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.
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.
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.
Bang, M., & Medin, D. (2010). Cultural processes in science education: supporting the navigation of multiple epistemologies. Science Education, 94(6), 1008–1026.
Berlin, D. F. (1989). The integration of science and mathematics education: exploring the literature. School Science and Mathematics, 89(1), 73–80.
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.
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.
Boaler, J. (2002). Experiencing school mathematics: traditional and reform approaches to teaching and their impact on student learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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.
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.
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.
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.
Buldt, B., Löwe, B., & Müller, T. (2008). Towards a new epistemology of mathematics. Erkenntnis, 68(3), 309–329.
Burton, L. (1995). Moving towards a feminist epistemology of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 28(3), 275–291.
Buttram, J. L., & Waters, J. T. (1997). Improving America’s schools through standards-based education. NASSP Bulletin, 81(590), 1–6.
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.
Chapline, G. (1999). Is theoretical physics the same thing as mathematics? Physics Reports, 315(1–4), 95–105.
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.
Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49–55.
Cunningham, C. M., & Carlsen, W. S. (2014). Teaching engineering practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 197–210.
Cunningham, C. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2017). Epistemic practices of engineering for education. Science Education, 101(3), 486–505.
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.
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.
Dunbar, K. (1993). Concept discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science, 17, 397–434.
English, L. (2016). STEM education K-12: perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(3), 1–8.
Fanelli, D. (2010). “Positive” results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS One, 5(4), e10068.
Gonzalez, H. B. (2012). An analysis of STEM education funding at the NSF: trends and policy discussion. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moore, D. S., & Cobb, G. W. (2000). Statistics and mathematics: tension and cooperation. The American Mathematical Monthly, 107(7), 615–630.
Morrison, D., & Collins, A. (1995). Epistemic fluency and constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology, 35(5), 39–45.
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.
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.
National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
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.
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.
Passioura, J. B. (1996). Simulation models: Science, snake oil, education, or engineering? Agronomy Journal, 88(5), 690–694.
Patton, M. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Services Research, 34(5 Part 2), 1189–1208.
Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pearson, G. (2017). National academies piece on integrated STEM. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(3), 224–226.
Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: each in the service of the other. Science, 328(5977), 459–463.
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.
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.
Reeves, D. B. (2000). Standards are not enough: essential transformations for school success. NASSP Bulletin, 84(620), 5–19.
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.
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.
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.
Saldana, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656.
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.
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.
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. London: Temple-Smith.
Simon, H. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Strogatz, S. (2019). Infinite powers: how calculus reveals the secrets of the universe. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
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.
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.
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.
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
Corresponding author
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
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00121-x