Abstract
The paper provides a theoretical synthesis that addresses the multiple calls to consider the existence of an integrated nature of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). The nature of STEM (NOSTEM) has been advocated for as a way to promote effective STEM instruction in K-16 education and has been challenged as being non-existent. We propose a theoretical conceptualization of the NOSTEM through a convergent model that integrates the shared characteristics of the nature of knowledge and nature of inquiry practices of each of the four STEM disciplines. We propose this model in light of the siloed individual disciplines by considering the dimensions of each and whether they are pure or applied or attend to questions and issues surrounding the physical and non-physical world(s). Using this synthesis and model, we argue that the NOSTEM is congruent with the nature of engineering (NOE). This finding has multiple implications for all stakeholders (i.e., teachers, researchers, policy makers) in STEM education. First, we caution stakeholders from using this model to create or change educational policies or standards but rather work to validate, extend, and challenge the model in light of STEM education reform. Second, with the congruency between our model of NOSTEM and NOE, we charge scholars to work to illuminate the critical aspects of the nature of engineering knowledge. Third, if the model withstands the scrutiny of STEM scholars (i.e., researchers and teachers), it has the potential to inform teaching and learning in STEM education.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
AAAS. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: a call to action, final report. Washington.
AAAS. (2017). About project 2061. Retrieved from: https://www.aaas.org/program/project2061/about
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Examining the sources for our understandings about science: enduring conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 353–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.629013.
ABET. (2001). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs, Engineering Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology. Baltimore: Available on-line at http://www.abet.org/criteria.html.
Akerson, V. L., Burgess, A., Gerber, A., Guo, M., Khan, T. A., & Newman, S. (2018). Disentangling the meaning of STEM: implications for science education and science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1435063.
Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95, 518–542.
Alper, J., & Gibbons, A. (1993). The pipeline is leaking women all the way along. Science, 260, 409–412.
Antink-Meyer, A., & Brown, R. A. (2019). Nature of Engineering Knowledge. Science & Education, 28(3–5), 539–559.
Arthur, W. B. (2009). The nature of technology: what it is and how it evolves. New York: Free Press.
Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112, 3–11.
Bressoud, D. (2015). Insights from the MAA national study of college calculus. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc, 109, 179–185.
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: challenges and opportunities. NSTA press.
Cannady, M. A., Greenwald, E., & Harris, K. N. (2014). Problematizing the STEM pipeline metaphor: is the STEM pipeline metaphor serving our students and the STEM workforce? Science Education, 98, 443–460.
Carver, S., Van Sickle, J., Holcomb, J., Quinn, C., Jackson, D., Resnick, A., et al. (2017). Operation STEM: increasing success and improving retention among first-generation and underrepresented minority students in STEM. Journal of STEM Education, 18.
Chamberlin, M. T. (2013). Prospective teachers’ perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning: lens for interpreting experiences in a standards-based mathematics course. School Science & Mathematics, 113, 369–379.
Coad, L. (2016). The M in STEM: What is it really? Australian Mathematics Teacher, 72, 3–6.
Curtis, T. (2014). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education: trends and alignment with workforce needs. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc..
Czerniak, C. M., & Johnson, C. C. (2014). Interdisciplinary science teaching. Handbook of research on science education, 537-559.
Dagher, Z. R., & Erduran, S. (2016). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 25, 147–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-015-9800-8.
DiGironimo, N. (2011). What is technology? Investigating student conceptions about the nature of technology. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 1337–1352. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.495400.
Dosi, G., & Grazzi, M. (2010). On the nature of technologies: knowledge, procedures, artifacts, and production inputs. Camb J Econ, 34, 173–184.
Ellis, J., Fosdick, B. K., & Rasmussen, C. (2016). Women 1.5 times more likely to leave STEM pipeline after calculus compared to men: lack of mathematical confidence a potential culprit. PLoS One, 11, e0157447.
Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories.. Dordrecht: Springer.
Ernest, P. (1991). The philosophy of mathematics education. Routledge.
Goldman, S. L. (2004). Why we need a philosophy of engineering: a work in progress. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 29, 163–176.
Hersh, R. (1997). Survey and proposals. What is mathematics, really? Cary: Oxford University Press.
Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM integration in K–12 education. Washington: National Academies Press.
Hossain, M. M., & Robinson, G. M. (2012). How to motivate US students to pursue STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) careers. US-China Education Review, 2, 442–451.
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2010). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20, 591–607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9293-4.
Jankvist, U. T. (2015). Changing students’ images of 'mathematics as a discipline. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 38, 41–56.
Kampourakis, K. (2016). The “general aspects” conceptualization as a pragmatic and effective means to introducing students to nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53, 667–682.
Kaya, E., & Erduran, S. (2016). From FRA to RFN, or how the family resemblance approach can be transformed for science curriculum analysis on nature of science. Science & Education, 25, 1115–1133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9861-3.
Kean, L. L. C. (2012). The development of an instrument to evaluate teachers' concepts about nature of mathematical knowledge (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Chicago: Illinois Institute of Technology.
Koen, B. V. (2009). The engineering method and its implications for scientific, philosophical, and universal methods. Monist, 92, 357–386.
Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: the logic of mathematical discovery. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lederman, N. G. (2006). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 301–317). Dordrecht: Springer.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S.K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 600–620). New York: Routledge.
Lederman, N. G., & Niess, M. L. (1998). Editorial: 5 apples + 4 oranges = ? School Science and Mathematics, 98, 281–284.
Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics Science and Technology, 1, 138–147.
Lerman, S. (1990). Alternative perspectives of the nature of mathematics and their influences on the teaching of mathematics. Br Educ Res J, 16, 53–61.
McComas, W., Almazroa, H., & Clough, M. P. (1998). The nature of science in science education: an introduction. Science and Education, 7, 511–532.
Matthews, M. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
Mills, J. E., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Engineering education—is problem-based or project-based learning the answer. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 3, 2–16.
Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: Author.
National Research Council, & Mathematics Learning Study Committee. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. In J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, & B. Findell (Eds.), Mathematics Learning Study Committee, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington: National Academy Press.
National Science Board (US).(2015). Revisiting the STEM workforce: a companion to Science and Engineering Indicators 2014. National Science Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2015/nsb201510.pdf
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states by states. Washington.
Pacey, A. (1983). The culture of technology. MIT press.
Pair, J. D. (2017). The nature of mathematics: a heuristic inquiry (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Murfreesboro: Middle Tennessee State University.
Peters-Burton, E. E. (2014). Is there a “nature of stem”? School Science and Mathematics, 114, 99–101.
Pleasants, J., & Olson, J. K. (2019). What is engineering? Elaborating the nature of engineering for K-12 education. Science Education, 103, 145–166.
Pleasants, J., Spinler, C., & Olson, J. (2018). What does “learning about engineering” mean to teachers? Baltimore: Paper presented at the 2018 Association for Science Teacher Education Annual Conference.
Pleasants, J., Clough, M. P., Olson, J. K., & Miller, G. (2019). Fundamental issues regarding the nature of technology. Science & Education, 28, 1–37.
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2012). Engage to Excel: producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Report to the president. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext.ED541511.pdf
Roth, W. M. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 768–790.
Schuchardt, A. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2016). Modeling scientific processes with mathematics equations enhances student qualitative conceptual understanding and quantitative problem solving. Science Education, 100, 290–320.
Secundo, G., Magnier-Watanabe, R., & Heisig, P. (2015). Engineering knowledge and information needs in Italy and Japan: bridging the gap between theory and practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19, 1310–1334.
Siekmann, G. (2016). What is STEM? The need for unpacking its definitions and applications. National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER).
Skolimowski, H. (1966). The structure of thinking in technology. Technology and Culture, 7, 371–383.
Smith, K. A. (1988). The nature and development of engineering expertise. European Journal of Engineering Education, 13, 317–330.
Tanenbaum, C. (2016). STEM 2026: A vision for innovation in STEM education. Washington: US Department of Education.
Tayal, S. P. (2013). Engineering design process. International Journal of Computer Science and Communication Engineering, 1–5.
Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: a synthesis of research. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127–146). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
U.S. Department of the Interior STEM Education and Employment Pathways. (2013). Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2013–2018. Retrieved from: https://nctc.fws.gov/programs/education-outreach/DOI-STEM-Strategic-Plan-2013-2018.pdf
Waight, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Nature of technology: Implications for design, development, and enactment of technological tools in school science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 2875–2905.
Watson, L. A. (2019). [TITLE OF DISSERTATION] (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Murfreesboro: Middle Tennessee State University.
Yakman, G. (2008). STEAM education: an overview of creating a model of integrative education. In Pupils’ attitudes towards technology (PATT-19) conference: Research on technology, Innovation, Design & Engineering Teaching. Salt Lake City.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the graduate students and faculty for the countless discussions about what STEM is and for their own work which furthered ours. We especially thank those that were in our nature of science/nature of mathematics course along with Dr. Jeffrey Pair and Dr. Lucy Watson; it has been 3 years of great discussions, and we want to thank you for putting up with our intense passion for this topic.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Quinn, C.M., Reid, J.W. & Gardner, G.E. S + T + M = E as a Convergent Model for the Nature of STEM. Sci & Educ 29, 881–898 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00130-w
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00130-w