Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Science and Technology Studies Informing STEM Education: Possibilities and Dilemmas

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Challenges in Science Education

  • 418 Accesses

Abstract

STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education is a relatively new discourse that has dramatically grown in influence in the past decade. Key educational goals of many countries now relate to supporting the development of qualified STEM workforces to help them compete in the global economy. At the same time, concerns have been raised regarding the apparent prioritization of instrumental approaches to STEM education that focus on technical skills and knowledge at the expense of sociocultural and sociopolitical considerations. Science and Technology Studies (STS) can provide rich opportunities for more situated and contextualized experiences in science education that might reflect more authentic conceptions of the nature of science. Hence, it could be argued that STS-informed STEM education might allow for more politically and socioculturally situated STEM teaching and learning. With this intent in mind, a two-year collaboration with a high-school science teacher in an international school in Europe indicated possibilities and dilemmas for translating STS concepts into classroom realities. These included ‘keeping up’ with emerging technoscience problems and their entanglements, negotiating classroom/school complexities, and imagining alternative presents/futures. Based on these findings, recommendations to bring about alternative futures for STEM education are discussed.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Sociotechnical imaginary is defined as “collectively held, institutionally stabilized, and publicly performed visions of desirable futures, animated by share understandings of forms of social life and social order attainable through, and supportive of, advances in science and technology” (Jasanoff, 2015, p. 4).

  2. 2.

    While referencing these six demands, we acknowledge that each of them might subsume spectrums of possibilities, limitations, and biases. For example, cultural orientation might not necessarily imply or translate into pluralism and might be conceptualized and enacted through particular ideological preferences. However, these demands are useful to understand what is mainly prioritized in STEM education.

  3. 3.

    Heterogenous networks/collectives of humans and nonhumans reciprocally affecting each other (Latour, 2005).

  4. 4.

    James knew about the STEPWISE project through a mutual senior academic colleague who directed James to the STEPWISE website (https://www.stepwiser.ca).

  5. 5.

    These resources can be accessed through the following link: https://wordpress.oise.utoronto.ca/jlbencze/teacher-teaches/#STS_Teaching

  6. 6.

    Inspired by the STEPWISE educational goals for social justice and environmental sustainability, we advocate for STEM and STEM education that support the wellbeing of individuals, societies, and environments (WISE).

References

  • Aho, B. (2017). Disrupting regulation: Understanding industry engagement on endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Science and Public Policy, 44(5), 698–706. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scx004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, D. E., DeWitt, J., Seakins, A., & Wong, B. (2015). “Science capital”: A conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(7), 922–948. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bencze, J. L. (2008). Private profit, science, and science education: Critical problems and possibilities for action. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 8, 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150802506290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bencze, L. (2017). Science & technology education promoting wellbeing of individuals, societies & environments: STEPWISE. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bencze, L., & Hodson, D. (1999). Changing practice by changing practice: Toward more authentic science and science curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(5), 521–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bencze, L., & Krstovic, M. (2017). Students’ uses of Actor-Network Theory to contextualize socioscientific actions. In J. L. Bencze (Ed.), Science & technology education promoting wellbeing for individuals, societies & environments (pp. 167–199). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bencze, L., Sperling, E., & Carter, L. (2012). Students’ research-informed socio-scientific activism: Re/visions for a sustainable future. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9260-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), The handbook of theory: Research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 132–161). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (1999). The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Science, Technology & Society (New Delhi, India), 4(1), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/097172189900400106

  • Caprile, M., Palmen, R., Sanz, P., & Dente, G. (2015). Encouraging STEM studies for the labour market (Directorate-General for Internal Policies: European Parliament). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/542199/IPOL_STU(2015)542199_EN.pdf

  • Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (2003). Becoming critical: Education knowledge and action research. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, L. (2017). Neoliberalism and STEM education: Some Australian policy discourse. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(4), 247–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2017.1380868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C., Martens, M., Kim, H., & Rodrigue, M. (2011). Astroturfing global warming: It isn’t always greener on the other side of the fence. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(4), 571–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Freitas, E., Lupinacci, J., & Pais, A. (2017). Science and technology studies × educational studies: Critical and creative perspectives on the future of STEM education. Educational Studies (Ames), 53(6), 551–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2017.1384730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Roock, R. S., & Baildon, M. (2019). MySkillsFuture for students, STEM learning, and the design of neoliberal citizenship in Singapore. Cognition and Instruction, 37(3), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2019.1624545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El Halwany, S., Zouda, M., & Bencze, J. L. (2021). Stepping into STS literature: Some implications for promoting socioecological justice through science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 16(4), 1083–1096. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-021-10026-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fallin, A., Grana, R., & Glantz, S. A. (2014). ‘To quarterback behind the scenes, third-party efforts’: The tobacco industry and the tea party. Tobacco Control, 23, 322–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felt, U., Fouche, R., Miller, C. A., Beck, S., & Smith-Doerr, L. (2017). Introduction to the fourth edition of the handbook of science and technology studies. In U. Felt, R. Fouche, C. A. Miller, & L. Smith-Doerr (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (4th ed.). The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fensham, P. J. (1988). Familiar but different: Some dilemmas and new directions in science education. In P. J. Fensham (Ed.), Development and dilemmas in science education (pp. 1–26). Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, A. (2015). STEM policy and science education: Scientific curriculum and sociopolitical silences. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10, 445–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9590-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Government of Canada. (2021). Choose science—The Government of Canada and STEM. https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/013.nsf/eng/00014.html

  • Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2011). Looking to the future: Building a curriculum for social activism. Sense.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeg, D. G., & Bencze, J. L. (2017). Values underpinning STEM education in the USA: An analysis of the next generation science standards. Science Education, 101, 278–301. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2015). Future imperfect: Science, technology and the imaginations of modernity. In S. Jasanoff & S.-H. Kim (Eds.), Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power (pp. 1–33). The University of Chicago Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S. (2009). Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva, 47(2), 119–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krimsky, S. (2019). Conflicts of interest in science: How corporate-funded academic research can threaten public health. Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroløkke, C., & Kotsi, F. (2019). Pink and blue: Assemblages of family balancing and the making of Dubai as a fertility destination. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 44(1), 97–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, R. (2010). Science education and democratic participation: An uneasy congruence? Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 69–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, R. (2018). Realizing the school science curriculum. The Curriculum Journal, 29(4), 522–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y., & Froyd, J. E. (2020). Research and trends in STEM education: A systematic review of journal publications. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00207-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, D., & Wallace, J. (2004). Imagining the future of science education: The case for making futures studies explicit in student learning. Studies in Science Education, 40(1), 139–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupton, D. (2016). The diverse domains of quantified selves: Self-tracking modes and dataveillance. Economy and Society, 45(1), 101–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martín-Páez, T., Aguilera, D., Perales-Palacios, F. J., & Vílchez-González, J. M. (2019). What are we talking about when we talk about STEM education? A review of literature. Science Education (Salem, Mass.), 103(4), 799–822. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGinn, M. K., & Roth, W. M. (1999). Preparing students for competent scientific practice: Implications of recent research in science and technology studies. Educational Researcher, 28(3), 14–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2010). You and your action research project. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalf, H. (2010). Stuck in the pipeline: A critical review of STEM workforce literature. Interactions (Los Angeles, Calif.), 6(2). https://doi.org/10.5070/D462000681

  • Michaels, D. (2020). The triumph of doubt: Dark money and the science of deception. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, I., & Mitchell, J. (2008). The project for enhancing effective learning (PEEL): 22 years of praxis. In A. P. Samaras, A. R. Freese, C. Kosnik, & C. Beck (Eds.), Learning communities in practice: Explorations of educational purpose (Vol. 4). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8788-2_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, T. J., & Smith, K. A. (2014). Advancing the state of the art of STEM integration. Journal of STEM Education, 15(1), 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/download/18290

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz-Revilla, J., Adúriz-Bravo, A., & Greca, I. M. (2020). A framework for epistemological discussion on integrated STEM education. Science & Education, 29(4), 857–880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00131-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reis, P. (2014). Promoting students’ collective socio-scientific activism: Teachers’ perspectives. In Activist science and technology education (pp. 547–574). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, L., Venville, G., & Wallace, J. (2012). Knowledge that counts in a global community: Exploring the contribution of integrated curriculum. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, consumption, prosumption: The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital ‘prosumer’. Journal of Consumer Culture, 10(1), 13–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540509354673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W. M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998). Knowing, researching, and reporting science education: Lessons from science and technology studies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 213–235. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199802)35:2<213::AID-TEA9>3.0.CO;2-V

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, J. J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. School Review, 81(4), 501–522. https://doi.org/10.1086/443100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, M. C., Burke, C. A., & Francis, K. (2016). Using a boundry object perspective to reconsider the meaning of STEM in a Canadian context. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 16, 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2016.1166296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöström, J., Eilks, I., & Zuin, V. G. (2016). Towards eco-reflexive science education. Science & Education, 25(3–4), 321–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. H. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of Reading for learning about science. Science, 328(5977), 450–452. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, H. J. (2014). Myths and motives behind STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education and the STEM-worker shortage narrative. Issues in Teacher Education, 23, 133–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takeuchi, M. A., Sengupta, P., Shanahan, M.-C., Adams, J. D., & Hachem, M. (2020). Transdisciplinarity in STEM education: A critical review. Studies in Science Education, 56(2), 213–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2020.1755802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. William Morrow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torres-Olave, B., & Bravo González, P. (2021). Facing neoliberalism through dialogic spaces as sites of hope in science education: Experiences of two self-organised communities. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 16, 1047–1067. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-021-10042-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasser, J. D., & Bresler, L. (1996). Working in the interpretive zone: Conceptualizing collaboration in qualitative research teams. Educational Researcher, 25(5), 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, M., Blades, D., & Gleason, S. C. (2016). Questioning power: Deframing the STEM discourse. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 16(2), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2016.1166294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. (2011). STEM education: Proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 16, 26–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, V., Dillon, J., & King, H. (2016). STEM in England: Meanings and motivations in the policy arena. International Journal of Science Education, 38(15), 2346–2366. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1242818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L. (2016). STEM education: A deficit framework for the twenty first century?: Sociocultural socioscientific response. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11, 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9578-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zouda, M. (2018). Issues of power and control in STEM education: A reading through the postmodern condition. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13(4), 1109–1128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-017-9820-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zouda, M., Nishizawa, T., & Bencze, L. (2017). ‘In the eye of the hurricane’: Using STEPWISE to address urgent socio-political issues in Venezuela. In J. L. Bencze (Ed.), Science & technology education promoting wellbeing of individuals, societies & environments (pp. 339–357). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Majd Zouda

  2. University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

    Sarah El Halwany

  3. University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Larry Bencze

Authors
  1. Majd Zouda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah El Halwany
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Larry Bencze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Majd Zouda .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada

    Gregory P. Thomas

  2. James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia

    Helen J. Boon

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Zouda, M., El Halwany, S., Bencze, L. (2023). Science and Technology Studies Informing STEM Education: Possibilities and Dilemmas. In: Thomas, G.P., Boon, H.J. (eds) Challenges in Science Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18092-7_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18092-7_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-18091-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-18092-7

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation