Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Framework for Epistemological Discussion on Integrated STEM Education

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

Abstract

In primary and secondary schools, the disciplines encompassed in “STEM”—Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics—have usually been studied as separate subjects, with little effort directed towards non-anecdotal integration. “Integrated STEM education” is one of the most recent interdisciplinary proposals and, under its umbrella, school disciplines are beginning to be integrated in an educationally fruitful way. STEM as a renovated approach is gaining ground, despite the infancy of its philosophical analysis. Explicit epistemological discussion of integrated STEM proposals is either absent or blurred. The overall aim of this paper is therefore to establish an initial framework for philosophical discussion, to help analyse the aims and discourse of integrated STEM education, and consider the implications that adopting any particular epistemological view might have on the aims for general education, and on the construction of science curricula oriented towards citizenship and social justice. We envisage humanist values for integrated STEM education and, after revisiting the currently proposed relationships between the STEM knowledge areas, we adopt a model of a “seamless web” for such relationships that is coherent with humanist values. A few issues emerging from this model are addressed through the lens of the so-called “family resemblance approach”, a framework from the field of research on the nature of science, in order to identify some potential central features of “nature of STEM”.

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

Notes

  1. The educational objectives of preparing students to understand global challenges and to actively participate in the decision-making processes have given raise to several approaches integrating science and technology (S&T), such as science for all; science for citizenship; scientific literacy; S&T literacy; the movement around Socio-Scientific Issues (SSI); education for sustainability; the Science, Technology, Society and Environment (STSE) perspective; and a number of sociocultural perspectives for science education (see Aikenhead 2015).

  2. Our thanks to an anonymous reviewer of our manuscript for pointing out this very suggestive idea.

References

  • Acevedo Díaz, J. A. (2008). The state of the art on nature of science in science education. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 5(2), 134–169. https://doi.org/10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2008.v5.i2.02.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2005). Una introducción a la naturaleza de la ciencia. La epistemología en la enseñanza de las ciencias naturales. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

  • Aikenhead, G. (2003). STS education: A rose by any other name. In R. Cross (Ed.), A vision for science education: responding to the work of Peter J. Fensham (pp. 59–75). Routledge Falmer: London, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead, G. (2015). Humanist perspectives on science education. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education (pp. 467–471). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560x.2018.1435063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    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(3–5), 539–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00038-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Council of Learned Academies. (2013). STEM: country comparisons. Melbourne, Australia: Author.

  • Avigad, J. (2008). Computers in mathematical inquiry. In P. Mancosu (Ed.), The philosophy of mathematical practice (pp. 302–316). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bequette, J. W., & Bequette, M. B. (2012). A place for art and design education in the STEM conversation. Art Education, 65(2), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2012.11519167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birch, K. (2013). The political economy of technoscience: an emerging research agenda. Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science, 7(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.4245/sponge.v7i1.19556.

    Article  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, Netherlands: North Holland.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Borwein, J., & Bailey, D. (2004). Mathematics by experiment: plausible reasoning in the 21st century. Natick, MA: A K Peters.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. (2012). The current status of STEM education research. Journal of STEM Education, 13(5), 7–11.

  • Bush, V. (1945). Science, the endless frontier: a report to the president. Retrieved from National Science Foundation website: https://www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf50/vbush1945.jsp

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese Barton, A. M. (2012). Citizen(s’) science. A response to “the future of citizen science”. Democracy&Education, 20(2), 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., & Morgan, J. R. (Eds.). (2013). STEM project-based learning: an integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach (2nd ed.). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesky, N. Z., & Wolfmeyer, M. R. (2015). Philosophy of STEM education: a critical investigation. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chubin, D. E., Porter, A. L., Rossini, F. A., & Conolly, T. (Eds.). (1986). Interdisciplinary analysis and research. Theory and practice of problem-focused research and development: selected readings. Mt. Airy, MD: Lomond.

  • Clough, M. P., Olson, J. K., & Niederhauser, D. S. (Eds.). (2013). The nature of technology: implications for learning and teaching. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connor, A. M., Karmokar, S., & Whittington, C. (2015). From STEM to STEAM: strategies for enhancing engineering & technology education. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogies, 5(2), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v5i2.4458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Delors, J. (1996). Learning: the treasure within. Report to UNESCO of the international commission on education for the twenty-first century. Paris, France: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1929). The sources of a science of education. New York, NY: Horace Liveright.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dossey, J. A. (1992). The nature of mathematics: Its role and its influence. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 39–48). Reston, VA: NCTM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards-Schachter, M., & Greca, I. M. (2017). Responsible research and innovation: An opportunity to reframing science (and technological) education? Paper presented at ESERA 2017 Conference, Dublin, Ireland.

  • England, J. M. (1976). Dr. Bush writes a report: “science-the endless frontier”. Science, 191(4222), 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.191.4222.4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • English, L. D., & King, D. T. (2015). STEM learning through engineering design: fourth-grade students’ investigations in aerospace. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(14), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0027-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S. (2014). Beyond nature of science: the case for reconceptualising ‘science’ for science education. Science Education International, 25(1), 93–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ernest, P. (1992). The nature of mathematics: towards a social constructivist account. Science & Education, 1(1), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00430212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernest, P. (1993). Constructivism, the psychology of learning, and the nature of mathematics: some critical issues. Science & Education, 2(1), 87–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00486663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frodeman, R., Klein, J. T., & Mitcham, C. (Eds.). (2010). The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galison, P. (1997). Image and logic: a material culture of microphysics. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, J. J. (1971). A broader base for science education. Science Education, 55(3), 329–338. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730550312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garibay, J. C. (2015). STEM students’ social agency and views on working for social change: are STEM disciplines developing socially and civically responsible students? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(5), 610–632. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gil Cantero, F., & Reyero, D. (2014). The priority of the philosophy of education on the empirical disciplines in educational research. Revista Española de Pedagogía, LXXII(258), 263-280.

  • Gough, A. (2015). STEM policy and science education: scientistic curriculum and sociopolitical silences. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(2), 445–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9590-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greca, I. M., Seoane, E., & Arriassecq, I. (2014). Epistemological issues concerning computer simulations in science and their implications for science education. Science & Education, 23(4), 897–921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9673-7

  • Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening: introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. J. (1997). Modest_Witness@Second _ Millennium. FemaleMan_Meets_OncoMouse: feminist and technoscience. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge?: Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herschbach, D. R. (2011). The STEM initiative: constraints and challenges. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 48(1), 96–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoachlander, G., & Yanofsky, D. (2011). Making STEM real. Educational Leadership, 68(6), 60–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2006). Why we should prioritize learning about science. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 6(3), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150609556703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeg, D., & Bencze, L. (2017). Rising against a gathering storm: a biopolitical analysis of citizenship in STEM policy. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12(4), 843–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-017-9838-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houkes, W. (2009). The nature of technological knowledge. In A. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (pp. 309–350). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North Holland.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, T. P. (1986). The seamless web: technology, science, etcetera, etcetera. Social Studies of Science, 16(2), 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312786016002004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, T. P. (2012). The evolution of large technological systems. In W. E. Biker, T. P. Hughes, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (anniversary ed., pp. 45–77). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Hurd, P. D. (1975). Science, technology, and society: new goals for interdisciplinary science teaching. The Science Teacher, 42(2), 27–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20(7–8), 591–607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9293-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 999–1021). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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(9–10), 1115–1133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9861-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(11), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: history, theory, and practice. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroes, P. (2012). Technical artefacts: creations of mind and matter. A philosophy of engineering design. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: a review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (2010). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerman, S. (1990). Alternative perspectives of the nature of mathematics and their influence on the teaching of mathematics. British Educational Research Journal, 16(1), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192900160105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madden, M. E., Baxter, M., Beauchamp, H., Bouchard, K., Habermas, D., Huff, M., et al. (2013). Rethinking STEM education: an interdisciplinary STEAM curriculum. Procedia Computer Science, 20, 541–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.09.316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2010). Eyeballs in the fridge: sources of early interest in science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(5), 669–685. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902792385.

    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, 103(4), 799–822. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research: concepts and methodologies (pp. 3–26). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McBride, J. W., & Silverman, F. L. (1991). Integrating elementary/middle school science and mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 91(7), 285–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1991.tb12102.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (Ed.). (1998). The nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (Ed.). (2014). The language of science education: an expanded glossary of key terms and concepts in science teaching and learning. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meijers, A. (2009). General introduction. In A. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (pp. 1–19). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1973). The normative structure of science. In R. K. Merton (Ed.), The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 267–278). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: the path between engineering and philosophy. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitcham, C., & Schatzberg, E. (2009). In a. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (pp. 27–63). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North Holland.

  • Mizell, S., & Brown, S. (2016). The current status of STEM education research 2013-2015. Journal of STEM Education, 17(4), 52–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in mathematics. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College and IEA.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Board. (1969a). Toward a public policy for graduate education in the sciences. Retrieved from National Science Foundation website: https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/1969/nsb0169.pdf

  • National Science Board. (1969b). Graduate education. Parameters for public policy. Retrieved from National Science Foundation website: https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/1969/nsb0269.pdf

  • National Science Board. (1986). Undergraduate science, mathematics and engineering education. Retrieved from National Science Foundation website: https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/1986/nsb0386.pdf

  • Peters-Burton, E. E. (2014). Is there a “nature of STEM”? School Science and Mathematics, 114(3), 99–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (2012). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Oor how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In W. E. Biker, T. P. Hughes, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology (anniversary ed., pp. 11–44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Pirtle, Z. (2010). How the models of engineering tell the truth. In I. van de Poel & D. E. Goldberg (Eds.), Philosophy of engineering: An emerging agenda (pp. 95–108). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pleasants, J., & Olson, J. K. (2019). What is engineering? Elaborating the nature of engineering for K-12 education. Science Education, 103(1), 145–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pleasants, J., Clough, M. P., Olson, J. K., & Miller, G. (2019). Fundamental issues regarding the nature of technology: implications for STEM education. Science & Education, 28(3–5), 561–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00056-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. London, England: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quigley, C. F., & Herro, D. (2016). “Finding the joy in the unknown”: implementation of STEAM teaching practices in middle school science and math classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(3), 410–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9602-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radder, H. (2009). Science, technology and the science–technology relationship. In A. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (pp. 65–91). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North Holland.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ramaley, J. A., Olds, B. M., & Earle, J. (2005). Becoming a learning organization: new directions in science education research at the National Science Foundation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(2), 173–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-005-4420-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe, M. (2001). Science, technology and society in school science education. School Science Review, 82(300), 83–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A. (1979). The social context of ‘science, technology and society’ courses. Studies in Higher Education, 4(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075077912331377061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, M. A. (2007). Perceptions of technological literacy among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics leaders. Journal of Technology Education, 19(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v19i1.a.3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, M. (2008). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seakins, A., & Hobson, M. (2017). Public understanding of science. In K. S. Taber& B. Akpan (Eds.), Science education. New directions in mathematics and science education (pp. 443–452). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.

  • Short, D. B. (2013). The public understanding of science: 30 years of the Bodmer report. School Science Review, 95(350), 39–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiegel-Rösing, I., & de Solla Price, D. (Eds.). (1977). Science, technology and society: a cross-disciplinary perspective. London, England: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tala, S. (2009). Unified view of science and technology for education: technoscience and technoscience education. Science & Education, 18(3–4), 275–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-008-9145-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, E., Calabrese Barton, A., & Benavides, A. (2019). Engineering for sustainable communities: epistemic tools in support of equitable and consequential middle school engineering. ScienceEducation, 103(4), 1011–1046. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torres Santomé, J. (1994). Globalización e interdisciplinariedad: el currículum integrado. Madrid, Spain: Morata.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1972). Human understanding. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2016). Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and framework for action for the implementation of sustainable development goal 4. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002456/245656E.pdf

  • Vesterinen, V.-M., Manassero-Mas, M-A., & Vázquez-Alonso, Á. (2014). History, philosophy, and sociology of science and science-technology-society traditions in science education: continuities and discontinuities. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching. Volume III (pp. 1895–1925). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

  • Vincent, B. B., &Loeve, S. (2018). Toward a philosophy of technosciences. In S. Loeve, X. Guchet & B. B. Vincent (Eds.), French philosophy of technology: classical readings and contemporary approaches (pp. 169–186). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Volti, R. (2014). Society and technological change (7th ed.). New York, NY: Worth.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation: the evolving phenomenon of user innovation. Management Review Quarterly, 55(1), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-004-0002-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(18), 2875–2905. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.698763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H. H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 1(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warnick, B. R., & Stemhagen, K. (2007). Mathematics teachers as moral educators: the implications of conceiving of mathematics as a technology. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(3), 303–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270600977683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. P. (2011). STEM education: proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 16(1), 26–35.

    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(1), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9578-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2007). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character, and care. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 201–216). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J. (1980). Teaching and learning about science and society. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zollman, A. (2012). Learning for STEM literacy: STEM literacy for learning. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.0010.

Download references

Funding

This study was partially funded by the European Union through project 2017-1-ES01-KA201-038204, by the Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness of Spain through project EDU2017-89405-R and by the Junta de Castilla y León through project BU096G18.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Didácticas Específicas, Facultad de Educación, Universidad de Burgos, c/Villadiego, 1, 09001, Burgos, Spain

    Jairo Ortiz-Revilla & Ileana M. Greca

  2. Instituto CeFIEC, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, 2° Piso, Pabellón 2, Ciudad Universitaria, Av. Intendente Güiraldes 2160, C1428EGA, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Agustín Adúriz-Bravo

Authors
  1. Jairo Ortiz-Revilla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Agustín Adúriz-Bravo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ileana M. Greca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jairo Ortiz-Revilla.

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

Ortiz-Revilla, J., Adúriz-Bravo, A. & Greca, I.M. A Framework for Epistemological Discussion on Integrated STEM Education. Sci & Educ 29, 857–880 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00131-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00131-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation