By providing a theoretical foundation for research, conceptual frameworks help to ensure that research is rigorous, systematic, and valid.
• Provide clarity: Conceptual frameworks help to provide clarity and structure to complex phenomena by identifying key concepts, relationships, and processes. By providing a clear and systematic understanding of a phenomenon, conceptual frameworks help to ensure that researchers, policymakers, and practitioners are all on the same page when it comes to understanding the issue at hand.
• Inform decision-making : Conceptual frameworks can be used to inform decision-making and strategy development by identifying key factors that influence a particular problem or issue. By understanding the complex interplay of factors that contribute to a particular issue, decision-makers can develop more effective strategies for addressing the problem.
• Facilitate communication : Conceptual frameworks provide a common language and conceptual framework for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to communicate and collaborate on complex issues. By providing a shared understanding of a phenomenon, conceptual frameworks help to ensure that everyone is working towards the same goal.

When to use Conceptual Framework

There are several situations when it is appropriate to use a conceptual framework:

• To guide the research : A conceptual framework can be used to guide the research process by providing a clear roadmap for the research project. It can help researchers identify key variables and relationships, and develop hypotheses or research questions.
• To clarify concepts : A conceptual framework can be used to clarify and define key concepts and terms used in a research project. It can help ensure that all researchers are using the same language and have a shared understanding of the concepts being studied.
• To provide a theoretical basis: A conceptual framework can provide a theoretical basis for a research project by linking it to existing theories or conceptual models. This can help researchers build on previous research and contribute to the development of a field.
• To identify gaps in knowledge : A conceptual framework can help identify gaps in existing knowledge by highlighting areas that require further research or investigation.
• To communicate findings : A conceptual framework can be used to communicate research findings by providing a clear and concise summary of the key variables, relationships, and assumptions that underpin the research project.

Characteristics of Conceptual Framework

key characteristics of a conceptual framework are:

• Clear definition of key concepts : A conceptual framework should clearly define the key concepts and terms being used in a research project. This ensures that all researchers have a shared understanding of the concepts being studied.
• Identification of key variables: A conceptual framework should identify the key variables that are being studied and how they are related to each other. This helps to organize the research project and provides a clear focus for the study.
• Logical structure: A conceptual framework should have a logical structure that connects the key concepts and variables being studied. This helps to ensure that the research project is coherent and consistent.
• Based on existing theory : A conceptual framework should be based on existing theory or conceptual models. This helps to ensure that the research project is grounded in existing knowledge and builds on previous research.
• Testable hypotheses or research questions: A conceptual framework should include testable hypotheses or research questions that can be answered through empirical research. This helps to ensure that the research project is rigorous and scientifically valid.
• Flexibility : A conceptual framework should be flexible enough to allow for modifications as new information is gathered during the research process. This helps to ensure that the research project is responsive to new findings and is able to adapt to changing circumstances.

Advantages of Conceptual Framework

Advantages of the Conceptual Framework are as follows:

• Clarity : A conceptual framework provides clarity to researchers by outlining the key concepts and variables that are relevant to the research project. This clarity helps researchers to focus on the most important aspects of the research problem and develop a clear plan for investigating it.
• Direction : A conceptual framework provides direction to researchers by helping them to develop hypotheses or research questions that are grounded in existing theory or conceptual models. This direction ensures that the research project is relevant and contributes to the development of the field.
• Efficiency : A conceptual framework can increase efficiency in the research process by providing a structure for organizing ideas and data. This structure can help researchers to avoid redundancies and inconsistencies in their work, saving time and effort.
• Rigor : A conceptual framework can help to ensure the rigor of a research project by providing a theoretical basis for the investigation. This rigor is essential for ensuring that the research project is scientifically valid and produces meaningful results.
• Communication : A conceptual framework can facilitate communication between researchers by providing a shared language and understanding of the key concepts and variables being studied. This communication is essential for collaboration and the advancement of knowledge in the field.
• Generalization : A conceptual framework can help to generalize research findings beyond the specific study by providing a theoretical basis for the investigation. This generalization is essential for the development of knowledge in the field and for informing future research.

Limitations of Conceptual Framework

Limitations of Conceptual Framework are as follows:

• Limited applicability: Conceptual frameworks are often based on existing theory or conceptual models, which may not be applicable to all research problems or contexts. This can limit the usefulness of a conceptual framework in certain situations.
• Lack of empirical support : While a conceptual framework can provide a theoretical basis for a research project, it may not be supported by empirical evidence. This can limit the usefulness of a conceptual framework in guiding empirical research.
• Narrow focus: A conceptual framework can provide a clear focus for a research project, but it may also limit the scope of the investigation. This can make it difficult to address broader research questions or to consider alternative perspectives.
• Over-simplification: A conceptual framework can help to organize and structure research ideas, but it may also over-simplify complex phenomena. This can limit the depth of the investigation and the richness of the data collected.
• Inflexibility : A conceptual framework can provide a structure for organizing research ideas, but it may also be inflexible in the face of new data or unexpected findings. This can limit the ability of researchers to adapt their research project to new information or changing circumstances.
• Difficulty in development : Developing a conceptual framework can be a challenging and time-consuming process. It requires a thorough understanding of existing theory or conceptual models, and may require collaboration with other researchers.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

Search form

• About Faculty Development and Support
• Programs and Funding Opportunities

Consultations, Observations, and Services

• Strategic Resources & Digital Publications
• Canvas @ Yale Support
• Learning Environments @ Yale
• Teaching Workshops
• Teaching Consultations and Classroom Observations
• Teaching Programs
• Spring Teaching Forum
• Written and Oral Communication Workshops and Panels
• Writing Resources & Tutorials
• About the Graduate Writing Laboratory
• Writing and Public Speaking Consultations
• Writing Workshops and Panels
• Writing Peer-Review Groups
• Writing Retreats and All Writes
• Online Writing Resources for Graduate Students
• About Teaching Development for Graduate and Professional School Students
• Teaching Programs and Grants
• Teaching Forums
• Resources for Graduate Student Teachers
• About Undergraduate Writing and Tutoring
• Academic Strategies Program
• The Writing Center
• STEM Tutoring & Programs
• Humanities & Social Sciences
• Center for Language Study
• Online Course Catalog
• Antiracist Pedagogy
• NECQL 2019: NorthEast Consortium for Quantitative Literacy XXII Meeting
• STEMinar Series
• Teaching in Context: Troubling Times
• Helmsley Postdoctoral Teaching Scholars
• Pedagogical Partners
• Instructional Materials
• Evaluation & Research
• STEM Education Job Opportunities
• Yale Connect
• Online Education Legal Statements

You are here

Teaching and learning frameworks.

Teaching and learning frameworks are research-informed models for course design that help instructors align learning goals with classroom activities, create motivating and inclusive environments, and integrate assessment into learning. Frameworks like Backward Design serve as conceptual maps for planning or revising any course, syllabus, or lesson, and can be easily adapted and mixed. 

Effective teaching and learning frameworks emerge from psychological, cognitive, sociological, and educational research findings that students learn best when a) the prior knowledge and “preconceptions” they bring into the classroom are recognized and engaged, b) they have practice and time to build “conceptual frameworks” upon foundational knowledge through active, experiential, and contextually varied learning, and c) they have practice and time to “take control of their own learning” through metacognitive reflection (NRC, 14-18). Teaching and learning frameworks often call for classroom activities that integrate lecture with discussion, active learning, and self-reflection. L. Dee Fink (2013) writes that “A long history of research indicates lecturing has limited effectiveness in helping students

• Retain information after a course is over
• Develop an ability to transfer knowledge to novel situations
• Develop skill in thinking or problem solving
• Achieve affective outcomes, such as motivation for additional learning or a change in attitude”

Teaching and learning frameworks provide scaffolded, diverse approaches that help students “form knowledge structures that are accurately and meaningfully organized” while informing “when and how to apply the skills and knowledge they learn” (Ambrose et. al., 4-5). Eschewing “Instruction,” which focuses on content delivery, “Learning” focuses on structures for continual student development, inviting students to be “co-producers” in the classroom (Barr and Tagg, 15). This page provides an overview of major teaching and learning frameworks, from theoretical and methodological approaches for overall course design to specific techniques for individual class sessions. 

Examples of Course Design Frameworks

Course design frameworks provide models for achieving learning outcomes in overall courses, crafting the syllabus, and course redesign. Many elements in course design can also be applied to individual class design.

Backward Design

Backward Design originated with Wiggins and McTighe in their book Understanding by Design (2005), and drives the educational philosophy behind most recent teaching and learning frameworks. Backward Design differs from classic beginning-to-end approaches to instructional design where the instructor first decides what content to teach before developing activities and assessments for the resulting learning. Backward Design instead begins with desired end goals by focusing on what the learner will learn, rather than what the teacher will teach. In this sense, Backward Design is a student-centered approach.

The Backward Design process for designing instruction has three main stages:

• Identify desired results
• Determine acceptable evidence 
• Plan learning experiences and instruction

The corresponding actions are:

• Write student learning goals and learning outcomes
• Create assessments that measure progress toward outcomes
• Design activities that will prepare learners to perform well on the assessments

In summary, a course developed using Backward Design practices alignment between learning goals, class activities and class assessments. 

Instructors may choose the Backward Design process for several reasons:

• It is well supported by learning theory.
• It improves attainment of desired learning outcomes.
• It is a well-known and widely accepted approach to course design.
• It is easy to remember and explain.
• It is transferable to almost any instructional situation.

Integrated Course Design

Integrated Course Design was developed by L. Dee Fink (Fink 2013), and expands Backward Design into a detailed methodology specific to higher education. As its key feature, Integrated Course Design arranges the stages of Backward Design into a simultaneous planning strategy, informed by environmental and contextual factors specific to higher education:

Figure 1: Key Components of Integrated Course Design, Fink 2013 (70)

As part of its simultaneous methodology, Integrated Course Design guides instructors through a 12-step process for creating and aligning learning outcomes, classroom activities, rubrics, assessment protocols, and the syllabus in light of context and potential challenges: 

Figure 2: The Twelve Steps of Integrated Course Design, Fink 2013 (74-75)

In summary, Integrated Course Design provides a detailed model for executing a Backward Designed-course that includes consideration of environmental and contextual factors impacting student learning. Instructors may choose this framework to facilitate Backward Design in their courses while including considerations of inclusivity and faculty-student assessment throughout term.

Examples of Class Design Frameworks

Class design frameworks provide models for achieving learning outcomes in individual class sessions, developing activities, and motivating students. Some frameworks, like Universal Design for Learning, can also apply to course design.

The 5E model was developed by the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. The approach has been typically used in the sciences, but its principles can be applied to other disciplines (BSCS, 2001). 5E provides a 5-step approach for designing individual lesson plans or class sessions: engagement, exploration, explanation, elaboration, and evaluation, which occurs throughout the cycle. Like many modern instructional frameworks, this approach is based in constructivist theory, wherein students learn by experiencing phenomena and reflecting upon their learning. During the first five minutes of class, the instructor uses an activity that engages students in learning and builds upon their prior knowledge. The following steps scaffold new learning in ways that ascend Bloom’s taxonomy , moving from understanding to articulating and developing. At the end of class, the students might be tasked with assessing their own understanding, and the instructor may evaluate the learners on key skills and/or concepts. Instructors may choose this model for its scaffolding approach, prioritization of student learning, and flexibility to occur once or multiple times within a single class session.

Figure 3: The 5E Learning Cycle

Accelerated Learning Cycle

The Accelerated Learning Cycle was developed by Alistair Smith (Smith, 1996). Like 5E, it can be used to structure single class sessions. Accelerated Learning draws from Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences by building a classroom that acknowledges varied prior knowledge and learning habits. The model has several stages: the instructor creates a safe and welcoming learning environment, builds on the background knowledge of the learners to create a larger contextual framework, describes intended learning outcomes, provides new information or content, facilitates a student activity, enables discussion or interactive demonstration based on the findings of the activity, and reviews and reinforces presented information. Through these steps, ALC prioritizes “the needs of the learner” while “help(ing) students understand their own learning preferences better” (Smith 1996).

Figure 4: The Accelerated Learning Cycle, Smith 1996 (11)

Universal Design for Learning

Universal Design for Learning was developed in the early 1990s as a model for addressing the diverse learning needs of students in the classroom. It can be applied to course or single class session designs, and its focus on accessibility makes it an effective approach to ensuring the success of class sessions for every student. UDL operates under three essential principles:

• Provide Multiple Means of Engagement (the “why” of learning)
• Provide Multiple Means of Representation (the “what” of learning)
• Provide Multiple Means of Action and Expression (the “how” of learning)

These principles are also understood within UDL as approaches that, respectively, account for learning inquiries like “affective” (why?), “recognition” (what?), and “strategic” (how?). These spheres are flexible enough to modulate the level of challenge and positive experience in the classroom, providing for a dynamic curriculum to address comprehensive student needs. The National Center on Universal Design for Learning provides an extensive set of guidelines for implementation:

Figure 5: Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, Meyer et. al 2014 (111)

Instructors may choose to incorporate UDL for its strategies on inclusivity and access, and for its wide-ranging recommendations for revising and varying teaching approaches. UDL provides “a sufficiently flexible curriculum so that each learner can find the right balance of challenge and support” (Meyer et al., 2014). The approach has classically been understood to improve environments for learners with disabilities, but its principles apply more broadly for creating inclusive classroom settings.

Recommendations

• Identify Most Relevant Framework – Applicability of teaching and learning frameworks will depend on a host of variables, including teaching philosophy, classroom environment, course objectives, student demographics, and challenges to teaching. Instructors can consider which elements from which frameworks are most relevant and helpful for use in their classrooms.    
• Create a Course Alignment Map - Instructors can create a map as illustrated in the figures above when designing a course. Doing so encourages instructors to align all items with the learning outcomes of the course, avoiding more instructor-centered approaches to course development. 
• Assess Student Knowledge – Ascertaining prior knowledge and skills helps instructors craft a learning arc that fits and challenges specific student representations. Review syllabi from prerequisite courses in order to gauge likely student knowledge and recent reading; ask students to share their strengths and weaknesses anonymously on index cards the first day of class, or in an online survey before class; perform group brainstorming or focused keyword activities to uncover student knowledge.     
• Include Formative and Summative Assessments - Formative assessments help instructors monitor the progression of students towards achieving learning outcomes and modify instruction as needed. Summative assessments are performed for the sake of accountability. As each of these types of assessments serve specific purposes, both should be included within alignment maps. 
• Complete a Teaching Practices Inventory – Completing an inventory can help instructors identify their teaching habits, and explore the best frameworks for facilitating development of new habits, approaches, and course designs. A variety of inventories exist to describe instructors’ typical teaching approaches, many of which are short and self-driven. The “Downloads” section at the bottom of this page also contains an assessment for considering degrees of inclusivity in syllabus and course design.
• Modify Activities and Assessments as Needed - If students do not appear to be reaching the learning outcomes as desired, instructors can use feedback from the assessments and observations to reflect upon why this is the case. Activities and assessments may need to be modified to better prepare students to meet the outcomes.

Ambrose, S., Bridges, M., Lovett, M., DiPietro, M., & Norman, M (2010). How Learning Works: 7 Research – Based Principles for Smart Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Barr, R. & Tagg, J. (1995). From Teaching to Learning – A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education. Change, 27.6: 12-26.

Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. (2001). The BSCS Story: A History of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study edited by Laura Engleman, Colorado Springs: BSCS, 2001.

Fink, L. Dee. (2013). Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses. eBook: Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series.  

Krathwhol DR. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice 41(4): 212- 218.  

Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal Design for Learning: Theory and Practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing. 

National Research Council. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Smith, A. (1996). Introduction – What is Accelerated Learning? Accelerated Learning in the Classroom. New York: Bloomsbury, 1-12.

—. (1996). Accelerated learning in the classroom. School effectiveness series. Stafford; Williston, VT: Network Educational Press.

Wiggins GP, McTighe J. (2005).  Understanding by Design. Moorabbin, Vic: Hawker Brownlow Education.

Downloads 

YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Reserve a Room

The Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning partners with departments and groups on-campus throughout the year to share its space. Please review the reservation form and submit a request.

The Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning routinely supports members of the Yale community with individual instructional consultations and classroom observations.

Instructional Enhancement Fund

The Instructional Enhancement Fund (IEF) awards grants of up to $500 to support the timely integration of new learning activities into an existing undergraduate or graduate course. All Yale instructors of record, including tenured and tenure-track faculty, clinical instructional faculty, lecturers, lectors, and part-time acting instructors (PTAIs), are eligible to apply. Award decisions are typically provided within two weeks to help instructors implement ideas for the current semester.

• Request Info
• Current Students
• Collaborators
• Faculty & Staff

Conceptual Framework for Educator Preparation

Preparing leaders in education, for equity and excellence, in a democratic society, conceptual framework principles, conceptual framework dispositions.

The School of Education is committed to the preparation of candidates who can assume leadership roles in the field of education. Such preparation is accomplished through the coherent integration of the abilities and predispositions of candidates, the knowledge and abilities of faculty, and the contextual elements of academic and field settings. Candidates accept their professional responsibilities and focus their expertise and energy on supporting Birth-12 student development and learning. They must work to maintain a meaningful involvement in activities within schools and in partnership with parents and the community.

The growth and development of candidates is promoted through curriculum, instruction, research, field experiences, clinical practice, assessments, evaluations, and interactions with faculty and peers. All of these elements work together to build a solid foundation for exemplary practice in education, creating educational practitioners who are prepared to better serve children, families and schools, as well as business and agencies of government within North Carolina, across the nation and throughout the world.

Preparation of educational leaders for today’s society is based in values of equity and excellence that assure our candidates’ and their students’ future success. Attending to the challenge of promoting both equity and excellence is imperative. To address only one of these goals would, on the one hand, sacrifice those put at risk by social and cultural hierarchies in society or would, on the other hand, fail to press for the highest possible levels of accomplishment. Equity and excellence must be pursued concurrently to assure that all students are well served and that all are encouraged to perform at their highest level.

Within the School of Education, equity is seen as the state, quality, or ideal of social justice and fairness. It begins with the recognition that there is individual and cultural achievement among all social groups and that this achievement benefits all students and educators. Equity acknowledges that ignorance of the richness of diversity limits human potential. A perspective of equity also acknowledges the unequal treatment of those who have been historically discriminated against based on their ability, parents’ income, race, gender, ethnicity, culture, neighborhood, sexuality, or home language, and supports the closure of gaps in academic achievement. Decisions grounded in equity must establish that a wide range of learners have access to high quality education in order to release the excellence of culture and character which can be utilized by all citizens of a democratic society.

Within the School of Education, excellence is seen as striving for optimal development, high levels of achievement and performance for all and in all that is done. In preparatory programs across grade levels, curriculum and instruction furthers excellence when it moves a learner as effectively as possible toward expertise as a thinker, problem solver and creator of knowledge. Excellence entails a commitment to fully developing candidates, not only academically but also in moral and political senses.

The preparation of exemplary practitioners in education to meet the challenges of equity and excellence is best accomplished through preparation for a democratic society. Democracy around the globe is an ideal, one with the potential to meet the needs, recognize the interests and establish the rights of all citizens. Education is a necessary foundation for this ideal, and both must be subscribed to and participated in by all.

The School of Education is committed to diverse, equitable, democratic learning communities. As a result, candidates are expected to acquire and apply the knowledge, skills and dispositions that prepare them to support the development and education of all students.

The School of Education uses the following unit principles, applicable at all program levels, to identify the knowledge and skills that are central to preparation of candidates. It is the School of Education’s goal that candidates will become leaders supporting and promoting the development, teaching and learning of all students in multiple contexts.

• Candidates possess the necessary content knowledge to support and enhance student development and learning.
• Candidates possess the necessary professional knowledge to support and enhance student development and learning, including meeting student needs across physical, social, psychological, and intellectual contexts. Candidates incorporate a variety of strategies, such as technology, to enhance student learning.
• Candidates possess the necessary knowledge and skills to conduct and interpret appropriate assessments.
• Candidates view and conduct themselves as professionals, providing leadership in their chosen field, including effective communication and collaboration with students and stakeholders.

Certain dispositions are essential to prepare leaders who support equity and excellence in education within a democratic society. Dispositions are beliefs that foster commitments, leading to actions within educational environments with students, colleagues, families, and communities. Candidates strengthen these dispositions as they think deeply, reflect critically and act responsibly in their professional practice. These dispositions are interconnected with knowledge and skills; specific dispositions connect to and exemplify unit principles, facilitating their enactment in particular programs.

• Candidates will exhibit behavior that demonstrates a belief that all individuals can develop, learn, and make positive contributions to society.
• Candidates will exhibit behavior that demonstrates a belief that continuous inquiry and reflection can improve professional practice.
• Faculty Executive Council
• Board of Visitors
• Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP)
• Strategic Plan 2018-2022 (Archived)

A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (2012)

Chapter: 1 a new conceptual framework.

A NEW CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

S cience and engineering—significant parts of human culture that represent some of the pinnacles of human achievement—are not only major intellectual enterprises but also can improve people’s lives in fundamental ways. Although the intrinsic beauty of science and a fascination with how the world works have driven exploration and discovery for centuries, many of the challenges that face humanity now and in the future—related, for example, to the environment, energy, and health—require social, political, and economic solutions that must be informed deeply by knowledge of the underlying science and engineering.

Many recent calls for improvements in K-12 science education have focused on the need for science and engineering professionals to keep the United States competitive in the international arena. Although there is little doubt that this need is genuine, a compelling case can also be made that understanding science and engineering, now more than ever, is essential for every American citizen. Science, engineering, and the technologies they influence permeate every aspect of modern life. Indeed, some knowledge of science and engineering is required to engage with the major public policy issues of today as well as to make informed everyday decisions, such as selecting among alternative medical treatments or determining how to invest public funds for water supply options. In addition, understanding science and the extraordinary insights it has produced can be meaningful and relevant on a personal level, opening new worlds to explore and offering lifelong opportunities for enriching people’s lives. In these contexts, learning science is important for everyone, even those who eventually choose careers in fields other than science or engineering.

The conceptual framework presented in this report of the Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards articulates the committee’s vision of the scope and nature of the education in science, engineering, and technology needed for the 21st century. It is intended as a guide to the next step, which is the process of developing standards for all students. Thus it describes the major practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas that all students should be familiar with by the end of high school, and it provides an outline of how these practices, concepts, and ideas should be developed across the grade levels. Engineering and technology are featured alongside the physical sciences, life sciences, and earth and space sciences for two critical reasons: to reflect the importance of understanding the human-built world and to recognize the value of better integrating the teaching and learning of science, engineering, and technology.

By framework we mean a broad description of the content and sequence of learning expected of all students by the completion of high school—but not at the level of detail of grade-by-grade standards or, at the high school level, course descriptions and standards. Instead, as this document lays out, the framework is intended as a guide to standards developers as well as for curriculum designers, assessment developers, state and district science administrators, professionals responsible for science teacher education, and science educators working in informal settings.

There are two primary reasons why a new framework is needed at this time. One is that it has been 15 or more years since the last comparable effort at the national scale, and new understandings both in science and in teaching and learning science have developed over that time. The second is the opportunity provided by a movement of multiple states to adopt common standards in mathematics and in language arts, which has prompted interest in comparable documents for science. This framework is the first part of a two-stage process to produce a next-generation set of science standards for voluntary adoption by states. The second step—the development of a set of standards based on this framework—is a state-led effort coordinated by Achieve, Inc., involving multiple opportunities for input from the states’ science educators, including teachers, and the public.

A VISION FOR K-12 EDUCATION IN THE SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING

The framework is designed to help realize a vision for education in the sciences and engineering in which students, over multiple years of school, actively engage in scientific and engineering practices and apply crosscutting concepts to deepen

their understanding of the core ideas in these fields. The learning experiences provided for students should engage them with fundamental questions about the world and with how scientists have investigated and found answers to those questions. Throughout grades K-12, students should have the opportunity to carry out scientific investigations and engineering design projects related to the disciplinary core ideas.

By the end of the 12th grade, students should have gained sufficient knowledge of the practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas of science and engineering to engage in public discussions on science-related issues, to be critical consumers of scientific information related to their everyday lives, and to continue to learn about science throughout their lives. They should come to appreciate that science and the current scientific understanding of the world are the result of many hundreds of years of creative human endeavor. It is especially important to note that the above goals are for all students, not just those who pursue careers in science, engineering, or technology or those who continue on to higher education.

We anticipate that the insights gained and interests provoked from studying and engaging in the practices of science and engineering during their K-12 schooling should help students see how science and engineering are instrumental in addressing major challenges that confront society today, such as generating sufficient energy, preventing and treating diseases, maintaining supplies of clean water and food, and solving the problems of global environmental change. In addition, although not all students will choose to pursue careers in science, engineering, or technology, we hope that a science education based on the framework will motivate and inspire a greater number of people—and a better representation

of the broad diversity of the American population—to follow these paths than is the case today.

The committee’s vision takes into account two major goals for K-12 science education: (1) educating all students in science and engineering and (2) providing the foundational knowledge for those who will become the scientists, engineers, technologists, and technicians of the future. The framework principally concerns itself with the first task—what all students should know in preparation for their individual lives and for their roles as citizens in this technology-rich and scientifically complex world. Course options, including Advanced Placement (AP) or honors courses, should be provided that allow for greater breadth or depth in the science topics that students pursue, not only in the usual disciplines taught as natural sciences in the K-12 context but also in allied subjects, such as psychology, computer science, and economics. It is the committee’s conviction that such an education, done well, will excite many more young people about science-related subjects and generate a desire to pursue science- or engineering-based careers.

Achieving the Vision

The framework is motivated in part by a growing national consensus around the need for greater coherence—that is, a sense of unity—in K-12 science education. Too often, standards are long lists of detailed and disconnected facts, reinforcing the criticism that science curricula in the United States tend to be “a mile wide and an inch deep” [ 1 ]. Not only is such an approach alienating to young people, but it can also leave them with just fragments of knowledge and little sense of the creative achievements of science, its inherent logic and consistency, and its universality. Moreover, that approach neglects the need for students to develop an understanding of the practices of science and engineering, which is as important to understanding science as knowledge of its content.

The framework endeavors to move science education toward a more coherent vision in three ways. First, it is built on the notion of learning as a developmental

progression. It is designed to help children continually build on and revise their knowledge and abilities, starting from their curiosity about what they see around them and their initial conceptions about how the world works. The goal is to guide their knowledge toward a more scientifically based and coherent view of the sciences and engineering, as well as of the ways in which they are pursued and their results can be used.

Second, the framework focuses on a limited number of core ideas in science and engineering both within and across the disciplines. The committee made this choice in order to avoid shallow coverage of a large number of topics and to allow more time for teachers and students to explore each idea in greater depth. Reduction of the sheer sum of details to be mastered is intended to give time for students to engage in scientific investigations and argumentation and to achieve depth of understanding of the core ideas presented. Delimiting what is to be learned about each core idea within each grade band also helps clarify what is most important to spend time on and avoid the proliferation of detail to be learned with no conceptual grounding.

Third, the framework emphasizes that learning about science and engineering involves integration of the knowledge of scientific explanations (i.e., content knowledge) and the practices needed to engage in scientific inquiry and engineering design. Thus the framework seeks to illustrate how knowledge and practice must be intertwined in designing learning experiences in K-12 science education.

Limitations of This Framework

The terms “science,” “engineering,” and “technology” are often lumped together as a single phrase, both in this report and in education policy circles. But it is important to define what is meant by each of these terms in this report—and why.

In the K-12 context, science is generally taken to mean the traditional natural sciences: physics, chemistry, biology, and (more recently) earth, space, and environmental sciences. In this document, we include core ideas for these disciplinary areas, but not for all areas of science, as discussed further below. This limitation matches our charge and the need of schools for a next generation of standards in these areas. Engineering and technology are included as they relate to the applications of science, and in so doing they offer students a path to strengthen their understanding of the role of sciences. We use the term engineering in a very broad sense to mean any engagement in a systematic practice of design to achieve solutions to particular human problems. Likewise, we broadly use the term technology to include all types of human-made systems and processes—not in the

limited sense often used in schools that equates technology with modern computational and communications devices. Technologies result when engineers apply their understanding of the natural world and of human behavior to design ways to satisfy human needs and wants. This is not to say that science necessarily precedes technology; throughout history, advances in scientific understanding often have been driven by engineers’ questions as they work to design new or improved machines or systems.

Engineering and technology, defined in these broad ways, are included in the framework for several reasons. First, the committee thinks it is important for students to explore the practical use of science, given that a singular focus on the core ideas of the disciplines would tend to shortchange the importance of applications. Second, at least at the K-8 level, these topics typically do not appear elsewhere in the curriculum and thus are neglected if not included in science instruction. Finally, engineering and technology provide a context in which students can test their own developing scientific knowledge and apply it to practical problems; doing so enhances their understanding of science—and, for many, their interest in science—as they recognize the interplay among science, engineering, and technology. We are convinced that engagement in the practices of engineering design is as much a part of learning science as engagement in the practices of science [ 2 ].

It is important to note, however, that the framework is not intended to define course structure, particularly at the high school level. Many high schools already have courses designated as technology, design, or even engineering that go beyond the limited introduction to these topics specified in the framework. These courses are often taught by teachers who have specialized expertise and do not consider themselves to be science teachers. The committee takes no position on such courses—nor, in fact, on any particular set of course sequence options for students at the high school level. We simply maintain that some introduction to engineering practice, the application of science, and the interrelationship of science, engineering, and technology is integral to the learning of science for all students.

More generally, this framework should not be interpreted as limiting advanced courses that go beyond the material included here—all students at the high school level should have opportunities for advanced study in areas of interest to them, and it is hoped that, for many, this will include further study of specific science disciplines in honors or AP courses. Such course options may include topics, such as neurobiology, and even disciplines, such as economics, that are not included in this framework.

Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences

Although some aspects of the behavioral sciences are incorporated in the framework as part of life sciences, the social, behavioral, and economic sciences are not fully addressed. The committee did not identify a separate set of core ideas for these fields for several reasons.

First, the original charge to the committee did not include these disciplines. Second, social, behavioral, and economic sciences include a diverse array of fields (sociology, economics, political science, anthropology, all of the branches of psychology) with different methods, theories, relationships to other disciplines of science, and representation in the K-12 curriculum. Although some are currently represented in grades K-12, many are not or appear only in courses offered at the high school level.

Third, the committee based the framework on existing documents that outline the major ideas for K-12 science education, including the National Science Education Standards ( NSES ) [ 3 ], the Benchmarks for Science Literacy [ 4 ] and the accompanying Atlas [ 5 ], the Science Framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress ( NAEP ) [ 6 ], and the Science College Board Standards for College Success [ 7 ]. Most of these documents do not cover all of the fields that are part of the social, behavioral, and economic sciences comprehensively, and some omit them entirely.

Fourth, understanding how to integrate the social, behavioral, and economic sciences into standards, given how subjects are currently organized in the K-12 system, is especially complex. These fields have typically not been included as part of the science curriculum and, as noted above, are not represented systematically in some of the major national-level documents that identify core concepts for K-12 science. Also, many of the topics related to the social, behavioral, and economic sciences are incorporated into curricula or courses identified as social studies and may be taught from a humanities perspective. In fact, the National Council for the Social Studies has a set of National Curriculum Standards for Social Studies that

includes standards in such areas as psychology, sociology, geography, anthropology, political science, and economics [ 8 ].

The limited treatment of these fields in this report’s framework should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the social, behavioral, and economic sciences should be omitted from the K-12 curriculum. On the contrary, the committee strongly believes that these important disciplines need their own framework for defining core concepts to be learned at the K-12 level and that learning (the development of understanding of content and practices) in the physical, life, earth, and space sciences and engineering should be strongly linked with parallel learning in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences. Any such framework must also address important and challenging issues of school and curriculum organization around the domain of social sciences and social studies.

Our committee has neither the charge nor the expertise to undertake that important work. Thus, although we have included references to some of the social, behavioral, and economic issues connected to the sciences that are the focus of our own framework (see, for example, Core Idea 2 in engineering, technology, and applications of science), we do not consider these references to define the entirety of what students should learn or discuss about social, behavioral, and economic sciences.

In a separate effort, the National Research Council (NRC) has plans to convene a workshop to begin exploring a definition of what core ideas in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences would be appropriate to teach at the K-12 level and at what grade levels to introduce them. As noted above, there are many quite distinct realms of study covered by the terms. Given the multiplicity and variety of disciplines involved, only a few of which are currently addressed in any way in K-12 classrooms, there is much work to be done to address the role of these sciences in the development of an informed 21st-century citizen. It is clear, however, to the authors of this report that these sciences, although different in focus, do have much in common with the subject areas included here, so that much of what this report discusses in defining scientific and engineering practices and crosscutting concepts has application across this broader realm of science.

Computer Science and Statistics

Computer science and statistics are other areas of science that are not addressed here, even though they have a valid presence in K-12 education. Statistics is basically a subdiscipline of mathematical sciences, and it is addressed to some extent in the common core mathematics standards. Computer science, too, can be seen

as a branch of the mathematical sciences, as well as having some elements of engineering. But, again, because this area of the curriculum has a history and a teaching corps that are generally distinct from those of the sciences, the committee has not taken this domain as part of our charge. Once again, this omission should not be interpreted to mean that computer science or statistics should be excluded from the K-12 curriculum. There are aspects of computational and statistical thinking that must be understood and applied in learning about the sciences, and we identify these aspects, along with mathematical thinking, in our discussion of science practices in Chapter 3 .

ABOUT THIS REPORT

The Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards was established by the NRC to undertake the study on which this report is based. Composed of 18 members reflecting a diversity of perspectives and a broad range of expertise, the committee includes professionals in the natural sciences, mathematics, engineering, cognitive and developmental psychology, the learning sciences, education policy and implementation, research on learning science in the classroom, and the practice of teaching science.

The committee’s charge was to develop a conceptual framework that would specify core ideas in the life sciences, physical sciences, earth and space sciences, and engineering and technology, as well as crosscutting concepts and practices, around which standards should be developed. The committee was also charged with articulating how these disciplinary ideas and crosscutting concepts intersect for at least three grade levels and to develop guidance for implementation (see Box 1-1 ).

Scope and Approach

The committee carried out the charge through an iterative process of amassing information, deliberating on it, identifying gaps, gathering further information to fill these gaps, and holding further discussions. In our search for particulars, we held three public fact-finding meetings, reviewed published reports and unpublished research, and commissioned experts to prepare and present papers. At our fourth meeting, we deliberated on the form and structure of the framework and on the content of the report’s supporting chapters, to prepare a draft framework for public release in July 2010. During the fifth and sixth meetings, we considered the feedback received from the public and developed a plan for revising the draft framework based on this input (see below for further details).

COMMITTEE CHARGE

An ad hoc committee will develop and define a framework to guide the development of science education standards. In conducting the study and preparing its report, the committee will draw on current research on science learning as well as research and evaluation evidence related to standards-based education reform. This will include existing efforts to specify central ideas for science education, including the National Science Education Standards, AAAS Benchmarks, the 2009 NAEP Framework, and the redesign of the AP courses by the College Board.

The conceptual framework developed by the committee will identify and articulate the core ideas in science around which standards should be developed by considering core ideas in the disciplines of science (life sciences, physical sciences, earth and space sciences, and applied sciences) as well as crosscutting ideas such as mathematization, * causal reasoning, evaluating and using evidence, argumentation, and model development. The committee will illustrate with concrete examples how crosscutting ideas may play out in the context of select core disciplinary ideas and articulate expectations for students’ learning of these ideas for at least three key grade levels. In parallel, the committee will develop a research and development plan to inform future revisions of the standards. Specifically in its consensus report, the committee will

•     identify a small set of core ideas in each of the major science disciplines, as well as those ideas that cut across disciplines, using a set of criteria developed by the committee

•     develop guidance on implementation of the framework

•     articulate how these disciplinary ideas and crosscutting ideas intersect for at least three grade levels

•     create examples of performance expectations

•     discuss implications of various goals for science education (e.g., general science literacy, college preparation, and workforce readiness) on the priority of core ideas and articulation of leaning expectations

•     develop a research and development plan to inform future revisions of the standards

* Mathematization is a technical term that means representing relationships in the natural world using mathematics.

The nature of the charge—to identify the scientific and engineering ideas and practices that are most important for all students in grades K-12 to learn—means that the committee ultimately had to rely heavily on its own expertise and collective judgments. To the extent possible, however, we used research-based evidence and past efforts to inform these judgments. Our approach combined

evidence on the learning and teaching of science and engineering with a detailed examination of previous science standards documents. It is important to note that even where formal research is limited, the report is based on the collective experience of the science education and science education research communities. All the practices suggested have been explored in classrooms, as have the crosscutting concepts (though perhaps under other names such as “unifying themes”).

Design Teams

The committee’s work was significantly advanced by the contributions of four design teams, which were contracted by the NRC to prepare materials that described the core ideas in the natural sciences and engineering and outlined how these ideas could be developed across grades K-12. Each team had a designated leader who provided guidance and interacted frequently with the committee. The materials developed by the teams form the foundation for the core disciplinary ideas and grade band endpoints described in this report (Chapters 5 - 8 ). A list of the design team participants appears in Appendix D .

The design teams were asked to begin their work by considering the ideas and practices described in the NSES [ 3 ], AAAS Benchmarks [ 4 ], Science Framework for the 2009 NAEP [ 6 ], and Science College Board Standards for College Success [ 7 ] as well as the relevant research on learning and teaching in science. The teams prepared drafts and presented them to the committee during the closed portions of our first three meetings. Between meetings, the teams revised their drafts in response to committee comments. Following the release of the July 2010 draft (see the next section), the leaders of the design teams continued to interact with committee members as they planned the revisions of the draft framework. No members of the design teams participated in the discussions during which the committee reached consensus on the content of the final draft.

Public Feedback

The committee recognized early in the process that obtaining feedback from a broad range of stakeholders and experts would be crucial to the success of the framework. For this reason, we obtained permission from the NRC to release a draft version of the framework for public comment.

The draft version was prepared, underwent an expedited NRC review, and was released in early July 2010. It was then posted online for a period of three weeks, during which time individuals could submit comments through an online survey. In addition, NRC staff contacted over 40 organizations in science, engineering, and education, notifying them of the public comment period and asking them to hold focus groups to gather feedback from members or to at least notify their members of the opportunity to comment online. The NRC also worked closely with the National Science Teachers Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Achieve, Inc., and the Council of State Science Supervisors both to facilitate the public input process and to organize focus groups. Finally, the committee asked nine experts to provide detailed feedback on the public draft.

During the 3-week public comment period, the committee received extensive input from both individuals and groups: a total of more than 2,000 people responded to the online survey. More than 30 focus groups were held around the country, with 15-40 participants in each group. The committee also received letters from key individuals and organizations. A list of the organizations that participated in the focus groups or submitted letters is included in Appendix A .

NRC staff, together with the committee chair, reviewed all of the input and developed summaries that identified the major issues raised and outlined possible revisions to the draft framework. Committee members reviewed these summaries and also had the opportunity to review the public feedback in detail. Based on discussions at the fifth and sixth meetings, the committee made substantial revisions to the framework based on the feedback. A summary of the major issues raised in the public feedback and the revisions the committee made is included in Appendix A .

Structure of the Report

The first nine chapters of this report outline the principles underlying the framework, describe the core ideas and practices for K-12 education in the natural sciences and engineering, and provide examples of how these ideas and practices should be integrated into any standards.

The remaining four chapters of the report address issues related to designing and implementing standards and strengthening the research base that should inform them. Chapter 10 articulates the issues related to curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Chapter 11 discusses important considerations related to equity and diversity. Chapter 12 provides guidance for standards developers as they work to apply the framework. Finally, Chapter 13 outlines the research agenda that would allow a systematic implementation of the framework and related standards. The chapter also specifies the kinds of research needed for future iterations of the standards to be better grounded in evidence.

The National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers have developed “Common Core State Standards” in mathematics and language arts, and 43 states and the District of Columbia have adopted these standards as of early 2011. The anticipation of a similar effort for science standards was a prime motivator for this NRC study and the resulting framework described in this report.

To maintain the momentum, the Carnegie Corporation commissioned the nonpartisan and nonprofit educational reform organization Achieve, Inc., to lead states in developing new science standards based on the NRC framework in this report. There is no prior commitment from multiple states to adopt such standards, so the process will be different from the Common Core process used for mathematics and language arts. But it is expected that Achieve will form partnerships with a number of states in undertaking this work and will offer multiple opportunities for public comment.

As our report was being completed, Achieve’s work on science standards was already under way, starting with an analysis of international science benchmarking in high-performing countries that is expected to inform the standards development process. We understand that Achieve has also begun some preliminary planning for that process based on the draft framework that was circulated for public comment in summer 2010. The relevance of such work should deepen once the revised framework in this report, on which Achieve’s standards will be based, is released. It should be noted, however, that our study and the framework described in this report are independent of the work of Achieve.

The framework and any standards that will be based on it make explicit the goals around which a science education system should be organized [ 9 ]. The committee recognizes, however, that the framework and subsequent standards will not

lead to improvements in K-12 science education unless the other components of the system—curriculum, instruction, professional development, and assessment—change so that they are aligned with the framework’s vision. Thus the framework and standards are necessary but not sufficient to support the desired improvements. In Chapter 10 , we address some of the challenges inherent in achieving such alignment.

1 . Schmidt, W.H., McKnight, C.C., and Raizen, S. (1997). A Splintered Vision: An Investigation of U.S. Science and Mathematics Education . U.S. National Research Center for the Third International Mathematics and Science Study. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.

2 . National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. (2009). Engineering in K-12 Education: Understanding the Status and Improving the Prospect. Committee on K-12 Engineering Education. L. Katehi, G. Pearson, and M. Feder (Eds.). National Academy of Engineering. Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

3 . National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Committee for Science Education Standards and Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

4 . American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press. Available: http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/index.php?txtRef=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eproject2061%2Eorg%2Fpublications%2Fbsl%2Fdefault%2Ehtm%3FtxtRef%3D%26txtURIOld%3D%252Ftools%252Fbsl%252Fdefault%2Ehtm&txtURIOld=%2Fpublications%2Fbsl%2Fonline%2Fbolintro%2Ehtm [June 2011].

5 . American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2007). Atlas of Science Literacy, Volumes 1 and 2 . Project 2061. Washington, DC: Author.

6 . National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2009). Science Framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Developed for the National Assessment Governing Board. Available: http://www.nagb.org/publications/frameworks/science-09.pdf [June 2011].

7 . College Board. (2009). Science College Board Standards for College Success . Available: http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/cbscs-science-standards-2009.pdf [June 2011].

8 . National Council for the Social Studies. (2010). National Curriculum Standards for Social Studies: A Framework for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment. Silver Spring, MD: Author.

9 . National Research Council. (2006). Systems for State Science Assessment. M.R. Wilson and M.W. Bertenthal (Eds.). Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement. Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

This page intentionally left blank.

Science, engineering, and technology permeate nearly every facet of modern life and hold the key to solving many of humanity's most pressing current and future challenges. The United States' position in the global economy is declining, in part because U.S. workers lack fundamental knowledge in these fields. To address the critical issues of U.S. competitiveness and to better prepare the workforce, A Framework for K-12 Science Education proposes a new approach to K-12 science education that will capture students' interest and provide them with the necessary foundational knowledge in the field.

A Framework for K-12 Science Education outlines a broad set of expectations for students in science and engineering in grades K-12. These expectations will inform the development of new standards for K-12 science education and, subsequently, revisions to curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development for educators. This book identifies three dimensions that convey the core ideas and practices around which science and engineering education in these grades should be built. These three dimensions are: crosscutting concepts that unify the study of science through their common application across science and engineering; scientific and engineering practices; and disciplinary core ideas in the physical sciences, life sciences, and earth and space sciences and for engineering, technology, and the applications of science. The overarching goal is for all high school graduates to have sufficient knowledge of science and engineering to engage in public discussions on science-related issues, be careful consumers of scientific and technical information, and enter the careers of their choice.

A Framework for K-12 Science Education is the first step in a process that can inform state-level decisions and achieve a research-grounded basis for improving science instruction and learning across the country. The book will guide standards developers, teachers, curriculum designers, assessment developers, state and district science administrators, and educators who teach science in informal environments.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Conceptual Framework

Teaching is leading for the future.

The conceptual framework that now guides the unit was developed through a series of faculty retreats, and later revised by the Conceptual Framework Committee. As the unit prepared for full implementation of the Ready to Teach Transformation Initiative, the ConceptualFramework was again formally revisited through a series of meetings that included community representation as well as the faculty in the college. Recommendations were made to clarify, redefine, and reframe the concepts to bett er reflect the needs and requirements for successful teachers and professionals in the 21st century. The Conceptual Framework specifically guides the Teacher Education programs within the College, and where appropriate, also applies to the various non-licensure programs housed within the College. The framework is comprised of nine dimensions that come together to inform the tenth: Leadership.

Leadership (The Tenth Dimension)

Teacher education graduates possess the personal and professional qualities that enable them to take a leadership role and work constructively within schools and agencies to create learning communities that foster the growth and development of all learners. 

Dimension 1: General Knowledge 

Teacher education graduates have a strong liberal studies core that develops their understanding of the rich cultural heritage of students, provides an understanding of our global community and develops competence in critical thinking, writing, oral communication, and technology . Students demonstrate general knowledge and skills in professional practice by building subject matter connections across disciplines; adapting relevant subject matter for multiple levels of learners; and communicating orally and in writing using formal, standard English.  

Dimension 2: Content Knowledge

Teacher education graduates understand and use the central concepts, tools of inquiry, technological resources, and structures of their discipline(s) . Students demonstrate content knowledge by creating relevant and current learning experiences that are meaningful for all students.

Dimension 3: Pedagogical Knowledge

Teacher education graduates are able to plan instruction based upon knowledge of subject matter, characteristics and needs of students', the community, and curriculum goals as expressed in state standards . They understand and use a variety of instructional strategies and tools to encourage students development of critical thinking, problem solving and performance skills.  They are able to document appropriate planning of classroom strategies through the use of high quality lesson plans. They use an understanding of individual and group motivation and behavior to create a safe learning environment that encourages positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation.  Graduates are able to ethically use technology to enhance the learning of students.  They understand and are able to use formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate and ensure the continuous intellectual, social, and physical development of learners.

Dimension 4: Diversity

Teacher education graduates are committed to serving a rapidly changing, expanding, and increasingly diverse society.  They respect and appreciate each person and the unique experiences that influence how an individual understands the world. They establish a welcoming classroom climate . They create instruction in which people honor one another as individuals, value differences and the special gifts each brings to the community, and respect the rights of others as human beings inclusive of race, gender, ethnicity, cultural background, language, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, age, disability, religion, and national origin. Teacher education graduates are capable of self-examination to overcome prejudice. 

Dimension 5: Professional Collaboration

Teacher education graduates can practice shared responsibility and positive professional attitudes in collaborative practice with students, colleagues, families, learning organizations, and the community at large . They recognize value in interdisciplinary learning communities and other professional networking opportunities.  They possess the knowledge and skills necessary to build community support and develop trusting and collaborative relationships with the students to enhance learning and well-being. 

Dimension 6: Reflective Practice

Teacher education graduates are reflective practitioners who are committed to growth and professional improvement . Reflective practice begins with assessment of self: talent, attitudes, behaviors, patterns, professional practice and follows with peer review. Graduates develop a respect for feedback and continuously seek alternative perspectives for both self improvement, and the improvement of student learning. Reflective practice is also exercised when building the foundation of theories and philosophies that become the teaching framework of each practitioner. Reflection enables future teachers to raise questions, to critically analyze theory and current research and to evaluate the effects of their own practice on others (students, families and other professionals in the learning community), and to develop creative solutions to educational dilemmas and concerns.

Dimension 7: Self-directed, Lifelong Learning

Teacher education graduates take responsibility for their future and set goals for their personal and professional growth . Through participation in professional organizations, in-service activities, presentations at conferences, interactions with teachers mentors, reading professional literature, and accessing other learning resources, graduates demonstrate a commitment to their own continuing professional development and the development of the profession. As leaders and role models, graduates will communicate the importance of lifelong learning to students, families and colleagues. 

Dimension 8: Caring

Teacher education graduates appreciate the talents of all learners, believe that all students can learn, and demonstrate flexibility by using individual strengths to guide student learning . They respond to both character and competence in building caring and trusting relationships. Teacher education graduates encourage such relationships and support the practice of mutual consideration and concern in classroom management strategies, and among all members of the school and community environment.

Dimension 9: Professional and Social Responsibility 

Teacher education graduates demonstrate a commitment to active, ethical involvement in the school, community and profession . Graduates demonstrate their citizenship by serving their communities and profession. They are committed to developing opportunities for learners to engage in socially responsible behaviors demonstrated by sustainable classroom practices, a global perspective on history, culture and resources, and local action utilizing methods such as service-learning. Graduates make responsible choices regarding confidentiality of student records and personal use of social media.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

1: Definition and conceptual framework of Teacher education

Related Papers

Alpesh Nakrani

Elock E Shikalepo

Conducting educational research involves various stages, with an interdependence and inter-relationship which can be both iterative and progressive in nature. One of these stages is the review of literature sources related to the focus of the research. Reviewing related literature involves tracing, examining, critiquing, evaluating and eventually recommending various forms of contents to the intents of the research based on the content’s typicality, relevance, correctness and appropriateness to what the research intends to achieve. The main variables as stated in the title of the research, the research questions, the research objectives and the hypotheses, dictates the literature sources to review. Reviewing literature focuses on the existing related topics that bear relevance to the title of the research and through which reviewing, appropriate theories can be picked up as the review of related topics and phrases goes on. As soon as the related topics are reviewed and main points noted, the reviewing process proceeds to review the theories underpinning the study. Some of these theories would have been established while reviewing the related topics and can now gain momentum, while other theories can now be generated considering the title, research questions, research objectives and findings of the topics reviewed and discussed earlier. Reviewing related topics generates main points of arguments, solutions, gaps and propositions. Similarly, reviewing theories does produce the same set of corresponding or contrasting agreements, gaps and propositions. Despite reviewing different sources of literature, it is the same research at hand, with same objectives and same methodological layout. Hence, a need to shape a strategic, literature direction for the research by consolidating the key findings of the different sources reviewed, in view of the intents of the research. The process of consolidating the multiplicity of key literature findings relevant to the research into a whole single unit, with one standpoint revealing the strategic literature direction for the research, is called constructing a conceptual framework. The end product of this construction is the conceptual framework, which is the informed and consolidated results presented narratively or schematically, revealing the strategic position of the study in relation to what exists in literature.

Teaching and Teacher Education

Tom Russell

International Journal of Peace, Education and Development

Dori Lal Chaudhary

Debora Ragawanti , Debora Tri Ragawanti

The need for education, more specifically English, inevitably has increased the demand for language teachers. To provide a better quality of education, these teachers then are called to exercise their professionalism. In Indonesia, the call for implementing teacher’s professional development has become primary attention of the Government. In response to the issue, it is mandatory for teachers in various teacher-education institutions in Indonesia to upgrade their existing knowledge and skills in teaching as well as those who are still preparing themselves to be teachers. In this context, teachers in this country can further develop and/or continue their professional development as language teachers. This paper attempts to build a teacher-education program based on a preliminary need analysis on skills that the teachers expect to have. Samples of activities in the teacher-education program are also presented. Key words: Teacher training, teacher’s professional development, second-language teacher education.

Peter Smagorinsky , Leslie Cook

Educational Comment

George Dickson

International Journal of Research Studies in Education

ekwevugbe adams

Aliya Ahmed

Frank Van Der Bolt

RELATED PAPERS

Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira

Ieda Laurindo

Robert Lukesch

Education and New Developments 2020

Peter Grandits

Herlina Siregar

Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing

Jacob Solomon

Budi Permana

Fátima García

Medical anthropology

James Quesada

Alzheimer's & Dementia

Tohru Hasegawa

International Journal of Behavioral Medicine

Stephanie Bahorski

Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology

Manuel Alfonseca

Journal of Tuberculosis Research

Md. Abdullah Yusuf

Alison Ciesla née Wenham

WIADOMOSCI MATEMATYCZNE

Juozas Banionis

Journal of Neurolinguistics

Patrick Santens

Annette C Lamb

Bogdan Patrut

Stochastic Processes and their Applications

Steven Evans

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

Masashi Mizokami

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

What is a good example of a conceptual framework?

Last updated

18 April 2023

Reviewed by

Miroslav Damyanov

A well-designed study doesn’t just happen. Researchers work hard to ensure the studies they conduct will be scientifically valid and will advance understanding in their field.

Make research less tedious

Dovetail streamlines research to help you uncover and share actionable insights

• The importance of a conceptual framework

The main purpose of a conceptual framework is to improve the quality of a research study. A conceptual framework achieves this by identifying important information about the topic and providing a clear roadmap for researchers to study it.

Through the process of developing this information, researchers will be able to improve the quality of their studies in a few key ways.

Clarify research goals and objectives

A conceptual framework helps researchers create a clear research goal. Research projects often become vague and lose their focus, which makes them less useful. However, a well-designed conceptual framework helps researchers maintain focus. It reinforces the project’s scope, ensuring it stays on track and produces meaningful results.

Provide a theoretical basis for the study

Forming a hypothesis requires knowledge of the key variables and their relationship to each other. Researchers need to identify these variables early on to create a conceptual framework. This ensures researchers have developed a strong understanding of the topic before finalizing the study design. It also helps them select the most appropriate research and analysis methods.

Guide the research design

As they develop their conceptual framework, researchers often uncover information that can help them further refine their work.

Here are some examples:

Confounding variables they hadn’t previously considered

Sources of bias they will have to take into account when designing the project

Whether or not the information they were going to study has already been covered—this allows them to pivot to a more meaningful goal that brings new and relevant information to their field

• Steps to develop a conceptual framework

There are four major steps researchers will follow to develop a conceptual framework. Each step will be described in detail in the sections that follow. You’ll also find examples of how each might be applied in a range of fields.

Step 1: Choose the research question

The first step in creating a conceptual framework is choosing a research question . The goal of this step is to create a question that’s specific and focused.

By developing a clear question, researchers can more easily identify the variables they will need to account for and keep their research focused. Without it, the next steps will be more difficult and less effective.

Here are some examples of good research questions in a few common fields:

Natural sciences: How does exposure to ultraviolet radiation affect the growth rate of a particular type of algae?

Health sciences: What is the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy for treating depression in adolescents?

Business: What factors contribute to the success of small businesses in a particular industry?

Education: How does implementing technology in the classroom impact student learning outcomes?

Step 2: Select the independent and dependent variables

Once the research question has been chosen, it’s time to identify the dependent and independent variables .

The independent variable is the variable researchers think will affect the dependent variable . Without this information, researchers cannot develop a meaningful hypothesis or design a way to test it.

The dependent and independent variables for our example questions above are:

Natural sciences

Independent variable: exposure to ultraviolet radiation

Dependent variable: the growth rate of a particular type of algae

Health sciences

Independent variable: cognitive-behavioral therapy

Dependent variable: depression in adolescents

Independent variables: factors contributing to the business’s success

Dependent variable: sales, return on investment (ROI), or another concrete metric

Independent variable: implementation of technology in the classroom

Dependent variable: student learning outcomes, such as test scores, GPAs, or exam results

Step 3: Visualize the cause-and-effect relationship

This step is where researchers actually develop their hypothesis. They will predict how the independent variable will impact the dependent variable based on their knowledge of the field and their intuition.

With a hypothesis formed, researchers can more accurately determine what data to collect and how to analyze it. They will then visualize their hypothesis by creating a diagram. This visualization will serve as a framework to help guide their research.

The diagrams for our examples might be used as follows:

Natural sciences : how exposure to radiation affects the biological processes in the algae that contribute to its growth rate

Health sciences : how different aspects of cognitive behavioral therapy can affect how patients experience symptoms of depression

Business : how factors such as market demand, managerial expertise, and financial resources influence a business’s success

Education : how different types of technology interact with different aspects of the learning process and alter student learning outcomes

Step 4: Identify other influencing variables

The independent and dependent variables are only part of the equation. Moderating, mediating, and control variables are also important parts of a well-designed study. These variables can impact the relationship between the two main variables and must be accounted for.

A moderating variable is one that can change how the independent variable affects the dependent variable. A mediating variable explains the relationship between the two. Control variables are kept the same to eliminate their impact on the results. Examples of each are given below:

Moderating variable: water temperature (might impact how algae respond to radiation exposure)

Mediating variable: chlorophyll production (might explain how radiation exposure affects algae growth rate)

Control variable: nutrient levels in the water

Moderating variable: the severity of depression symptoms at baseline might impact how effective the therapy is for different adolescents

Mediating variable: social support might explain how cognitive-behavioral therapy leads to improvements in depression

Control variable: other forms of treatment received before or during the study

Moderating variable: the size of the business (might impact how different factors contribute to market share, sales, ROI, and other key success metrics)

Mediating variable: customer satisfaction (might explain how different factors impact business success)

Control variable: industry competition

Moderating variable: student age (might impact how effective technology is for different students)

Mediating variable: teacher training (might explain how technology leads to improvements in learning outcomes)

Control variable: student learning style

• Conceptual versus theoretical frameworks

Although they sound similar, conceptual and theoretical frameworks have different goals and are used in different contexts. Understanding which to use will help researchers craft better studies.

Conceptual frameworks describe a broad overview of the subject and outline key concepts, variables, and the relationships between them. They provide structure to studies that are more exploratory in nature, where the relationships between the variables are still being established. They are particularly helpful in studies that are complex or interdisciplinary because they help researchers better organize the factors involved in the study.

Theoretical frameworks, on the other hand, are used when the research question is more clearly defined and there’s an existing body of work to draw upon. They define the relationships between the variables and help researchers predict outcomes. They are particularly helpful when researchers want to refine the existing body of knowledge rather than establish it.

Should you be using a customer insights hub?

Do you want to discover previous research faster?

Do you share your research findings with others?

Do you analyze research data?

Start for free today, add your research, and get to key insights faster

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 11 January 2024

Last updated: 15 January 2024

Last updated: 25 November 2023

Last updated: 12 May 2023

Last updated: 30 April 2024

Last updated: 18 May 2023

Last updated: 10 April 2023

Latest articles

Related topics, .css-je19u9{-webkit-align-items:flex-end;-webkit-box-align:flex-end;-ms-flex-align:flex-end;align-items:flex-end;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;-webkit-box-flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;row-gap:0;text-align:center;max-width:671px;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}}@media (max-width: 799px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}} decide what to .css-1kiodld{max-height:56px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-1kiodld{display:none;}} build next, decide what to build next.

Users report unexpectedly high data usage, especially during streaming sessions.

Users find it hard to navigate from the home page to relevant playlists in the app.

It would be great to have a sleep timer feature, especially for bedtime listening.

I need better filters to find the songs or artists I’m looking for.

Log in or sign up

Get started for free

• Undergraduate Admission
• Graduate Admission
• Tuition & Financial Aid
• Communications
• Health Sciences and Human Performance
• Humanities and Sciences
• Music, Theatre, and Dance
• IC Resources
• Office of the President
• Ithaca College at a Glance
• Awards and Accolades
• Five-Year Strategic Plan
• Public Health
• Directories
• Course Catalog
• Undergraduate

Conceptual Framework: Teacher Education Goals and Standards

Students and faculty in Ithaca College teacher education programs participate in an active learning community that emphasizes scholarship, teaching, and service. The teacher education community fosters the acquisition and integration of liberal arts and professional knowledge through disciplined study, critical thinking, research, and inquiry (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005). This knowledge, extended and refined by experience, develops teaching competence, which, when exercised democratically in service to others, develops teachers who are informed by a commitment to work effectively with and for all students, their families, and communities (Ogulnick, 2000). Teacher education at Ithaca College thus reflects the institution’s longstanding vision and commitment to excellence by valuing praxis—that is, the combination of theory and performance (Freire, 1993)—and by nurturing the development of knowledge, competence, and commitment to service. As a result, Ithaca College teacher education graduates possess a passion for lifelong learning, a desire and ability to ignite this passion in others, and a commitment to exercise this ability in democratic, culturally responsive teaching and service to others through work with diverse students, families, and communities.

This philosophy is summarized in the Unit’s Conceptual Framework, a set of goals and standards that the All-College Teacher Education Committee affirmed in 2005 (rev. 2007).

Three Goals of the Conceptual Framework

Knowledge. Ithaca College teacher education candidates will, through rigorous and disciplined study in the liberal arts and professional programs, meet or exceed the New York State learning standards and the New York State Regents requirements regarding content and pedagogical knowledge in their respective areas of certification and meet or exceed the ten common program standards that cross all Ithaca College teacher education programs.

Competence. Ithaca College teacher education candidates will develop competence in their respective fields by taking their content and pedagogical knowledge into a variety of local and regional public and private schools where, in carefully planned and supervised field experiences, they will gain confidence in their own teaching and learning; learn to work collaboratively in classrooms, schools, and communities; learn to work effectively with the diversity of their students, their students’ families, and communities; learn to reflect critically and systematically on their own teaching practice in order to improve it; learn to put their students at the center of the learning process while maintaining standards of excellence; and learn to value professional development and lifelong learning.

Commitment to Service.  Ithaca College teacher education candidates will further develop their newly acquired knowledge, competence, and leadership skills by engaging in critically reflective practice; demonstrating, in their practice, a deep commitment to equity and accountability; and modeling initiative and advocacy. Teacher education candidates will develop the skills to build relationships with communities to support students’ learning.

The values and commitments found in our Conceptual Framework are embedded in the InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards, which were adopted by Ithaca College Teacher Education in April 2015. [1] These ten standards, aligned with the New York State Teaching Standards, ensure that our goals of Knowledge , Competence , and Commitment to Service are attained. Our standards reflect the shared values and expectations of our teacher education faculty and stakeholders and are used to assess the readiness of every teacher education candidate at Ithaca College

The framework’s shared vision and corresponding standards have guided the unit’s programs, course development, teaching, assessments of candidate performance, scholarship, and program evaluations in all three Schools in which teacher education programs are offered.

Ten Standards of the Conceptual Framework

Standard #1: Learner Development

The teacher understands how learners grow and develop, recognizing that patterns of learning and development vary individually within and across the cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and physical areas, and designs and implements developmentally appropriate and challenging learning experiences.

Standard #2: Learning Differences

The teacher uses understanding of individual differences and diverse cultures and communities to ensure inclusive learning environments that enable each learner to meet high standards.

Standard #3: Learning Environments

The teacher works with others to create environments that support individual and collaborative learning, and that encourage positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self motivation.

Standard #4: Content Knowledge

The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the discipline(s) he or she teaches and creates learning experiences that make these aspects of the discipline accessible and meaningful for learners to assure mastery of the content.

Standard #5: Application of Content

The teacher understands how to connect concepts and use differing perspectives to engage learners in critical thinking, creativity, and collaborative problem solving related to authentic local and global issues.

Standard #6: Assessment

The teacher understands and uses multiple methods of assessment to engage learners in their own growth, to monitor learner progress, and to guide the teacher’s and learner’s decision making.

Standard #7: Planning for Instruction

The teacher plans instruction that supports every student in meeting rigorous learning goals by drawing upon knowledge of content areas, curriculum, cross- disciplinary skills, and pedagogy, as well as knowledge of learners and the community context.

Standard #8: Instructional Strategies

The teacher understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage learners to develop deep understanding of content areas and their connections, and to build skills to apply knowledge in meaningful ways.

Standard #9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

The teacher engages in ongoing professional learning and uses evidence to continually evaluate his/her practice, particularly the effects of his/her choices and actions on others (learners, families, other professionals, and the community), and adapts practice to meet the needs of each learner.

Standard #10: Leadership and Collaboration

The teacher seeks appropriate leadership roles and opportunities to take responsibility for student learning, to collaborate with learners, families, colleagues, other school professionals, and community members to ensure learner growth, and to advance the profession.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2011).  InTASC model core teaching standards.   

• Open access
• Published: 19 July 2016

A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education

• Todd R. Kelley 1 &
• J. Geoff Knowles 2  

International Journal of STEM Education volume  3 , Article number:  11 ( 2016 ) Cite this article

200k Accesses

628 Citations

60 Altmetric

Metrics details

The global urgency to improve STEM education may be driven by environmental and social impacts of the twenty-first century which in turn jeopardizes global security and economic stability. The complexity of these global factors reach beyond just helping students achieve high scores in math and science assessments. Friedman (The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century, 2005) helped illustrate the complexity of a global society, and educators must help students prepare for this global shift. In response to these challenges, the USA experienced massive STEM educational reforms in the last two decades. In practice, STEM educators lack cohesive understanding of STEM education. Therefore, they could benefit from a STEM education conceptual framework. The process of integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in authentic contexts can be as complex as the global challenges that demand a new generation of STEM experts. Educational researchers indicate that teachers struggle to make connections across the STEM disciplines. Consequently, students are often disinterested in science and math when they learn in an isolated and disjoined manner missing connections to crosscutting concepts and real-world applications. The following paper will operationalize STEM education key concepts and blend learning theories to build an integrated STEM education framework to assist in further researching integrated STEM education.

Many global challenges including “climate change, overpopulation, resource management, agricultural production, health, biodiversity, and declining energy and water sources” need an international approach supported by further development in science and technology to adequately address these challenges (Thomas and Watters 2015 , p. 42). Yet numerous educational research studies have indicated that students’ interest and motivation toward STEM learning has declined especially in western countries and more prosperous Asian nations (Thomas and Watters). Concern for improving STEM education in many nations continues to grow as demand for STEM skills to meet economic challenges increasingly becomes acute (English 2016 ; Marginson et al. 2013 ; NAE and NRC 2014 ). Driven by genuine or perceived current and future shortages in the STEM workforce, many education systems and policy makers around the globe are preoccupied with advancing competencies in STEM domains. However, the views on the nature and development of proficiencies in STEM education are diverse, and increased focus on integration raises new concerns and needs for further research (English 2016 ; Marginson et al. 2013 ).

Although the idea of STEM education has been contemplated since the 1990s in the USA, few teachers seemed to know how to operationalize STEM education several decades later. Americans realized the country may fall behind in the global economy and began to heavily focus on STEM education and careers (Friedman 2005 ). STEM funding for research and education then increased significantly in the USA (Sanders 2009 ). The urgency to improve achievement in American Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics education is evident by the massive educational reforms that have occurred in the last two decades within these STEM education disciplines (AAAS 1989 , 1993 ; ABET 2004 ; ITEA 1996 , 2000, 2002, 2007 ; NCTM 1989 , 2000 ; NRC 1989 , 1994 , 1996 , 2012 ). Although these various documents seek to leverage best practices in education informed by research on how people learn (NRC 2000a , 2000b ), competing theories and agendas may have added confusion to the complexity of integrating STEM subjects. Recent reforms such as Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) (NGSS Lead States 2013 ) and Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers 2010 ) advocate for purposefully integrating STEM by providing deeper connections among the STEM domains. One of the most recent NAE and NRC ( 2014 ) documents, STEM Integration in K - 12 Education : Status , Prospects , and an Agenda for Research , recognize problems with competing agendas, lack of coherent effort, and locating and teaching intersections for STEM integration. The Committee on Integrated STEM Education was charged to assist STEM education stakeholders by (a) carefully identifying and characterizing existing approaches to integrated STEM education, (b) review evidence of impact on student learning, and (c) help determine priorities for research on integrated STEM education. This report was created as a way to move STEM educators forward by creating a common language of STEM integration for research and practice. This effort indicates that further work remains to improve STEM integration in practice and establishes a need to conduct more research on integrated STEM education (NAE and NRC 2014 ).

One outcome of improving achievement in STEM education in many countries is preparing a workforce that will improve national economies and sustain leadership within the constantly shifting and expanding globalized economy. Wang, Moore, Roehrig, and Park ( 2011 ) stated that:

Growing concern about developing America’s future scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians to remain viable and competitive in the global economy has re-energized attention to STEM education. To remain competitive in a growing global economy, it is imperative that we raise student’s achievement in STEM subjects. (p. 1)

European STEM educators and industrialists have identified a widening STEM skills gap among the workforce. Improving STEM education is driven increasingly by economic concerns in developing and emerging countries as well (Kennedy and Odell 2014 ). While STEM student enrollment and motivation has declined in many western countries, various studies have shown an increased interest among young people in developing nations such as India and Malaysia (Thomas and Watters 2015 ).

Seeking coherency in STEM education

Much ambiguity still surrounds STEM education and how it is most effectively implemented (Breiner et al. 2012 ). STEM education is often used to imply something innovative and exciting yet it may, in reality, remain disconnected subjects (Abell and Lederman 2007 ; Sanders 2009 ; Wang et al. 2011 ). However, an integrated curricular approach could be applied to solve global challenges of the modern world concerning energy, health, and the environment (Bybee 2010 ; President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) 2010 ). Kennedy and Odell ( 2014 ) noted that the current state of STEM education:

has evolved into a meta-discipline, an integrated effort that removes the traditional barriers between these subjects, and instead focuses on innovation and the applied process of designing solution to complex contextual problems using current tools and technologies. Engaging students in high quality STEM education requires programs to include rigorous curriculum, instruction, and assessment, integrate technology and engineering into the science and mathematics curriculum, and also promotes scientific inquiry and the engineering design process. (p. 246)

STEM education can link scientific inquiry, by formulating questions answered through investigation to inform the student before they engage in the engineering design process to solve problems (Kennedy et al. 2014 ). Quality STEM education could sustain or increase the STEM pipeline of individuals preparing for careers in these fields (Stohlmann et al. 2012 ). Improving STEM education may also increase the literacy of all people across the population in technological and scientific areas (NAE and NRC 2009 ; NRC 2011 ).

As the USA and other countries work to build their capacity in STEM education, they will need to interact with each other in order to enhance their efforts in international scientific engagement and capacity building to provide quality education to all of their students (Clark 2014 , p. 6).

Defining integrated STEM education

Over the last few decades, STEM education was focused on improving science and mathematics as isolated disciplines (Breiner et al. 2012 ; Sanders 2009 ; Wang et al. 2011 ) with little integration and attention given to technology or engineering (Bybee 2010 ; Hoachlander and Yanofsky 2011 ). Furthermore, STEM subjects often are taught disconnected from the arts, creativity, and design (Hoachlander and Yanofsky 2011 ). Sanders ( 2009 ) described integrated STEM education as “approaches that explore teaching and learning between/among any two or more of the STEM subject areas, and/or between a STEM subject and one or more other school subjects” (p. 21). Sanders suggests that outcomes for learning at least one of the other STEM subjects should be purposely designed in a course—such as a math or science learning outcome in a technology or engineering class (Sanders 2009 ). 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). Integrated STEM curriculum models can contain STEM content learning objectives primarily focused on one subject, but contexts can come from other STEM subjects (Moore et al.). We, however, define integrated STEM education as the approach to teaching the STEM content of two or more STEM domains, bound by STEM practices within an authentic context for the purpose of connecting these subjects to enhance student learning.

The authors acknowledge that there are limits to this approach to teaching integrated STEM education. Some might view this approach too focused on career pathways with emphasis on STEM practices and authentic application of STEM knowledge. The authors acknowledge that teaching STEM from the proposed approach is not possible in all circumstances and could limit the content taught from this approach. Some necessary knowledge in mathematics and sciences that are theoretically focused may not provide authentic engineering design applications as well as common STEM practices limited by current technology.

Limits of current integrated practices

Making crosscutting STEM connections is complex and requires that teachers teach STEM content in deliberate ways so that students understand how STEM knowledge is applied to real-world problems. Currently, crosscutting connections remain implicit or can be missing all together (NAE and NRC 2009 ). The Committee on Integrated STEM Education noted that:

Connecting ideas across disciplines is challenging when students have little or no understanding of the relevant ideas in the individual disciplines. Also, students do not always or naturally use their disciplinary knowledge in integrated contexts. Students will thus need support to elicit the relevant scientific or mathematical ideas in an engineering or technological design context, to connect those ideas productively, and to reorganize their own ideas in ways that come to reflect normative, scientific ideas and practices. (NAE and NRC 2014 , p. 5)

Increased integration of STEM subjects may not be more effective if there is not a strategic approach to implementation. However, well-integrated instruction provides opportunities for students to learn in more relevant and stimulating experiences, encourages the use of higher level critical thinking skills, improves problem solving skills, and increases retention (Stohlmann et al. 2012 ). Building a strategic approach to integrating STEM concepts requires strong conceptual and foundational understanding of how students learn and apply STEM content. The following theoretical framework for integrated STEM seeks to propose such an approach.

Conceptual framework for integrated STEM education

Research in integrated STEM can inform STEM education stakeholders to identify barriers as well as determine best practices. A conceptual framework is helpful to build a research agenda that will in turn inform STEM stakeholders to realize the full potential of integrated STEM education. We propose a conceptual framework around learning theories and pedagogies that will lead to achieving key learning outcomes. Developing a conceptual framework for STEM education requires a deep understanding of the complexities surrounding how people learn, specifically teaching and learning STEM content. Research shows STEM education teaching is enhanced when the teacher has sufficient content knowledge and domain pedagogical content knowledge (Nadelson et al. 2012 ). Instead of teaching content and skills and hoping students will see the connections to real-life application, an integrated approach seeks to locate connections between STEM subjects and provide a relevant context for learning the content. Educators should remain true to the nature in which science, technology, engineering, and mathematics are applied to real-world situations. The Next Generation Science Standards (NRC 2012 ) suggest closer study of practices may help to provide a framework for integrating STEM subjects.

The proposed framework as presented is intended for secondary education, specifically high school level educators and learners. The following graphic (Fig.  1 ) helps capture a conceptual framework for integrated STEM education and will also serve as a frame for the core concept of the paper. We will reference the graphic throughout the paper to further explain key concepts and make connections across STEM practices. The aim of this paper is to propose a conceptual framework to guide STEM educators and to build a research agenda for integrated STEM education.

Graphic of conceptual framework for STEM learning

Figure  1 illustrates the proposed conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. The image presents a block and tackle of four pulleys to lift a load, in this case “situated STEM learning.” Block and tackle is a pulley system that helps generate mechanical advantage to lift loads easier. The illustration connects situated learning, engineering design, scientific inquiry, technological literacy, and mathematical thinking as an integrated system. Each pulley in the system connects common practices within the four STEM disciplines and are bound by the rope of community of practice. A complex relationship of the pulley system must work in harmony to ensure the integrity of the entire system. The authors are not suggesting that all four domains of integrated STEM must occur during every STEM learning experience but STEM educators should have a strong understanding of the relationship that can be established across domains and by engaging a community of practice. Like any mental model, there are limits to looking at integrated STEM education using this approach. We will seek to provide support for this mental model while acknowledging the limits in viewing STEM education this way. Each part of the conceptual framework will be described in detail. We encourage readers to refer back to Fig.  1 to help better understand the various aspects of this proposed framework.

Situated STEM learning

The authors would advocate most content in STEM can be grounded within the situated cognition theory (Brown et al. 1989 ; Lave and Wenger 1991 ; Putnam and Borko 2000 ). Foundational to this theory is the concept that understanding how knowledge and skills can be applied is as important as learning the knowledge and skills itself. Situated cognition theory recognizes that the contexts, both physical and social elements of a learning activity, are critical to the learning process. When a student develops a knowledge and skill base around an activity, the context of that activity is essential to the learning process (Putnam and Borko 2000 ). Often when learning is grounded within a situated context, learning is authentic and relevant, therefore representative of an experience found in actual STEM practice. When considering integrating STEM content, engineering design can become the situated context and the platform for STEM learning.

Certainly, there is some STEM content that cannot be situated in authentic contexts, therefore limiting this model to only content that can be applied through situated learning approaches. Within Fig.  1 , the analogy of situated learning as a “load” to lift may present a limited perspective of this educational model.

Pulley #1: engineering design

Engineering design can provide the ideal STEM content integrator (NAE and NRC 2009 ; NRC 2012 ). Moreover, an engineering design approach to delivering STEM education creates an ideal entry point to include engineering practices into existing secondary curriculum. Using engineering design as a catalyst to STEM learning is vital to bring all four STEM disciplines on an equal platform. The very nature of engineering design provides students with a systematic approach to solving problems that often occur naturally in all of the STEM fields. Engineering design provides the opportunity to locate the intersections and build connections among the STEM disciplines, which has been identified as key to subject integration (Frykholm and Glasson 2005 ; Barnett and Hodson 2001 ).

Science education can be enhanced by infusing an engineering design approach because it creates opportunity to apply science knowledge and inquiry as well as provides an authentic context for learning mathematical reasoning for informed decisions during the design process. The Conceptual Frameworks for New Science Education Standards (NRC 2012 ) in the USA recommend that students are given opportunities to design and develop science investigations and engineering design projects across all K-12 grade levels (p. 9). The analytical element of the engineering design process allows students to use mathematics and science inquiry to create and conduct experiments that will inform the learner about the function and performance of potential design solutions before a final prototype is constructed. This approach to engineering design allows students to build upon their own experiences and provide opportunities to construct new science and math knowledge through design analysis and scientific investigation. According to Brown et al. ( 1989 ), these are necessary experiences for effective learning:

Engineering and technology provide a context in which students can test their own developing scientific knowledge and apply it to practical problems; doing so enhances their understanding of science—and, for many, their interest in science—as they recognize the interplay among science, engineering, and technology. We are convinced that the engagement in the practices of engineering design is as much a part of learning science as engagement in the practices of science. (p.12)

In engineering practice, engineering design and scientific inquiry are interwoven through an intricate process of design behaviors and scientific reasoning (Purzer et al. 2015 ). Though there is a notable difference between engineering design and scientific inquiry, two central ways they converge according to Purzer et al. ( 2015 ) are “(a) reasoning processes such as analogical reasoning as navigational devices to bridge the gap between problem and solution and (b) uncertainty as a starting condition that demands expenditure of cognitive resources…” (p. 2). Additionally, both engineering design and scientific inquiry accentuate learning by doing (Purzer et al. 2015 ). Similar to situated learning theory, approaching all STEM content through engineering design is not always possible. For example, some science content is currently theoretically based and cannot be taught by design-based instruction.

Pulley #2: scientific inquiry

Learning science in a relevant context and being able to transfer scientific knowledge to authentic situations is key to genuine understanding. An inquiry approach to instruction requires teachers to “encourage and model the skills of scientific inquiry, as well as the curiosity, openness to new ideas, and skepticism that characterize science” (National Research Council 1996 , p. 37). Scientific inquiry prepares students to think and act like real scientists, ask questions, hypothesize, and conduct investigations using standard science practices. However, an inquiry-based approach involves a high level of knowledge and engagement on the part of the teachers and students. Teachers often feel unprepared because they are lacking authentic scientific research and inquiry experiences themselves (Nadelson et al. 2012 ). They harbor misconceptions about hands-on instruction, viewing a series of tasks and lab activities as being equivalent to scientific inquiry. However, practical and procedurally based hands-on activities are not equivalent to true science inquiry but must include “minds-on” experiences embedded within constructivist approaches to science learning (National Research Council 1996 , p. 13). Students can become drivers of their learning when given the opportunity to construct their own questions related to the science content they are investigating. Key to effectively preparing teachers to teach through inquiry requires improving their pedagogical content knowledge while experiencing authentic science investigations and experimentation practices. Powell-Moman and Brown-Schild ( 2011 ) note that “in-service teachers see direct benefits when scientist-teacher partnerships associated with professional development are used to develop content knowledge, along with scientific process and research skill through collaboration on research projects” (p. 48).

Pulley #3: technological literacy

Fully understanding the “T” in STEM education seems to escape many educators who fail to move beyond merely the use of educational technology to enhance STEM learning experiences (Cavanagh 2008 ). STEM educators with only this view point fail to acknowledge that technology consists of a body of knowledge, skills, and practices. The term technology means so many different things to people rendering the term almost useless, and further study of technology definitions will not bring clarity to the subject (Barak 2012 ). Herschbach ( 2009 ) suggested there are two common views of technology; an engineering view of technology and a humanities perspective of technology. The engineering view , also referred to as the instrumental perspective (Mitcham 1994 ; Feenberg 2006 ), indicates that “Technology is equated with the making and using of material objects—that is, artifacts” (p. 128). However, the humanities view of technology focuses on the human purpose of technology as a response to a specific human endeavor; therefore, it is the human purpose that provides additional meaning for technology (Achterhuis 2001 ; Mitcham 1994 ). The humanities view of technology recognizes that technology is value-laden (Feenberg 2006 ) and thus, provides opportunities to explore technology impacts including cultural, social, economic, political, and environmental ( ITEA 2000 ).

Table  1 provides critical elements of distinction between these two views of technology.

Mitcham ( 1994 ) combines these two views together when he identified four different ways of conceptualizing technology. He identifies technology as (a) objects, (b) knowledge, (c) activities, and (d) volition. Often, people associate technology as artifacts or objects; unfortunately, many only view technology in this way and overcoming this limited view of technology may be critical for teaching STEM in an integrated approach. Mitcham also contends that technology consists of specific and distinct knowledge and therefore is a discipline. He views technology as a process with activities that include designing, making, and using technology. Technology as volition is the concept that technology is driven by the human will and as a result is embedded within our culture driven by human values. Herschbach ( 2009 ) contends that technology leverages knowledge from across multiple fields of study. DeVries ( 2011 ) in Barak ( 2012 ) writes:

Engineering can differ from technology in that engineering only comprises the profession of developing and producing technology, while the broader concept of technology also relates to the user dimension. Technologists, more than engineers, deal with human needs as well as economic, social, cultural or environmental aspects of problem solving and new product development. (in Barak 2012 , p. 318)

Barak ( 2012 ) suggests that both engineering and technology are so closely related that they should be taught in unison within technology education and suggests teaching them as one school subject called Engineering Technology Education (ETE).

In 2000, the International Technology Education Association (ITEA) drafted the Standards for Technological Literacy : Content for the Study of Technology (STL) to define the content necessary for K-12 students to become technologically literate citizens living in the twenty-first century. The STLs have been revised twice ( ITEA 2002, 2007 ) and also include student assessment and professional development standards (ITEA 2003 ). The Standards for Technological Literacy identify content standards for grades K-12 that provide students opportunities to think critically about technology beyond technology as an object and in doing so prepare students to become technologically literate. STEM educators should provide students opportunities to think through technology as a vehicle for change with both positive and negative impacts on culture, society, politics, economy, and the environment.

Pulley #4: mathematical thinking

Studies have shown that students are more motivated and perform better on math content assessment when teachers use an integrated STEM education approach. A recent study found that students performed better on post math content assessments and increased STEM attitudinal scores when engaging in learning activities that included engineering design and prototyping solutions using 3D printing technology (Tillman et al. 2014 ). Williams ( 2007 ) noted that contextual teaching can give meaning to mathematics because “students want to know not only how to complete a mathematical task but also why they need to learn the mathematics in the first place. They want to know how mathematics is relevant to their lives” (p. 572). Incorporating STEM practices that include mathematical analysis necessary for evaluating design solutions provide the necessary rational for students to learn mathematics and see the connections between what is learned in school with what is required in STEM career skills (Burghardt and Hacker 2004 ). The authors again acknowledge that not all secondary education math content can be applied to engineering design approaches. Similarly, secondary education students may not have the cognitive development necessary to connect mathematical thinking within all engineering design problems.

The rope: a community of practice

Additionally, the concept of learning as an activity not only leverages the context of the learning but also the social aspect of learning. Lave and Wenger ( 1991 ) describe this as legitimate peripheral participation when the learning takes place in a community of practitioners assisting the learner to move from a novice understanding of knowledge, skills, and practices toward mastery as they participate “in a social practice of a community” (p. 29).

In a community of practice, novices and experienced practitioners can learn from observing, asking questions, and actually participating alongside others with more or different experience. Learning is facilitated when novices and experienced practitioners organize their work in ways that allow all participants the opportunity to see, discuss, and engage in shared practices. (Levine and Marcus 2010 , p. 390)

Integrated STEM education can create an ideal platform to blend these complementary learning theories by providing a community of practice through social discourse. As educational leaders have wrestled with the concept of integrating STEM disciplines, key elements of situated learning have emerged. For example, Berlin and White ( 1995 ) argued that efforts to integrate mathematics and science should be founded, in part, on the idea that knowledge is organized around big ideas, concepts, or themes, and that knowledge is advanced through social discourse.

When engaging students into a community of practice, we suggest that the learning outcomes be grounded in common shared practices. Community of practice can provide opportunity to engage local community experts as STEM partners such as practicing scientists, engineers, and technologists who can help focus the learning around real-life STEM contexts regardless of the pedagogical approach.

Using a community of practice approach to integrated STEM can be challenging for teachers as they need to continually network with experts and be open to allowing members of the community of practice into their classroom. Additionally, not all students learn best in social settings so these students may struggle to fully engage in a community of practice and this may limit their ability to learn using this educational approach.

STEM community of practice

The Next Generation Science (NGS) Framework (NRC 2012 ) carefully uses language that describes common practices of scientist and engineers. These practices become science learning outcomes for students. Equally important to learning science concepts, scientific practices and skills are also emphasized as key outcomes (NRC 2012 ). Engineering practices are also identified within the NGS framework because some of the practices of scientists and engineers are shared. An integrated STEM approach can provide a platform through a community of practice to learn the similarities and differences of engineering and science. Table  2 shows descriptions of common science practices and engineering practices providing opportunity to compare similarities and differences (NRC 2012 ).

The study of STEM practices can provide a better understanding of each domain and help teachers identify key learning outcomes necessary to achieve STEM learning. Table  3 below identifies key practices that build the unique set of knowledge, skills, as well as a unique language to form common practices of science and technology while investigating and solving problems (Kolodner 2002 ).

Table  4 identifies the math standards for math practice located in the Common Core standards for mathematics identifying common practices necessary when solving mathematical problems. Understanding these mathematical practices can be critical for effective integrated STEM education because mathematical analysis can be found in all the other STEM domains.

Upon review of these practices across science, engineering, technology, and mathematics, the very nature of these disciplines as well as the context in which the practices occur provide the learner with authentic examples that could help to illustrate crosscutting STEM connections. Locating intersections and connections across the STEM disciplines will assist STEM educators who understand these practices and how they are uniquely similar and different. An integrated STEM approach should leverage the idea that STEM content should be taught alongside STEM practices. Both content and practices are equally important to providing the ideal context for learning and the rationale for doing so. Locating crosscutting practices will help students identify similarities in the nature of work conducted by scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians and could help students make more informed decisions about STEM career pathways.

Integrated STEM research agenda

The proposed conceptual framework must be tested through educational research methods to determine if these concepts improve the teaching and learning of STEM content. A research agenda must be crafted to test theories under a variety of conditions to determine the best approach to integrated STEM. In the USA, the Committee on Integrated STEM Education developed several recommendations directed at multiple stakeholders in integrated STEM education including those designing initiatives for integrated STEM, those developing assessments, and lastly for educational researchers (NAE and NRC 2014 ). For further investigation in integrated STEM education, researchers need to document in more detail their interventions, curriculum, and programs implemented, especially how subjects are integrated and supported. More evidence needs to be collected on the nature of integration, scaffolding used, and instructional designs applied. Clear outcomes need to be identified and measured concerning how integrated STEM education promotes learning, thinking, interest, and other characteristics related to these objectives. Research focused on interest and teacher and student identity also needs to address diversity and equity, and include more design experiments and longitudinal studies (NAE and NRC 2014 ). Though these recommendations were made in the context of the American education system, they could prove helpful in many other countries’ educational systems as well.

One example: Teachers and Researchers Advancing Integrated Lessons in STEM (TRAILS)

A current National Science Foundation I-TEST project can serve as an example of research created to assess the proposed framework. Todd Kelley is the principal investigator of the TRAILS project that aims to improve STEM integration in high school biology or physics classes and technology education classes. TRAILS partners science and technology teachers during a 2-week summer professional development workshop to prepare the teachers to integrate STEM content through science inquiry and engineering design in the context of entomology. 3D printing technology is used to allow students to create engineering designed bio-mimicry solutions. Students’ use mathematical modeling to predict and assess design performance. Lessons are created to address technological literacy standards and well as math and science standards. The goals of the TRAILS project are as follows:

Goal 1: Engage in-service science and technology teachers in professional development building STEM knowledge and practices to enhance integrated STEM instruction.

Goal 2: Establish a sustainable community of practice of STEM teachers, researchers, industry partners, and college student “learning assistants.”

Goal 3: Engage grades 9–12 students in STEM learning through engineering design and 3D printing and scanning technology.

Goal 4: Generate strategies to overcome identified barriers for high school students in rural schools and underserved populations to pursue careers in STEM fields.

The TRAILS project research will be guided by assessing the following:

Science and technology education teacher’s self-efficacy in teaching STEM through an integrated STEM approach.

Assessing students and teacher’s awareness of STEM careers.

Assess students’ ability to use twenty-first century skills while creating engineering design solutions to TRAILS challenges.

Assess students’ growth in students’ STEM career interest, self-efficacy in learning STEM content, and growth in STEM content knowledge.

We theorize that teachers will increase self-efficacy teaching these subjects after participation in the TRAILS program, and this would indicate a stronger foundation for effective teaching (Stohlmann et al. 2012 ). Measurements of teacher self-efficacy parallels and extends the work of Nadelson et al. ( 2012 ), and additionally measures student self-efficacy in learning STEM. Self-efficacy is a good predictor of performance, behavior, and academic achievement (Bandura 1978 , 1997 ). Research projects like TRAILS provide researcher opportunities to explore the impact of an integrated STEM teacher professional development on teachers teaching practices as well as assess impact on students’ learning STEM content. TRAILS also focuses on how the project may impact students’ interest in STEM careers. This project serves as one example of how future research on integrated STEM teaching can assess teaching and learning of STEM content as well as help to identify barriers that exist in current educational systems. Projects like TRAILS are needed to help inform educational researchers and the greater STEM education community what works effectively and what does not when integrating STEM subjects in secondary education. The proposed theoretical models need to be tested and vetted within the STEM education greater community. The current TRAILS project provides an ideal platform to conduct research on this approach to integrated STEM to seek to identify the benefits as well as limitations.

Conclusion and implications

The recent STEM education literature provides rationale to teach STEM concepts in a context which is most often delivered in project, problem, and design-based approaches (Carlson and Sullivan 1999 ; Frykholm and Glasson 2005 ; Hmelo-Silver 2004 ; Kolodner 2006 ; Kolodner et al. 2003 ; Krajcik et al. 1998 ). It could prove helpful if integrated STEM educators learned the various “STEM languages” and STEM practices outlined above. The reality is secondary education in the US silo STEM subjects within a rigid structure with departmental agendas, requirements, content standards, and end-of-year examinations. If these barriers remain in education in the USA and in other nations, they may constrain the successful implementation of an integrated STEM program therefore jeopardizing the entire STEM movement.

The authors suggest that the key to preparing STEM educators is to first begin by grounding their conceptual understanding of integrated STEM education by teaching key learning theories, pedagogical approaches, and building awareness of research results of current secondary STEM educational initiatives. Furthermore, professional development experiences for in-service teachers could also provide a strong conceptual framework of an integrated STEM approach and build their confidence in teaching from an integrated STEM approach. Kennedy and Odell ( 2014 ) indicated that STEM education programs of high quality should include (a) integration of technology and engineering into science and math curriculum at a minimum; (b) promote scientific inquiry and engineering design, include rigorous mathematics and science instruction; (c) collaborative approaches to learning, connect students and educators with STEM fields and professionals; (d) provide global and multi-perspective viewpoints; (e) incorporate strategies such as project-based learning, provide formal and informal learning experiences; and (f) incorporate appropriate technologies to enhance learning.

Finally, further research and discussion is needed on integrated STEM education so that effective methodologies can be implemented by teachers in the classroom and further assess the strategies this overall framework proposes here (Stohlmann et al. 2012 ). The TRAILS project feature above is just one example of funded research that seeks to better identify the best conditions to teach STEM subjects in an integrated approach to teaching as well as learn what level of support students and teachers require to improve STEM education.

NSF disclaimer

Elements of this paper are supported by the National Science Foundation, award #DRL-1513248. Any opinions and findings expressed in this material are the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF.

Abell, S., & Lederman, N. (2007). Handbook on research in science education . Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Google Scholar  

ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission. (2004). ABET criteria for accrediting engineering programs . Baltimore: ABET, Inc. Author.

Achterhuis, H. (Ed.). (2001). American philosophy of technology: the empirical turn . Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bandura, A. (1978). Reflections on self-efficacy. In S. Rachman (Ed.), Advances in behavior research and therapy (Vol. 1, pp. 237–269). Oxford: Pergamon.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control . New York: Freeman.

Barak, M. (2012). Teaching engineering and technology: cognitive, knowledge and problem-solving taxonomies. Journal of Engineering, Design, and Technology, 11 (3), 316–333.

Article   Google Scholar  

Barnett, J., & Hodson, D. (2001). Pedagogical context knowledge: toward a fuller understanding of what good science teachers know. Science Education, 85 (4), 426–453.

Breiner, J., Harkness, M., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112 (1), 3–11.

Berlin, D. F., & White, A. L. (1995). Connecting school science and mathematics. In P. A. House & A. F. Coxford (Eds.), Connecting mathematics across the curriculum . Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32–42.

Burghardt, M. D., & Hacker, M. (2004). Informed design: a contemporary approach to design pedagogy as the core process in technology. The Technology Teacher, 64 , 6–8.

Bybee, R. (2010). Advancing STEM education: a 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70 (1), 30–35.

Carlson, L. E., & Sullivan, J. F. (1999). Hands-on engineering: learning by doing in the integrated teaching and learning program. The International Journal of Engineering Education, 15 (1), 20–31.

Cavanagh, S. (2008). Where is the ‘T’ in STEM? Education Week, 27 (30), 17–19.

Clark, J. V. (Ed.). (2014). Closing the achievement gap from an international perspective: Transforming STEM for effective education . Dordrecht: Springer.

DeVries, M. J. (Ed.). (2011). Positioning Technology Education in the Curriculum . Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

English, L. (2016). STEM education K-12: perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3 (3), 1–8.

Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century . New York: Farra, Straus, and Giroux.

Feenberg, A. (2006). What is philosophy of technology? In J. R. Dakers (Ed.), Defining Technological Literacy-Towards an Epistemological Framework (pp. 5–16). New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Frykholm, J., & Glasson, G. (2005). Connecting science and mathematics instruction: pedagogical context knowledge for teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 105 (3), 127–141.

Herschbach, D. (2009). Technology education: Foundations and perspectives . Homewood: American Technical Publishers, Inc.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16 (3), 235–266.

Hoachlander, G., & Yanofsky, D. (2011). Making STEM real: by infusing core academics with rigorous real-world work, linked learning pathways prepare students for both college and career. Educational Leadership, 68 (3), 60–65.

International Technology Education Association. (1996). Technology for all Americans: A rationale and structure for the study of technology . Reston: Author.

International Technology Education Association. (2000/2002/2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology . Reston: Author.

International Technology Education Association. (2003). Advancing excellence in technological literacy: Student assessment, professional development, and program standards . Reston: Author.

Kennedy, T., & Odell, M. (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science Education International, 25 (3), 246–258.

Kolodner, J. L. (2002). Facilitating the learning of design practices: lessons learned from an inquiry into science education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39 (3), 1–31.

Kolodner, J. L. (2006). Case-based reasoning. In K. L. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of learning sciences (pp. 225–242). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kolodner, J. L., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Puntembakar, S. (2003). Putting a student-centered Learning by Design ™ curriculum into practice: lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12 (4), 495–548.

Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., & Fredricks, J. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: initial attempts by middle school students. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7 (3–4), 313–350.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Levine, T. H., & Marcus, A. S. (2010). How the structure and focus of teachers’ collaborative activities facilitate and constrain teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26 (3), 389–398.

Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: Country comparisons . Melbourne: Australian Council of Learned Academies.

Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through Technology: The Path between Engineering and Philosophy . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

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). West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.

Nadelson, L., Seifert, A., Moll, A., & Coats, B. (2012). i-STEM summer institute: an integrated approach to teacher professional development in STEM. Journal of STEM Education, 13 (2), 69–83.

National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council [NAE & NRC]. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects . Washington: National Academies Press.

National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council [NAE & NRC]. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research . Washington: National Academies Press.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), Commission on Standards for School Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston VA: The Council. http://www.standards.nctm.org .

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: The Council. http://www.standards.nctm.org .

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics . Washington: Authors.

National Research Council [NRC]. (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education . Washington: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. [NCR]. (1994). National Science Education Standards . Washington: National Academy Press.

National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Committee for Science Education Standards and Assessment . Washington: National Academies Press.

National Research Council [NRC]. (2000a). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition . Washington: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council [NRC]. (2000b). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning . Washington: National Academies Press.

National Research Council [NRC]. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics . Washington: National Academies Press.

National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K12 science education: Practices, cross cutting concepts, and core ideas . Washington: National Academies Press.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States . Washington: The National Academies Press.

Powell-Moman, A. D., & Brown-Schild, V. B. (2011). The influence of a two-year professional development institute on teacher self-efficacy and use of inquiry-based instruction. Science Educator, 20 (2), 47–53.

Purzer, S., Goldstein, M., Adams, R., Xie, C., & Nourian, S. (2015). An exploratory study of informed engineering design behaviors associated with scientific explanations. International Journal of STEM Education, 2 (9), 1–12.

Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29 (1), 4–15.

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). (2010). Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in science, technology, engineering, and math (stem) for America’s future . Washington: Author.

Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68 (4), 20–26.

Stohlmann, M., Moore, T., & Roehrig, G. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research., 2 (1), 28–34. doi: 10.5703/1288284314653 .

Thomas, B., & Watters, J. (2015). Perspectives on Australian, Indian and Malaysian approaches to STEM education. International Journal of Educational Development, 45 (November 2015), 42–53.

Tillman, D., An, S., Cohen, J., Kjellstrom, W., & Boren, R. (2014). Exploring wind power: improving mathematical thinking through digital fabrication. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia., 23 (4), 401–421.

Wang, H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 1 (2), 1–13. doi: 10.5703/1288284314636 .

Williams, D. (2007). The what, why, and how of contextual teaching in a mathematics classroom. The Mathematics Teacher., 100 (8), 572–575.

Download references

Acknowledgement

There are no acknowledgements.

Grant number is DRL-1513248.

Authors’ contributions

The following provides a review of the co-author contributions. Both authors collaborated on the writing of the manuscript so much so that it is a blend of both authors’ ideas. However, here is a general description of the author’s individual contributions. TRK started the first draft of the manuscript and crafted the general conceptual framework. JGK was able to provide additional assistance leveraging current literature to support the ideas of the manuscript. JGK crafted the introduction and provided the majority of the supporting literature in this section. TRK crafted the conceptual framework section. Both JGK and TRK collaboratively created the graphic and TRK provided the conceptual framework components of the graphic. JGK contributed to collecting supporting literature and assisted TRK refining the writing for clarity. Both authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

342 Young Hall, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

Todd R. Kelley

Ivy Tech Community College, Purdue University, 2325 Phil Ward Blvd, Crawfordsville, IN, 47933, USA

J. Geoff Knowles

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Todd R. Kelley .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kelley, T.R., Knowles, J.G. A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. IJ STEM Ed 3 , 11 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z

Download citation

Received : 13 August 2015

Accepted : 04 July 2016

Published : 19 July 2016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Integrated STEM
• STEM pedagogies
• Scientific inquiry
• Engineering design

What is a Conceptual Framework?

A conceptual framework sets forth the standards to define a research question and find appropriate, meaningful answers for the same. It connects the theories, assumptions, beliefs, and concepts behind your research and presents them in a pictorial, graphical, or narrative format.

Updated on August 28, 2023

What are frameworks in research?

Both theoretical and conceptual frameworks have a significant role in research.  Frameworks are essential to bridge the gaps in research. They aid in clearly setting the goals, priorities, relationship between variables. Frameworks in research particularly help in chalking clear process details.

Theoretical frameworks largely work at the time when a theoretical roadmap has been laid about a certain topic and the research being undertaken by the researcher, carefully analyzes it, and works on similar lines to attain successful results. 

It varies from a conceptual framework in terms of the preliminary work required to construct it. Though a conceptual framework is part of the theoretical framework in a larger sense, yet there are variations between them.

The following sections delve deeper into the characteristics of conceptual frameworks. This article will provide insight into constructing a concise, complete, and research-friendly conceptual framework for your project.

Definition of a conceptual framework

True research begins with setting empirical goals. Goals aid in presenting successful answers to the research questions at hand. It delineates a process wherein different aspects of the research are reflected upon, and coherence is established among them. 

A conceptual framework is an underrated methodological approach that should be paid attention to before embarking on a research journey in any field, be it science, finance, history, psychology, etc. 

A conceptual framework sets forth the standards to define a research question and find appropriate, meaningful answers for the same. It connects the theories, assumptions, beliefs, and concepts behind your research and presents them in a pictorial, graphical, or narrative format. Your conceptual framework establishes a link between the dependent and independent variables, factors, and other ideologies affecting the structure of your research.

A critical facet a conceptual framework unveils is the relationship the researchers have with their research. It closely highlights the factors that play an instrumental role in decision-making, variable selection, data collection, assessment of results, and formulation of new theories.

Consequently, if you, the researcher, are at the forefront of your research battlefield, your conceptual framework is the most powerful arsenal in your pocket.

What should be included in a conceptual framework?

A conceptual framework includes the key process parameters, defining variables, and cause-and-effect relationships. To add to this, the primary focus while developing a conceptual framework should remain on the quality of questions being raised and addressed through the framework. This will not only ease the process of initiation, but also enable you to draw meaningful conclusions from the same. 

A practical and advantageous approach involves selecting models and analyzing literature that is unconventional and not directly related to the topic. This helps the researcher design an illustrative framework that is multidisciplinary and simultaneously looks at a diverse range of phenomena. It also emboldens the roots of exploratory research. 

Fig. 1: Components of a conceptual framework

How to make a conceptual framework

The successful design of a conceptual framework includes:

• Selecting the appropriate research questions
• Defining the process variables (dependent, independent, and others)
• Determining the cause-and-effect relationships

This analytical tool begins with defining the most suitable set of questions that the research wishes to answer upon its conclusion. Following this, the different variety of variables is categorized. Lastly, the collected data is subjected to rigorous data analysis. Final results are compiled to establish links between the variables. 

The variables drawn inside frames impact the overall quality of the research. If the framework involves arrows, it suggests correlational linkages among the variables. Lines, on the other hand, suggest that no significant correlation exists among them. Henceforth, the utilization of lines and arrows should be done taking into cognizance the meaning they both imply.

Example of a conceptual framework

To provide an idea about a conceptual framework, let’s examine the example of drug development research. 

Say a new drug moiety A has to be launched in the market. For that, the baseline research begins with selecting the appropriate drug molecule. This is important because it:

• Provides the data for molecular docking studies to identify suitable target proteins
• Performs in vitro (a process taking place outside a living organism) and in vivo (a process taking place inside a living organism) analyzes

This assists in the screening of the molecules and a final selection leading to the most suitable target molecule. In this case, the choice of the drug molecule is an independent variable whereas, all the others, targets from molecular docking studies, and results from in vitro and in vivo analyses are dependent variables.

The outcomes revealed by the studies might be coherent or incoherent with the literature. In any case, an accurately designed conceptual framework will efficiently establish the cause-and-effect relationship and explain both perspectives satisfactorily.

If A has been chosen to be launched in the market, the conceptual framework will point towards the factors that have led to its selection. If A does not make it to the market, the key elements which did not work in its favor can be pinpointed by an accurate analysis of the conceptual framework.

Fig. 2: Concise example of a conceptual framework

Important takeaways

While conceptual frameworks are a great way of designing the research protocol, they might consist of some unforeseen loopholes. A review of the literature can sometimes provide a false impression of the collection of work done worldwide while in actuality, there might be research that is being undertaken on the same topic but is still under publication or review. Strong conceptual frameworks, therefore, are designed when all these aspects are taken into consideration and the researchers indulge in discussions with others working on similar grounds of research.

Conceptual frameworks may also sometimes lead to collecting and reviewing data that is not so relevant to the current research topic. The researchers must always be on the lookout for studies that are highly relevant to their topic of work and will be of impact if taken into consideration. 

Another common practice associated with conceptual frameworks is their classification as merely descriptive qualitative tools and not actually a concrete build-up of ideas and critically analyzed literature and data which it is, in reality. Ideal conceptual frameworks always bring out their own set of new ideas after analysis of literature rather than simply depending on facts being already reported by other research groups.

So, the next time you set out to construct your conceptual framework or improvise on your previous one, be wary that concepts for your research are ideas that need to be worked upon. They are not simply a collection of literature from the previous research.

Final thoughts

Research is witnessing a boom in the methodical approaches being applied to it nowadays. In contrast to conventional research, researchers today are always looking for better techniques and methods to improve the quality of their research. 

We strongly believe in the ideals of research that are not merely academic, but all-inclusive. We strongly encourage all our readers and researchers to do work that impacts society. Designing strong conceptual frameworks is an integral part of the process. It gives headway for systematic, empirical, and fruitful research.

Vridhi Sachdeva, MPharm

See our "Privacy Policy"

Get an overall assessment of the main focus of your study from AJE

Our Presubmission Review service will provide recommendations on the structure, organization, and the overall presentation of your research manuscript.

Theoretical vs Conceptual Framework

What they are & how they’re different (with examples)

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewed By: Eunice Rautenbach (DTech) | March 2023

If you’re new to academic research, sooner or later you’re bound to run into the terms theoretical framework and conceptual framework . These are closely related but distinctly different things (despite some people using them interchangeably) and it’s important to understand what each means. In this post, we’ll unpack both theoretical and conceptual frameworks in plain language along with practical examples , so that you can approach your research with confidence.

Overview: Theoretical vs Conceptual

What is a theoretical framework, example of a theoretical framework, what is a conceptual framework, example of a conceptual framework.

• Theoretical vs conceptual: which one should I use?

A theoretical framework (also sometimes referred to as a foundation of theory) is essentially a set of concepts, definitions, and propositions that together form a structured, comprehensive view of a specific phenomenon.

In other words, a theoretical framework is a collection of existing theories, models and frameworks that provides a foundation of core knowledge – a “lay of the land”, so to speak, from which you can build a research study. For this reason, it’s usually presented fairly early within the literature review section of a dissertation, thesis or research paper .

Let’s look at an example to make the theoretical framework a little more tangible.

If your research aims involve understanding what factors contributed toward people trusting investment brokers, you’d need to first lay down some theory so that it’s crystal clear what exactly you mean by this. For example, you would need to define what you mean by “trust”, as there are many potential definitions of this concept. The same would be true for any other constructs or variables of interest.

You’d also need to identify what existing theories have to say in relation to your research aim. In this case, you could discuss some of the key literature in relation to organisational trust. A quick search on Google Scholar using some well-considered keywords generally provides a good starting point.

Typically, you’ll present your theoretical framework in written form , although sometimes it will make sense to utilise some visuals to show how different theories relate to each other. Your theoretical framework may revolve around just one major theory , or it could comprise a collection of different interrelated theories and models. In some cases, there will be a lot to cover and in some cases, not. Regardless of size, the theoretical framework is a critical ingredient in any study.

Simply put, the theoretical framework is the core foundation of theory that you’ll build your research upon. As we’ve mentioned many times on the blog, good research is developed by standing on the shoulders of giants . It’s extremely unlikely that your research topic will be completely novel and that there’ll be absolutely no existing theory that relates to it. If that’s the case, the most likely explanation is that you just haven’t reviewed enough literature yet! So, make sure that you take the time to review and digest the seminal sources.

Need a helping hand?

A conceptual framework is typically a visual representation (although it can also be written out) of the expected relationships and connections between various concepts, constructs or variables. In other words, a conceptual framework visualises how the researcher views and organises the various concepts and variables within their study. This is typically based on aspects drawn from the theoretical framework, so there is a relationship between the two.

Quite commonly, conceptual frameworks are used to visualise the potential causal relationships and pathways that the researcher expects to find, based on their understanding of both the theoretical literature and the existing empirical research . Therefore, the conceptual framework is often used to develop research questions and hypotheses .

Let’s look at an example of a conceptual framework to make it a little more tangible. You’ll notice that in this specific conceptual framework, the hypotheses are integrated into the visual, helping to connect the rest of the document to the framework.

As you can see, conceptual frameworks often make use of different shapes , lines and arrows to visualise the connections and relationships between different components and/or variables. Ultimately, the conceptual framework provides an opportunity for you to make explicit your understanding of how everything is connected . So, be sure to make use of all the visual aids you can – clean design, well-considered colours and concise text are your friends.

Theoretical framework vs conceptual framework

As you can see, the theoretical framework and the conceptual framework are closely related concepts, but they differ in terms of focus and purpose. The theoretical framework is used to lay down a foundation of theory on which your study will be built, whereas the conceptual framework visualises what you anticipate the relationships between concepts, constructs and variables may be, based on your understanding of the existing literature and the specific context and focus of your research. In other words, they’re different tools for different jobs , but they’re neighbours in the toolbox.

Naturally, the theoretical framework and the conceptual framework are not mutually exclusive . In fact, it’s quite likely that you’ll include both in your dissertation or thesis, especially if your research aims involve investigating relationships between variables. Of course, every research project is different and universities differ in terms of their expectations for dissertations and theses, so it’s always a good idea to have a look at past projects to get a feel for what the norms and expectations are at your specific institution.

Want to learn more about research terminology, methods and techniques? Be sure to check out the rest of the Grad Coach blog . Alternatively, if you’re looking for hands-on help, have a look at our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through the research process, step by step.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

19 Comments

Thank you for giving a valuable lesson

good thanks!

VERY INSIGHTFUL

thanks for given very interested understand about both theoritical and conceptual framework

I am researching teacher beliefs about inclusive education but not using a theoretical framework just conceptual frame using teacher beliefs, inclusive education and inclusive practices as my concepts

good, fantastic

great! thanks for the clarification. I am planning to use both for my implementation evaluation of EmONC service at primary health care facility level. its theoretical foundation rooted from the principles of implementation science.

This is a good one…now have a better understanding of Theoretical and Conceptual frameworks. Highly grateful

Very educating and fantastic,good to be part of you guys,I appreciate your enlightened concern.

Thanks for shedding light on these two t opics. Much clearer in my head now.

Simple and clear!

The differences between the two topics was well explained, thank you very much!

Thank you great insight

Superb. Thank you so much.

Hello Gradcoach! I’m excited with your fantastic educational videos which mainly focused on all over research process. I’m a student, I kindly ask and need your support. So, if it’s possible please send me the PDF format of all topic provided here, I put my email below, thank you!

I am really grateful I found this website. This is very helpful for an MPA student like myself.

I’m clear with these two terminologies now. Useful information. I appreciate it. Thank you

I’m well inform about these two concepts in research. Thanks

I found this really helpful. It is well explained. Thank you.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly