Sabrina Provencher
Integrative STEM Education Program
Virginia Tech
Abstract
This commentary argues for integrative STEM education as an educational intervention. The current educational climate and reasons for increased interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education are first presented, followed by a rationale for an integrative approach to the STEM disciplines in K-12 education. Although little research on the topic of I-STEM exists at present, teacher preparation models as well as instructional methods found to be successful in other interdisciplinary educational approaches are presented. The author suggests that until more research on I-STEM approaches is completed, technology education classrooms may serve as ideal contexts for integrative approaches to STEM learning, given that they already tend to exhibit an integrated approach to the STEM disciplines.
Keywords: integrative STEM education, technological design, technology education
Introduction
If there has been one constant in American education, it has been the emphasis on reform. Today, one of the driving forces in educational reform focuses on improving education in the disciplines of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). One impetus for this emphasis on STEM education results from the global reconfiguration of world power and wealth (Wells, 2008). The United States simply is not producing enough quality workers in the STEM fields to meet the workforce demand necessary for the country to remain a major economic competitor (Clark & Astuto, 1986). Additionally, since 9-11, issues of national security have also become a driving force (Wells, 2008). The Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, a joint unit of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine, warns it simply is not possible for our nation to maintain job growth, security, and high living standards without a sound commitment to education in the technical fields (National Academy of Sciences, 2007). It is for this reason that education is continuously challenged about how best to implement changes that will increase the number of highly qualified individuals desired to fill STEM fields. Promoting collaborative efforts between and among the STEM fields is critical to meeting this challenge.
A Rationale for Integrative STEM Education
At the K–12 level, educational reform focusing on the areas of math, science, and technology rose to prominence in the 1980s (National Commission on Excellence in Education,1983). The American Association for the Advancement of Science’s 1989 publication of Science for All Americans, followed in 1993 by the Benchmarks for Science Literacy, advanced a new curriculum structure based on an integrative approach to these three subject areas. In this approach, science was no longer viewed as a stand-alone discipline but rather as a combination of science, math, and technology in which each discipline was inextricably linked and dependent upon the others in the pursuit of scientific advancement (AAAS, 1993).
Unfortunately, little progress has been made toward achieving STEM integration in the two decades since these landmark AAAS publications. Schools still tend to foster traditionally separate approaches to these programs. A major challenge in the creation of K–12 I-STEM education has been the revision of content standards in each discipline. Existing standards must be streamlined into the critical knowledge sets that are vital to the integrative teaching of these subjects. When viewing STEM as four distinct disciplines, there appears to be a monstrous amount of information and topics for teachers to cover, but by clearly defining knowledge sets in our curriculums and paring down national standards, teachers could better identify areas of crossover between and among the disciplines. Recent legislation purports to improve U.S. global competiveness through STEM education, and one important goal of such legislation has been the creation of clearly articulated content standards for K–12 STEM education (National Academy of Sciences, 2007). Both the math and science communities recognize the need to pare down their standards into clearly defined critical knowledge sets (NSB, 2007). The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics identified their critical topics as “focal points” of math learning (Dossey, Halvsoren, & McCrone, 2012). The science community has also begun to identify their crucial topics, or “anchors,” to be taught at each grade level (NSB, 2007) with the creation of its Next Generation Science Standards due for final release in 2013 (Achieve & National Research Council, 2012).
Teacher Preparation in an I-STEM Curriculum
Without a doubt, the success of an I-STEM approach to learning will rest on teacher preparedness. However, many questions remain about how to most effectively prepare teachers. Studies must be conducted to determine the degree of conceptual knowledge of the subject matter classroom teachers will need to do the job successfully. Understanding the core content knowledge demands of the individual disciplines is essential if courses are to be academically rigorous and create learners that are STEM literate.
Equally important is that teachers possess the pedagogical knowledge necessary for teaching the STEM disciplines. Lee Shulman, through his work at Stanford’s Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, advocates that new teachers develop this knowledge in the form of principles, maxims, and norms (Shulman, 1986). Developing teacher’s pedagogical knowledge unique to I-STEM approaches is critically important, for experts repeatedly find that teachers often do as they have been taught and that early learning episodes affect beliefs about how to teach (Nespor, 1987). Certain experiences or notable teachers from our school years often create unintended memories that later become critical to our own teaching practices. When we are uncertain about what to do in a teaching situation, we tend draw from these episodic memories to help us deal with the situation (Nespor, 1987). Unless teachers have a repertoire of rich, interdisciplinary learning experiences, they will likely need a great deal of training to change their teaching paradigms.
More studies are also necessary to better identify and understand the behaviors characteristic of exemplary I-STEM teachers. Early research shows that teacher knowledge from multiple disciplines creates classroom situations rich in content (Fennema, 1992). Effective I-STEM teachers synthesize knowledge from across the disciplines to solve real-world problems and to affirm the relevance of the content they teach. They know the importance and critical role of teacher collaborations to I-STEM teaching and are not preoccupied with a “silo” mindset. These teachers exhibit behaviors that lead to rich and dynamic learning experiences. A better understanding of the habits of effective I-STEM teachers will enable teacher-training programs to foster these behaviors (Shulman, 2005).
Through effective professional development, I-STEM teachers can improve, expand, and refine their teaching repertoire to include such behaviors. Using case study methods involving the use of precedents, parables, and prototypes in teacher development programs has proven to be an effective means for preparing teachers (Shulman, 1986). Case studies can provide a novice teacher with a large base of diverse experiences with which to reason, thus providing a much larger base of relevant teaching experiences than what a novice teacher would receive in a traditional teacher-training program. Traditionally used in the training of lawyers, Shulman (1986) advocates the implementation of case study methods in education because he believes research into these methods is now more sophisticated and logically developed than it has ever been, and his evidence supports the effectiveness of these techniques in teacher training. Other evidence identifies joint curriculum planning, modeling, and classroom coaching as effective ways to assist teachers to develop interdisciplinary approaches (Drake & Burns, 2004).
Instructional Approaches in an I-STEM Curriculum
An integrative approach to STEM learning requires intentionally designed learning experiences that challenge the traditional ways we engage students. Oftentimes, classroom knowledge tends to be fragmented and not easily transferred across subjects and disciplines (Fennema, 1992). I-STEM, however, encourages students to see the connections of their decisions and judgments across the disciplines (Huber, 2005). They are no longer limited to developing only “silo” perspectives on critical issues, a byproduct of single-subject investigations. In traditional silo educational contexts, a focus on individual subject areas dominates instruction. Little or no connection to other subjects outside of the scope of the target discipline is made. Authentic learning scenarios provide the context needed for us to make connections between disparate facts and theories. When we bring prior knowledge, including knowledge from other disciplines to a new situation, it can be adapted and integrated. An I-STEM approach builds upon the belief that learning should be greater than the sum of its parts. By guiding students in purposeful inquiry set in real-world contexts, information is no longer presented as fragmented, isolated facts. Real-world situations help students recognize the interrelationships of multiple disciplines in authentic ways, thereby creating deep understanding.
Teaching science through design is one way to engage students in tasks that help them learn and apply science in real-world contexts. Emergent problems require students to use all of their faculties and knowledge to solve problems as they arise. These circumstances require the integration of knowledge from various disciplines and provoke students to move beyond basic knowledge to learn actual intellectual skills (Sidawi, 2007). Technological design-based learning, in particular, incorporates the use of investigative situations within the context of contemporary, real-world scenarios. Problem posing through design gives students the opportunity to apply their knowledge if they possess the depth of learning necessary to transfer prior learning to the task. Only if deep conceptual learning has occurred can the student look at the more complicated and abstract dimensions of learned concepts and apply them to new scenarios. If students learn the conditions in which concepts can be applied, or not applied, then they are able to transfer knowledge when it is beneficial. Purposefully planned engineering and design-based learning scenarios can intentionally lead students to deal with the constraints, failures, and trade-offs inherent in real-world design problems. These issues require students to strategically select information from a broad base of knowledge and provide contexts that are conducive to the transfer of knowledge across the STEM disciplines.
Where Does I-STEM Exist Today?
Although technological design approaches look to be an ideal context for effective I-STEM instruction, currently only two of the four STEM disciplines’ incorporate technological design as part of their instructional practices: technology and engineering education. Moreover, of the four STEM disciplines, technology education classrooms look to be the most promising in terms of contexts for an integrated approach. Math and science education have shown to be the most reluctant to adopt pedagogical changes and still incorporate largely “purist” approaches, while technology and engineering education intrinsically require students to use their science and math knowledge. Unlike engineering education, however, technology education has the teachers, preparation programs, and an established preK-12 presence to lead the move toward I-STEM models of teaching and learning.
Conclusion
I-STEM teaching and learning has the potential to foster blended disciplinary perspectives, promote understanding and knowledge transfer, and encourage positive attitudes toward learning by demonstrating its relevancy to real-world contexts. The instructional implications of such an educational intervention would be immediate and far-reaching, but it will require more research, time, and money to be realized on a large scale and made available to all learners. In most cases, it may require a total restructuring of the traditional school system and the creation of common planning time for educators. The necessary teacher collaboration would lend itself to models based on team teaching and the co-design of instruction, and so these models are worthy of further study. An overhaul of the way we test and assess students may also be a consequence. Several already existing forms of assessment, such as portfolios, rubrics, service learning, and capstone projects have shown to be very effective means for assessing design and, therefore, may be optimal methods of assessing I-STEM learning experiences. Not surprisingly, the biggest and most drastic changes may need to occur in the way we prepare pre-service and in-service teachers to teach I-STEM curriculum.
Supportive legislation and funding, as well as national curriculum redesign, are encouraging signs that the I-STEM approach to teaching and learning has at the national level some of the support it needs to create lasting educational change, but this intervention is only now receiving some attention. More research is still needed on how best to prepare all teachers for I-STEM approaches. Because of the natural integration of the STEM disciplines and the real-world relevancy of design-based learning, technology education classrooms seem to be the ideal context in which to introduce emergent problems and curriculum crossover concepts to all students in grades K–12 today. If the U.S. is to overcome its current shortage of adequately trained professionals in the STEM fields, we must admit that our current educational approaches fall short at producing the technologically advanced citizenry we seek. I-STEM education provides a vision for coherent education. However, the success of such an intervention will rely upon not only the expertise levels, but also the collaborative abilities, all of STEM stakeholders. Through a concerted effort from all of the STEM fields, and the use of interdisciplinary approaches, all STEM disciplinary stakeholders can not only assume responsibility for advancing student learning but also positively contribute to the future economic well-being of the United States.
References
Achieve, & National Research Council. (2012). K–12 next generation science standards. Washington, DC: Author.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: Project 2061. Washington, DC: Author.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: Author.
Clark D. L., & Astuto, T. A. (1986). The significance and permanence of changes in federal education policy. Educational Researcher, 15(8), 4-13.
Dossey, J. A., Halvorsen, K., & McCrone, S. (2012). Mathematics education in the United States 2012: A capsule summary fact book written for the Twelfth International Congress on Mathematical Education (ICME-12) Seoul, Korea, July 2012. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Drake, S. M., & Burns, R. C. (2004). Meeting standards through integrated curriculum.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Fennema, E. (1992). Teachers’ knowledge and its impact. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching (p. 147-164). Reston, VA: NCTM.
Huber, M. T., & Hutchings, P. (2005). Integrative learning: Mapping the terrain. The Academy in Transition. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
National Academy of Sciences. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future: Executive summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Department of Education.
National Science Board. (2007). National action plan for addressing the critical needs of the U.S. science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education system (Report No. NSB-07-114). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317-328.
Shulman, L. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52-59.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Sidawi, M. (2009). Teaching science through designing technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3), 269-287.
Wells, J. (2008, Nov.). STEM education: The potential of technology education. Paper presented at the 95th Mississippi Valley Technology Teacher Education Conference, St. Louis, MI.
Author Note
Sabrina A. Provencher is a PhD candidate in the Integrative STEM Education Program, in the School of Education at Virginia Tech, Blacksburg. She can be contacted at Sabrina@vt.edu.