In recent years, there has been an increasing emphasis on STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education in international curriculum and policy documents (e.g., NSTA, 2020; Office of the Chief Scientist, 2014). A key argument in the proposals for STEM education is that science, technology, engineering, and mathematics workers play a pivotal role in economic growth and STEM education produces critical thinkers, scientifically literate professionals and citizens, and enables the next generation of innovators. The infusion of “engineering practices” in the Next Generation Science Standards in the USA signals a major shift in curriculum policy for integrating related domains to science teaching and learning. Furthermore, there has been plethora of journals, research centers, and community organizations that have made STEM a central educational goal, and many funding agencies are supporting research and development efforts to advance STEM education. But what exactly does “STEM” mean? Is there a particular “nature” to STEM or are there disciplinary variations across the “natures” of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics? What are the epistemic underpinnings of STEM and what do they imply for STEM education? A question in a similar vein had been raised by Erin Peters-Burton in an editorial of School Science and Mathematics a few years ago (Peters-Burton, 2014) but has since received little attention despite the wealth of interest in research on STEM education. The primary purpose of this special issue is, then, to address some questions about the nature of STEM and STEM education. The questions raised by the papers in the special issue relate to theoretical characterization of STEM as well as a range of educational considerations including the implications for curriculum reform as well as for students’ and teachers’ learning. A fundamental issue is whether or not “STEM” is a warranted notion in the first place. Despite the plethora of work on STEMeducation, what STEMpromises to be and how it manifests itself in education can be questioned. Hence, the special issue is set against a backdrop of some critiques of STEM education, followed by a set of studies that illustrate its merits. Reynante, Selback-Allen, and Pimentel question how many STEM education efforts have not explicitly accounted for the distinct epistemologies of the disciplines. The authors critically examine the concept of integrated Science & Education https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00150-6

中文翻译：

---

“STEM”的本质？

近年来，国际课程和政策文件中越来越重视STEM（科学、技术、工程和数学）教育（例如，NSTA，2020；首席科学家办公室，2014）。STEM 教育提案中的一个关键论点是，科学、技术、工程和数学工作者在经济增长中发挥着关键作用，STEM 教育培养批判性思想家、具有科学素养的专业人士和公民，并培养下一代创新者。美国下一代科学标准中“工程实践”的注入标志着课程政策的重大转变，即将相关领域整合到科学教学中。此外，大量期刊、研究中心和社区组织已将 STEM 作为中心教育目标，许多资助机构正在支持研究和开发工作，以推进 STEM 教育。但“STEM”到底是什么意思呢？STEM 是否有特定的“本质”，或者科学、技术、工程和数学的“本质”之间是否存在学科差异？STEM 的认知基础是什么？它们对 STEM 教育意味着什么？几年前，Erin Peters-Burton 在《学校科学与数学》的一篇社论中提出了类似的问题（Peters-Burton，2014），但尽管人们对 STEM 教育的研究很感兴趣，但此后却很少受到关注。因此，本期特刊的主要目的是解决有关 STEM 和 STEM 教育的性质的一些问题。该特刊中的论文提出的问题涉及 STEM 的理论特征以及一系列教育考虑因素，包括对课程改革以及学生和教师学习的影响。一个根本问题是“STEM”是否是一个有保证的概念。尽管 STEM 教育方面的工作非常多，但 STEM 的承诺以及它在教育中的表现方式仍值得质疑。因此，本期特刊是在对 STEM 教育的一些批评的背景下制定的，随后进行了一系列研究来说明其优点。Reynante、Selback-Allen 和 Pimentel 质疑有多少 STEM 教育工作没有明确解释各学科的独特认识论。作者批判性地审视了综合科学与教育的概念 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00150-6