Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Exploring the Promises and Perils of Integrated STEM Through Disciplinary Practices and Epistemologies

  • SI: Nature of STEM
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Growing interest in integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (iSTEM) education has been promoted as one way to increase innovation capacity, support future employment, and enhance learning outcomes in K-12 education throughout the USA. Existing efforts to construct iSTEM curricula have largely focused on finding points of integration among commonly shared disciplinary practices, but these efforts have not explicitly accounted for the distinct epistemologies of the disciplines. In this study, we critically examined the concept of iSTEM by conducting a thematic analysis of K-12 STEM learning standards documents to identify cross-cutting themes among the practices of the various disciplines. We then analyzed these themes using disciplinary epistemologies in order to highlight some promises and perils of an integrated approach to STEM education. We identified eight cross-cutting themes: communicating, investigating, modeling, using tools, working with data, making sense of problems or phenomena, solving problems, and evaluating ideas or solutions. Through our analysis of practices and epistemologies, we discuss the promises of iSTEM, including fewer learning standards, enhanced epistemic fluency, increased diversity and inclusion in STEM, and opportunities to challenge settled and siloed disciplinary knowledge. We also discuss potential perils, which consist of conflation and/or exclusion of various STEM practices and epistemologies. We urge continued examination of iSTEM with an eye toward the epistemic implications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Not applicable.

References

  • American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), Corporate Member Council. (2008). K-12 engineering guidelines for all Americans. Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antink-Meyer, A., & Brown, R. A. (2019). Nature of engineering knowledge: an articulation for science learners with nature of science understandings. Science & Education, 28, 539–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bang, M., & Medin, D. (2010). Cultural processes in science education: supporting the navigation of multiple epistemologies. Science Education, 94(6), 1008–1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berlin, D. F. (1989). The integration of science and mathematics education: exploring the literature. School Science and Mathematics, 89(1), 73–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, B. (1971). On the classification and framing of educational knowledge. In M. F. D. Young (Ed.), Knowledge and control: new directions for the sociology of education (pp. 47–68). London: Collier-Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird, A. (1998). Philosophy of science (Vol. 5). McGill-Queen’s Press - MQUP.

  • Boaler, J. (1998). Open and closed mathematics: student experiences and understandings. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 41–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boaler, J. (2002). Experiencing school mathematics: traditional and reform approaches to teaching and their impact on student learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Boon, M., & Knuuttila, T. (2009). Models as epistemic tools in engineering sciences. In A. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (pp. 693–726). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boix Mansilla, V., Miller, W., & Gardner, H. (2000). On disciplinary lenses and interdisciplinary work. In S. Wineburg & P. Grossman (Eds.), Interdisciplinary curriculum: challenges to implementation (pp. 17–38). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Vye, N., Kinzer, C., & Risko, V. (1990). Teaching thinking and content knowledge: toward an integrated approach. Dimensions of Thinking and Cognitive Instruction, 1, 381–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buldt, B., Löwe, B., & Müller, T. (2008). Towards a new epistemology of mathematics. Erkenntnis, 68(3), 309–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, L. (1995). Moving towards a feminist epistemology of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 28(3), 275–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buttram, J. L., & Waters, J. T. (1997). Improving America’s schools through standards-based education. NASSP Bulletin, 81(590), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, C., & Nason, R. (2017). Systems thinking approach to robotics curriculum in schools. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Robotics in STEM education. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapline, G. (1999). Is theoretical physics the same thing as mathematics? Physics Reports, 315(1–4), 95–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheuk, T. (2012). Comparison of the three content standards: CCSS-ELA, CCSS-Mathematics, and NGSS. Retrieved from http://ell.stanford.edu/content/science

  • Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., Nicholls, J., Wheatley, G., Trigatti, B., & Perlwitz, M. (1991). Assessment of a problem-centered second-grade mathematics project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 3–29.

  • Coffey, J., & Alberts, B. (2013). Improving education standards. Science, 339(6119), 489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, C. M., & Carlsen, W. S. (2014). Teaching engineering practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 197–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, C. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2017). Epistemic practices of engineering for education. Science Education, 101(3), 486–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, N. T., McCarty, B. J., Shaw, K. L., & Sidani-Tabbaa, A. (1993). Transitions from objectivism to constructivism in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 15(6), 627–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dias de Figueiredo, A. (2008). Toward an epistemology of engineering. Workshop on philosophy and engineering, London, UK, November 10–12, 2008. The Royal Academy of Engineering.

  • Downey, G. (2005). Are engineers losing control of technology?: from ‘problem solving’ to ‘problem definition and solution’ in engineering education. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 83(6), 583–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, K. (1993). Concept discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science, 17, 397–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • English, L. (2016). STEM education K-12: perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(3), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanelli, D. (2010). “Positive” results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS One, 5(4), e10068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez, H. B. (2012). An analysis of STEM education funding at the NSF: trends and policy discussion. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, E. M., & Tall, D. O. (1994). Duality, ambiguity, and flexibility: a “proceptual” view of simple arithmetic. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(2), 116–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimson, W. (2007). A systematic approach towards developing a philosophy of engineering. Workshop on philosophy & engineering, Delft, October, 2007. Delft University of Technology.

  • Guest, G., & MacQueen, K. M. (2007). Handbook for team-based qualitative research. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herkert, J. R. (2000). Engineering ethics education in the USA: content, pedagogy and curriculum. European Journal of Engineering Education, 25(4).

  • Herkert, J. R. (2005). Ways of thinking about and teaching ethical problem solving: microethics and macroethics in engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11, 373–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmlund, T. D., Lesseig, K., & Slavit, D. (2018). Making sense of “STEM education” in K-12 contexts. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(32), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horsten, L. (2019). Spring. Philosophy of mathematics. In E. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/philosophy-mathematics/. Accessed 24 Oct 2019.

  • Institute of Medicine. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

  • Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

  • Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(11), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., McDonald, S., & Wickman, P.-O. (2011). Science learning and epistemology. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Springer international handbooks of education, Vol. 24: Second international handbook of science education (pp. 281–291). Springer.

  • Kind, P., & Osborne, J. (2017). Styles of scientific reasoning: A cultural rationale for science education? Science Education, 101(1), 8–31.

  • Koirala, H. P., & Bowman, J. K. (2010). Preparing middle level preservice teachers to integrate mathematics and science: problems and possibilities. School Science and Mathematics, 103(3), 145–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdes, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to Next Generation Science Standards and with implications for Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 223–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markie, P. (2017). Fall. Rationalism vs. empiricism. In E. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/rationalism-empiricism/. Accessed 30 Oct 2019.

  • McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, D. S., & Cobb, G. W. (2000). Statistics and mathematics: tension and cooperation. The American Mathematical Monthly, 107(7), 615–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, D., & Collins, A. (1995). Epistemic fluency and constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology, 35(5), 39–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Engineering (NAE), & National Research Council (NRC). (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards math. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Day, J. A., & Smith, M. S. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In S. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent policy: improving the system. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2000). Science for citizenship. In J. Osborne & J. Dillon (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching: what research has to say (pp. 46–67). Open University Press.

  • Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. A. (2003). What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Passioura, J. B. (1996). Simulation models: Science, snake oil, education, or engineering? Agronomy Journal, 88(5), 690–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Services Research, 34(5 Part 2), 1189–1208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, G. (2017). National academies piece on integrated STEM. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(3), 224–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: each in the service of the other. Science, 328(5977), 459–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirtle, Z. (2010). How the models of engineering tell the truth. In I. van de Poel & D. E. Goldberg (Eds.), Philosophy of engineering and technology: Vol. 2. Philosophy and engineering: an emerging agenda. Springer.

  • Pitt, J. (2001). What engineers know. Techne, 5(3), 17–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, F. (2012). A revolution in mathematics? What really happened a century ago and why it matters today. Notices of the AMS, 59(1), 31–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, D. B. (2000). Standards are not enough: essential transformations for school success. NASSP Bulletin, 84(620), 5–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reyna, V. F., Nelson, W. L., Han, P. K., & Dieckmann, N. F. (2009). How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 943–973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riley, D. M., & Pawley, A. L. (2011). Complicating difference: exploring and exploding three myths of gender and race in engineering education. Proceedings of the 118th American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exhibition.

  • Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roll-Hansen, N. (2009). Why the distinction between basic (theoretical) and applied (practical) research is important in the politics of science (report no. 04/09). London: The London School of Economics and Political Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saldana, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R. A., Schulze, S., & John, J. (1995). Students’ understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 131–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmoker, M., & Marzano, R. J. (1999). Realizing the promise of standards-based education. Educational Leadership, 56(6).

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (2004). The math wars. Educational Policy, 18(1), 253–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. London: Temple-Smith.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skagerlund, K., Lind, T., Strömbäck, C., Tinghög, G., & Västfjäll, D. (2018). Financial literacy and the role of numeracy–how individuals’ attitude and affinity with numbers influence financial literacy. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 74(C), 18–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J., & Lucena, J. (2016). Invisible innovators: how low-income, first-generation students use their funds of knowledge to belong in engineering. Engineering Studies, 8(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stage, E. K., Asturias, H., Cheuk, T., Daro, P. A., & Hampton, S. B. (2013). Opportunities and challenges in next generation standards. Science, 340(6130), 276–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 2(1), 4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strogatz, S. (2019). Infinite powers: how calculus reveals the secrets of the universe. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurow, A. P., Abdalla, C. W., Younglove-Webb, J., & Gray, B. (1999). The dynamics of multidisciplinary research teams in academia. The Review of Higher Education, 22(4), 425–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Getting ready for college early: a handbook for parents of students in the middle and junior high school years. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80(1), 121–140.

  • Warren, B., Vossoughi, S., Rosebery, A., Bang, M., & Taylor, E. (2020). Multiple ways of knowing: Re-imagining disciplinary learning. In N. Nasir, C. Lee, & R. Pea (Eds.), Handbook of the cultural foundations of learning. Routledge.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Janet Carlson, Jonathan Osborne, Kathryn Ribay, David Song, Caitlin Brust, Rose Pozos, and Judy Nguyen for their insightful discussions and feedback.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brandon M. Reynante.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 2 K-12 STEM practice standards used as data sources
Table 3 Descriptions of the cross-cutting themes

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reynante, B.M., Selbach-Allen, M.E. & Pimentel, D.R. Exploring the Promises and Perils of Integrated STEM Through Disciplinary Practices and Epistemologies. Sci & Educ 29, 785–803 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00121-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00121-x

Navigation