Chapter 11 Current Praxis and Conceptualization of STEM Education PDF

Chapter 11 Current Praxis and Conceptualization of STEM Education: A Call for Greater Clarity in Integrated Curriculum Development Christopher M. Sgro, Trisha Bobowski, and Alandeom W. Oliveira 11.1 Statement of Objectives Over the past 30 years, a drive towards integrated STEM has permeated the rhetoric of the academic field of education as well as educational policy (Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014; Hudson, 2015). A cursory glance at the United States Department of Education (n.d.) website yields an entire subpage for the promotion of STEM education for global leadership, including substantial grants to produce stronger STEM-based instruction. This political and academic push has led to a vast and diverse amount of publications involving integrated STEM education practices at the K-12 school level. However, consensus is yet to be achieved as to what STEM education exactly entails. This problematic state of affair is highlighted by Kysilka (1998), who emphasizes that At the moment it seems that integration means whatever someone decides it means, as long as there is a ‘connection’ between previously separated content areas and/or skill areas. Before any teachers or administrators can successfully plan for integrated curriculum, a much clearer concept of what is meant by integration needs to be understood (p. 198). Recent research has revealed considerable confusion, misunderstanding, and vari- ance in how educators view STEM teaching and learning (Breiner, Harkness, Johnson, & Koehler, 2012; Radloff & Guzzey, 2016). There is also general ambigu- ity surrounding what constitutes various levels of integration, what the boundaries for each discipline are, and even how many disciplines are integrated (Sanders, 2009; English, 2016). Becker and Park (2011) report that, out of twenty-eight empirical studies of STEM education, seventeen integrated across only two of the four disciplines and only one study actually integrated across all four disciplines. C. M. Sgro (*) · T. Bobowski · A. W. Oliveira Department of Educational Theory and Practice, State University of New York, Albany, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 185 V. L. Akerson, G. A. Buck (eds.), Critical Questions in STEM Education, Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education 51, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57646-2_11 186 C. M. Sgro et al. The existing variation in what is being published and purported as integrated STEM curricula suggests a general need for greater clarity about not only what constitutes STEM education, but how educators as a whole conceptualize STEM and the pro- cess of integration. In an effort to add clarity to educational efforts in this area, this chapter examines current praxis and conceptualization of STEM among K-12 practitioners. More spe- cifically, we conduct a comprehensive and systematic examination of integrated STEM curriculum recently featured in practitioner journals across these four disci- plinary areas. Our analytical effort takes into account both the intended curriculum (what is explicitly/implicitly envisioned as STEM by practitioners of various school subjects) and the operationalized written curriculum (how their vision is operation- alized as curricular materials to be put into action by teachers) (van den Akker, 2004). 11.2 Our Position on Integrated STEM Education In an effort to better understand our findings as well as our drawn conclusions, it is important to understand how we position ourselves with regard to STEM, STEM education, and integration. As will be readily apparent in this chapter, we view STEM and STEM education as nebulous terms that vary based on individual stake- holders and their goals. It is our opinion that STEM is a “meta-discipline” (Kennedy & Odell, 2014) that integrates knowledge and skills from each of the four disci- plines–science, technology, engineering, and mathematics–transforming that knowledge so that “the result is more than the sum of these parts” (Gibbons, 1979). Furthermore, through the process of integration, STEM uses the skills and knowl- edge of each of these disciplines in a way that addresses complex, real-world prob- lems. It is our belief that this view of STEM strongly aligns with the collective definition that is woven throughout this book, where STEM showcases a meaning- ful interdependence among all of the individual disciplines of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Moreover, we believe that our examination of cur- rent practitioner work in STEM education supports this vision of STEM, as we investigate the variations in how educators operationalize STEM to highlight inter- dependence between individual disciplines through the process of integration. Based on our position of what constitutes STEM, our views of STEM education surround the construction of lessons that integrate knowledge and skills from all four of these disciplines to solve complex, real world problems in a manner that is both engaging and student-centered. We believe that true integration involves the inclusion of all components, so an integrated STEM lesson must include science, technology, engineering, and mathematics knowledge or skills in some way where explicit connections are made to the underlying disciplines. While we do not believe that all components must be equally represented in every lesson, we do believe that there must be enough of a balance to be transformative, making it difficult to isolate the specific disciplinary contributions within the lesson. It is our belief that it is in 11 Current Praxis and Conceptualization of STEM Education: A Call for Greater… 187 this transformation, where the barriers between disciplines begin to erode, that deeper and more authentic learning can occur. 11.3 Theoretical Framework The present examination of the practitioner literature on STEM education is informed by theories of integration from the field of curriculum studies. Of particu- lar relevance to our work is Gibbons’ (1979) theory of integration by metamorpho- sis, which emphasizes the transformative nature of integration. As Gibbons (1979) writes, “to integrate, logically speaking, is to unify so that the result is more than the sum of these parts” (p. 321); the ultimate result is transformation of knowledge. Further, for integration between two disciplines with different knowledge and ways of knowing to occur, one domain must be used to modify knowledge used by another. In this process, there are two domains: the domain of enquiry and the instrumental domain. The domain of enquiry acts as the discipline in which knowl- edge will be modified. The instrumental domain uses its knowledge, skills, and ontological views to modify knowledge found in the enquiry. Once modified, the newly integrated knowledge is then converted into a manner that is usable and appli- cable to the domain of enquiry. The quadripartite nature of STEM integration under- scores the possibility of there being additional domains and the culmination of a “meta-discipline” (Kennedy & Odell, 2014) that is grounded in its four representa- tive domains and takes its own form from the overlap of these domains and the removal of traditional boundaries among school subjects. The removal of boundaries between disciplines occurs during higher levels of integration. Recently, Vasquez (2014) further illuminated this point with the inclined plane of STEM integration, a conceptual framework that designates degrees of inte- gration within STEM instruction. At the lower level, there is disciplinary work, in which the knowledge and skills learned as part of the instruction serve the single discipline. When knowledge and skills from outside disciplines are introduced by instructors to demonstrate connection, a multidisciplinary approach takes place. However, when two or more disciplines are taught together to tightly link the skills and knowledge, a deeper level of interdisciplinary work is established. Finally, at the highest level of transdisciplinary integration, students solve real-world contex- tual problems using the knowledge and skills from multiple disciplines. At these highest levels, transdisciplinary work is linked with problem-based instruc- tion (PBL). The concept of transdisciplinary integration is similar to the models of curricu- lum integration posed by Moore, Stohlmann, Wang, Tank, Glancy, and Roehrig (2014), in which content integration is distinguished from context integration. In the model of content integration, a lesson is constructed with the goal of “merging multiple STEM content areas into a single curricular activity in order to consider the ‘big ideas’ from the multiple content areas” (p. 39). The overlap of these big ideas is where transdisciplinary integration exists, as the boundaries between disciplines 188 C. M. Sgro et al. begin to disappear. In contrast, context integration is when a lesson “primarily focuses on the content of one discipline and uses contexts from others to make the content more relevant” (p. 40). In short, context integration is when the goals and objectives of one discipline are highlighted over another. The above curricular models of integration highlight the issues that currently affect STEM integration. In order to approach transdisciplinary integration, where traditional boundaries disappear, a real-world contextual problem is posed, and the students use knowledge and skills to solve it, regardless of if they are from science, technology, mathematics, or engineering. If the problem exists within a context that highlights one discipline’s skills or knowledge, it has the potential to diminish the epistemological and ontological skills that the other disciplines can provide. This can result in a learning experience that is imbalanced. It is our belief that such an imbalance can lead to a fragmented view of problem-solving, diluting the authentic- ity of the inquiry itself. 11.4 Methodology 11.4.1 Data Collection Consistent with research traditions in the scholarly field of curriculum studies, we conducted a comparative curriculum analysis. As defined by Egan (1978), “curricu- lum inquiry is educational inquiry; both properly address the what and how ques- tions together and deal with all ramifications of trying to answer, ‘What should children learn, in what sequences, and by what methods?’” (p. 70). Curriculum scholarship examines the type of curricular spaces created by educators, how cur- ricular boundaries are made and unmade, and how such (re)configurations contrib- ute to curricular reconstruction (Pinnar, 2011). We focused our search on secondary-level articles published in STEM practitio- ner journals since 2010. The articles were found using Google Scholar, using key word searches for “STEM,” “STEM Education,” and “STEM lessons.” These searches yielded several practitioner journals that regularly published STEM educa- tion articles, such as Science Scope, The Science Teacher, Technology & Engineering Teacher, and Mathematics Teacher, among others. We chose to focus on these jour- nals because of their regular publication of integrated STEM lessons and their repu- tation for publishing articles written by practicing teachers in the STEM fields. By focusing on these journals specifically, we were able to keep the survey broad yet manageable. However, we do recognize that specific journals often impose their own criteria for published lessons, which could limit the generalizability of our findings beyond our survey scope. Once we selected our practitioner journals, we combed the published STEM les- sons since 2010, giving priority to lessons that were more recent. We selected les- sons based upon their integration of multiple disciplines as well as their novel and 11 Current Praxis and Conceptualization of STEM Education: A Call for Greater… 189 useful nature. In collecting the articles, we aimed for six to ten lessons in which each individual STEM discipline served as a domain of enquiry with some level of integration from one or more instrumental domains. 11.4.2 Data Analysis After collecting these lessons, we looked for trends in how educators from various content areas (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) conceptualize and operationalize integrated STEM instruction. These analyses included not only the objectives for the lesson, but also the disciplinary knowledge and skills intro- duced as part of the instruction. This analysis took into account the essential ques- tions of curriculum (Dillon, 2009), which was aimed at revealing the nature, elements, and practices of STEM curriculum developed and advocated by practitio- ners of various school subjects that compose STEM. Using a clustering technique (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014), we arranged each lesson into specific individual discipline categories based on the domain of enquiry. Once each lesson was categorized, we analyzed the articles to determine the disciplines acting as the instrumental domain, as well as if the knowledge and skills provided by the instrumental discipline were explicitly or implicitly con- nected by the teacher as part of the published lesson. The coding was performed by the first author, and then his findings were presented and discussed with the co- authors until agreement was achieved. 11.5 Key Findings In examining the recent practitioner literature, it becomes apparent that operational- ization of STEM education varies considerably depending on the curriculum devel- oper’s area of content expertise. A noticeable trend is disciplinary bias in the sense that STEM curricula tend to give primacy to the knowledge and skills of one spe- cific discipline (domain of enquiry) within the STEM acronym while integrating parts from others (instrumental domains). To further elaborate on this point, a review of the literature in which one discipline is operationalized to a higher level above others is shown, beginning with science. 11.5.1 STEM in Science Education Several examples of disciplinary dominance can be found within the science educa- tion literature. McHugh, Kelly, and Burghardt (2017) have middle school physical science students learn about thermal concepts by performing a directed inquiry lab 190 C. M. Sgro et al. using a heat transfer kit. Using Bybee’s (2015) 5E approach, a STEM lesson was constructed to teach the concept of heat transfer, which was subsequently connected to mathematics instruction by having students calculate slope for temperature as a function of time. The authors argue that this lesson demonstrates a mathematics infusion, in which “mathematics content (is) taught in a science class where science is the major discipline and students apply mathematical skills and knowledge in science activities” (ibid., p. 44). This praxis study acts as an example of a science highlighted approach that purports as STEM because the investigation is rooted in a science experiment, and there is some integration of mathematics principles. However, the lesson itself is somewhat devoid of engineering or technological prin- ciples. Furthermore, while the graphing of data and the calculation of mathematical slope are rooted in mathematics, their function as part of the lesson can also be considered part of a quantitative science investigation. The authors, of whom two of the three have a science disciplinary background, seem to conceptualize STEM as a way of integrating other skills for the benefit of the science discipline. Similarly, Yoshikawa and Bartholomew (2018) propose using golf to promote technology and engineering principles. However, their proposed lesson revolves around studying the types of clubs and their purposes, and how to calculate the height of the ball using principles of classical physics. The only connection to engi- neering occurs when they propose that “golf could be used as a backdrop for learn- ing to calculate the height of projectiles and practicing automation skills by creating a robotic to swing a ‘club’” (ibid., p. 35). While robotics certainly signifies a type of technology, it is used simply to replace a human from swinging a club. Furthermore, any engineering of a robot, including possible constraints, are missing from the proposed lesson. From that, it seems that science in the form of classical physics plays a central role in this lesson, and technology and engineering could be used as instrumental domains for integration to expand the science lesson rather than mere “decorative” elements in the problem space or scenario. Trimble (2017) uses a project-based learning approach to teaching students about science communications. In this lesson, the students use free technology- based platforms to build science websites, such as Weebly and WordPress. In two different classes, the websites built involve persuasive arguments involving human effects on the environment as well as comparing and contrasting renewable energy companies. In addition, the students also built websites about a campus sustainabil- ity project, where they interviewed peers and uploaded their videos to the site. Trimble’s integration of Internet website design highlights an integration of science as the domain of enquiry using technology resources as an instrumental domain, which is similar to the previously stated STEM lessons described. Similarly, Smith, Roemmele, Miller, and Frisbee (2018) propose a problem- based learning (PBL) activity that seems to demonstrate the highlighting of one discipline within an integrated lesson. In this activity, the students were asked to design a roadway with a buffer zone that could absorb any chemical spills in case of an accident involving a truck with hazardous cargo. Students select materials to use in the buffer zone, and then test the porosity, infiltration, and levels of possible aqui- fer contamination using two-inch PVC pipes as test columns. After their tests, 11 Current Praxis and Conceptualization of STEM Education: A Call for Greater… 191 students then present their findings to the class. Overall, this lesson highlights a lot of science, and uses inquiry learning for students to select material for their pro- posed buffer zones. However, there is a slight integration of engineering in the design of the PVC pipe test column, but this use of engineering is only an instru- ment to test the students’ designs of packed materials within the column. The actual selection of material involved guided inquiry experimentation of several possible sands and gravels, with a minimal constraint of water retention and slow motility through the selected material. Schnittka (2017) provides an example of a more seamless integration of science and engineering, but one that lacks mathematics and technology. In a variety of les- sons, Schnittka has her students design and build their own energy-making devices using different materials, such as magnets, steam production, a generator, or a wind turbine, among others. Further, students use multiple conversions to accurately cal- culate the amount of energy required to perform a function, allowing them to “see engineering as a way to solve problems, help people, and address a significant global environmental and health issue” (p. 42). This lesson constitutes an example of integration between science and engineering in which the boundaries begin to blur, and science principles and engineering constraints and specifications are taught concurrently. However, this is also an example of an integration that lacks mathe- matics, especially in dealing with the effects of friction and the loss of energy across multiple conversions. Neilson and Campbell (2018) similarly propose a lesson that adds more mathe- matics and computational thinking to science. The authors present a five-day lesson using a wooden block on a ramp design. The wooden block has two sides–a smooth side and a side covered with sandpaper–being used by students to investigate the effect of the nature of surfaces on the normal force of the block on a ramp with a specific angle. The students build models and line graphs to demonstrate their experiments with their selected variables. Similar to the earlier presented work of McHugh et al. (2017) with their thermal kits, this science lesson has considerable incorporation of mathematical concepts. The mathematics component involves looking at the forces, an important part of a physics curriculum. It seems this lesson, while highlighting mathematics, still places scientific inquiry as the main domain of enquiry. Olsen, Tofel-Grehl, and Ball (2018) provide another example of thermal energy transfer that focuses on science, but has loose connections to technology and engi- neering. In their lesson, the authors propose students build a lunch box that is better at insulating the contents inside. The authors provide some insulating materials, but “some teachers provide students with lunch boxes that are Mylar-lined or neoprene so students can explore the differences in insulation effects” (p. 49). In this manner, the students are not actively using the engineering design process to iteratively con- struct a prototype, but are merely using already known and constructed mass- produced lunch boxes. This limits the overlap between engineering, making the use of the lunchbox more of an example to demonstrate temperature change within an already constructed design. Furthermore, the temperature readings inside the lunch- box are taken using a microcontroller and LED panels that can be sewn on the box 192 C. M. Sgro et al. Table 11.1 Practitioner articles highlighting science in integrated STEM lessons Domain(s) of Explicit or References Journal enquiry Instrumental domain(s) implicita McHugh et al. Science Scope Science Mathematics: calculating E (2017) slope Yoshikawa and Technology and Science Technology and/or I Bartholomew Engineering engineering: using a robot (2018) Teacher to swing the golf club Trimble (2017) The Science Science Technology: designing a E Teacher website Smith et al. (2018) The Science Science Engineering: building a I Teacher test column Schnittka (2017) The Science Science and NAb E Teacher engineering Neilson and The Science Science Mathematics: plotting E Campbell (2018) Teacher data and determining force Olsen et al. (2018) Science Scope Science Technology: using I Arduino software to act as a thermometer Explicit or implicit instruction of knowledge or skills of the instrumental domain a NA not applicable b to demonstrate when the temperature changes by increments of 5°F. Using Arduino software as a platform, “students can either be instructed to use the existing code or they can be provided with opportunities to modify it” (p. 50). While the use of Arduino software allows for a technology element, the fact that the code is already provided means that the students are simply provided with a recipe to set up a device that acts as a basic thermometer to take temperature readings. Because of these loose connections to engineering and technology, the lesson itself heavily favors the scientific principles that surround thermal energy transfer, one that is simply a mod- ification of a science inquiry project in which students take internal temperature readings for a variety of provided lunchboxes. In summation, the seven presented praxis lessons highlighting science in STEM education and how it exemplifies Gibbons’ (1979) integration by metamorphosis framework is provided (see Table 11.1). As can be seen in Table 11.1, six of the seven practitioner lessons highlight science, which acts as the domain of enquiry. The instrumental domains shown are either explicitly taught as part of the lesson, or implicit as topics that can be added to enhance the lessons. There is considerable variation within this lesson set in terms of explicit or implicit instruction of the instrumental domain, where knowledge from one discipline is used to enhance the instruction of science. However, in each, the objectives, knowledge, and skills of one discipline is at the forefront of the lesson, and another discipline’s knowledge or skill set is used as an enhancement. Only one lesson demonstrates a more equi- table balance between science and engineering. As such, this demonstrates a lesson 11 Current Praxis and Conceptualization of STEM Education: A Call for Greater… 193 in which the lines begin to blur between the domain of enquiry and instrumental domain, and aligns more to a higher level of integration as defined by Vasquez’s (2014) inclined plane of integration, as well as Moore’s et al. (2014) description of content integration. Taken together, these lessons demonstrate a lack of clarity and coherency in not only the elements of an integrated STEM lesson, but also the degree of integration of one or more disciplines. 11.5.2 STEM in Technology Education Integration of STEM highlighting one discipline also occurs within technology edu- cation practice. Technology itself has a somewhat ambiguous definition within the nebulous STEM umbrella, often shown as synonymous with engineering (Love, 2018). We chose to define technology as the use of new and emerging tools. This narrowed our focus to web-based applications, tablet usage, 3D-printing, robotics, and other digital technologies that are becoming more prominent in secondary les- sons. In analyzing the literature categorized in this cluster, we found that the typical approach to integrated STEM education emphasizes technology design and use with the incorporation of mathematics and science principles. Cavanaugh and Trotter (2008) believe that “many educators see the study of technology as an opportunity to teach students how knowledge, tools, and skills in math and science can be applied to solve practical problems” (p. 18). Again, the view by these educa- tors seems to demonstrate a highlighting of technology over the other disciplines, which are integrated only to enhance technological innovation. Crippen and Archambault (2012) propose using online cloud-based data sets to help instruct what they describe as “STEM content.” The authors give examples of building mash-ups, or visual representations of data, using Internet resources such as Yahoo! Pipe. These visuals are then used to promote argumentation skills for students, wherein the mash-ups can be used as evidence to cite claims and demonstrate justification. On the surface, this process seems to flexibly fit with the nebulous “STEM content” purported by the authors, but on closer inspection, much of the proposed lesson involves having students familiarize themselves with the technology. In short, although the scaffolded inquiry can benefit other disci- plines, there still seems to be an overall main objective towards technological literacy. Similarly, Hughes, Mona, Wilson, Seamans, McAninch, and Stout (2017) invite students to use 3D printers within the lesson. The authors promote several types of ways in which 3D printing can be used to facilitate a STEM lesson, including designing I beams and T beams for bridge design. However, the focus on the lesson is creating the file using 3D software, and not necessarily the engineering process itself. Consequently, this lesson seems to place technology at the center, where learning to utilize the instrument is the focus. 194 C. M. Sgro et al. Robotics often plays a key role in enriching the technology discipline within integrated STEM lessons. Roman (2017) proposes a lesson having students research the costs of operating a greenhouse, and has them design how the layout of the greenhouse might change to have robots work to minimize cost. This lesson focuses more on the adding of technology to current ways of indoor growing and not neces- sarily manipulating scientific principles to help attain better crop yields. Consequently, this acts as an example of integrating technology and robotics for engagement in an unequal manner as compared to science. Outside of robotics, mobile apps have also been advocated to enhance integrated STEM lessons. Bartholomew (2017) describes methods to incorporate the popular Pokémon Go app to integrated STEM classrooms. He proposes that the app can be used to teach mathematical principles, such as the calculation of distance between PokéStops, as well as science, in comparing and contrasting character traits to living flora and fauna. While these are certainly methods to integrate mathematics and sci- ence, the technology of the app is still at the focus and acts as the domain of enquiry, while science and mathematics supply an instrumental domain to enhance the app experience. Technology can often play a significant role in engineering design challenges as well. Love and Ryan (2017) describe such an endeavor with the construction of miniature crab boats. The challenge, which was held in Maryland–a geographic locale known for its crab industry–uses regional interest to help engage the students to build replica crab boats at 1:12 scale, where one foot is proportioned down to one inch. Much of the challenge was designing the boat, and the authors recommended the use of 3D software to help in the design process, which links to technology. Depending upon how the lesson is implemented, there could be mathematics and scientific principles taught, as well as an iterative engineering design process. However, the challenge as a whole was to design and build the boat, which utilized more technology principles of design software and 3D printing of rudders and pro- pellers. Therefore, while this lesson certainly has the capability of progressing fur- ther down the continuum of integration, its basic implementation focuses primarily on technology, with science, mathematics, and the engineering design process serv- ing as ways in which further integration can be promoted depending upon how explicit these principles are implemented. Technology need not always be cutting edge or computer-based when integrated, and the lesson provided by Kruse and Wilcox (2017) exemplifies this well. In their lesson, they describe a water purification process that is reminiscent of a science purification lab using filtration and activated charcoal. However, the lesson poses active questioning of students about the nature and philosophy of technology, and how processes such as filtration and items such as activated charcoal are technolo- gies. This interesting take on a science lesson places technology in the foreground, allowing for technology and its nature to become the domain of enquiry while the science and engineering design of water purification became more of the vehicle for technological learning. Therefore, while this acts as an example of a more balanced integrative approach, it also clearly demonstrates technology as the lead discipline in an integrated STEM lesson. 11 Current Praxis and Conceptualization of STEM Education: A Call for Greater… 195 Table 11.2 Practitioner articles highlighting technology in integrated STEM lessons Explicit Domain(s) of or References Journal enquiry Instrumental domain(s) implicita Crippen and Computers in Technology Science: evidence is scientific I Archambault the Schools data (2012) Hughes et al. Technology and Technology Engineering: I and T beam I (2017) Engineering construction Teacher Roman (2017) Technology and Technology Science: current layout of I Engineering greenhouse based on science Teacher principles Bartholomew Technology and Technology Science and/or mathematics: E (2017) Engineering comparing characters to local Teacher flora and fauna or measuring distance between PokéStops Love and Ryan Technology & Technology Science, mathematics, and/or I (2017) Engineering engineering: principles of Teacher buoyancy, measurements for scale, iterative design process Kruse and Technology and Technology Science: water purification and I Wilcox (2017) Engineering filtration Teacher Explicit or implicit instruction of knowledge or skills of the instrumental domain a In summation, the six practitioner lessons presented all highlight technology as the domain of enquiry according to Gibbons’ (1979) theoretical framework (see Table 11.2). In each of these lessons, the main objectives of technology are pre- sented within the lesson, whether it be using a 3D printer or an Internet resource. Similar to the findings presented earlier for science, there is again variation in the implementation of the other disciplines. The crab boat challenge presented by Love and Ryan (2017) demonstrates a more equitable balance of integration, however the explicit implementation of science, mathematics, or engineering elements would greater enhance the level of integration according to Vasquez’s (2014) inclined plane of integration. These lessons demonstrate more of the context integration pro- posed by Moore et al. (2014), in which the goals of one discipline–in this case, technology–is imbalanced as part of the integrated lesson. Furthermore, the level of integration and the disciplines involved greatly differ, which exemplifies the lack of coherence and clarity that is found in the practitioner literature for integrated STEM lessons. 196 C. M. Sgro et al. 11.5.3 STEM in Mathematics Education Mathematics has also seen itself highlighted as part of an integrated STEM approach in the recent literature. As a former head of the National Council of Teachers in Mathematics, Shaughnessy (2013) argues that STEM approaches should involve “significant mathematics in the problem” (p. 324). An example of this is provided by Smith, Seshaiyer, Peixoto, Suh, Bagshaw, and Collins (2013) who describe a STEM lesson in which students calculate slope as rate of change using the lengths and heights of staircases. The lesson itself affords an opportunity for students to actively measure real-world staircases and calculate the slope as an application of a tangible entity. The authors argue that technology has been introduced in the form of computer programming to form graphs. They also state that engineering practices are in place because they involve the application of stairs. However, the lesson itself does not involve the actual engineering design and building of stairs. Consequently, this also acts as an example of a STEM problem that highlights one discipline over others. Another example of a STEM lesson that highlights mathematics is proposed by Magiera (2013) and involves the use of model eliciting activities (MEAs). These activities begin with a reading passage that situates the real-world context of a math- ematics problem, and students use critical thinking skills to design a procedure to find a mathematical solution to the posed problem. While the reading passage allows for the integration of the other STEM disciplines, the lesson at its core focuses on performing mathematical calculations for a desired conclusion. More specifically, students use area to count the number of metal crystals in three images of alumi- num, and connect the amount of crystals in the contained area to strength. While the lesson does provide the students with a way to design their own procedure, the author states that “students experience mathematical and scientific inquiry because MEAs give students problem-solving experiences that are similar to those of scien- tists and engineers” (p. 354). While the experience of problem-solving is similar, the lack of constraints and specifications necessary in engineering as well as the connection to scientific principles of tensile strength limited this lesson to heavily favor mathematics instruction over other integrated disciplines within the STEM acronym. Mathematics was also found to be integrated with technology as part of a STEM lesson. Fujiwara (2018) describes a calculus-based lesson in which the volume of a solid revolving around an axis can be found mathematically, and is then compared to a 3D printed shape of the same equation. While the use of a 3D printing source serves to integrate technology into the lesson, the equation itself is provided to the student. Therefore, the mathematical principle of volume calculation serves as the domain of enquiry, while technology is integrated to produce a tangible representa- tion of the mathematical concept. In short, the technology is simply an instrument to help further the mathematical objectives of this lesson, which are foregrounded above all others in this form of integration. 11 Current Praxis and Conceptualization of STEM Education: A Call for Greater… 197 Technology is also used as an instrumental domain in the lesson proposed by Pope (2018). In this lesson, students throw a beanbag into a bowl across the room, and videotape the arc of the bag as it approaches the target. This video is then uploaded into Vernier’s LoggerPro® software, and then used to determine the qua- dratic equation that matches the movement of the beanbag. This lesson highlights the integration of technology in a mathematics-based lesson, and can also be extended to the scientific principles involving projectile motion in physics. Consequently, it provides another example of an integrated lesson that shows an imbalance between integrated disciplines. Similarly, Eddy, Pratt, and Green (2018) present a lesson that also integrates technology to serve mathematical learning. Their lesson involves the integration of Google® Maps and Desmos to help aid in teaching linear inequalities. In it, Google® Maps is used to map out points of interests in the local town, and students use linear equations to help identify streets based upon slope and where it crosses the designated y and x axes. The students then use inequalities to shade areas that are less than or greater than two shown roads, which have linear equations deter- mined for them by the students. The students then use this to find where a particular point of interest might lie in the overlapping areas. This lesson provides a real world context to the instructed mathematics principles, and utilizes technology as an instrumental domain to help facilitate engagement. Mathematics learning in real world context is also a focus in the lesson devised by Alhammouri, Foley, and Dael (2018). In their lesson, they use the context of stocking a lake with trout to connect with statistics at the secondary level, namely the linear difference equations and the concept of reaching equilibrium. In the les- son, the students use the modeling cycle framework (Bliss, Fowler, and Galluzzo, 2014) to justify how a trout population might change over a period of time in a lake that is annually stocked. The students use the cycle, which incorporates asking questions and building models, skills consistent with the scientific and engineering practices of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013). A group discussion is then facilitated to help answer the questions, from which the students built linear difference equations to help answer the models that they built to approach the mathematics problem. For technology integration, the students use TI-nspire graphing calculators. The integration of technology as well as a modeling process embraced by science and engineering demonstrates this lesson as one that has elements of integration, albeit one in which the goals of the mathematics disci- pline are at the center of the lesson itself. In summation, the six practitioner lessons presented demonstrate integrated les- sons in which there is imbalance that favors mathematics as part of the integration. In all of these lessons, the domain of enquiry is mathematics, but there are differ- ences in the types of disciplines being integrated (see Table 11.3). Furthermore, in each lesson, there is only implicit use of the principles and skills of the integrated instrumental disciplines. Therefore, each of these demonstrates lower levels of inte- gration, such as the context integration posed by Moore et al. (2014). They also demonstrate the lack of coherence in integrated STEM lessons, as the types of 198 C. M. Sgro et al. Table 11.3 Practitioner articles highlighting mathematics in integrated STEM lessons Domain(s) of Explicit or References Journal enquiry Instrumental domain(s) implicita Smith et al. Mathematics Mathematics Technology: making I (2013) Teaching in the computer graphs Middle School Magiera (2013) Mathematics Mathematics Science & engineering: I Teaching in the inquiry and iterative Middle School design Fujiwara (2018) Technology & Mathematics Technology: building a I Engineering Teacher 3D model of an equation Pope (2018) Mathematics Teacher Mathematics Technology: use of I LoggerPro® Eddy et al. Mathematics Teacher Mathematics Technology: use of I (2018) GoogleMaps® Alhammouri Mathematics Teacher Mathematics Technology: use of I et al. (2018) TI-nspire graphing calculators a Explicit or implicit instruction of knowledge or skills of the instrumental domain disciplines integrated vary as well as the degree of the knowledge and skills utilized to enhance the lesson. 11.5.4 STEM in Engineering Education Finally, engineering is highlighted over other disciplines in many integrated STEM lessons. The discipline of engineering itself involves the design and building of equipment to solve real-world problems based upon constraints and specifications. Because of this, there does appear in the literature ample cases where the design process in engineering is utilized in conjunction with one of the other disciplines. An example of this is English and Mousoulides’ (2015) middle-school lesson in which students are asked to design a bridge to replace the one that fell in Minneapolis in 2007. The students have to research different types of bridges, and utilize math- ematics principles to ensure the bridge can support the proper weight and have the appropriate area to fit various bridge designs. Similarly, Enderson and Grant (2013) use the design process in constructing paper tables. The students build models, hold discussions, and use an iterative process with redesign to build paper tables that can hold a given amount of weight. While the students are able to incorporate mathe- matical principles of strength of shape, the focus of the inquiry is on the design process itself. Taken together, both of these are examples in which engineering is a focus, and math is utilized to meet the goals of the engineering discipline itself. 11 Current Praxis and Conceptualization of STEM Education: A Call for Greater… 199 Another example in which engineering is at the center of the lesson is Welling and Wright’s (2018) lesson involving the construction of paper rockets. In this les- son, students practice the engineering design process (EDP) by building rockets out of paper, which are inexpensive and allow for “students to create and evaluate five designs in one class period” (p. 19). This helps highlight the design process, allow- ing for multiple iterations of design. However, the design process itself only loosely connects to science and mathematical principles. In the second phase of the project, the authors describe student-led focus groups that have the students use experimen- tation to identify one of ten different variables, ranging from nose cone length to number and size of fins. While this loosely connects to scientists’ utilization of dependent and independent variables, the lack of specific instruction on aerodynam- ics and other scientific connections means that most of the design enhancements were made by trial-and-error. Therefore, this lesson yet again demonstrates one that places engineering at the center, with implicit scientific principles not readily taught by the instructors. Similarly, Hemming (2018) proposes a lesson involving the construction of drawbridges. He provides constraints for the amount of mass required for the bridge to hold as well as the scaled size. In the exploration phase of Bybee’s 5E approach (2015), Hemming has the students use a force lab provided by an online resource to build simulated bridges. Again, this exploration seems to utilize a trial-and-error approach to bridge building that has a lack of connection to scientific principles of strength of material as well as mathematical connection to geometry and shape strength. As such, this lesson demonstrates integration in which the engineering design process is placed at the center of a STEM lesson. Hughes, Mona, Stout, and McAninch (2015) supply another example in which the engineering design process is at the forefront of an integrative STEM lesson. The authors present a lesson involving the collection of solar energy to create a water heater that has reduced usage of fossil fuels. However, most of the lesson sur- rounds designing the water heater itself. There is some integration of science prin- ciples, namely the energy absorption of black objects. In a later iteration of the project, the authors describe building more “close-looped systems, (where) pressure gauges were added for safety and students were introduced to Charles’ and Boyle’s laws” (p. 29). This demonstrates the incidental learning of a science principle to help facilitate the engineering design. This incidental learning also occurs in math- ematics, in which the authors have the students use pre-made equations to help find the optimal angle to point their water heaters at the sun based upon latitude. However, students simply use the equation and Microsoft Excel® to plot the data without truly investigating the underlying mathematical relationships that comprise the formula, thus placing engineering yet again as the focus of the integrative STEM lesson. The examples above primarily demonstrate when STEM lessons are in some ways enhanced with science, but there is a lack of equality in the integration pro- cess. The next lesson is one in which science and engineering are more equitably integrated, but there lacks a connection to mathematics as well as technology. Wheeler, Whitworth, and Gonczi (2014) introduced a lesson in which students build 200 C. M. Sgro et al. a voltaic cell that can power a small motor and an attached fan. Students are given the constraint to build the voltaic cell using only provided materials that produces enough electrical energy to power a small fan. They then have the opportunity to research the science principles surrounding electrochemical cells and cell potential, while also delving into air resistance and mass in the design of the fan. Throughout the lesson, students use the research to iteratively design their cell-motor apparatus to meet the constraints provided. This demonstrates more of an equitable balance between science and engineering in a STEM lesson. Similarly, Gerber, Halsted, Hershberger, Riddle, Foster, and Hill (2018) provide a more recent example of another STEM lesson that more equitably balances sci- ence and engineering at the middle school level. In their lesson, the authors propose the construction of a prosthetic hand. The lesson begins by students using the 5E approach to explore the scientific principles surrounding the anatomy of the hand, including muscles and tendons. The students then utilize this scientific knowledge to build models made from paper and string to demonstrate finger movement and dexterity. From this, constraints for durability, flexibility, weight load, and ability to resist water were proposed, and students constructed example hands using house- hold materials provided by the instructors that fit these basic constraints. Students even have the ability to test and modify their designs depending upon time con- straints, lending itself to the more iterative nature of engineering design. While the lesson itself lacks a firm connection to mathematics and technology, it shows on the whole a more equitable integrative balance between science and engineering, where the principles of anatomy were made explicit and the constraints of the engineering design were fostered by the instructors upon based upon these principles. In summation, the seven practitioner lessons presented demonstrate situations in which the principles of engineering–such as the iterative design process and real- world contextual problems–acts as the main inquiry. The other STEM disciplines act in ways to enhance the engineering process, acting as instrumental domains (see Table 11.4). As can be seen, there is again a lack of coherence in the type of disci- pline integrated as well as the degree in which the knowledge and skills of those are applied within the lesson. Finally, there is also variation in the extent of explicit instruction of the enhancing disciplines, which affects the level of integration as well. Taken together, this demonstrates a lack of uniformity, which demonstrates the lack of clarity in conceptualizing integrated STEM education lessons by the design- ers and practitioners of these lessons. 11.6 Discussion In looking across the above pedagogical approaches, the diversity and variation in what constitutes STEM is promptly noticeable. However, it would be unfair to dis- parage the educational value of any of these lessons. All of them act as wonderful examples of effective current teaching strategies, and have been included because of 11 Current Praxis and Conceptualization of STEM Education: A Call for Greater… 201 Table 11.4 Practitioner articles highlighting engineering in integrated STEM lessons Explicit Domain(s) of or References Journal enquiry Instrumental domain(s) implicita English and Mathematics Engineering Mathematics E Mousoulides Teaching in the (2015) Middle School Enderson and Mathematics Engineering Mathematics: strength of E Grant (2013) Teaching in the shape Middle School Welling and Technology and Engineering Science: variables affecting I Wright (2018) Engineering aerodynamics Teacher Hemming Technology and Engineering Technology: online simulator I (2018) Engineering Teacher Hughes et al. Technology and Engineering Science & mathematics: E (2015) Engineering energy absorption of black Teacher objects/gas laws and optimal angle of the sun Wheeler et al. The Science Engineering Science: electrochemical E (2014) Teacher principles Gerber et al. Science Scope Engineering Science: anatomy of a hand E (2018) Explicit or implicit instruction of knowledge or skills of the instrumental domain a their utility and novelty as well as their example of STEM integration. Nevertheless, it is important to note the variation in what teachers call “STEM” and the inequality between the integrated disciplines that occurs within each individual lesson. Integrated curriculum recently created by practitioners not only varies consider- ably in content and process, but it is commonly characterized by disciplinary bias and an imbalanced focus. Considerable ambiguity also exists with regard to what constitutes various levels of integration as well as what the boundaries of each dis- cipline are. Further, curriculum developers’ conceptions of what it means for disci- plinary borders to dissolve remain quite nebulous. Consequently, we believe that a more comprehensive review of praxis and conceptualization of integrated STEM education in practitioner journals would be warranted and most beneficial to the field. Such an endeavor can help clarify what exactly constitutes the meta-discipline of STEM and advance our understanding of how to effectively integrate curricula. Gibbons’ (1979) integration by metamorphosis speaks of integration in episte- mological sets of two through the domain of enquiry and the instrumental domain. Upon close inspection, a majority of the above cited praxis examples fit this mode of integration, in which one discipline is highlighted over the others. Moore et al. 202 C. M. Sgro et al. (2014) calls this type of integration context integration, and it represents a lower level according to Vasquez’s (2014) inclined plane of integrated STEM lessons. What appears in looking at the corpus of our presented articles, there is a pattern of variation between lessons in both the types of disciplines used to enhance the main inquiry, the degree of integration, and the explicit or implicit instruction of knowl- edge and elements of those instrumental domains. Overall this demonstrates a lack of coherence in what constitutes an integrated STEM lesson, as well as the need for greater clarity in the elements and design of an exemplar integrated STEM lesson. The observations made from these lessons pose the following questions: Why are the STEM lessons so varied? Why does it seem that one discipline acts as the main inquiry? It is our thesis that these questions arise as a direct result of the ambiguous and nebulous manner in which STEM education is conceptualized. For the remain- der of this section, we discuss where this ambiguity possibly comes from, as well as some current empirical strategies posed in the literature to help counteract the vary- ing conceptualizations that seem to permeate the integrated STEM education literature. 11.6.1 Competing Agendas in STEM Education Akerson, Burgess, Gerber, Guo, Khan, and Newman (2018) argue that the very nature of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics are vastly different, and “STEM itself is a socially constructed label that is in response to economic and global pressure. It has always existed but was simply the individual disciplines that compose it, influencing and building on one another” (p. 5). Herein, Akerson et al. cite the significant political influence that surrounds STEM and STEM education as a whole. Consistent with this argument, most empirical articles as well as position papers cite early in their introductions the urgency of STEM and STEM education, not only for producing twenty-first century workers for STEM fields (Presidents’ Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2010), but also in the United States falling behind the rest of the world in producing students ready to compete within fields (National Academies, 2006). The politically charged nature of STEM therefore adds a certain complexity and variation to the amount of stakeholders within the field of STEM education. Not only do parents, students, administrators, and teach- ers have a stake in STEM education, but politicians as well. This ultimately leads to differing opinions about what constitutes a successful STEM education program. Politicians may view STEM education as a way to advance a workforce and invest in a strong economic future, while individual teachers might view STEM as a means to help incorporate real-world context into their own curricula. The consequence of these competing goals and views leads to different ways of conceptualizing STEM education, and therefore different methods of integration and incorporation of the individual disciplines. In short, the competing agendas of all stakeholders’ cloud how STEM is viewed, allowing for differing interpretations to co-exist under the 11 Current Praxis and Conceptualization of STEM Education: A Call for Greater… 203 STEM education umbrella and leading to an ambiguity into what constitutes effec- tive STEM education. 11.6.2 Teacher Biased Expertise This chapter has sought to illuminate the ambiguity of integrated STEM education praxes that currently exist in the field. The examples of lessons demonstrate the variations in focus of STEM. While the political influence does play a role in the nebulous nature of STEM education, the experience and background of the instruc- tor also has an impact in the lesson as well. Many of the lessons in which there was a more balanced integrated approach demonstrate explicit instruction of instrumen- tal domains as a means of accomplishing the main inquiry of the lesson. The empiri- cal literature supports the need for explicit instruction as well. Berland and Steingut (2016) found that students inconsistently used scientific and mathematical princi- ples when performing engineering design challenges with an integrated STEM edu- cation environment, instead relying upon a trial-and-error approach. They propose that instruction of the requisite mathematics and science necessary to perform the function must be explicitly taught by the instructors, and “to tie the engineering design project and target content together so tightly that it is impossible to attend to one without the other” (p. 2756). This strategy is consistent with the upper levels of transdisciplinarity in the inclined plane of STEM integration proposed by Vasquez (2014) earlier. Explicit instruction is not without its own challenges, especially in an integrated STEM lesson. Because STEM itself is comprised of four disciplines, teachers them- selves must be well versed not only in their own discipline, but also in the others. However, most teachers do not have an equitable amount of education and profes- sional experience in all four facets of STEM. For example, one of us (Sgro) is cur- rently a high school science teacher. His background is in chemistry, and the courses that he teaches are about chemistry. When taking an integrated approach, he would add technology, engineering and mathematics principles to his lessons, but the end result of those lessons would still center upon the science of chemistry itself. This could ultimately lead to an unbalanced approach to his integrated STEM lessons, in which one discipline acted as the main domain of enquiry. In what we see in the above cited literature, this occurs for a multitude of other teachers as well. This inequality when it comes to integration seems to occur for two main rea- sons: factors beyond the teacher’s control and the teacher’s own educational back- ground and teaching experiences. First, in any public primary or secondary education, there are a host of factors involved in instruction beyond the teacher’s control. These include often a set curriculum provided by a local or state agency, high-stakes standardized exams that occur at the conclusion of the school year, and the time constraints that exist within a standard instructional school day. In any les- son design, these three factors ultimately have an impact in designing the overall student learning objectives of the integrated lesson as well as the pedagogical 204 C. M. Sgro et al. methods used. Therefore, within the time constraints, the teacher will often have to make judgements about what parts of lessons that he or she wishes to highlight as well as what parts might be eschewed to help streamline the lesson and not obscure the selected educational outcomes. Ultimately this can lead to an imbalance in inte- grated approach, especially for STEM lessons. While an imbalance in and of itself is not necessarily detrimental to a lesson, it does cloud the essential elements of what constitutes a successful integration, especially in STEM, in which four differ- ent discipline’s epistemological and ontological views are mixed to create a lesson that transcends their individual boundaries. In addition, when one discipline is placed with greater importance, it implicitly demonstrates that that discipline’s knowledge and process may be more valued than others. This could lead to a repli- cating of bias towards one discipline by students as well. Therefore, while it may be difficult to balance all disciplines in every lesson, having a greater call for greater equity of integration in all lessons would not only benefit the students in their valu- ations of the parts that comprise STEM, but also create opportunities for shared conceptualizations of STEM education by its practitioners. Recently, these issues that affect teachers have been addressed in the empirical literature. Smith, Parker, McKinney, and Grigg (2018) found that when elementary teachers in urban public schools were given a pre-packaged integrated STEM cur- riculum, there was great variation in the implementation process. The variation in implementation occurred because of not only time constraints, but also the teacher’s perceptions in their students’ abilities as well as the teacher’s understanding of the main themes of the lesson itself. Because of this, students in different classes had different parts of their lessons highlighted, creating a scenario for imbalance within the integrated lesson to occur. A teacher’s ability to understand the lesson itself is part of the second reason in which there is such imbalance in integrated STEM lessons. A teacher enters the class with certain pre-conceived notions of their discipline. As a professional, the teacher has been educated in a community of practice (Wenger, 1998). For their specific discipline, these teachers are versed in various philosophical assumptions as well as epistemological and ontological outlooks when it comes to not only their specific discipline, but education and the educational process as a whole. These foundations as well as subsequent experiences set the tone for how the teacher implements his or her lessons. Therefore, in approaching an integrated STEM les- son, a teacher versed in science is going to focus on science, implementing the other disciplines as needed. Moreover, the more shallow the foundation and understand- ing a teacher might have in one of the integrated disciplines, the less likely explicit integration might take place. A teacher can only explicitly call attention to real- world connections between integrated STEM disciplines if he or she is aware of those connections to begin with. Furthermore, the more fluent the instructor might be in other disciplines, the more likely he or she will draw upon that information when designing a lesson or be able to shift when a teachable moment surfaces within the lesson itself. Teacher background and its impact on integrated STEM instruction is prevalent in the literature as well. Akerson et al. (2018) allude to the fact that even their 11 Current Praxis and Conceptualization of STEM Education: A Call for Greater… 205 authors have varying backgrounds and conceptualize STEM differently because of their varied educational foundations and ways of knowing. Dare, Ellis, and Roehrig (2018) found that in a cross-case phenomenological study that integration across STEM disciplines occurred at varying percentages and that “the degree of imple- mentation may be related to teachers’ awareness of how to make explicit and mean- ingful connections between the disciplines” (p. 17). Additionally, Wang, Moore, Roehrig, and Park (2011) found in a multiple case study that the teacher’s back- ground played a large role in their enactment of the integrated curriculum. In their cases, the science teacher conceptualized integrated STEM as more problem- solving based, while the mathematics teacher perceived integrated STEM as giving real-world context to mathematics. The engineering teacher perceived STEM as a way of using science and mathematics principles to approach an engineering design challenge. Consequently, their differing perceptions as well as backgrounds allowed for differing levels of integration, different pedagogical approaches, and ultimately, a different focus for their lessons. Taken together, these empirical studies demon- strate an unequal balance that occurs within an integrated STEM lesson, findings that corroborate the praxis articles that we have surveyed from the practitioner lit- erature as well. There are possible solutions to the impact of a teacher’s own bias and educational background. Integrated curricula could benefit by the implementation of team- teaching or co-teaching. In this way, having teachers with different backgrounds coming together can help support greater levels of integration. An example of this would be a STEM lesson taught in conjunction by a science teacher, and engineer- ing teacher, and a mathematics teacher. This could be done within the confines of one course or three courses that have a shared lesson. In either scenario, the objec- tives of each of those three disciplines can be highlighted, as well as the incorpora- tion of new and emerging technologies. 11.6.3 Toward Greater Clarity in Integrated STEM Lessons If the goal of an integrated approach is to produce students with STEM skills and knowledge, then having an understanding of what constitutes those specific skills is important. Kennedy and Odell (2014) describe this as STEM becoming a “meta- discipline,” defined as “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 tech- nologies” (p. 246). While their view of the STEM meta-discipline focuses on inte- gration of technology and engineering into current coursework, the idea of having a designated set of philosophical assumptions, epistemology, ontology, and semiotic practices for “STEM education” could benefit by adding clarity to the idea of an integrated STEM education approach. In short, stakeholders coming together to identify the salient pieces of an integrated STEM program could not only help 206 C. M. Sgro et al. clarify what “STEM” is, but allow for a greater uniformity in the types of praxis that can be designated as “STEM.” What are the main features of integrated STEM education? The answer to this often depends upon the stakeholder, but the example praxis lessons provided earlier demonstrate a pattern that highlights salient features of what currently constitutes an integrated STEM lesson. First, the lesson is student-centered, often involving problem-based learning (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Second, the problem seems to exist within a real-world context. Put simply, the problem at the center of the inquiry is one that exists as a complex problem that currently exists in the world, whether it is a local issue or one of global significance. Beyond these features, integrated STEM lessons tend to differ. It is these differences that would benefit from clarity and coherence in not only defining integrated STEM education, but also in assembling a set of skills, knowledge, and practices that encapsulate a unit or lesson. Recently, there have been identifiable strategies in the educational literature to help achieve this call for clarity and coherency in STEM education. One example is the conceptual framework postulated by Kelley and Knowles (2016). Their idea of a conceptual framework likens situated STEM learning as a set of pulleys that rep- resent science, engineering, technology, and mathematics. In their visual represen- tation, science and engineering represent larger pulleys than technology and mathematics, which somewhat signifies a viewpoint that puts more emphasis on science and engineering. In approaching this framework from Gibbons’ theory of integration by metamorphosis, it would appear that Kelley & Knowles see science and engineering as the domains of enquiry, and technology and mathematics can be used as instrumental domains to help enhance the iterative design process and its guided utilization of scientific principles. Moving through and connecting these pulleys is the idea of a set community of practice that interweaves through each discipline. They state that “foundational to this theory is the concept that under- standing how knowledge and skills can be applied is as important as learning the knowledge and skills itself” (p. 4). While there is still some ambiguity and inequal- ity in what constitutes STEM education in their conceptual framework, overall, it provides a unique starting point to start dialogue between stakeholders about com- mon features of an integrated STEM education approach. Similar to the idea of a conceptual framework, Chalmers, Carter, Cooper, and Nason (2017) have recently proposed the implementation of a set of “big ideas” to help clarify an integrated STEM approach. Building off previous research on “big ideas” in the individual disciplines (Askew, 2013; Harlen, 2010), they propose a set of big ideas that encompass the overlap of the four disciplines to be used to help design and implement a more coherent form of integrated STEM education. Their proposed big ideas would surround three main functions: within-disciplinary big ideas that can be applied to the other disciplines, cross-discipline ideas that are in two or more areas of STEM, and encompassing big ideas that use all of the disci- plines to approach problem solving. The idea is that using these “big ideas” can help teachers design units, especially for teachers that may have more background in one specific discipline. In short, these proposed ideas can help clarify and add a coher- ency to the types of STEM praxis that can occur in primary and secondary schools, 11 Current Praxis and Conceptualization of STEM Education: A Call for Greater… 207 leading to less of an imbalance between the individual disciplines and affording an opportunity for greater connections between praxis lessons that purport to be inte- grated STEM endeavors. 11.7 Concluding Thoughts We would like to conclude by pointing out that the problem of curricular imbalance is far from novel or unique to integrated STEM teaching efforts. Throughout the history of American education, teachers have sought to strike balance between epis- temological product (knowledge) and process (method), between teacher- and student-centeredness, between summative and formative assessment, to name a few. Some have characterized this state of affairs as a metaphorical “pendulum” peren- nially swinging back and forth without ever reaching stationary equilibrium. Curriculum theorists like Ellis (2004) point out that “balance is seldom achieved in any curriculum, no matter how it is structured” (p. 61) and “the search for curricular balance is never easy and it remains one of the great challenges to any teacher” (p. 106). Solving this conundrum is imperative if STEM educators are to succeed in their efforts to provide students with truly transformative learning experiences that are less siloed and less constrained by disciplinary boundaries. References Akerson, V., Burgess, A., Gerber, A., Guo, M., Khan, T. A., & Newman, S. (2018). Disentangling the meaning of STEM: Implications for science education and science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.108 0/1046560X.2018.1435063 Alhammouri, A. M., Foley, G. D., & Dael, K. (2018). Tracking trout: Engaging students in model- ing. Mathematics Teacher, 111(6), 416–423. Askew, M. (2013). Big ideas in primary mathematics: Issues and directions. Perspectives in Education, 31(3), 5–18. Bartholomew, S. R. (2017). Using Pokémon go to teach integrative STEM. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 76(5), 24–27. Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engi- neering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education, 12(5 & 6), 23–37. Berland, L. K., & Steingut, R. (2016). Explaining variation in student efforts towards using math and science knowledge in engineering contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 38(18), 2742–2761. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1260179 Bliss, K. M., Fowler, K. R., & Galluzzo, B. R. (2014). Math modeling: Getting started and getting solutions. Philadelphia, PA: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. 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. Bybee, R. W. (2015). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Creating teachable moments. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. 208 C. M. Sgro et al. Cavanaugh, S., & Trotter, A. (2008). Where’s the T in STEM? Education Week, 27(30), 17–19. Chalmers, C., Carter, M., Cooper, T., & Nason, R. (2017). Implementing “big ideas” to advance the teaching and learning of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). International Journal of Science and Math Education, 15(Suppl 1), S25–S43. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10763-017-9799-1 Crippen, K. J., & Archambault, L. (2012). Scaffolded inquiry-based instruction with technology: A signature pedagogy for STEM education. Computers in the Schools, 29, 157–173. Dare, E. A., Ellis, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2018). Understanding science teachers’ imple- mentations of integrated STEM curricular units through a phenomenological multiple case study. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s40594-018-0101-z Dillon, J. T. (2009). The questions of curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(3), 343–359. Eddy, C. M., Pratt, S. S., & Green, C. (2018). Interactive maps for systems of linear-inequalities. Mathematics Teacher, 111(6), 425–430. Egan, K. (1978). What is curriculum? Curriculum Inquiry, 8(1), 65–72. Ellis, A. K. (2004). Exemplars of curriculum theory. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. Enderson, M. C., & Grant, M. R. (2013). Emerging engineers design a paper table. Mathematics Teaching in Middle School, 18(6), 362–369. English, L. D. (2016). STEM education k-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(3), 1–8. English, L. D., & Mousoulides, N. G. (2015). Bridging STEM in a real-world problem. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 20(9), 532–539. Fujiwara, Y. (2018). STEM integration: Solids, CADs, and 3D printers. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 77(8), 5–9. Gerber, A., Halsted, A., Hershberger, M., Riddle, L., Foster, K., & Hill, A. (2018). Engineering prosthetic hands: An activity for integrating STEM in the science classroom. Science Scope, 42(3), 66–73. Gibbons, J. A. (1979). Curriculum Integration. Curriculum Inquiry, 9(4), 321–332. Harlen, W. (Ed.). (2010). Principles and big ideas of science education. Hatfield, UK: Association of Science Teachers. Hemming, J. (2018). Drawbridge by design: Civil engineering for middle school. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 77(7), 40–44. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266. Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Hudson, P. (2015). Science, technology, engineering, and Maths (STEM). In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education (pp. 940–941). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Hughes, B., Mona, L., Stout, H., & McAninch, S. (2015). An integrative STEM approach to teach- ing solar energy collection. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 75(1), 26–31. Hughes, B., Mona, L., Wilson, G., Seamans, J., McAninch, S., & Stout, H. (2017). Every day a new 3D printing material. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 76(5), 8–13. Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM educa- tion. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(11), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s40594-016-0046-z Kennedy, T. J. & Odell, M. R. L. (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science Education International, 25(3), 246–258. Kruse, J., & Wilcox, J. (2017). Using a water purification activity to teach the philosophy and nature of technology. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 76(8), 13–19. Kysilka, M. L. (1998). Understanding integrated curriculum. The Curriculum Journal, 9(2), 197–209. Love, T. S. (2018). The T&E of STEM: A collaborative effort. The Science Teacher, 86(3), 8–10. 11 Current Praxis and Conceptualization of STEM Education: A Call for Greater… 209 Love, T. S., & Ryan, L. (2017). The crab boat engineering design challenge. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 76(7), 8–14. Magiera, M. T. (2013). Model eliciting activities: A home run. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 18(6), 348–355. McHugh, L., Kelly, A. M., & Burghardt, M. D. (2017). Teaching thermal energy concepts in a middle school mathematics-infused science curriculum. Science Scope, 41(1), 43–50. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M. S., Wang, H.-H., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Roehrig, G. H. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM integration. In S. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in precollege settings: Research into practice (pp. 35–60). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Press. National Academies. (2006). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Neilson, D., & Campbell, T. (2018). Adding math to science. The Science Teacher, 86(3), 26–32. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Olsen, E., Tofel-Grehl, C., & Ball, D. (2018). The temperature-sensing lunchbox. Science Scope, 42(1), 47–52. Pinnar, W. (2011). The character of curriculum studies: Bildung, currere, and the recurring ques- tion of the subject. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Pope, D. (2018). Exploring quadratic functions using logger pro. Mathematics Teacher, 111(6), 454–460. Presidents’ Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010). Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education for America’s future. Retrieved from https://nsf.gov/attachments/117803/public/2a%2D%2DPrepare_and_ Inspire%2D%2DPCAST.pdf Radloff, J., & Guzey, S. (2016). Investigating Preservice STEM teacher conceptions of STEM education. Journal of Science, Education, and Technology, 25, 759–774. Roman, H. T. (2017). The greenhouse robot challenge. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 77(3), 42–43. Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26. Schnittka, C. (2017). Gravity can do what? The Science Teacher, 84(8), 37–43. Shaughnessy, J. M. (2013). By way of introduction: Mathematics in a STEM context. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 18(6), 324. Smith, E. L., Parker, C. A., McKinney, D., & Grigg, J. (2018). Conditions and decisions of urban elementary teachers regarding instruction of STEM curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 118, 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12276 Smith, S., Roemmele, C., Miller, B. T., & Frisbee, M. D. (2018). There’s something in the water. The Science Teacher, 85(3), 58–62. Smith, T. M., Seshaiyer, P., Peixoto, N., Suh, J. M., Bagshaw, G., & Collins, L. K. (2013). Exploring slope with stairs and steps. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 18(6), 371–377. Trimble, L. (2017). Creating science websites. The Science Teacher, 84(9), 25–30. U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Science, technology, engineering, and math: Education for global leadership. Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/stem Van den Akker, J. (2004). Curriculum perspectives: An introduction. In J. Van den Akker, W. Kuiper, & U. Hameyer (Eds.), Curriculum landscapes and trends (pp. 1–10). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Vasquez, J. A. (2014). STEM: Beyond the acronym. Educational Leadership, 72(4), 10–15. Wang, H.-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. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314636 210 C. M. Sgro et al. Welling, J., & Wright, G. A. (2018). Teaching engineering design through paper rockets. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 77(8), 18–21. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wheeler, L. B., Whitworth, B. A., & Gonczi, A. L. (2014). Engineering design challenge: Building a voltaic cell in the high school chemistry classroom. The Science Teacher, 81(9), 30–36. Yoshikawa, E., & Bartholomew, S. (2018). Learning technology and engineering principles through golf. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 77(6), 32–35. Christopher M. Sgro is a Curriculum and Instruction Ph.D. student at the State University of New York at Albany and a chemistry teacher at Highland High School in Highland, NY. He received his Master of Arts in Teaching from the State University of New York at New Paltz (2008) and his Bachelor of Science in chemistry from the State University of New York at Binghamton (2005). His interests include integrated problem-based learning, visual representation analysis, argumentation, cognition, science classroom discourse, and eye-tracking. Trisha Bobowski is the Principal of Kingsborough Elementary School in Gloversville, NY. She received her Master’s degree in Curriculum Development and Instructional Theory from the University of Albany (2004) and her Certification of Advanced study in School District Leadership from SUNY Plattsburgh (2017). Currently, she is enrolled in the Curriculum and Instruction Ph.D. program at the University of Albany. Alandeom W. Oliveira is an Associate Professor of science education at the State University of New York at Albany. He earned a Master’s degree in science education at Southeast Missouri State University (2002) and a Ph.D. degree in science education at Indiana University Bloomington (2008). He has taught science education courses to teachers in Brazil and the US and has coordi- nated multiple professional development programs for school teachers, including Science Modeling for Inquiring Teachers Network, and Technology-Enhanced Multimodal Instruction in Science and Math for English Language Learners. His research interests include cooperative sci- ence learning, inquiry-based teaching, and classroom discourse.

Chapter 11 Current Praxis and Conceptualization of STEM Education PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue