Handbook of Research on STEM Education

Carla C. Johnson, Margaret J. Mohr-Schroeder, Tamara J. Moore, Lyn D. English

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9780429664649
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

The Handbook of Research on STEM Education represents a groundbreaking and comprehensive synthesis of research and presentation of policy within the realm of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. What distinguishes this Handbook from others is the nature of integration of the disciplines that is the founding premise for the work – all chapters in this book speak directly to the integration of STEM, rather than discussion of research within the individual content areas.

The Handbook of Research on STEM Education explores the most pressing areas of STEM within an international context. Divided into six sections, the authors cover topics including: the nature of STEM, STEM learning, STEM pedagogy, curriculum and assessment, critical issues in STEM, STEM teacher education, and STEM policy and reform. The Handbook utilizes the lens of equity and access by focusing on STEM literacy, early childhood STEM, learners with disabilities, informal STEM, socio-scientific issues, race-related factors, gender equity, cultural-relevancy, and parental involvement. Additionally, discussion of STEM education policy in a variety of countries is included, as well as a focus on engaging business/industry and teachers in advocacy for STEM education.

The Handbook's 37 chapters provide a deep and meaningful landscape of the implementation of STEM over the past two decades. As such, the findings that are presented within provide the reader with clear directions for future research into effective practice and supports for integrated STEM, which are grounded in the literature to date.

SECTION 1
The Nature of STEM

1
STEM Integration

A Synthesis of Conceptual Frameworks and Definitions

Tamara J. Moore, Amanda C. Johnston and Aran W. Glancy

Introduction

The calls to increase STEM (i.e., Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education efforts around the world have led to new and different models of STEM instruction. Integrating the STEM subjects is gaining a foothold as one of the ways in which to help students make meaning out of and gain interest in the STEM subjects and careers that are heavily STEM related. There are many different ways in which researchers and educators look at STEM integration and what it entails. STEM integration has been defined at a variety of grade levels, including at the preschool level (Aldemir & Kermani, 2017), primary school level (e.g., Baker & Galanti, 2017), middle school level (e.g., Burrows, Lockwood, Borowczak, Janak, & Barber, 2018; Kloser, Wilsey, Twohy, Immonen, & Navotas, 2018), high school level (e.g., Bell & Bell, 2018; Berland, 2013; Berland, Steingut, & Ko, 2014), and in teacher education programs (e.g., Brown & Bogiages, 2019; Burrows & Slater, 2015; Lupinacci & Happel-Parkins, 2017; Thibaut, Knipprath, Dehaene, & Depaepe, 2018a). STEM integration has been researched internationally and calls for more integrated STEM learning are prevalent, including in the United States ( Johnson, 2013; National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council, 2014), Canada (e.g., Sengupta & Shanahan, 2017), the United Kingdom (Council for Science and Technology, 2013), Australia (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2015), Taiwan (e.g., Lou, Shih, Diez, & Tseng, 2011), Indonesia (e.g., Blackley, Rahmawati, Fitriani, Sheffield, & Koul, 2018), Turkey (e.g., Ong et al., 2016), Japan (e.g., Saito, Gunji, & Kumano, 2015), Egypt (e.g., El-Deghaidy, 2017), Saudi Arabia (e.g., El-Deghaidy, Mansour, Alzaghibi, & Alhammad, 2017), and Thailand (e.g., Thananuwong, 2015), to name a few. Within this literature base, the language used to describe STEM integration differs among authors and between contexts. For example, different researchers use different terms for STEM integration. The most common terms are STEM integration and integrated STEM, but other terms that are also used are integrative STEM and interdisciplinary STEM.

The manner in which subjects of STEM are included or not, how concepts from other non-STEM disciplines are added, the length of the integrated STEM learning episode, and the purpose of the learning within a STEM integration setting all make a difference in how STEM integration is defined and used. This chapter looks at the different conceptual underpinnings of how STEM integration is defined, bringing together commonalities and differences among these frameworks and definitions. To do this, we aimed to answer the research question: How is STEM integration defined, conceptualized, or operationalized within the current literature?

Methods

In order to present the different conceptual underpinnings of STEM integration, we conducted an in-depth integrative literature review (Torraco, 2005) of conceptual frameworks and definitions for STEM integration. For our initial search, we limited our criteria to keywords, titles, and abstracts in peer-reviewed research articles and books that were printed in English. We used the search terms “STEM integration,” “integrated STEM,” and “integrative STEM.” We searched the databases Education Source, PsychINFO, PsychArticles, Education Full Text, Educational Administration Abstracts, and ERIC. For each database, we included all sources found. Additionally, we searched Google Scholar and included all sources that were relevant to STEM education until we reached an entire page without relevant sources. We also looked through the reference lists of our sources to include sources that were commonly cited but that did not appear in our searches described previously. After removing duplicates, we had a total of 170 sources. From each of these sources, we extracted the conceptual framework of STEM integration, if there was one, and compiled all the definitions. These definitions ranged in length from a few sentences to entire book chapters. Throughout this process, we eliminated sources that did not have a definition or conceptual framework for STEM integration. In a few cases, the definitions of STEM integration within one article used another article in such a way that we added the cited article to our sources. In the end, our total number of sources included in the final review was 109. From here, we extracted the key aspects and points of each framework by using open coding (Saldaña, 2016; Schreier, 2012). All three authors worked collaboratively to do this, focusing on reading and commenting on the definitions individually, with frequent interaction with the other authors to remain consistent. Then, we did a second round of open coding on the key aspects and points extracted through our first round of open coding. From these comments, we developed themes and coded each comment based on which theme or themes it fell into, again working collaboratively. This process yielded the themes that we describe in the remainder of this chapter. While not all sources will be cited in this chapter due to space limitations, all sources were used as primary data.

Results

Review of the different definitions and conceptual frameworks for STEM integration revealed several common themes among how scholars conceptualize STEM integration. Within these themes, however, we found variation in how authors incorporated them into their definitions and the degree to which they were emphasized. One of the most common themes was that STEM integration should be centered on real-world problems or context. We describe the ways that authors envision incorporating the real world into integrated STEM lessons, and we also describe the varied justifications for why this is appropriate and beneficial. Many authors also argued for STEM integration because the STEM disciplines themselves are connected by big ideas and common skills and practices. Another theme we identified within the conceptual frameworks for STEM integration is that there is a significant amount of variation in the degree to which authors believe the disciplines should be integrated. Although it is agreed that STEM integration requires at least two disciplines, some authors stop there while others require more or more specific subjects. Additionally, many scholars acknowledged this variation and described different ways of categorizing or differentiating types of STEM integration. We describe several of those schemas in this chapter. The final theme we identified was that authors frequently describe structures for supporting integration. Within this theme, we noticed differences in how scholars conceptualize the role of each discipline, and we describe the pedagogies that are commonly described in conjunction with STEM integration. These themes provide a broad overview of the similarities and differences among definitions of STEM integration within the literature.

STEM Problems and Lessons Should Be Based on the Real World

A theme that runs throughout many conceptualizations of STEM integration is that integrated STEM activities should be realistic or focused on real-world problems. Many authors recommend that STEM problems in the classroom be “authentic” in that the problems students engage with in the classroom parallel problems addressed by scientists, engineers, or applied mathematicians in the real world (Barth, Bahr, & Shumway, 2017; Burrows et al., 2018; Dare, Ellis, & Roehrig, 2018; El-Deghaidy et al., 2017; Felix & Harris, 2010; Kloser et al., 2018; Meyrick, 2011). Similarly, scholars also emphasize that STEM lessons and STEM problems should have rich contexts that reflect the complexity of real-world problems (Berland & Steingut, 2016; Bybee, 2013; Johnson, 2013; Moore, Stohlmann et al., 2014; Nadelson & Seifert, 2013). Others advocate that problems be realistic so that they provide a compelling purpose for engaging with the problem and the content (Guzey, Moore, & Harwell, 2016; Kloser et al., 2018). The real-world nature of STEM integration is also thought to help make explicit the connection between school and STEM careers (Radloff, 2015; Roehrig, Moore, Wang, & Park, 2012; Ryu, Mentzer, & Knobloch, 2018).

Some scholars also argue that not only should STEM problems be connected to the real world, but that STEM lessons and STEM problems should be explicitly connected to the community of the students. Specifically, centering the students’ community during STEM lessons can help to make the STEM concepts more socially and culturally relevant ( Johnson, 2011) and help students see both opportunities for themselves in STEM careers and the ways in which STEM disciplines can impact their lives (Meyrick, 2011; Moore & Smith, 2014; Ryu et al., 2018; Uğraş & Genç, 2018). Sias, Nadelson, Juth, and Seifert (2017) explicitly argue for involving the students’ families in STEM activities.

Embedding STEM content in real-world activities that are relevant to students’ lives has the additional benefit, many argue, of making the STEM lessons and activities more motivating and engaging for the students. Some focus on the context itself as being engaging (Breiner, Harkness, Johnson, & Koehler, 2012; Corlu & Aydin, 2016; Guzey et al., 2016; Johnson, Peters-Burton, & Moore, 2016; Stubbs & Myers, 2015). Wasserman and Rossi (2015) state that this engaging context has the potential to engage a broader, more diverse group of students. Others argue that integration of the subjects, rather than the context itself, makes the subjects and the problems they can address seem more interesting and applicable to students (Berland & Steingut, 2016; Corlu & Aydin, 2016; Lou et al., 2011; Uğraş & Genç, 2018).

STEM integration is often portrayed as a more modern approach to education in a more modern world. Real-world, integrated activities are thought by some to help develop STEM literacy and 21st-century skills, among which are listed characteristics such as creativity, curiosity, collaboration, and critical thinking (Bybee, 2013; Carter, Beachner, & Daugherty, 2015; Shahali, Halim, Rasul, Osman, & Zulkifeli, 2017; Sias et al., 2017; Uğraş & Genç, 2018; Wang & Knobloch, 2018). Others argue that STEM integration not only helps students learn about the existence and relevance of STEM careers, but also increases student interest in STEM careers (Karahan, Canbazoglu Bilici, & Unal, 2015; Ryu et al., 2018; Shahali et al., 2017; Swafford, 2018).

STEM Disciplines Are Connected by Ideas and Skills

One main reason for integrating the STEM disciplines is that they share many big ideas, conceptual structures, and practices that, when integrated, allow students to apply their knowledge in an array of ways and make connections that allow them to tranfer that knowledge across disciplines (Capraro, Capraro, & Morgan, 2013; Myers, 2015; Nathan et al., 2013; Ryan, Gale, & Usselman, 2017). For example, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics share “specialized vocabulary and representational systems … digital media … raw materials … and designed objects, tools, and measurement instruments” (Nathan, Wolfgram, Srisurichan, Walkington, & Alibali, 2017, p. 272). Chalmers, Carter, Cooper, and Nason (2017) divide these “Big Ideas” into three major themes: (1) “within-discipline big ideas that have application in other disciplines,” such as applying science concepts as the context for learning design; (2) “cross-discipline big ideas (e.g., variables, patterns, models, computational thinking, reasoning and argument, transformations, nature of proof )”; and (3) “encompassing big ideas.” This last point includes conceptual encompassing of big ideas, for which they gave representations, conservation, systems, coding, relationships, and change as examples, and content encompassing big ideas that can be grand challenges, such as “how human activity is perturbing the six nutrient cycles of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus” (p. 32). The big ideas of STEM play a role in many conceptual frameworks of STEM integration. STEM integration allows students to engage in the practices associated with the STEM disciplines in new ways and to use new skills that they would not get experience with if the disciplines were isolated (Brown & Bogiages, 2019; Bybee, 2013). STEM integration fosters students’ conceptual understanding and their understanding of applications of STEM to solve complex problems (Karahan et al., 2015; Lou et al., 2011). Even subjects that traditionally fall outside of the four disciplines of STEM share some of these big ideas and can be integrated effectively with STEM (e.g., Bell & Bell, 2018; Carter et al., 2015).

Some authors take this a step further, however, arguing that the STEM disciplines do not just share big ideas but are fundamentally interconnected. Son, Mackenzie, Eitel, and Luvaas (2017), for example, point out that in the real world, the STEM disciplines must work together to solve problems and by doing so they are able to achieve more than if they worked in isolation. Vasquez (2014) argues that the barriers between the disciplines in schools are artificial and that STEM integration has the potential to remove those barriers, and Wang and Knobloch (2018) advocate that integrating STEM disciplines helps students to see the connections between the disciplines. Ryu et al. (2018) refer to STEM integration as a “blending” of the disciplines, and for Slykhuis, Martin-Hansen, Thomas, and Barbato (2015), a lesson is not truly STEM integration unless it “combines all aspects of STEM: science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in a unique way that is dependent upon all of the fields” (p. 255). Similarly, Stohlm...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Contributors
• Preface
• Section 1 The Nature of STEM
• Section 2 STEM Learning
• Section 3 STEM Pedagogy, Curriculum and Assessment
• Section 4 Critical Issues in STEM
• Section 5 STEM Teacher Education
• Section 6 STEM Policy and Reform
• Index