Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Critique of “STEM” Education

Revolution-in-the-Making, Passing Fad, or Instructional Imperative?

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

Abstract

While a mutually agreed-upon definition of STEM education remains elusive, there is no doubt that instructional models and ideas put forward with the STEM label have had a tremendous impact on thinking, debate, and practice in schools worldwide. At issue is the degree to which some or all the STEM disciplines must be taught in a concurrent or combined way, so curricula can qualify for the STEM education label. In this manuscript, we unpack the various perspectives of STEM that have evolved recently and propose the acronym I-STEM for any integrated instructional blending of the individual STEM elements. We examine some problematic issues related to what seems a premature acceptance of I-STEM and conclude with some suggestions for the science education community relative to the emergence of STEM. This article is written from the perspective of improving the teaching and learning of science, and if I-STEM can be shown to further advance that aim, it would be foolish not to embrace it. However, if I-STEM is being promoted on the tenuous empirical and philosophical foundation we see presently, we must slow down. We must ensure that we really want this revolution in science education to succeed. We worry that science content and process learning opportunities might too easily be lost in a rush to teach STEM in a manner that gives substantial instructional time and energy to all of the disciplines regardless of the context of the classroom in which it is taught.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

References

  • Anft, M. (2013). The STEM crisis: Reality or myth? The Chronicle of Higher Education, November 11.

  • Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: a preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 12(5), 23–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckett, G. H. (2002). Teacher and student evaluations of project-based instruction. TESL Canada Journal, 19(2), 52–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bortolotti, L. (2008). An introduction to the philosophy of science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: a 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70, 30–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2016). Connecting science and engineering practices: a cautionary perspective. In L. A. Annetta & J. Minogue (Eds.), Connecting science and engineering education practices in meaningful ways: building bridges (pp. 373–385). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Colyvan, M. (2012). An introduction to the philosophy of mathematics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dare, E. A., Ring-Whalen, E. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2019). Creating a continuum of STEM models: exploring how K–12 science teachers conceptualize STEM education. International Journal of Science Education, 41, 1701–1720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis Jr., O. L. (1963). Organized knowledge influencing curriculum decisions. Review of Educational Research, 33, 245–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeBoer, G. (1991). A history of ideas in science education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dugger, W. E. (2010). Evolution of STEM in the United States. In Paper presented at the 6th biennial international conference on technology education research. Queensland, Australia: December.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2016). Teaching and learning STEM: a practical guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, A. L., & Velleman, D. (2001). Philosophies of mathematics. New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldhaber, D., Krieg, J., Theobald, R., & Brown, N. (2015). Refueling the STEM and special education teacher pipelines. Phi Delta Kappan, 97(4), 56–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirst, P.H. (1974). Liberal education and the nature of knowledge. In P.H. Hirst, Knowledge and the curriculum: a collection of philosophical papers. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

  • Horizon Research. (2013). 2012 National survey of science and mathematics education: highlights report. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarrett, O. S. (1999). Science interest and confidence among preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 11(1), 49–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, C. C. (2013). Conceptualizing integrated STEM education. School Science and Mathematics, 113, 367–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, C. C., Peters-Burton, E. E., & Moore, T. J. (Eds.). (2016). STEM road map: a framework for integrated STEM education. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishnan, A. (2009). What are academic disciplines? Some observations in the disciplinarity vs. interdisciplarity debate. [working paper.]. Southampton: University of Southampton, National Centre for Research methods.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (2012 [1962]). The structure of scientific revolutions (4th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ladyman, J. (2002). Understanding philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linnebo, Ø. (2017). Philosophy of mathematics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lohr, S. (2017). Where the STEM jobs are and aren’t. The New York Times, November 1.

  • McClure, E. R., Guernsey, L., Clements, D. H., Bales, S. N., Nichols, J., Kendall-Taylor, N., & Levine, M. H. (2017). STEM starts early: grounding science, technology, engineering, and math education in early childhood. New York, NY: Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (2009). Thinking, teaching and learning science outside the boxes: interdisciplinarity in science instruction. The Science Teacher, 76(2), 24–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (2010). Educating science critics, connoisseurs and creators: what gifted students should know about how science works. Gifted Education Communicator, 41(3), 14–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F., & Nouri, N. (2016). The nature of science and the Next Generation Science Standards: analysis and critique. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27, 555–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013). Teacher STEM perception and preparation: inquiry-based STEM professional development for elementary teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 106, 157–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2018). Building STEM education on a sound mathematical foundation: a position paper. https://www.mathedleadership.org/docs/resources/positionpapers/NCSMPositionPaper17.pdf.

  • National Research Council. (2011). Successful K–12 STEM education: identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2014). STEM integration in K–12 education: status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Teaching Association (2020). STEM education teaching and learning. NSTA Position Statement. https://www.nsta.org/about/positions/stem.aspx (downloaded on February 27, 2020).

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, J.K. (2018). On jackalopes, STEM, and the rapid decline of elementary science instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Science Teacher Education, Baltimore, MD, January 4–6.

  • Phenix, P. H. (1962). The disciplines as curriculum content. In A. H. Passow (Ed.), Curriculum Crossroads (pp. 57–65). New York: Bureau of Publications, Teacher College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phenix, P. H. (1964). Realms of meaning: a philosophy of the curriculum for general education. Ventura: Irving S. Sato.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D. C., & Soltis, J. F. (2004). Perspectives on learning (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pleasants, J., & Olson, J. K. (2019). What is engineering? Elaborating the nature of engineering for K–12 education. Science Education, 103, 145–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pleasants, J., Clough, M. P., Olson, J. K., & Miller, G. (2019a). Fundamental issues regarding the nature of technology: implications for STEM education. Science & Education, 28, 561–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pleasants, J., Olson, J. K., & Tank, K. M. (2019b). What students learn from engineering instruction: perspectives from elementary teachers. The Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30, 691–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raupp, A.B. (2019). STEM education’s lost decade and tenor. Forbes technology council, July 25. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2019/07/25/stem-educations-lost-decade-and-tenor/#43f6101260c8.

  • Redmond, A., Thomas, J., High, K., Scott, M., Jordan, P., & Dockers, J. (2011). Enriching science and math through engineering. School Science and Mathematics, 111, 399–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J. (2019). 51st annual PDK poll of the Public’s attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, September (Supplement).

  • Roberts, A. (2012). A justification for STEM education. Technology and Engineering Teacher, May/June.

  • Roehrig, G. H., Moore, T. J., Wang, H.-H., & Park, M. S. (2012). Is adding the E enough? Investigating the impact of K–12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM integration. School Science and Mathematics, 112, 31–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2004). Bringing engineering to elementary school. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 5(3–4), 17–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, A. (2000). Philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, R. (1984). S-S/T/S project: teaching science via science, technology and society material in the pre-college years. University Park: Pennsylvania State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (Ed.). (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: teaching, learning and research. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salzman, H. (2014). Is there a STEM worker shortage? Rutgers professor debates issue at National Academies. Rutgers Today, March 10. https://news.rutgers.edu/qa/there-stem-worker-shortage-rutgers-professor-debates-issue-national-academies/20140310#.XaZwTWZOmUk.

  • Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, December/January, 20–26.

  • Sanders, M. E. (2012). Integrative STEM education as best practice. In H. Middleton (Ed.), Explorations of best practice in technology, design, and engineering education, vol. 2 (pp. 103–117). Queensland: Griffith Institute for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharff, R. C., & Dusek, V. (2014). Philosophy of technology (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.

    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 

  • Tank, K.M., Pleasants, J.B. & Olson, J.K. (2019). Elementary teachers’ attempts at integrating science and engineering over the course of a semester. Paper presented at the NARST international meeting, Baltimore, MD, March 31–April 3.

  • Wiliams, P. J. (2011). STEM education: proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 16(1).

  • Yager, R. E. (1996). History of S/T/S as reform in the United States. In R. E. Yager (Ed.), Science/technology/society as reform in science education. Albany: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L. (2016). STEM education: a deficit framework for the twenty first century? A sociocultural socioscientific response. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11, 11–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., Clough, M. P., Olson, J. K., Kahn, S., & Newton, M. (2016). Humanitas emptor: reconsidering recent trends and policy in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27, 465–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors sincerely thank the many colleagues with whom we have engaged in deep and occasionally highly spirited conversations about STEM for much of the past decade. This certainly includes our University of Arkansas colleague Cathy Wissehr, who has unique insights from her experiences teaching specialized STEM classes for future elementary teachers. McComas specifically would like to acknowledge conversations with mathematics educator Paul Ernest of the University of Exeter, UK, and science educator Gultekin Cakmakci of Hacettepe University in Ankara, Turkey. These colleagues were particularly helpful in initial considerations of STEM. We also want to thank the three reviewers who collectively offered many comments and asked important questions that we considered in focusing and clarifying our arguments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education and Health Professions, University of Arkansas, 310 Peabody Hall, Fayetteville, AR, 72703, USA

    William F. McComas

  2. College of Education and Health Professions, University of Arkansas, 312 Peabody Hall, Fayetteville, AR, 72703, USA

    Stephen R. Burgin

Authors
  1. William F. McComas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen R. Burgin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William F. McComas.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McComas, W.F., Burgin, S.R. A Critique of “STEM” Education. Sci & Educ 29, 805–829 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00138-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00138-2

Search

Navigation