Critical Questions in STEM Education PDF

Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education 51 Valarie L. Akerson Gayle A. Buck Editors Critical Questions in STEM Education Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education Volume 51 Series Editors Dana L. Zeidler, University of South Florida, Tampa, USA Editorial Board John Lawrence Bencze, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada Michael P. Clough, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA Fouad Abd-El-Khalick, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA Marissa Rollnick, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Troy D. Sadler, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA Svein Sjøeberg, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway David Treagust, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia Larry D. Yore, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada The book series Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education provides a forum for innovative trends and issues impacting science education. Scholarship that focuses on advancing new visions, understanding, and is at the forefront of the field is found in this series. Authoritative works based on empirical research and/or conceptual theory from disciplines including historical, philosophical, psychological and sociological traditions are represented here. Our goal is to advance the field of science education by testing and pushing the prevailing sociocultural norms about teaching, learning, research and policy. Book proposals for this series may be submitted to the Publishing Editor: Claudia Acuna E-mail: Claudia.Acuna@ springer.com More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/6512 Valarie L. Akerson Gayle A. Buck Editors Critical Questions in STEM Education Editors Valarie L. Akerson Gayle A. Buck Curriculum & Instruction Curriculum & Instruction Indiana University Indiana University Bloomington, IN, USA Bloomington, IN, USA ISSN 1878-0482 ISSN 1878-0784 (electronic) Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education ISBN 978-3-030-57645-5 ISBN 978-3-030-57646-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57646-2 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Foreword to Critical Questions in STEM Education For those working in STEM education as teachers, principals, teacher educators, and researchers, a central concern in recent years is developing a consensus on what STEM education can and should be, in terms of curricular content, pedagogy, and application to real-world problems. Perhaps heightening a sense of urgency regard- ing this task is STEM’s near-juggernaut quality as an educational movement inter- nationally. Meanwhile, a rush by various discipline advocates to claim curricular “terrain” in K-12 STEM has led to calls for STEAM (adding art), STREAM (read- ing), CSTEM (coding or computer science), and so on, which complicates develop- ment of a clear understanding of what STEM education should include. STEM as “ambiguous slogan” (Bybee 2013) nonetheless has rapidly diffused across many mass education systems, proving to be an effective tool to advocate for resources (Shaughnessy 2012). The contributions in this volume offer several cornerstones, comprising the parts of the book, from which to examine questions about the con- tours of STEM in a thoughtful and research-informed manner. The point of depar- ture here is a working definition of STEM that includes a renewed focus on the variation across individual disciplines as well as the meaningful interdependence that connects disciplines constituting STEM. Since the early days of STEM being promoted as a kind of curricular package, a frequent element of the sloganeering blithely portrayed STEM education as “inte- grated” and “interdisciplinary,” even as curriculum scholars have emphasized the tremendous difficulty for interdisciplinary knowledge to secure a place in the school curriculum. STEM education scholars could benefit from prior work on the chal- lenges of developing and implementing interdisciplinary curricula, however appeal- ing their ring, such as in social studies and “humanities” (Ravitch 2003; Wineburg & Grossman 2000). In this volume, we find a serious attempt to conceptualize the limits of the interdisciplinarity of STEM, starting in the first part with a series of chapters articulating the “nature of” each of the four areas (extending Lederman’s groundbreaking work on the nature of science) and their varied epistemological and ontological underpinnings. In an overview of this first part, Akerson and colleagues boldly suggest that given the substantial differences in the core natures of the disci- plines (and even within each area), there can be no analogous and fully coherent v vi Foreword to Critical Questions in STEM Education “nature of STEM.” If these scholars are right, the implicit question emerges regard- ing how truly integrated and interdisciplinary STEM can be. This tension is illustrated in Part 2, which views STEM education from the ground up, considering approaches to teaching STEM, both at the level of the class- room and the school, but also the challenges in preparing teachers to support inte- grated STEM learning. The self-study by Yin (Chap. 7) is particularly illustrative on this point, as even a seasoned science teacher educator struggled to balance and integrate all four major fields in a STEM education course for pre-service teachers. University Technical Colleges in England (Dobrin, Chap. 8) offer an organizational form that affords opportunities and time to both integrate and apply STEM knowl- edge, but even there, students are encouraged to choose areas of particular interest to focus on during group projects (e.g., “Do the part you are interested in”), effec- tively de-integrating the STEM work to some extent. The final part raises broader questions about perceptions of STEM by various stakeholders. Perhaps, in a sense, school-based STEM is what school STEM does. Newman and colleagues (Chap. 10) consider how schools certified as “STEM schools” by the state of Indiana portray STEM, while Sgro, Bobowski, and Oliveira (Chap. 11) systematically consider visions of STEM proffered by practitioner jour- nals, demonstrating the difficulty of meaningfully integrating across all four areas. In both chapters, STEM integration is threatened by the dominance of one or more of the component disciplines. Sgro and his co-authors resolve this by taking the position that STEM cannot be a discipline in its own right, but rather should be seen as a “meta-discipline.” When considering experiences and the STEM identity of college students majoring in and in some cases switching out of STEM, Song, et al. (Chap. 13) ground coding decisions about what is and what isn’t a “STEM major” based on whether the major was located in the institution’s College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, which raises questions of how new or rapidly changing fields (like psychology) are classified with respect to the STEM umbrella. In the end, there are numerous echoes of the doubts raised in Part 1 about whether there can be a coherent “nature of STEM.” Rather than hunting down a perfectly balanced and interdisciplinary “quark” (Renyi, 2000) called STEM, the brightest potential for STEM education may lie in its core focus on engaging with complex, “ill-formed” problems, as highlighted in many of the contributions here. Comprising a vigorous pedagogical culture (Weld, 2017), rather than a strictly delineated and official school subject, the varied tools of STEM could be used as a springboard into learning to analyze Shakespeare, predict profits, develop video games, and address and communicate about environmental problems or model voter turnout. It all potentially demands quite rigorous STEM thinking, obviating the need for demarcating “proper” applications of STEM in schools. The contributions in this volume point in this direction, implicitly answer- ing Zollman’s (2012) call for “STEM literacy for learning,” serving as a helpful resource for leaders in STEM education at all levels. UMass Amherst, MA, USA Elizabeth H. McEneaney Foreword to Critical Questions in STEM Education vii References Bybee, R. W. (2013).The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Ravitch, D. (2003). A brief history of social studies. In J. Leming, L. Ellington, & K. Porter-Magee (Eds.), Where did social studies go wrong (pp. 1–5). Washington, DC: Fordham Foundation. Renyi, J. (2000). Hunting the quark: Interdisciplinary curricula in public schools. In S. Wineburg & P. Grossman (Eds.), Interdisciplinary curriculum: Challenges to implementation (pp. 39–56). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Shaughnessy, J. M. (2012). STEM: An advocacy position not a content area. NCTM Summing Up. February 2. Weld, J. (2017).Creating a STEM Culture for Teaching and Learning. National Science Teachers Association. Wineburg, S. & Grossman, P. (Eds.) (2000). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Challenges to imple- mentation. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Zollman, A. (2012). Learning for STEM literacy: STEM literacy for learning. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 12–19. Preface This edited book resulted from our efforts to develop an understanding of the nature of STEM knowledge for our doctoral students and ourselves. It began as a graduate seminar in science education where we explored the natures of the individual STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) and research in STEM education alongside our students. The intention was to find overlaps among the characteristics of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics knowledge and develop an idea about the nature of STEM from those overlapping ideas. Over the course of the semester, however, we came to question if there could be a separate nature of STEM knowledge if it is a combination of existing knowledge bases. Further complicating the academic journey was the fact that most STEM research focus on one of the disciplines that comprises STEM itself. We subsequently explored what would STEM teacher education research look like if all the disci- plines were truly intertwined and how does this image compare to educators and educational researchers’ existing perceptions of STEM. Our journey grew to include teacher educators from different disciplines in higher education institutions across the country. That academic journey was so powerful that we sought to expand the discussion throughout our educational community with this edited book. This book explores critical questions in STEM education. The questions were prompted by a desire to respond to the educational demands that twenty-first cen- tury teachers, and subsequently teacher educators, have had placed on them. When previously they have been teachers of individual disciplines, such as science, math, or technology (and occasionally engineering), they are now often considered STEM teachers. The purpose of the book is to provide a practical resource for teacher edu- cators who seek to prepare teachers to address STEM in a meaningful and interdis- ciplinary manner. It is not a thorough ontological or epistemological treatment of STEM, although such considerations certainly provide the framework for the writings. There are three parts within the book, all of which adhere to the definition of STEM as a meaningful interdependence among all disciplines that comprise STEM. In other words, all individual disciplines of STEM are included in ways that are meaningful and showcase the interdependence of the fields. The first part, Nature ix x Preface of the STEM Disciplines, provides the foundation for the discussion of meaningful interdependence by establishing the natures of the component disciplines of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). This part does not include epistemological or ontological treatments of the disciplines but rather practical dis- cussion for teaching and research. Concluding this part, the editors explore whether there is a separate STEM discipline with its own nature as well as the challenges and benefits of presuming a nature of STEM. The second part, Critical Questions in Teaching STEM, features applied research on critical questions teacher educators are actively exploring. Chapters in this part showcase their action research, case studies, self-studies, and other classroom-based research connected to learning to effectively prepare classroom teachers to teach STEM in meaningful and interdisci- plinary ways. The third part, Critical Questions in STEM, includes chapters that systematically explore and discuss the overall applied constructs of STEM educa- tion. These chapters explore such ideas as public perceptions of STEM education, phenomenological case studies on STEM experiences, and content analyses of STEM education documents and texts. The book you hold is the result of very real and interesting discussions among scholars of teacher education. It includes scholars from all four STEM education disciplines and applied research across these disciplines. Working on this volume has been a very interesting process, and we hope this contribution will be helpful to the fields that comprise STEM and stimulate conversations across the fields. Bloomington, IN, USA Valarie L. Akerson Gayle A. Buck Contents Part I Nature of the STEM Disciplines 1 Nature of Scientific Knowledge and Scientific Inquiry 3 Norman G. Lederman and Judith Lederman 2 The Nature of Technology 21 Theresa A. Cullen and Meize Guo 3 Toward Defining Nature of Engineering in the Next Generation Science Standards Era 33 Hasan Deniz, Ezgi Yesilyurt, Steven J. Newman, and Erdogan Kaya 4 The Nature of Mathematics and Its Impact on K-12 Education 45 Rick A. Hudson, Mark A. Creager, Angela Burgess, and Alex Gerber Part II Critical Questions in Teaching STEM 5 Inquiring into Environmental STEM: Striving for an Engaging Inquiry-Based E-STEM Experience for Pre-Service Teachers 61 Angela Burgess and Gayle A. Buck 6 Navigating Theory and Practice: Digital Video Games (DVGs) in STEM Education 85 Isha DeCoito and Lisa K. Briona 7 A Self-Study on Teaching Integrated STEM Education to K-12 Science and Mathematics Teachers 105 Xinying Yin 8 Learning for the Real World: Interdisciplinary Challenge Projects to Facilitate Real-World Learning in STEM 129 Jessica Dobrin xi xii Contents 9 Collaboratively Learning to Teach STEM: A Model for Learning to Integrate STEM Education in Preservice Teacher Education 147 Sevil Akaygun and Fatma Aslan-Tutak Part III Critical Questions in STEM 10 Public Portrayals of Indiana STEM Certified Schools 167 Steven Newman, Taukir Kahn, Meize Guo, Alex Gerber, Angela Burgess, and Valarie L. Akerson 11 Current Praxis and Conceptualization of STEM Education: A Call for Greater Clarity in Integrated Curriculum Development 185 Christopher M. Sgro, Trisha Bobowski, and Alandeom W. Oliveira 12 Future Elementary Teachers’ Perspectives on the Importance of STEM 211 Lauren Madden, James E. R. Beyers, and Nicole Stanton 13 Switching Lanes or Exiting? STEM Experiences, Perceptions, and Identity Construction Among College STEM Switchers 227 Youngjin Song, Ann Y. Kim, Lisa M. Martin-Hansen, and Elaine Villanueva Bernal Reflection on Part I: Natures of the Disciplines that Make up STEM 251 Reflection on Part II: Research into the Teaching and Learning of STEM 253 Reflection on Part III: Critical Questions in STEM 255 Afterward 257 About the Editors Valarie L. Akerson is a Professor of Science Education at Indiana University and a former elementary teacher. Her research focuses on preservice and inservice ele- mentary teachers’ ideas about Nature of Science as well as their teaching practices. She is a Past President of the Association for Science Teacher Education and a Past President for NARST: a worldwide organization for improving science teaching and learning through research. Gayle Buck is an Associate Dean for Research, Development and Innovation as well as a Professor of Science Education. Previously a middle-level science teacher in both urban and rural schools, Professor Buck now teaches courses in science, STEM education, and teacher education. Her research explores (1) student popula- tions traditionally underserved in science education, (2) neglected epistemological assumptions in teaching and learning, and (3) pragmatic and participatory approaches to educational research. xiii Part I Nature of the STEM Disciplines Chapter 1 Nature of Scientific Knowledge and Scientific Inquiry Norman G. Lederman and Judith Lederman 1.1 Introduction Before carefully considering how nature of scientific knowledge (NOSK) and sci- entific inquiry (SI) relate to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), it is critical to “define” or explain what is meant by “science.” There are many conceptualizations of science. The rotunda in the National Academy of Science contains the following inscription: “To science, pilot of industry, conqueror of disease, multiplier of the harvest, explorer of the universe, revealer of nature’s laws, eternal guide to truth. “The quote is not attributed to any individual and the building was built in 1936. It is not clear if the quote is older than 1936. Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman defined science in the 1970s as “the belief in the ignorance of experts (Feynman & Cashman, 2013). Most recently, Arthur Boucot (famous paleobiologist) in a personal conversation characterized science as “an internally consistent set of lies designed to explain away the universe.” These statements are quite varied and as provocative as Boucot’s and Feynman’s defini- tions may be they are closer to how science is characterized in recent reform docu- ments, such as the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013) and the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996). The question still remains, “what is science?” What conceptualization would be most appropriate for K-12 learners? Commonly, the answer to this question has three parts. First, science is a body of knowledge. This refers to the traditional sub- jects or body of concepts, laws, and theories. For instance, biology, chemistry, phys- ics etc. The second part refers to how the knowledge is developed. That is scientific inquiry. Inquiry will be discussed in more detail later, but as a student outcome it usually includes the doing of inquiry (e.g., asking questions, developing a design, N. G. Lederman (*) · J. Lederman Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 3 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_1 4 N. G. Lederman and J. Lederman collecting and analyzing data, and drawing conclusions). Additionally, inquiry as a student outcome also includes knowledge about inquiry (e.g., knowing that all investigations begin with a question, there is no single scientific method, research questions guide the procedures, etc.). Finally, because of the way the knowledge is developed, scientific knowledge has certain characteristics. These characteristics of scientific knowledge are often referred to as nature of scientific knowledge (Lederman, Lederman, & Antink, 2013). Again, these characteristics will be discussed in more detail later, but they usually include, but are not limited to the idea that science is empirically based, involves human creativity, is unavoidably subjective, and is subject to change (Lederman, Wade, & Bell, 1998). Often individuals conflate nature of scientific knowledge (NOSK) with scientific inquiry. Lederman (2007) also notes that the conflation of NOSK and scientific inquiry has plagued research on NOSK from the beginning and, perhaps, could have been avoided by using the phrase “nature of scientific knowledge” as opposed to the more commonly used nature of science (NOS). In this chapter, we will use the term “nature of scientific knowledge” instead of “nature of science” as it more accurately represents its intended meaning (Lederman & Lederman, 2004). Now the critical point is what is the appropriate balance among the three components of science in the science curriculum and sci- ence instruction? Current reforms have appropriately recognized that the amount of emphasis has traditionally emphasized the body of knowledge to the detriment of any emphasis on inquiry or nature of scientific knowledge. Current visions of science education are returning to the perennial goal of scien- tifically literacy. Again, the roots of scientific literacy and its justification will be discussed in more detail later. But, in general, the goal is to help students use their scientific knowledge to make informed decisions about scientifically based global, societal, or personal decisions. The literate individual can not make such decisions based on scientific knowledge alone. They must also understand the source of the knowledge (i.e., scientific inquiry or the more current term science practices) and the ontological characteristics of the knowledge (i.e., NOSK). The focus of this chapter is to elaborate on how the interplay among scientific inquiry, NOSK, and STEM may, or may not, contribute to the achievement of sci- entific literacy. Thus this begs the question of “What is STEM?” For sure STEM has been discussed in each of the chapters in this book. For the sake of brevity, a brief conceptualization follows. STEM has become one of the newest slogans in educa- tion, and some critics have noted its ubiquitous and ambiguous use (Bybee, 2013) throughout policy and science education literature. Bybee (2013) coined the phrase “STEM literacy” to make the goal of STEM education more explicit. A STEM approach to science instruction and curriculum incorporates real life problematic situations that require knowledge of nature of scientific knowledge and scientific inquiry, in part, which leads toward the end goal of scientific literacy. Therefore, it could be argued that scientific literacy is the ultimate goal of the integrated STEM approach. It is important to note, here, that contrary to prevalent misconceptions, STEM goes well beyond just placing more emphasis on each of the STEM disci- plines. The integration of the STEM disciplines is the intent of the STEM 1 Nature of Scientific Knowledge and Scientific Inquiry 5 movement. Again, this chapter will focus on whether the interplay of scientific inquiry, nature of scientific knowledge, and STEM can facilitate the development of scientific literacy. 1.2 Scientific Literacy as the Primary Goal of Science Education Why should our students learn science and to what extent? Are we teaching our students to make them scientists? What happens to those students who do not con- tinue studying science? Don’t they need to learn a minimum amount of science? These questions are critical to portray the goal of science education. Science educa- tors believe that the goal of science education is to develop scientific literacy. Since the first use of ‘scientific literacy’ in the late 1950s, science educators and policy makers have gradually reconceptualized the term to such an extent that one author remarked relatively recently that “scientific literacy is an ill-defined and diffuse concept” (Laugksch, 2000, p. 71). Policy makers and educators often get confused between “science literacy” and “scientific literacy.” Often they are considered syn- onymous, although the two have very different meanings. Science literacy focuses on how much science you know. It is not about applying knowledge and making decisions. “Science literacy” is mostly associated with AAAS Project 2061 (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993). In 1985 AAAS, the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation launched a project that promised to be radical, ambitious, comprehensive and long-term, in other words, risky and expensive (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1994). With that philosophy, the program was aptly named “Project 2061.” In view of the numerous local, state, and national obstacles and turf infringements, many wondered whether it would take that long to achieve the goals of the program. Benchmarks for Science Literacy is the Project 2061 statement of what all students should know and be able to do in science, mathematics, and technology by the end of grades 2, 5, 8, and 12. The recommendations at each grade level suggested rea- sonable progress toward the adult science literacy goals laid out in the project’s 1989 report Science for All Americans AAAS, 1989). Benchmarks helped educators decide what to include in (or exclude from) a core curriculum, when to teach it, and why. On the other hand, “scientific literacy” deals with the aim of helping people use scientific knowledge to make informed decisions. This is a goal that science educa- tors have been striving to achieve, but unfortunately many of us have not truly real- ized the importance of scientific literacy or might have misrepresented the goal in various platforms. DeBoer (2000) states that the term “scientific literacy” since it was introduced in the late 1950s has defied precise definition. Although it is widely claimed to be a desired outcome of science education, not everyone agrees with what it means. 6 N. G. Lederman and J. Lederman The goal of science education became formalized at different times in history. After the 1960s the science education community became concerned about the role of science in society, especially given the launching of Sputnik by the Soviet Union in 1957. This event led to a significant increase in funding for science education in an attempt to increase the science pipeline. The primary driving forces were con- cerns for national security and economic health. In the immediate post-war years, it was proposed that science educators should work to produce citizens who under- stood science and were sympathetic to the work of scientists (DeBoer, 2000). The U.S. was lacking in producing a workforce who could live and work in such a rap- idly changing world. The goals of science teaching, for general education purposes, within this new environment came to be called scientific literacy. According to the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (1958) report, “among the tasks that have increased most frighteningly in complexity is the task of the ordinary citizen who wishes to dis- charge his civic responsibilities intelligently” (p. 351). The answer was scientific literacy. The Board said: Just as we must insist that every scientist be broadly educated, so we must see to it that every educated person be literate in science]…. We cannot afford to have our most highly educated people living in intellectual isolation from one another, without even an elemen- tary understanding of each other’s intellectual concern. (p. 369) The national review of Australian science teaching and learning (Goodrum, Rennie, & Hackling, 2001) defined the attributes of a scientifically literate person. In par- ticular, it stated that a scientifically literate person is (1) interested in and under- stands the world about him, (2) can identify and investigate questions and draw evidence-based conclusions, (3) is able to engage in discussions of and about sci- ence matters, (4) is skeptical and questioning of claims made by others, and (5) can make informed decisions about the environment and their own health and wellbeing. The current NGSS stresses science practices, but there is very little emphasis on understanding the practices or scientific inquiry and NOSK. Later in this chapter the critical role of scientific inquiry and NOSK for the achievement of scientific literacy will be elaborated in detail. Doing science is necessary as a means, but it should not be the end goal. The end goal should be scientific literacy, which unfortunately is not explicitly mentioned in the standards. 1.3 STEM as a Mechanism to Achieve Scientific Literacy STEM education must have an educative purpose which goes beyond the slogan “to meet 21st century skills.” In the 1990s, the National Science Foundation (NSF) introduced the STEM acronym as an instructional and curricular approach that stresses the integration of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. But, its ubiquitous and ambiguous use in the education community has created much confusion (Angier, 2010). One of the possible reasons could be the lack of consen- sus on the meaning of STEM. However, even without a common understanding of 1 Nature of Scientific Knowledge and Scientific Inquiry 7 STEM, the development and implementation our STEM curriculum over the years has not been deterred. Bybee (2013) addressed four components of STEM literacy. STEM literacy refers to an individual’s knowledge, attitudes, and skills to identify questions and problems in life situa- tions, explain the natural and designed world, and draw evidence-based conclu- sions about STEM related-issues understanding of the characteristic features of STEM disciplines as forms of human knowledge, inquiry, and design; awareness of how STEM disciplines shape our material, intellectual, and cultural environments; and willingness to engage in STEM-related issues and with the ideas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics as a constructive, concerned, and reflective citizen. From the above components of STEM literacy, it is evident that students need to have experiences to apply their knowledge and skills. But the debate over other aspects of STEM education has not been settled yet. For instance, is STEM a sepa- rate discipline or just an integrated curriculum approach? The idea of considering STEM as a separate discipline has been a puzzle for many science educators. STEM disciplines are all different ways of knowing and have different conventions for what constitutes data and evidence. STEM is an integrated curriculum approach, but because it deals with different ways of knowing, true integration is never achieved; just an interdisciplinary connection. Individual STEM disciplines “are based on dif- ferent epistemological assumptions” and integration of the STEM subjects may detract from the integrity of any individual STEM subject (Williams, 2011, p. 30). If STEM is conceptualized as a curriculum approach, its interdisciplinary nature entails not just the acquisition and application of scientific knowledge, but also the other knowledge bases. Wang, Moore, Roehrig, and Park (2011) explained that interdisciplinary integration begins with a real-world problem. It incorporates cross-curricular content with critical thinking, problem-solving skills, and knowl- edge in order to reach a conclusion. Students engage themselves in different real- life STEM related personal and societal situations to make informed decisions. More specifically, STEM curriculum in classrooms and programs can ensure five skill sets including adaptability, complex communications, nonroutine problem solving, self-management, and systems thinking (NRC, 2008). The National Research Council (2010) elaborated on these five skills in its report, Exploring the Intersection of Science Education and 21st-Century Skills. Furthermore, in a second report (NRC, 2012), Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century it was emphasized that these 21st century skills are necessary if students are to solve the personal and societal problems. This is what it means to be an informed citizen. If we put the components of scientific literacy alongside STEM in terms of science instruction, it can be argued that both focus on the context of the world we live in and the decisions we make in everyday life. Those decisions are not just based on science. Different social, political, cul- tural perspectives are all part of these decisions. While making those decisions, 8 N. G. Lederman and J. Lederman people are supposed to apply some of their other knowledge bases such as mathe- matical reasoning and technological and engineering processes. For example, if individuals are supposed to make any decisions about whether wind or solar energy is best for the environment and economy, it must be kept in mind that the solution is not just based on scientific knowledge, but also knowledge of other technical or engineering features that explain how these two types of energy sources actually operate. Further, mathematical knowledge is needed to be able to calculate the eco- nomic efficiency of the two sources of energy. Can we imagine any activity that requires this type of decision making as a part of the STEM curricular approach? The answer is clearly yes. Thus, it can be argued that STEM as an instructional and curricular approach is consistent with the idea of scientific literacy. 1.4 The Role of Scientific Inquiry in Science Education As previously discussed, the unclear definitions and multiple uses of the phrase “scientific literacy” resulted in much confusion. However, the phrase “scientific inquiry” is guilty of the same. What it means has been elusive and it is at least one of the reasons why the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013) emphasizes “science practices” as opposed to scientific inquiry. The National Science Education Standards ([NSES] National Research Council, 1996) arguably made the most concerted effort to unpack the meaning of scientific inquiry. The NSES envisioned scientific inquiry as both subject matter and pedagogy in its three part definition. However, with all the effort, confusion remained and the National Research Council had to develop an addendum of sorts, a few years later, titled Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 2000). On the one hand, scientific inquiry was conceptualized as a teaching approach. That is, the sci- ence teacher would engage students in situations (mostly open-ended) they could ask questions, collect data, and draw conclusions. In short, the purpose of the teach- ing approach was to enable students to learn science subject matter in a manner similar to how scientists do their work. Although closely related to science pro- cesses, scientific inquiry extends beyond the mere development of process skills such as observing, inferring, classifying, predicting, measuring, questioning, inter- preting and analyzing data. Scientific inquiry includes the traditional science pro- cesses, but also refers to the combining of these processes with scientific knowledge, scientific reasoning and critical thinking to develop scientific knowledge. From the perspective of the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996), students are expected to be able to develop scientific questions and then design and conduct investigations that will yield the data necessary for arriving at answers for the stated questions. Scientific inquiry, in short, refers to the systematic approaches used by scientists in an effort to answer their questions of interest. Pre-college students, and the gen- eral public for that matter, believe in a distorted view of scientific inquiry that has resulted from schooling, the media, and the format of most scientific reports. This 1 Nature of Scientific Knowledge and Scientific Inquiry 9 distorted view is called THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. That is, a fixed set and sequence of steps that all scientists follow when attempting to answer scientific questions. A more critical description would characterize THE METHOD as an algorithm that students are expected to memorize, recite, and follow as a recipe for success. The visions of reform, as well as any study of how science is done, are quick to indicate that there is no single fixed set or sequence of steps that all scien- tific investigations follow. The contemporary view of scientific inquiry advocated is that the research questions guide the approach and the approaches vary widely within and across scientific disciplines and fields (Lederman et al., 1998). The perception that a single scientific method exists owes much to the status of classical experimental design. Experimental designs very often conform to what is presented as THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD and the examples of scientific investiga- tions presented in science textbooks most often are experimental in nature. The problem, of course, is not that investigations consistent with “the scientific method” do not exist. The problem is that experimental research is not representative of sci- entific investigations as a whole. Consequently, a very narrow and distorted view of scientific inquiry is promoted in our K-12 science curriculum. At a general level, scientific inquiry can be seen to take several forms (i.e., descriptive, correlational, and experimental). Descriptive research is the form of research that often characterizes the beginning of a line of research. This is the type of research that derives the variables and factors important to a particular situation of interest. Whether descriptive research gives rise to correlational approaches depends upon the field and topic. For example, much of the research in anatomy and taxonomy are descriptive in nature and do not progress to experimental or correla- tional types of research. The purpose of research in these areas is very often simply to describe. On the other hand, there are numerous examples in the history of ana- tomical research that have lead to more than a description. The initial research con- cerning the cardiovascular system by William Harvey was descriptive in nature. However, once the anatomy of blood vessels had been described, questions arose concerning the circulation of blood through the vessels. Such questions lead to research that correlated anatomical structures with blood flow and experiments based on models of the cardiovascular system (Lederman et al., 1998). To briefly distinguish correlational from experimental research, the former expli- cates relationships among variables identified in descriptive research and experi- mental research involves a planned intervention and manipulation of the variables studied in correlational research in an attempt to derive causal relationships. In some cases, lines of research can been seen to progress from descriptive to correla- tional to experimental, while in other cases (e.g., descriptive astronomy) such a progression is not necessarily possible. This is not to suggest, however, that the experimental design is more scientific than descriptive or correlational designs but instead to clarify that there is not a single method applicable to every scientific question. Scientific inquiry has always been ambiguous in its presentation within science education reforms. In particular, inquiry is perceived in three different ways. It can be viewed as a set of skills to be learned by students and combined in the 10 N. G. Lederman and J. Lederman performance of a scientific investigation. It can also be viewed as a cognitive out- come that students are to achieve. In particular, the current visions of reform (e.g. NGSS Lead States, 2013; NRC, 1996) are very clear (at least in written words) in distinguishing between the performance of inquiry (i.e., what students will be able to do) and what students know about inquiry (i.e., what students should know). For example, it is one thing to have students set up a control group for an experiment, while it is another to expect students to understand the logical necessity for a control within an experimental design. Unfortunately, the subtle difference in wording noted in the reforms (i.e., “know” versus “do”) is often missed by everyone except the most careful reader. The third use of “inquiry” in reform documents relates strictly to pedagogy and further muddies the water. In particular, current wisdom advocates that students learn science best through an inquiry-oriented teaching approach. It is believed that students will best learn scientific concepts by doing sci- ence (NGSS Lead States, 2013). In this sense, “scientific inquiry” is viewed as a teaching approach used to com- municate scientific knowledge to students (or allow students to construct their own knowledge) as opposed to an educational outcome that students are expected to learn about and learn how to do. Indeed, it is the pedagogical conception of inquiry that it is unwittingly communicated to most teachers by science education reform documents, with the two former conceptions lost in the shuffle. Although the pro- cesses that scientists use when doing inquiry (e.g. observing, inferring, analyzing data, etc.) are readily familiar to most, knowledge about inquiry, as an instructional outcome is not. This is the perspective of inquiry that distinguishes current reforms from those that have previously existed, and it is the perspective on inquiry that is not typically assessed. In summary, the knowledge about inquiry included in current science education reform efforts includes the following (NGSS Lead States, 2013, NRC, 1996): Scientific investigations all begin with a question, but do not necessarily test a hypothesis There is no single set and sequence of steps followed in all scientific investiga- tions (i.e., there is no single scientific method) Inquiry procedures are guided by the question asked All scientists performing the same procedures may not get the same results Inquiry procedures can influence the results Research conclusions must be consistent with the data collected Scientific data are not the same as scientific evidence Explanations are developed from a combination of collected data and what is already known 1 Nature of Scientific Knowledge and Scientific Inquiry 11 1.5 Scientific Inquiry as a Component of Scientific Literacy and Its Relationship to STEM Although scientific inquiry has been viewed as an important educational outcome for science students for over 100 years, it was Showalter’s (1974) work that galva- nized scientific inquiry, as well as NOSK, important components within the over arching framework of scientific literacy. As previously discussed, the phrase scien- tific literacy had been discussed by numerous authors before Showalter (Dewey, 1916; Hurd, 1958; National Education Association, 1918, 1920; National Society for the Study of Education, 1960, among others), it was his work that clearly delin- eated the dimensions of scientific literacy in a manner that could easily be translated into objectives for science curricula. Showalter’s framework consisted of the fol- lowing seven components: Nature of Science – The scientifically literate person understands the nature of scientific knowledge. Concepts in Science – The scientifically literate person accurately applies appropriate science concepts, principles, laws, and theories in interacting with his universe. Processes of Science – The scientifically literate person uses processes of sci- ence in solving problems, making decisions and furthering his own understand- ing of the universe. Values – The scientifically literate person interacts with the various aspects of how universe in a way that is consistent with the values that underlie science. Science-Society – The scientifically literate person understands and appreciates the joint enterprise of science and technology and the interrelationships of these with each other and with other aspects of society. Interest – The scientifically literate person has developed a richer, more satisfy- ing, and more exciting view of the universe as a result of his science education and continues to extend this education throughout his life. Skills – The scientifically literate person has developed numerous manipulative skills associated with science and technology. (Showalter, 1974, p. 1–6) Science processes (now known as inquiry or practices), and NOSK) were clearly emphasized. The attributes of a scientifically literate individual were later reiterated by the National Science Teachers Association [NSTA] (1982). The NSTA dimen- sions of scientific literacy were a bit expanded from Showalter’s and included: Uses science concepts, process skills, and values making responsibly everyday decisions; Understands how society influences science and technology as well as how sci- ence and technology influence society; Understands that society controls science and technology through the allocation of resources; 12 N. G. Lederman and J. Lederman Recognizes the limitations as well as the usefulness of science and technology in advancing human welfare; Knows the major concepts, hypotheses, and theories of science and is able to use them; Appreciates science and technology for the intellectual stimulus they provide; Understands that the generation of scientific knowledge depends on inquiry pro- cess and conceptual theories; Distinguishes between scientific evidence and personal opinion; Recognizes the origin of science and understands that scientific knowledge is tentative, and subject to change as evidence accumulates; Understands the application of technology and the decisions entailed in the use of technology; Has sufficient knowledge and experience to appreciate the worthiness of research and technological developments; Has a richer and more exciting view of the world as a result of science educa- tion; and Knows reliable sources of scientific and technological information and uses these sources in the process of decision making. The importance of scientific inquiry, or practices as it is called in the NGSS, as a critical component of scientific literacy should be clear. STEM, in current conceptions, is characterized as an integrated approach to cur- riculum that addresses the interactions of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to solve problems in a more authentic manner than the current curricu- lum approach. That is, the typical science curriculum has perennially separated the various disciplines during precollege instruction, not to mention the exclusion of any formal attention to technology or engineering. Current questions about the natu- ral world and/or societal or personal issues are more commonly not the purview of any singular discipline, but rather require the collaboration of various individuals, working in a team, with various backgrounds and expertise. This is the nature of STEM. We are not saying that STEM is a discipline with its own “nature” as in nature of science. We are merely characterizing STEM as a curriculum approach. 1.6 Understanding Nature of Scientific Knowledge as a Goal of Science Education and Its Relationship to Scientific Literacy The relationship and differences between nature of scientific knowledge (NOSK) and nature of scientific inquiry (SI) is often discussed and confused within existing literature (Lederman & Lederman, 2014). NOSK, as opposed to the more popular nature of science (NOS) is used here to be more consistent with the original mean- ing of the construct (Lederman, 2007). 1 Nature of Scientific Knowledge and Scientific Inquiry 13 Given the manner in which scientists develop scientific knowledge (i.e., SI), the knowledge is engendered with certain characteristics. These characteristics are what typically constitute NOS (Lederman, 2007). As mentioned before there is a lack of consensus among scientists, historians of science, philosophers of science, and science educators about the particular aspects of NOSK. This lack of consen- sus, however, should neither be disconcerting nor surprising given the multifaceted nature and complexity of the scientific endeavor. Conceptions of NOS have changed throughout the development of science and systematic thinking about science and are reflected in the ways the scientific and science education communities have defined the phrase “nature of science” during the past 100 years (e.g., AAAS, 1990, 1993; Central Association for Science and Mathematics Teachers, 1907; Klopfer & Watson, 1957; NSTA, 1982). However, many of the disagreements about the definition or meaning of NOSK that continue to exist among philosophers, historians, and science educators are irrelevant to K-12 instruction. The issue of the existence of an objective reality as compared to phenomenal realities is a case in point. There is an acceptable level of generality regarding NOS that is accessible to K-12 students and relevant to their daily lives. Moreover, at this level, little disagreement exists among philosophers, historians, and science educators. Among the characteristics of the scientific enter- prise corresponding to this level of generality are that scientific knowledge is tenta- tive (subject to change), empirically-based (based on and/or derived from observations of the natural world), subjective (theory-laden), necessarily involves human inference, imagination, and creativity (involves the invention of explana- tions), and is socially and culturally embedded. Two additional important aspects are the distinction between observations and inferences, and the functions of, and relationships between scientific theories and laws. What follows is a brief consider- ation of these characteristics of science and scientific knowledge. First, students should be aware of the crucial distinction between observation and inference. Observations are descriptive statements about natural phenomena that are “directly” accessible to the senses (or extensions of the senses) and about which several observers can reach consensus with relative ease. For example, objects released above ground level tend to fall and hit the ground. By contrast, inferences are statements about phenomena that are not “directly” accessible to the senses. For example, objects tend to fall to the ground because of “gravity.” The notion of grav- ity is inferential in the sense that it can only be accessed and/or measured through its manifestations or effects. Examples of such effects include the perturbations in predicted planetary orbits due to inter-planetary “attractions,” and the bending of light coming from the stars as its rays pass through the sun’s “gravitational” field. Second, closely related to the distinction between observations and inferences is the distinction between scientific laws and theories. Individuals often hold a sim- plistic, hierarchical view of the relationship between theories and laws whereby theories become laws depending on the availability of supporting evidence. It fol- lows from this notion that scientific laws have a higher status than scientific theo- ries. Both notions, however, are inappropriate because, among other things, theories and laws are different kinds of knowledge and one can not develop or be 14 N. G. Lederman and J. Lederman transformed into the other. Laws are statements or descriptions of the relationships among observable phenomena. Boyle’s law, which relates the pressure of a gas to its volume at a constant temperature, is a case in point (Lederman et al., 1998). Theories, by contrast, are inferred explanations for observable phenomena. The kinetic molecular theory, which explains Boyle’s law, is one example. Moreover, theories are as legitimate a product of science as laws. Scientists do not usually formulate theories in the hope that one day they will acquire the status of “law.” Scientific theories, in their own right, serve important roles, such as guiding inves- tigations and generating new research problems in addition to explaining relatively huge sets of seemingly unrelated observations in more than one field of investiga- tion. For example, the kinetic molecular theory serves to explain phenomena that relate to changes in the physical states of matter, others that relate to the rates of chemical reactions, and still other phenomena that relate to heat and its transfer, to mention just a few. Third, even though scientific knowledge is, at least partially, based on and/or derived from observations of the natural world (i.e., empirical), it nevertheless involves human imagination and creativity. Science, contrary to common belief, is not a totally lifeless, rational, and orderly activity. Science involves the invention of explanations and this requires a great deal of creativity by scientists. The “leap” from atomic spectral lines to Bohr’s model of the atom with its elaborate orbits and energy levels is a case in point. This aspect of science, coupled with its inferential nature, entails that scientific concepts, such as atoms, black holes, and species, are functional theoretical models rather than faithful copies of reality. Fourth, scientific knowledge is subjective or theory-laden. Scientists’ theoretical commitments, beliefs, previous knowledge, training, experiences, and expectations actually influence their work. All these background factors form a mind-set that affects the problems scientists investigate and how they conduct their investigations, what they observe (and do not observe), and how they make sense of, or interpret their observations. It is this (sometimes collective) individuality or mind-set that accounts for the role of subjectivity in the production of scientific knowledge. It is noteworthy that, contrary to common belief, science never starts with neutral obser- vations (Chalmers, 1982). Observations (and investigations) are always motivated and guided by, and acquire meaning in reference to questions or problems. These questions or problems, in turn, are derived from within certain theoretical perspectives. Fifth, science as a human enterprise is practiced in the context of a larger culture and its practitioners (scientists) are the product of that culture. Science, it follows, affects and is affected by the various elements and intellectual spheres of the culture in which it is embedded. These elements include, but are not limited to, social fab- ric, power structures, politics, socioeconomic factors, philosophy, and religion. An example may help to illustrate how social and cultural factors impact scientific knowledge. Telling the story of the evolution of humans (Homo sapiens) over the course of the past seven million years is central to the biosocial sciences. Scientists have formulated several elaborate and differing story lines about this evolution. 1 Nature of Scientific Knowledge and Scientific Inquiry 15 Until recently, the dominant story was centered about “the man-hunter” and his crucial role in the evolution of humans to the form we now know (Lovejoy, 1981). This scenario was consistent with the white-male culture that dominated scien- tific circles up to the 1960s and early 1970s. As the feminist movement grew stron- ger and women were able to claim recognition in the various scientific disciplines, the story about hominid evolution started to change. One story that is more consis- tent with a feminist approach is centered about “the female-gatherer” and her cen- tral role in the evolution of humans (Hrdy, 1986). It is noteworthy that both story lines are consistent with the available evidence. Sixth, it follows from the previous discussions that scientific knowledge is never absolute or certain. This knowledge, including “facts,” theories, and laws, is tenta- tive and subject to change. Scientific claims change as new evidence, made possible through advances in theory and technology, is brought to bear on existing theories or laws, or as old evidence is reinterpreted in the light of new theoretical advances or shifts in the directions of established research programs. It should be emphasized that tentativeness in science does not only arise from the fact that scientific knowl- edge is inferential, creative, and socially and culturally embedded. There are also compelling logical arguments that lend credence to the notion of tentativeness in science. Indeed, contrary to common belief, scientific hypotheses, theories, and laws can never be absolutely “proven.” This holds irrespective of the amount of empirical evidence gathered in the support of one of these ideas or the other (Popper, 1963, 1988). For example, to be “proven,” a certain scientific law should account for every single instance of the phenomenon it purports to describe at all times. It can logically be argued that one such future instance, of which we have no knowledge whatsoever, may behave in a manner contrary to what the law states. As such, the law can never acquire an absolutely “proven” status. This equally holds in the case of hypotheses and theories. It is clear from the attributes of a scientifically literate individual espoused by Showalter (1974) and NSTA (1982), that NOSK is considered a critical component of scientific literacy. If precollege and postsecondary students are expected to make informed decisions about scientifically based personal and societal issues they must have an understanding of the sources and limits of scientific knowledge. For exam- ple, it is becoming increasingly common for the public to hear alternative view- points presented by scientists on the same topic. Are organic foods healthier to eat? Should GMOs be avoided at all costs or are they perfectly safe? Is drinking water with a pH of approximately 7.3 healthier than drinking water that is more alkaline or more acidic? In Asia it is believed that the ingestion of cold liquids puts a stress on your body and should be avoided. Consequently, it is not uncommon to find drinking fountains that provide warm and hot water as opposed to the cold water provided by drinking fountains in most regions throughout the world. You can find qualified scientists arguing both sides of the aforementioned issues. Sometimes the claims are based on pseudoscience, like current claims that there really is no global warming or the claim that biological evolution never occurred. Alternatively, these differences in perspectives and knowledge are the result of science in action. It is the results of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science is done by humans and it is 16 N. G. Lederman and J. Lederman limited, or strengthened by the foibles that all humans have. Scientific knowledge is tentative, or subject to change. We never have all of the data, and if we did we would not know it. If you look up in the sky on a clear night you will see a white, circular object. We would all agree that the object is the moon. Three hundred years ago if we looked at the same object we would call it a planet. This is because the current view of our solar system is guided by heliocentric theory. This theory places the sun at the center of the solar system and any objects orbiting the sun is a planet (e.g., the earth) and any object orbiting a planet is a moon or satellite. Three hundred years ago our view was guided by the geocentric theory which places the earth at the center and anything orbiting the earth was considered a planet (e.g., our current moon). The objects and observations have not changed, but our interpretation has because of a change in the theories we adopt. You could say that our theories “bias” our interpretations of data. Scientists make observations, but then eventually make inferences because all the data are not accessible through our senses. This is why scientific knowledge is tentative and partly a function of human subjectivity and creativity. The examples illustrating the characteristics of scientific knowledge (i.e., NOSK) are endless and an understanding of these characteristics is critical when making decisions on scientifically based issues. 1.7 The Promise of STEM and the Achievement of Scientific Literacy Given the previous discussions about inquiry, NOSK, STEM, and scientific literacy, it seems quite logical to assume that revising our curricular approach to be more consistent with STEM, and the vision of the NGSS, would enhance our ability to enhance the scientific literacy of our precollege and postsecondary students. After all, a STEM approach seems to be a more authentic because it does not pigeonhole the issues our citizens face into discrete discipline “silos.” Indeed, none of the really significant issues that affect us as a global community, society, culture, or individu- ally are the purview of any single discipline. Further, it can be argued that none of the significant scientifically based issues we face are limited to the STEM fields. Isn’t this why we see additionally permutations of STEM, such as STEAM? In sum- mary, STEM provides the scientific and technical knowledge, while scientific inquiry and NOSK provides us with knowledge about how the subject matter is developed (inquiry) and the unavoidable characteristics (NOSK) derived from how the knowledge was developed. Logic is one thing, but what do we know and what do we need to know? Is there strong empirical support to show that students exposed to STEM exhibit increased achievement, critical thinking, and problem solving ability? It seems the first place to look is at the research on integrated instruction (see Czerniak, 2007; Czerniak & Johnson, 2014). The idea of integration has existed for over 100 years, and it mainly focused on the integration of science and mathematics. In the past decade there has 1 Nature of Scientific Knowledge and Scientific Inquiry 17 been an increase in empirical research mainly because of the emergence of STEM and the NGSS. In general, empirical support for integrated instruction is mixed at best. It is important to note that “integration” has many different meanings and that none of the research systematically has focused on the integration of science and engineering, although engineering projects have often been included in traditional science courses. There are definite obstacles to using STEM to achieve scientific literacy. Some are general, but others are specific to NOSK and scientific inquiry. At the general level is the issue of teacher preparation. The current approach to the education of teachers is specific to the particular disciplinary licensure. That is, teachers are pre- pared to become biology, mathematics, physics, chemistry, and earth science teach- ers, among others. Given the volumes of research on pedagogical content knowledge and discipline specific pedagogy using a “generalist” is not advisable. Consequently, either licensure programs will need to be changed or STEM will have to integrate learning through team teaching or a middle school model. In either case, the obsta- cles are huge. Will there be a capstone STEM course or will STEM be included in every course? If it is included in every course, then obviously the “home” discipline (e.g., chemis- try) will be emphasized over the other STEM disciplines. This is hardly true integra- tion. If STEM is seen as a capstone course, the road forward will be easier, although the licensure of teachers previously discussed remains a problem. Let us not forget that the focus of this chapter is on scientific inquiry and NOSK. And it is in this area that STEM is most problematic. Theoretically, the rationale for the STEM approach is to enable students to more authentically engage in real world problems of interest that enable them to learn the subject matter of the STEM disciplines and demonstrate the decision-making skills evident in a scientifi- cally literate individual. Such a curriculum or instructional approach most obvi- ously focuses on problem solving and critical thinking. Whenever disciplines are integrated the nature of the disciplines and how disciplinary knowledge is devel- oped. This brings us back to inquiry and NOSK. For example, science attempts to answer questions about the natural world. It does not try to produce any a priori outcomes. Engineering, on the other hand, attempts to produce certain effects. Surely, engineering and the sciences are closely related, but they are different. Science never claims to arrive at absolute truths. All knowledge is subject to change. However, mathematics can arrive at absolute proofs in the mathematical world that it has created. Science must test its knowledge against the natural world, it is empiri- cally based. Mathematics is not necessarily empirically based, it has imaginary numbers. When dealing with lower level knowledge you can integrate the knowl- edge around relevant themes. However, when it comes to higher level applications and decisions, the conventions of inquiry, the conventions of what constitutes evi- dence, and the ontological status of the knowledge differ. In true integration disci- plinary knowledge of one way of knowing is not privileged above another. It seems with such different ways of knowing, the obstacle of STEM may be insurmountable when it comes to issues of inquiry and NOSK. 18 N. G. Lederman and J. Lederman 1.8 A Needed Research Agenda It is clear that we know very little about the promise of STEM enhancing scientific literacy. There is much research that needs to be done with respect to all aspects of STEM. Specifically, with respect to NOSK and scientific inquiry, the following needs to be investigated: Can effective models of teacher education be developed that enable teachers to simultaneously honor significantly different ways of knowing in a single course? When students are designing an investigation how do they negotiate the differing conventions of data collection and interpretation across the STEM fields? How are differing conclusions for an investigation handled? Are they character- ized as unavoidable differences in interpretation and research design or is it con- cluded that there is only one solution? As students work in groups during an investigation or project, on what basis are decisions made when differences in opinion arise? As students are expected to learn NOSK, nature of engineering, nature of math- ematics, and nature of technology, does knowledge of one of these impact, nega- tively or positively, analogous knowledge in another field? References American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1994). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press. Angier, N. (2010). STEM education has little to do with flowers. The New York Times, D2. Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Washington, DC: NSTA Press. Central Association for Science and Mathematics Teachers. (1907). A consideration of the prin- ciples that should determine the courses in biology in secondary schools. School Science and Mathematics, 9(3), 241–247. Chalmers, A. F. (1982). What is this thing called science? (2nd Edn.). Queensland, Australia: University of Queensland Press. Czerniak, C. M. (2007). Interdisciplinary science teaching. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 537–560). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishing. Czerniak, C. M., & Johnson, C. C. (2014). Interdisciplinary science teaching. In I. N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 395–411). New York: Routledge. DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: MacMillan. 1 Nature of Scientific Knowledge and Scientific Inquiry 19 Feynman, R. P., & Cashman, D. (2013). The pleasure of finding things out. Blackstone Audio, Incorporated. Fund, R. B. (1958). The pursuit of excellence: Education and the future of America; panel report V of the special studies project. Doubleday. Goodrum, D., Rennie, L. J., & Hackling, M. W. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools: A research report. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Hrdy, S. B. (1986). Empathy, polyandry, and the myth of the coy female. In Bleier, R. (Ed.), Feminist approaches to science (pp. 119–146). New York: Pergamon. Hurd, P. D. (1958). Science literacy: Its meaning for American schools. Educational Leadership, 16, 13–16. Klopfer, L. E., & Watson, F. G. (1957). Historical materials and high school science teaching. The Science Teacher, 24(6), 264–293. Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71–94. Lederman, N. G., Wade, P., & Bell, R. L. (1998). Assessing understanding of the nature of science: A historical perspective. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education (pp. 331–350). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2004). The nature of science and scientific inquiry. The art of teaching science, 2–17. Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of sci- ence. In N. G. Lederman, & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 600–620). New York: Routledge. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishing. Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(3), 138. Lovejoy, C. O. (1981). The origin of man. Science, 211, 341–350. National Education Association. (1918). Cardinal principles of secondary education: A report of the commission on the reorganization of secondary education. (U.S. Bureau of Education Bulletin No. 35). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Education Association. (1920). Reorganization of science in secondary schools: A report of the commission on the reorganization of secondary education. (U.S. Bureau of Education Bulletin No. 20). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (2008). Research on future skill demands: A workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Research Council. (2010). Exploring the intersection of science education and 21st cen- tury skills: A workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscut- ting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Science Teachers Association. (1982). Science-technology-society: Science education for the 1980s. Washington, DC: Author. National Society for the Study of Education. (1960). Rethinking science education: Yearbook of the national society for the study of education (Vol. 59, p. 113). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 20 N. G. Lederman and J. Lederman Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge. Popper, K. R. (1988). The open universe: An argument for indeterminism. London: Routledge. Showalter, V. M. (1974). What is unified science education? Program objectives and scientific literacy. Prism, 2(3–4), 1–6. Wang, H., Moore, T., Roehrig, G., & Park, M. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 1(2), 1–13. Williams, J. (2011). STEM education: Proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education, 16(1), 26–35. Norman G. Lederman is Chair and Distinguished Professor of Mathematics and Science Education at the Illinois Institute of Technology. Dr. Lederman received his Ph.D. in Science Education and he possesses MS degrees in both Biology and Secondary Education. Prior to his 35 + years in science teacher education, Dr. Lederman was a high school teacher of biology and chemistry for 10 years. Dr. Lederman is internationally known for his research and scholarship on the development of students’ and teachers’ conceptions of nature of science and scientific inquiry. He has been author or editor of 12 books, written 25 book chapters, published over 220 articles in professional journals, and made over 500 presentations at professional conferences around the world. He is the Co-Editor of Volume I, II, and III (forthcoming) of the Handbook of Research on Science Education and was the previous co-editor of the Journal of Science Teacher Education and School Science and Mathematics. Dr. Lederman is a former President of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) and the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science (AETS, now known as ASTE). He has also served as Director of Teacher Education for the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). He has been named a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Educational Research Association, and has received the Distinguished Contributions to Science Education through Research Award from the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Judith S. Lederman is an Associate Professor and Director Of Teacher Education at Illinois Institute of Technology and a former museum curator and secondary physics and biology teacher. Her research focuses on the teaching, learning and assessing of Nature of Science and Scientific Inquiry in formal and informal settings. She has served on the boards of NARST, NSTA and ASTE. Chapter 2 The Nature of Technology Theresa A. Cullen and Meize Guo 2.1 Introduction Technology is both the tools that are used but also the systematic processes by which problems are solved. For example, in biology, technology is used to coordi- nate efforts to find vaccines by allowing for meaningful communication and data sharing. Meanwhile, in engineering, technology allows calculations that could not be done before in order to design structures and solutions. In math, technology serves to speed up processing of calculations to allow for greater complexity and to provide application and visualization of mathematical models. The nature of technology is important as we develop our way of knowing in our ever increasingly technological society and use its affordances to solve problems and create solutions in science, engineering and math. Thinking about technology is difficult since people often view it through different perspectives. Like the nature of science, technology views are shaped by individuals’ experiences and cultures, thus affecting their view. They may be focused on the practical uses of technology versus focusing theoretically on technology’s role in our lives. To discuss the nature of technology, we must first examine how technology is defined and then discuss how it is applied in educational settings. Through this examination we can develop a deeper meaning of technology as it relates to learning and integration across the STEM fields. Technology is an integral part of the STEM acronym because it pro- vides the tools and processes by which the other areas advance and do their work. T. A. Cullen (*) Jeannine Rainbolt College of Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, Arkansas, USA e-mail: [email protected] M. Guo Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 21 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_2 22 T. A. Cullen and M. Guo Processes that are developed in one STEM field are often influenced by and shared via technology. For example, models used in biology to for population evolution rely on computational modeling developed within the math field and influence mod- els used in engineering to design solutions and environments. A key to meaningfully integrating technology across STEM is to look for places where technology and other STEM fields share a way of knowing. By doing that, we can integrate not only the technology tools in our teaching and learning of STEM topics but also engage in explicit reflection on the role of technology in our lives and communities. Moreover, the interdependence between technology and science, engineering, mathematics shall emerge in this process as well. 2.2 Definitions of Technology Technology is often understood to mean different things to different people. Not surprisingly, multiple, nuanced definitions of technology exist that reflect its histori- cal development. For some technology is the processes used to solve problems and for others it is the tools like computers and calculators that allow for complex cal- culations and modeling in other STEM fields. Scholars and technology researchers have struggled to define technology for a long time but lack consensus. Major ideas center around process, social impact, and how computers interact with humans. Zvorikine (1961) summarized that technology was defined to indicate art and craftsmanship, but also meant procedure, methods, formulas, and with the develop- ment of machinery production, it primarily referred to the labor. Beyond the con- cepts of technology as artifacts and technology as procedure, Pacey (1983) emphasized the social impacts of technology. Technology develops and interacts with multiple dimensions of society at the individual, social, political, cultural and economic levels. Similarly, Waight and Abd-El-Khalick (2012) state the nature of technology should include an individual’s culture and values as well. This has important implications as technology has evolved. For example, Mitcham (1994) claimed the intention of user can help identify and shape technology from the human computer interaction (HCI) perspective. In HCI, technology is ubiquitous and often wearable, which creates an interesting lens with which to view the social impacts of technology in the modern world. Given new technologies such as the Internet of Things (IOT) where smart technology helps to predict our needs and report our use back to companies. Examining the social impact of technology is growing to be a more important philosophical and practical question (Berman & Cerf, 2017). Technologies like IOT depend on mathematics to model interactions and engineering to apply these technologies to new designs to improve peo- ples’ lives. Technology scholars acknowledge the challenge in defining the term based on these different lenses through which technology is viewed. Tiles and Oberdiek (2013) identified three difficulties when defining “technology.” The first difficulty is that any proposed definition of technology cannot exclude other definitions. Because 2 The Nature of Technology 23 of different backgrounds and perceptions, it is very challenging to come up with a universal definition of technology. A second difficulty is distinguishing prescientific technology from modern scientific technology. For example, a chalkboard could be considered as a teaching technology in the eighteenth century, but now, other tools such as tablets, learning management systems, and interactive whiteboards have evolved by leveraging technology tools to change the pedagogy of how we teach. The third difficulty is to distinguish technology as equipment or as an applied sci- ence. For example, should we identify the computer as technology, or should we identify the computational results produced by a computer as technology. To avoid these concerns, technology scholars argue that people should contextualize technol- ogy to human life, related to living in a technological age first, and only then exam- ine technological meaning and understanding without context. Another approach to defining technology approaches it from a philosophical lens. Tiles and Oberdiek (2013) described technological development as the prob- lem solver and alleviator, but also something that can create more problems as its use becomes part of society. For example, think about smartphones. While this tech- nology has made solving problems, navigating unknown areas, and other informa- tion tasks easier, it has created problems with people losing human to human interaction skills. Through different conceptions of technology development and of the relationship between humans and technology, two conflicting views emerged: technological optimism and technological pessimism (Tiles & Oberdiek, 2013). The optimism view of technology states that technology is applied science and can be used to solve problems. In this view, technology and its production have neutral value, general knowledge could be applied in a similar situation. Under optimism, when technology was introduced into social contexts, irresponsible use was due to human choice not the tool itself. Pessimism focuses on the technological system and technical practice more than technology device. Technology practice might domi- nate and control everything in human life, such as the science, art, culture, economy, and even the ways of doing and making, which shapes humans’ social, moral and political life. In the pessimistic view, the human life is influenced by the technology and associated practices. Heidegger (1977) cautioned that technology is something to be thought about and managed by humans and not the other way around (Dreyfus & Spinosa, 2003). This challenge connects to the ethical dilemmas faced by other STEM fields. Engineering often struggles with how innovations may affect lives and how humans will interact. Biologists often struggle with the ethics of medical treatments weighing the benefits versus the risks. The same challenges exist for technology. Developing a clear definition of technology is complicated by the rapid speed at which technology develops. In the 1960’s and 1970’s Howard Moore predicted that processing power would double every two years as advances in semiconductor man- ufacturing increased (Theis & Wong, 2017). As Moore’s law accurately predicted technology made exponential leaps as chips could become smaller and more com- plex. Technology was able to do more things, which created the need to examine if we should do all the things that technology made possible. As technology leaped so did the need to better understanding of what technology is and how it affects our 24 T. A. Cullen and M. Guo lives. It became more difficult to define what technology is because as it became more complex and more integrated. Our definitions, often based on practical appli- cations, had to radically change. Definitions based on more philosophical examina- tions of technology retain relevancy as technology evolves, but both require reflection and examination to keep up with the pace of innovation in technology and its application in science, engineering and math. 2.3 Research About Nature of Technology in Education Many research studies have been conducted to identify the different perceptions about the nature of technology with students and teachers at various levels of educa- tion. When searching the literature, the most common conception of technology views technology as an instrument or device. Viewing technology systemically or connected to human practice were barely mentioned (DiGironimo, 2011; Fernandes, Rodrigues, & Ferreira, 2017; Sundqvist & Nilsson, 2018; Waight & Abd-El- Khalick, 2012). The results of these studies show that students and teachers lack nature of technology knowledge. For example, Fernandes et al. (2017) generalize four categories to identify the concepts of the nature of technology, (1) instrumental concepts, which is characterized as tools, artifacts, and machines; (2) cognitive con- cepts, which is characterized as applying the theoretical knowledge; (3) systemic concepts, which is characterized as the components of a complex system; and (4) value-based concepts, which is characterized as personal value and judgement of science. From a survey and semi-structured interviews of 20 international youth participants, 13 out of 20 students represented the instrumental concepts of technol- ogy, nine of the 13 participants focused on the electronic equipment, such as com- puter, tablet, video games and phones. Five out of 20 students held the cognitive concept of technology, they thought technology is the application of theoretical knowledge. Two participants held the systemic concept of technology, which included the ethical and environmental implication in social context; and three respondents matched with the value-based concept of technology, which was based on participants’ personal view. This study illustrated the challenge that the STEM fields face in making use of technology, the different and incomplete views of the nature of technology can hamper collaboration and innovation because all of the team are viewing technology differently. Sundqvist and Nilsson (2018) surveyed 102 pre-school staff members from Sweden to identify their view about technology education in preschool. The partici- pants confirmed that they emphasized seven categories of technology during their work: “(1) artifacts and systems in children’s environment, (2) create, (3) problem solving, (4) concept of technology, (5) the technological experiments, (6) the tech- nique skills, and (7) the natural science” (p.29). The staff members barely taught technology, instead, they provided the materials and created the environment for children and inspired children to experience their world which included technology as part of it. Also, as we can see from this study, much like in other STEM areas, 2 The Nature of Technology 25 technology views are greatly influence by the sociocultural nature of science. The Swedish views are influenced by their life experiences and cultural approaches to problems. Concepts of the nature of technology from middle/high school students and teachers were studied by researchers as well. For instance, DiGironimo (2011) developed a framework of the nature of technology, which explained the five dimen- sions of technology, technology as artifacts, as creation process, and as human prac- tice, history of technology and current role of technology in society. Then the author surveyed 20 middle school students the question: What is technology? and analyzed students’ responses according to the framework. The results showed that 50% of students considered technology as artifacts, and only 26.5% students mentioned the current role of technology in society. A mere 2.9% of students thought technology was a human practice, 8.8% students described the history of technology, and 11.8% stated technology as creation process. Waight (2014) addressed 30 science teachers’ concepts of the nature of technology through interviews, three major themes emerged as “(1) improves and make life easier, (2) artifacts which function to accomplish tasks, and (3) representations of advances in civilization” (p.1155). According to the study, the science teachers understandably held an optimistic view of technology. But the results indicate another problem, when science teachers exhibited an incomplete view of the nature of technology or a background bias, would they be able to effectively promote the development of the nature of technol- ogy in their students? Could they discuss the human, historical and ethical consid- erations that technology influenced on other science, engineering, and math pursuits? Who bears the responsibility to teach the nature of technology? And where should it exist in the curriculum? In some cases, technology has been included as part of STEM education, but in others, it fits into library studies or business educa- tion. To better understand how technology is treated in the curriculum, it is impor- tant to understand the standards that many educators use to make sure that they are teaching about technology. 2.4 Standards Movement in Technology Education Unlike science education where the Nature of Science is included in major stan- dards documents like the Next Generation Science standards, the nature of the tech- nology is not included in major standards movements within educational technology but instead takes a process view about how technology is integrated or applied. Math standards tend to be led by NCTM (National Council for the Teachers of Mathematics). Engineering standards are ITEEA (International Technology and Engineering Educators Association) and IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) - which represents the values of the professional organizations for which they prepare students to enter. Other content areas such as TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) have their own technology standards as well (2008). In many schools, technology is not an independent subject and is 26 T. A. Cullen and M. Guo expected to be taught and utilized across the curriculum. In other districts, technol- ogy is considered a special topic or something relegated to exploration classes or centers on an infrequent basis. The fact that technology is not a core subject limits both deep learning and the discussion of its implication on society and its integra- tion with other STEM fields. Technology standards generally begin with a general conception that using tech- nology is in itself good and desirable for teaching and learning and to promote “digital age learning” (ISTE, 2018a, 2018b). Technology integration standards are drafted by International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). Their stan- dards are broken into audiences. For example, ISTE has specific standards for stu- dents in K12 classrooms, educators, and leaders. Technology professionals (coaches, coordinators, etc..) have their own standards as well. Each of these standards mirror each other and focus on how technology is used to promote learning. This organiza- tion is directed toward educators who teach with technology and not necessarily technology related careers, so their focus is integration. This focus on integration philosophically focuses on technology as a tool but can lack the other dimensions of the nature of technology. The ISTE standards focus on the “soft skills” at all levels for students, faculty and administrators. They stress that learners, educators and leaders, use collabora- tion, data, and communication to use technology for meaningful learning. These consistent references to these twenty-first century skills help to define the nature of technology in the same way that the nature of science is defined by empirical social and cultural relationships, and collaboration (Lederman, 2007). The ISTE standards were first written in 1998, which at that time included a specific section on the “Social, ethical, and human issues” of technology, but these have been removed since the 2007 revision where it has been included as an aspect of digital citizenship (Thomas & Knezek, 2008). Digital Citizenship focuses on how students interact with each other online and often includes a discussion of rules and policies for edu- cators (Hollandsworth, Dowdy, & Donovan, 2011). These concerns mirror the ethi- cal nature of science, however again they focus on the use of technology in education and since the 2007 revision do not specifically address the ethical nature of technol- ogy. In later revisions the standards are more general and focus less on content knowledge about technology and more about processes to make effective use of technology to improve learning (ISTE, 2018a, 2018b). Each of the ISTE standards for students, educators, and leaders include digital citizenship. The ISTE standards also lack direct application to other STEM fields. While they mention creativity and collaboration throughout, the connection to science, engineering and math is left for students and teachers to draw themselves. Research in educational technology tends to follow to the same trends as the standards. The studies are segmented and look at particular soft skills but never really get into deep definitions about the nature of technology. Within educational technology one of the prevalent models for assessing the quality of technology inte- gration and preparation is the TPACK model (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). This model has its roots in the PCK model (Shulman, 1987) which started as a largely science education model that talked about the nature of teaching knowledge. Shulman 2 The Nature of Technology 27 argued that in order to teach science there is a combination of knowing the scientific content and how to teach specific scientific content. Where the two intertwined was PCK - or specific knowledge about how to teach specific content. Koehler and Mishra (2009) built upon this model to add technology as an equal concern to both content and pedagogy - and created Technological Pedagogy and Content Knowledge (TPACK). Neither of these models examine what is nature of the content knowledge or the nature of technology - instead they look at how technology is taught. One of the criticisms of the TPACK model is the lack of a clear definition of what technol- ogy is, and how technology differs from pedagogy. Other criticism includes TPACK’s emphasis on technology integration as its own domain away from peda- gogy and instead of an examination of the nature of technology, TPACK emphasizes discrete technology knowledge or skills (Parr, Bellis, & Bulfin, 2013). However, given the foundation of TPACK is PCK which has been widely been explored in other STEM fields for decades, it provides an opportunity for exploring the implica- tions of technology use in the teaching of STEM topics as well. Through these shared philosophies, STEM educators can be engaged to look at how technology affects their development of both content knowledge and pedagogy. Computer science is a growing area of emphasis in the United States and around the world (Code.org, 2018). ISTE has specific standards for computer science edu- cators, and in 2018 released specific standards about content for supporting compu- tational thinking (ISTE, 2018a, 2018b). Computer science standards for K-12 education are relatively new. The Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) which is a Division of the Association f

Critical Questions in STEM Education PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue