ArticlePDF Available
Journal of STEM Education Volume 15Issue 1 January-April 2014 5
Advancing the State of the Art of STEM Integration
Tamara J. Moore Karl A. Smith
Purdue University University of Minnesota and Purdue University
The inaugural issue (Volume 1, Number 1, 2000) of the Journal of STEM
Education (then titled Journal of SMET Education) included an article by Nor-
man Fortenberry titled “An examination of NSF’s programs in undergraduate
education. Fortenberry provided a comprehensive summary of the National
Science Foundation (NSF) undergraduate education and training programs,
which he categorized in ve areas for impact in SMET education – curricula
and institutions, faculty, courses and laboratories, diversity, and students. He
concluded, “With sucient resources, NSF can both strengthen its core pro-
grams and address unmet needs and opportunities. Unmet opportunities can
be grouped into ve areas: (1) systemic reform of curricula and institutions,
(2) high-quality instruction by faculty, (3) educational research, materials, and
methods, (4) emphasis on meeting the needs of diverse student populations,
and (5) student support (p. 4). Since Fortenberry’s call for embracing research
(area 3), discipline-based education research has advanced through the eorts
of a rapidly increasing community of researchers, the emergence of engineer-
ing education research (and more broadly STEM education research) centers
and programs, and reports, such as, the 2012 National Research Council (NRC)
report, Discipline-Based Education Research (DBER; NRC, 2012a).
Discipline-based education research in science and engineering has con-
tinually advanced in the past ten years. Engineering education research (EER)
has been on the fast track since 2004 with a dramatic rise in the number of
PhDs awarded and the establishment of new programs, even entire EER de-
partments (Benson, Becker, Cooper, Grin, & Smith, 2010). The rapid ad-
vancement of EER has been documented in a series of editorials (Smith, 2006;
Streveler & Smith, 2006; 2010) and EER Networking sessions at American
Society for Engineering Education conferences. Smith and Streveler have orga-
nized and facilitated Engineering Education Research and Innovation (EER&I)
networking meetings at each ASEE annual conference since 2010. Each session
was attended by between 40 and 60 representatives of engineering education
research and innovation programs, departments and centers. At ASEE 2014
the networking sessions will be held at the EER Lounge, which is part of the
Engineering Education Research and Innovation space in the Exhibition area.
The 2012 National Research Council’s Discipline-Based Education Research
(DBER) report captures the state-of-the-art advances in our understanding
of engineering student learning and highlights commonalities with other
science-based education research programs. The DBER report is the consensus
analysis of experts in undergraduate education research in physics, chemistry,
biology, geosciences, astronomy, and engineering. The study committee also
included higher education researchers, learning scientists, and cognitive psy-
chologists. Editorials on the DBER report have been published in ASEE Prism
(Singer & Smith, 2013a) and the Journal of Engineering Education (Singer &
Smith, 2013b). A recent special issue of the Journal of Research on Science
Teaching was devoted to Discipline-Centered Postsecondary Science Education
Now that the EER community has been established and is growing, it is
time to explore the next major advancement, STEM integration, and the Jour-
nal of STEM Education, which was established in 2000, is the ideal venue to
present this editorial. Research-to-practice eorts on STEM integration are the
central organizing feature of the University of Minnesota STEM Education Center,
established in 2009 by co-founders Tamara Moore and Gillian Roehrig and cur-
rently led by Karl Smith and Kathleen Cramer. Our purposes for this editorial are
to summarize STEM integration in both K-12 and undergraduate education with
a focus on U.S. and international trends. We will feature known best practices and
programs both in classrooms and in research around STEM integration.
What is STEM integration?
In general, integrated STEM education is an eort to combine the four
disciplines of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics into one
class, unit, or lesson that is based on connections among these disciplines and
real-world problems. More specically, STEM integration refers to students
participating in engineering design as a means to develop relevant technolo-
gies that require meaningful learning through integration and application of
mathematics and/or science. STEM integration gets its roots from the progres-
sive education movement of the early 1900s (e.g., Dewey, 1938) and more
recently the socio-cognitive research movement (NRC, 2000). Therefore, high
quality integrated STEM learning experiences include, but are not limited to,
the following: engage students in engineering design challenges that allow for
them to learn from failure and participate in redesign, use relevant contexts for
the engineering challenges to which students can personally relate, require the
learning and use of appropriate science and/or mathematics content, engage
students in content using student-centered pedagogies, and promote com-
munication skills and teamwork (Moore, Guzey, & Brown, 2014). Implementa-
tion of STEM integration can involve one or more instructors (Roehrig, Moore,
Wang, & Park, 2012), one or more classes (Berlin & White, 1995), and can
require diering lengths of time to complete (Isaacs, Wagreich, & Gartzman,
There are two dierent ways to integrate content and engineering think-
ing: context integration and content integration. Context integration refers to
an integration of engineering design as a motivator to teach some disciplin-
ary content (usually mathematics and/or science). The learning goals are not
about the engineering per se, but rather engineering design as a pedagogy
to help students learn the content. Content integration refers to an integra-
tion of engineering thinking and mathematics/science content where learning
multiple areas including engineering are part of the learning objectives for the
activity or unit. Here, the learning goals would include mathematics and/or
science content but also include engineering learning as a desired outcome
(Moore et al., 2014). Whether a learning activity is content or context integra-
tion depends upon where emphasis is placed. For example, the NanoRough-
ness Model-Eliciting Activity is an activity that can serve both purposes. The
problem is set in an engineering context where the students are working for
a company that is developing coatings for hip-joint replacements. The student
teams need to design a way to measure the roughness of coatings at the nano-
scale given atomic-force microscope images of coating materials. In a context
integration implementation of this activity, a statistics instructor might use the
engineering context as a motivator but focus heavily on the ways students use
the ideas of sampling, central tendency, and variance that are required to de-
Journal of STEM Education Volume 15Issue 1 January-April 2014 6
velop the procedure for measuring roughness (Hjalmarson, Moore, & delMas,
2011). Whereas, a rst-year engineering instructor might want to take a con-
tent integration approach calling attention to the engineering design think-
ing by helping the students recognize the iterative engineering thinking used
in the development of their roughness model, using the engineering context
to bring out the chemistry concepts by focusing on the minimization of wear
on the hip joint coating highlighting the molecular structure of the coatings,
and the statistical analysis methods needed in the roughness model (Moore
& Hjalmarson, 2010). Context and content integration approaches to STEM
integration are useful to help students recognize the interconnectedness of the
STEM disciplines. Smith and Karr-Kidwell (2000) state that the goal of an inte-
grated STEM education is to be “a holistic approach that links the disciplines so
the learning becomes connected, focused, meaningful, and relevant to learn-
ers” (p. 22), and both of these approaches are useful to achieving these ends.
Current Status of STEM Integration
STEM integration is taking hold in both the K-12 and postsecondary arenas.
The current movement in K-12 education to integrate engineering design into
science education is evidence that the ideas of STEM integration are taking root.
The document A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting
Concepts, and Core Ideas (NRC, 2012b) outlines a broad set of expectations for
K-12 science education students. Through these expectations, the framework
documents a new vision for K-12 science education that includes engineering
enterprises as well as scientic ones.
The recently published Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; NGSS
Lead States, 2013), which are academic science standards that were developed
based on A Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC, 2012b), require el-
ementary and secondary science teachers to use engineering design pedago-
gies as one method for teaching science content. At the minimum, this repre-
sents a context integration approach to learning science, but it also represents
an opportunity to develop and foster content integration approaches, which
give relevance to all content areas and are more representative of the problems
that our society faces. As states in the U.S adopt NGSS and as other countries
consider the integration of engineering into the precollege curriculum, the
need for understanding how learning progressions for engineering design and
relevant science content objectives work together becomes more imperative.
Initiatives that focus on STEM integration are becoming more and more
prevalent. Emphasis is being placed on researchers and practitioners to con-
sider STEM integrated curricula and pedagogies. We are now seeing STEM
focused articles and entire issues in research and practitioner journals (e.g.,
School Science and Mathematics - Volume 112, Issue 1; The Science Teacher -
Volume 80, Issue 1; and Mathematics in the Middle School - Volume 18, Issue
6). Curricula have been and are being developed to address the need for inte-
grating STEM meaningfully. The National Research Council report, Successful
K-12 STEM Education: Identifying Eective Approaches in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (2011), describes models of schools across the
country that focus on integrated STEM ideas.
Research in STEM integration is also being given emphasis. The recent
joint report of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and the National
Research Council, STEM Integration in K-12 Education: Status, Prospects, and
an Agenda for Research (NAE & NRC, 2014) describes theoretical models of
STEM integration with the purpose of shaping research and practice of STEM
integration at the K-12 level, with particular emphasis on curriculum design
and assessment development. This work came out of the NAE project, Toward
Integrated STEM Education: Developing A Research Agenda (2013), which re-
sulted in the above report that provides a structured research agenda for “de-
termining the approaches and conditions most likely to lead to positive out-
comes” of STEM integration. A related report, Developing Assessments for the
Next Generation Science Standards (NRC, 2013), includes recommendations for
classroom and larger-scale assessments that are related to STEM integration
due to the NGSS integration of engineering into science learning. Collabora-
tive research endeavors by groups of faculty, such as the one described for the
University of Minnesota’s STEM Education Center, are being formed. Faculty
positions in integrated STEM education are being created. For example, Pur-
due University has announced a cluster-hire for K-12 Integrated STEM Teacher
Education through which six open-rank faculty positions will be lled with
the intention of targeting the issue of STEM integration through research-to-
practice endeavors.
With the U.S. and international emphasis on increasing the number of
STEM graduates (PCAST, 2012; NRC, 2012c) the integration of engineering into
K-12 science standards has excellent potential for encouraging more students
to pursue STEM, especially engineering careers, and better preparing them
to success in post-secondary settings. The work of Carr, Bennett, and Strobel
(2012) and Moore, Tank, Glancy, Kersten, and Ntow (2013) have documented
the status of the integration of engineering in K-12 across the US through as-
sessment of academic standards documents showing the trend of integrating
engineering into science and mathematics is increasing in the United States.
Research from around the world is also showing trends for increasing K-12
STEM integration initiatives. Researchers such as Dr. Lyn English of Queensland
University of Technology in Australia, and Dr. Nicholas Mousoulides of Univer-
sity of Nicosia in Cyprus are studying STEM integration interventions in class-
rooms as well (e.g., English & Mousoulides, 2011).
Undergraduate STEM Integration
STEM integration currently has much less presence in undergraduate STEM
education than in K-12; however, there are signs that this may be changing.
Fairweather (2008) argues in his summary report, Linking Evidence and Prom-
ising Practices in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
Undergraduate Education for a National Research Council workshop,
… although faculty in STEM disciplines vary substantially on a broad ar-
ray of attitudinal and behavioral measures (Fairweather & Paulson, 2008)
careful reviews of the substantial literature on college teaching and learn-
ing suggest that the pedagogical strategies most eective in enhancing
student learning outcomes are not discipline dependent (Pascarella &
Terenzini, 1991; 2005). Instead, active and collaborative instruction cou-
pled with various means to encourage student engagement invariably lead
to better student learning outcomes irrespective of academic discipline
(Kuh, 2008; Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, & Witt, 2005; Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges,
& Kayek, 2007). The assumption that pedagogical eectiveness is disci-
plinary-specic can result in “reinventing the wheel, proving yet again that
pedagogies engaging students lead to better learning outcomes (p. 4-5).”
A pedagogical shift that has taken hold in undergraduate STEM education
is the use of cooperative learning and this shift has excellent potential for in-
creasing STEM integration. Cooperative learning was introduced nationally to
engineering educators at the 1981 Frontiers in Education Conference in Rapid
City, SD (Smith, Johnson, & Johnson, 1981a); a little over 30 years after Mor-
ton Deutsch‘s pivotal article (Deustch, 1949). The 1981 paper was based on
David and Roger Johnson‘s pioneering work (Johnson & Johnson, 1974) as
identied by Karl Smith in the mid-1970s as a promising practice for engi-
neering education. Also in 1981 an article, Structuring Learning Goals to Meet
the Goals of Engineering Education (Smith et al., 1981b), was published in the
Journal of Engineering Education. Cooperative learning is now embraced by
many engineering faculty (Smith, 2011), and its use is increasing by faculty at
large as indicated by the UCLA Higher Education Research Institute Survey of
Faculty as shown in Table 1 (DeAngelo, Hurtado, Pryor, Kelly, & Santos, 2009).
The adoption of cooperative learning provides a foundation for science, tech-
nology, engineering, and math faculty to embrace STEM integration.
Journal of STEM Education Volume 15Issue 1 January-April 2014 7
Closely related to cooperative learning is the increase in focus on “chal-
lenge-based learning” (Bransford, Vye, and Bateman, 2002), which is another
change needed for STEM integration. Challenges can be presented in many
formats, such as, real data and experiences, simulations, and fabricated scenar-
ios. Professional schools – medicine, law, engineering, business – have been
using this approach under names such as problem-based learning, case-based
learning, and project-based learning. One of the most popular research-based
instructional approaches that embraces challenge-based learning is SCALE-UP
(Student Centered Active Learning Environment with Upside-Down Programs; SCALE-UP classrooms have been implemented at
North Carolina State University, MIT, the University of Minnesota and the Uni-
versity of Iowa. A recent issue of New Directions for Teaching and Learning was
devoted to active learning spaces and features the SCALE-UP approach (Bae-
pler, Brooks, & Walker, 2014). While cooperative learning and challenge-based
learning programs are a start to STEM integration in undergraduate STEM edu-
cation, more eorts are needed in this area.
There are some indications that a few undergraduate STEM programs are
attempting STEM integration, such as Olin College and Iron Range Engineer-
ing; however the extent and depth of STEM integration is much less evident
than in K-12. Clearly, there is room for advancement of STEM Integration in
undergraduate STEM programs. As engineering educators continue to work
to align student learning outcomes, assessment practices, and instruction (or
pedagogy) more emphasis on STEM integration will become critically impor-
tant (Streveler, Smith, & Pilotte, 2012).
How to Make Progress
Progress in K-12 STEM integration needs to come on multiple fronts.
Among these are curricula development, teacher and administrator education
initiatives, school change initiatives, and policy initiatives. The following high-
light some ideas of how to make changes regarding these four issues:
There is a need for curricula that integrate STEM contexts for teaching
disciplinary content in meaningful ways that go beyond the blending
of traditional types of understandings. Curricula that integrate STEM are
rare for K-12 spaces, and of those that do, even fewer are research-based
and have meaningful mathematics and science. Funding to back new
research-based STEM integration curricular innovations is needed and
should be targeted.
• Teachers and administrators need professional learning experiences that
prepare them to work within and develop STEM integration learning en-
vironments for K-12 students. Most instructors, teachers, and administra-
tors have not learned disciplinary content using STEM contexts, nor have
they taught in this manner, and therefore new models of teaching must
be developed if STEM integration is to lead to meaningful STEM learning.
Programs should be developed at local and state levels to promote this
change in practice. School change is needed to support STEM integration.
Schools are set up to silo the disciplines of STEM. This separation is an
artifact of history. While it is good to learn each subject as a stand-alone, it
is also imperative that students see the interconnectedness of the subjects
they are learning.
Methods Used in “All” or “Most” Classes All Faculty 2005 - % All Faculty 2008 - % Assistant – 2008 - %
Cooperative Learning 48 59 66
Group Projects 33 36 61
Grading on a curve 19 17 14
Term/research papers 35 44 47
Table 1. The American College Teacher: National Norms for 2007-2008
• Schools need to make structural changes that will allow students to do
both - learn the nature of each of the STEM disciplines and learn that they
are interconnected in ways that is more like what they will encounter in
real-world problems. This will take concerted eorts at local, state, and
national levels if this is to be achieved.
• Policymakers need to consider that our ever-changing world requires
updates in the manner that we educate our students of the future. The
research around STEM integration as one method of teaching K-12 stu-
dents is very promising. Current policy initiatives that include high-stakes
testing only on mathematics and language arts, school improvement
measures based solely on scores on these tests, and teacher performance
policies that are based primarily on these tests are hurting our education
system. Schools and teachers make educational decisions about what
and how to teach based on getting their students to perform better on
these tests. This results in students not having access to science, technol-
ogy, or engineering until later in their education, and in our opinion, the
mathematics students are taught represent only the procedural nature of
mathematics, not the structure of mathematics. In order to help alleviate
this problem, policymakers must fully consider what the research is tell-
ing us about how students learn, how they engage, and what can lead to
more meaningful citizenry.
STEM integration in K-12 has the potential to help students learn more deep-
ly, enjoy the STEM disciplines, and provide them better access to future careers.
The above suggestions may help move us forward in achieving these goals.
Although the suggestions above were focused on K-12 STEM integration,
similar ideas are applicable for undergraduate STEM, where there is as much or
more disciplinary siloing. STEM integration is sorely lacking in undergraduate
STEM programs. We hope it will be the next shift.
Froyd, Wankat, and Smith (2012) identied ve major shifts in engineering
education in the past 100 years:
1. A shift from hands-on and practical emphasis to engineering science and
analytical emphasis;
2. A shift to outcomes-based education and accreditation;
3. A shift to emphasizing engineering design;
4. A shift to applying education, learning, and social-behavioral sciences
research; and
5. A shift to integrating information, computational, and communications
technology in education.
They argue that the rst two shifts are completed and the last three are in
The DBER study is particularly focused on Shift 4, applying education,
learning, and social-behavioral sciences research (Singer & Smith, 2013b).
The next major shift we argue in this editorial will be the re-integration of
these ve shifts with special emphasis on integrating the practical and math-
ematical, achieving the outcome of integrative STEM thinking, situating much
of the work in an engineering design context, and basing the work on educa-
tion, learning, and social-behavioral sciences research.
As a pioneer in STEM education scholarship, we see the Journal of STEM
Education as a principal venue for documentation advancing the state of the
art of STEM integration.
Journal of STEM Education Volume 15Issue 1 January-April 2014 8
Baepler, P., Brooks, D. P., & Walker, J. D. (2014). Active learning spaces. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning, 137. New York: Wiley.
Benson, L., Becker, K., Cooper, M., Grin, H. & Smith, K. (2010). Engineering
Education: Departments, Degrees and Directions. International Journal of
Engineering Education, 26 (5), 1042-1048.
Berlin, D. & White, A. (1995). Connecting school science and mathematics in
House, P. & Coxford, A. (Eds.) Connecting Mathematics across the Cur-
riculum: 1995 Yearbook. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Bransford, J., Vye, N., and Bateman, H. (2002). Creating High-Quality Learn-
ing Environments: Guidelines from Research on How People Learn. The
Knowledge Economy and Postsecondary Education: Report of a Workshop.
National Research Council. Committee on the Impact of the Changing
Economy of the Education System. P.A.Graham and N.G. Stacey (Eds.).
Center for Education. Washington, DC : National Academy Press.
Carr, R. L., Bennett, L. D., IV, & Strobel, J. (2012). Engineering in the K-12 STEM
standards of the 50 U.S. states: An analysis of presence and extent. Jour-
nal of Engineering Education, 101(3), 539-564.
DeAngelo, L., Hurtado, S., Pryor, J.H., Kelly, K.R., & Santos, J.L. (2009). The
American college teacher: National norms for the 2007-2008 HERI faculty
survey. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Rela-
tions, 2, 129-152.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. London: Collier Books.
English, L. D., & Mousoulides, N. G. (2011). Engineering-based modelling ex-
periences in the elementary and middle classroom. In M.S. Khine & I.M.
Saleh (Eds.), Models and modeling: Cognitive tools for scientic inquiry
(pp. 173-194). London: Springer.
Fairweather, J. (2008). Linking Evidence and promising practices in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate edu-
cation: A status report. Commissioned Paper for the Board of Science
Education Workshop, Evidence on Promising Practices in Undergraduate
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education.
Fairweather, J. & Paulson, K. (2008). The evolution of scientic elds in Ameri-
can universities: Disciplinary dierences, institutional isomorphism. In J.
Valimaa, & O. Ylijoki (Eds.), Cultural perspectives in higher education (pp,
197-212). Dordrecht: Springer.
Froyd, J. E., Wankat, P. C. & Smith, K. A. (2012). Five major shifts in 100 years of
engineering education. Proceedings of the IEEE, 100, 1344-1360.
Hjalmarson, M. A., Moore, T. J., & delMas, R. (2011). Statistical analysis when
the data is an image: Eliciting student thinking about sampling and vari-
ability. Statistics Education Research Journal, 10(1), 15-34.
Isaacs, A., Wagreich, P., & Gartzman, M. (1997). The quest for integration:
School mathematics and science. American Journal of Education, 106(1),
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1974). Instructional goal structures: Coopera-
tive, competitive, or individualistic. Review of Educational Research, 44,
Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has
access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association for
American Colleges and Universities.
Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J., Bridges, B., & Kayek, J. (2007). Piecing together
the student success puzzle: Research, propositions, and recommendations.
Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J., & Witt, E. (2005). Student success in college: Creat-
ing conditions that matter. Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of
Higher Education.
Moore, T. J., Guzey, S. S., & Brown, A. (2014). Greenhouse design to increase
habitable land: An engineering unit. Science Scope, 37(7), 51-57.
Moore, T. J., & Hjalmarson, M. A. (2010). Developing measures of roughness:
Problem solving as a method to document student thinking in engineer-
ing. International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(4), 820-830.
Moore, T. J., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., Kersten, J. A., & Ntow, F. D. (2013). The
status of engineering in the current K-12 state science standards. 2013
American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Atlanta,
National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. (2013). To-
ward integrated STEM education: Developing a research agenda. A FACA
Compliant Consensus Study.
National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. (2014).
STEM Integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for
research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience,
and School: Expanded Edition. Washington, D. C.: National Academies
National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying
eective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012a). Discipline-based education research: Un-
derstanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and educa-
tion. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012b). A framework for K-12 science education:
Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The Na-
tional Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012c). Research universities and the future of
America: Ten breakthrough actions vital to our nation’s prosperity and se-
curity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2013). Developing Assessments for the Next Gen-
eration Science Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states by
states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (1991). How College Aects Students: Finding
and Insights from Twenty Years of Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college aects students: A third decade
of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Journal of STEM Education Volume 15Issue 1 January-April 2014 9
PCAST [President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology] (2012). En-
gage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with de-
grees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. http://www.les/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-
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(1), 31-44.
Singer, S., & Smith, K. A. (2013a). Follow the evidence: Discipline-based edu-
cation research dispels myths about learning and yields results – if only
educators would use it. Last Word, ASEE Prism, 22(9), 92.
Singer, S., & Smith, K. A. (2013b). Discipline-based education research: Under-
standing and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineer-
ing. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 468-471.
Smith, J. & Karr-Kidwell, P. (2000). The interdisciplinary curriculum: A literary
review and a manual for administrators and teachers. Retrieved from ERIC
database. (ED443172).
Smith, K. A. (2006). Continuing to build engineering education research capa-
bilities. IEEE Transactions on Education 49 (1): 1-3.
Smith, K. A. (2011). Cooperative Learning: Lessons and Insights from Thirty
Years of Championing a Research - Based Innovative Practice. Proceedings
41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Rapid City, SD. TE3-1-
Smith, K. A., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1981a). The use of cooperative
learning groups in engineering education. In L.P. Grayson and J.M. Bie-
denbach (Eds.), Proceedings Eleventh Annual Frontiers in Education Confer-
ence, Rapid City, SD, Washington: IEEE/ASEE, 26-32.
Smith, K. A., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R. T. (1981b). Structuring learning
goals to meet the goals of engineering education, Engineering Education,
72 (3), 221-226.
Streveler, R., Borrego, M., & Smith, K. A. (2007). Moving from the “scholar-
ship of teaching and learning” to “educational research:” An example from
engineering. Silver Anniversary Edition of To Improve the Academy, 25,
Streveler, R. A., & Smith, K. A. (2006). Conducting rigorous research in engi-
neering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 103-105.
Streveler, R. A., & Smith, K. A. (2010). From the margins to the mainstream:
The emerging landscape of engineering education research. Journal of
Engineering Education, 99(4), 285-287.
Streveler, R. A., Smith, K. A., & Pilotte, M. (2012). Aligning course content, as-
sessment, and delivery: Creating a context for outcome-based education.
In K. Yusof, N. Azli, A. Kosnin, S. Yusof, & Y. Yusof (Eds.), Outcome-based
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education: Innovative
practices (pp. 1-26). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Journal of STEM Education Volume 15Issue 1 January-April 2014 10
Tamara J. Moore, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Engineering Education at Purdue
University. Dr. Moore’s research is centered on the integration of STEM concepts in K-12 and
higher education mathematics, science, and engineering classrooms in order to help students
make connections among the STEM disciplines and achieve deep understanding. Her research
agenda focuses on dening STEM integration and investigating its power for student learning.
She is creating and testing innovative, interdisciplinary curricular approaches that engage
students in developing models of real world problems and their solutions. Her research also
involves working with educators to shift their expectations and instructional practice to
facilitate eective STEM integration.
Tamara is currently working on two National Science Foundation supported projects:
The STEM Integration CAREER Project and the EngrTEAMS Project. The goal of the STEM
Integration CAREER project (CAREER: Implementing K-12 Engineering Standards through
STEM Integration; NSF – EEC/CAREER, #1055382) is to understand dierent mechanisms
of integrating engineering content and standards into K-12 classrooms through STEM
integration. Through this funding, a “Framework for Quality K-12 Engineering Education” has
been developed. The framework will be used as a tool for evaluating the degree to which
academic standards, curricula, and teaching practices address the important components of
a quality K-12 engineering education. Tamara is the Principal Investigator of the EngrTEAMS
(Engineering to Transform the Education of Analysis, Measurement, and Science in a Targeted
Mathematics-Science Partnership, NSF – MSP, #1238140) project, which works with teachers
to increase science and mathematics learning through engineering for 15,000 students in 4th-
8th grades. It provides summer professional development and curriculum writing workshops
to allow teachers to design curricular units focused on science concepts, meaningful data
analysis, and measurement. Tamara is the co-chair of the Focus on Engineering Writing
Team for the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Position Paper for the
Next Generation Science Standards and was awarded a Presidential Early Career Award for
Scientists and Engineers (PECASE) in 2012.
Karl A. Smith, Ph.D., is Cooperative Learning Professor of Engineering Education,
School of Engineering Education, at Purdue University. He is also Emeritus Professor of Civil
Engineering, Morse-Alumni Distinguished Teaching Professor, Executive Co-Director STEM
Education Center, and Faculty Member, Technological Leadership Institute at the University of
Minnesota. Karl has been actively involved in engineering education research and practice for
over forty years and has worked with thousands of faculty all over the world on pedagogies
of engagement, especially cooperative learning, problem-based learning, and constructive
controversy. His research and development interests include building research and
innovation capabilities in engineering education; faculty and graduate student professional
development; the role of cooperation in learning and design; problem formulation, modeling,
and knowledge engineering; and project and knowledge management and leadership. He is
a Fellow of the American Society for Engineering Education and past Chair of the Educational
Research and Methods Division.
Karl is PI of the NSF Workshop: Innovation Corps for Learning (I-Corps-L): A Pilot
Initiative to Propagate & Scale Educational Innovations (NSF DUE-1355431). He has been
co-PI on two NSF Centers for Learning and Teaching (CLT), including the Center for the
Advancement of Engineering Education (CAEE), and co-PI on a NSF-CCLI-ND—Rigorous
Research in Engineering Education: Creating a Community of Practice. He served on the
Committee on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education
Research that produced the National Research Council Report, Discipline-Based Education
Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering.
He has written eight books including How to model it: Problem solving for the computer
age; Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity; Strategies for
energizing large classes: From small groups to learning communities; and Teamwork and project
management, 4th Ed.
... 221). Similarly, Moore and Smith [58] defined STEM instruction as involving students participating in "engineering design as a means to develop relevant technologies that require the learning and use of appropriate science and/or mathematics content" (p. 5). ...
... Content integration emphasizes knowledge from multiple content areas blended into a singular unit or used to advance the learning within one discipline, for instance, to enhance engineering learning while integrating knowledge from other disciplines [35]. On the other hand, context integration focuses on increasing the relevancy of the content topic from one discipline by using contexts from different disciplines [58]. Given a variety of models and conceptions about STEM, designing STEM instruction for preservice courses has been noted as a challenge due to a lack of a coherent framework [56,62] to help instructors redesign courses for a greater STEM focus. ...
... With increased attempts to redesign preservice teacher preparation programs to include STEM integration, the research on preservice STEM teacher education is also growing; however, much remains unclear about the underlying factors that support or hinder integrated STEM teaching self-efficacy. Despite a paucity of research on STEM teaching self-efficacy, emerging studies [37,48,59] suggest that courses that cut across multiple contexts and are positioned to advance interdisciplinary knowledge using approaches that involve problem-solving by formulating questions, communicating, participating in scientific inquiry and engineering, and designing solutions to complex real-world problems [58,66], and instructor STEM modeling [37] are pivotal to enhancing PSTs' confidence and self-efficacy in teaching integrated STEM. Research by [59] investigated the impact of a newly designed STEM block that combined two traditional mathematics and science methods courses. ...
Full-text available
Educational reform efforts have emphasized preparing highly competent and confident preservice teachers to deliver effective K-12 Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) instruction. Self-efficacy is a key variable that influences motivation and performance, and therefore it is necessary to support the development of preservice teachers’ integrated STEM teaching self-efficacy. This mixed-methods study investigates how preservice elementary teachers’ integrated STEM teaching self-efficacy is shaped during their participation in a newly redesigned STEM semester consisting of three concurrent methods courses (science and engineering, mathematics, and technology methods courses). The quantitative data sources included the Self-efficacy for Teaching Integrated STEM instrument administered as a pre- and post-test, demographic, and open-ended questionnaire. The qualitative data sources included STEM identity letters, integrated STEM models, and STEM growth reflections. Quantitative results showed statistically significant positive gains in integrated STEM-teaching self-efficacy from the beginning to the end of the semester. The results from the content analysis also revealed positive shifts in PSTs’ conceptions and attitudes about STEM. Notably, having a similar discourse across the three parallel-running methods courses provided a suitable context for preservice teachers to develop a shared understanding of integrated STEM. Implications for preservice STEM teacher preparation and research are discussed.
... Our approach will take into account the paramount importance accorded to the history and philosophy of science in science and mathematics education. [53] In an integrated nature of STEM, the distinction between its constituent disciplines is an "artifact" of historical, epistemological, or didactical theorisation [54] that can be avoided, seeking for a sum with greater educational value than its parts. [43] We will search for holistic grounds that will free content to be taught from the closed expertise of the established disciplines. ...
Full-text available
The value of science partly lies on the development of useful products for humanity’s needs, but basic sciences cannot be said the “protagonists” of their obtention. Human history shows that these processes occur as a result of interactions between science and technology, mathematics, and engineering, as well as ethics and aesthetics. This network of disciplinary relationships facilitating the impact of scientific knowledge on human lives is at the center of discussions in the field of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education, and will be the focus of this article. Since the problems encountered in people’s everyday activities cannot be solved with the knowledge and skill of a single discipline, there emerges an aim for general education to attain more holistic understandings required by human needs. Our conceptualization of STEM education, based on classical Greek philosophy, addresses this issue. We acknowledge that the traditional paradigm of monodisciplinary education, formed as a result of the separation of sciences over history, has been challenged in the last two decades with the rise of integrating approaches in science and technology education. STEM is consistently mentioned as a way for gaining the integrated knowledge and skills deemed important for the near future, but theoretical searches towards solving its basic problems are still ongoing and we take this as our general research problem. In this argumentative study, the philosophical approach proposed to shed light on STEM education practices is structured along two conceptual axes: integration of disciplines and inclusion of humanistic goals. Suitable foundations for our proposal are sought in Aristotelian philosophy: We use Aristotle’s conception of a particular kind of human activity—poiesis, that aims to create “useful” and “aesthetic” products in order to propose an engineering “center” or “core” in the design of STEM school practices. Our model, labeled as “poietic” STEM, incorporates key elements of the nature of engineering; under the light of such a model, some aspects of what is called the “nature of STEM” are discussed. We conclude that, in an education envisaging more holistic approaches towards citizen literacy, it is necessary to connect the performance of STEM with responsible human interaction. In accordance with this requirement, our approximation to STEM centered on an epistemologically sophisticated conception of engineering makes room for fostering shared awareness in students.
... STEM interest is a relatively enduring preference for certain topics, subject areas, and activities (Hidi, 1990;Renninger & Hidi, 2011;Schiefele, 1991); and STEM identity refers to how individuals know and name themselves, who one is or wants to be, as well as to how one is recognized by others (Carlone & Johnson, 2007;Goos & Bennison, 2019;Honey et al., 2014;Kim, 2018). A solution to this challenge is integrated STEM education that combines the subject matter of at least two STEM subjects into a joint learning experience (English, 2016;Moore & Smith, 2014), which better develops students' positive interest and identity (Struyf et al., 2019). However, most STEM studies addressing multiple disciplines are insufficient, as they have produced mixed findings and inadequate direction for advancing integrated STEM education (Kim, 2018;Robinson et al., 2019;Vincent-Ruz & Schunn, 2018). ...
Full-text available
Students’ strongly positive STEM interest and identity predict their future study and career choices in a STEM field. STEM education studies addressing multiple disciplines together are insufficient, as they have produced mixed findings and inadequate direction for advancing integrated STEM education. Self-determination theory (SDT) provides an understanding of motivational processes that influence the development of STEM interest and identity. This study investigated the effectiveness of a set of proposed teacher needs-supportive strategies on student STEM interest and identity development during a proposed 12-week SDT-based STEM program. Three hundred forty-two ninth grade students were randomly assigned to SDT and non-SDT groups during the program. The results support the application of SDT in integrated STEM learning and explain how supporting student needs affects their STEM interest and identity, which is crucial in interdisciplinary learning and the development of adolescent interest and identity in K–12. Moreover, the results contribute to SDT by adding a new dimension—integrated STEM interest and identity—and presenting more evidence on how the teacher’s needs-supportive strategies foster this dimension. These results have practical implications for advancing integrated STEM education in addition to new opportunities for using fewer resources to effectively foster student interest and identity in compulsory education.
... This pedagogy has found particular relevance in STEM education, which encompasses a vast array of subjects ranging from science to engineering and mathematics (Clements & Sarama, 2023). Moore and Smith (2014) defined integrated STEM education as "an effort to combine some or all of the four disciplines of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics into one class, unit, or lesson that is based on connections between the subjects and real-world problems" (p.38). As reported in numerous studies, there are various approaches to STEM Education (e.g., Barakos et al., 2012). ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
When teaching mathematics, several academics have emphasised the potential of STEM education for improving students' knowledge and engagement. According to studies, mathematics teachers' perspectives and awareness of this potential affect their instructional practices, and as a result, their perspectives have an impact on whether and how they incorporate STEM lessons in their syllabi. Recent research has shown that teachers must have more expertise on how to incorporate STEM learning scenarios into their classes. This study looked at the effectiveness of a STEM education professional development programme for mathematics teachers with the goal of improving their understanding of STEM education and learning scenarios. This study presents the findings of a programme that comprised specific learning sessions for 267 mathematics teachers on STEM education in general, and various types of STEM learning scenarios, i.e., contributions of programme to teachers.
... On the other hand, STEM education, is an integrated, interdisciplinary approach to teaching and learning that emphasises the application of scientific, mathematical, and engineering concepts to real-world problems (Honey et al., 2014). STEM education is a way of teaching and learning that fosters innovation and creativity by integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in a problem-based, real-world context (Smith & Moore, 2014). STEM education is a novel approach to teaching and learning that combines science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to encourage students to think critically, communicate effectively, and solve complex problems (Sanders, 2009). ...
Full-text available
In Malaysia, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education is becoming increasingly important in the current industrial revolution 4.0 and society 5.0 era. This study aims to investigate the current STEM education trends in Malaysia, the benefits of pursuing STEM careers in the future, and the need to build a talent pool to meet the demand of these two revolutions. This study highlights the various STEM education trends in Malaysia, including the incorporation of STEM-related subjects in the national curriculum and the promotion of STEM-related extracurricular activities. It also discusses the benefits of pursuing a career in STEM, such as higher earning potential and job security, as well as the importance of preparing a talent pool to meet the demand of the rapidly changing technological landscape. This study argues that Malaysia needs to focus on developing a robust STEM education system that can produce a workforce equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge to excel in the industries of the future. The study also highlights the role of policy makers, researchers, and educators in this process and proposes recommendations for enhancing STEM education in Malaysia. This study contributes to the literature on STEM education in Malaysia and provides valuable insights for policy makers, researchers, and educators. Introduction STEM education is the teaching and learning of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, with an emphasis on combining these disciplines to solve real-world problems. It emphasizes the development of critical-thinking, problem-solving, and teamwork skills, and aims to prepare student for career in STEM fields. STEM education can take many forms, including project-based learning, inquiry-based learning, and problem-based learning, and can occur at all levels of education, from elementary school to higher education (National Science Foundation, 2020).
Full-text available
Se considera que las tecnologías potencian el aprendizaje matemático, pero la constan- te actualización de las tecnologías dificulta que los docentes actualicen sus conocimientos. El grupo de Estudios Curriculares en Educación Matemática (GECEM), vinculado al Programa de Posgrado en Enseñanza de Ciencias y Matemáticas (PPGECIM), de la Universidad Luterana de Brasil (ULBRA), en Canoas, en el estado de Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil, desarrolla simuladores de aprendizaje para ayudar a los profesores en su práctica en el aula con tareas de matemáticas de alto nivel de demanda cognitiva. Los simuladores de brazos robóticos se presentan como objetos de aprendizaje con ventajas sobre los reales porque son menos costosos, no requieren ajustes mecánicos, no se rompen, no necesitan ser transportados, siendo excelentes para actividades en el aula o en línea.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Pendidikan STEM telah menjadi tren utama di banyak negara di seluruh dunia. Pendidikan STEM telah berkembang secara beragam dengan menekankan kolaborasi interdisipliner, lintas domain, dan regional. Untuk memberikan sumber yang mendalam bagi para peneliti dan pendidik tentang pendidikan STEM, penelitian ini bertujuan untuk membuat analisis bibliometrik pada topik pendidikan STEM secara global menggunakan analisis karakteristik publikasi. Database yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini menggunakan Scopus dan didapatkan 1866 artikel dari tahun 2018-2022. Analisis bibliometrik dianalisis dengan menggunakan VOSviewer dan Microsoft Excel. Berdasarkan hasil analisis bibliometrik menunjukkan bahwa So, W.W.M, merupakan penulis dengan jumlah publikasi terbanyak dan Chai, C.S., merupakan penulis dengan jumlah sitasi terbanyak pada topik penelitian Pendidikan STEM. Amerika Serikat adalah negara yang paling produktif dalam melakukan penelitian pada topik ini dengan 821 artikel. Jurnal yang paling berpengaruh dengan jumlah artikel terbanyak adalah International Journal of STEM Education. Literatur STEM utama dalam penelitian ini cenderung jatuh ke dalam kelompok besar seperti pendidikan STEM, STEM, dan Pendidikan IPA. Temuan ini menunjukkan perlunya studi multidisiplin dan lintas disiplin tentang penelitian STEM pada dunia pendidikan dan mengadvokasi dimasukkannya penelitian STEM di dunia pendidikan dari konteks geografis yang lebih luas.
Full-text available
This chapter discusses the STEM curriculum reform effort led by a team of multi-disciplinary STEM educators and researchers. The redesign and development include pathways threaded throughout the concurrent elementary science, mathematics, and technology methods courses within the STEM semester, for instance, sustainability and robotics. The integrated STEM semester drew upon existing models of STEM integration by connecting STEM content areas within communities of practice, defining STEM as an effort to integrate some or all STEM content areas, and making purposeful connections to enhance learning. We provide evidence from surveys, written reflections, and focus-group video sessions on how the multiple STEM engagements contribute to pre-service elementary teachers’ knowledge of STEM integration and in shaping their developing STEM identities. We found successes and challenges associated with curricular changes and with how the roles and responsibilities were negotiated amongst our team to ensure the seamless integration of STEM disciplines. Recommendations for future teacher educators to restructure their elementary education programs for STEM integration are discussed.
Full-text available
In The Advancement of Learning, Huber and Hutchings (2005) state that the “scholarship of teaching and learning … is about producing knowledge that is available for others to use and build on” (p. 27). Can viewing the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) as an educational research activity help make SoTL findings more available and easier to build on? This chapter describes a program that prepared engineering faculty to conduct rigorous research in engineering education. Project evaluation revealed that engineering faculty had difficulty making some of the paradigm shifts that were presented in the project.
Full-text available
Goals of engineering education, instructional methods and research on instructional goal structures are discussed.
The emphasis on Outcome-Based Education (OBE) and student-centered learning is an enormous advance in engineering education. The authors argue in this chapter that an essential element of OBE is aligning content, assessment, and delivery. The objective of this chapter is to provide a model for aligning course content with assessment and delivery that practitioners can use to inform the design or re-design of engineering courses. The purpose of this chapter is to help the reader build a foundation of knowledge, skills, and habits of mind or modes of thinking that facilitate the integration of content (or curriculum), assessment, and delivery (or instruction or pedagogy) for course, or program design. Rather than treat each of these areas separately, the authors strive to help the reader consider all three together in systematic way (Pellegrino, 2006). The approach is essentially an engineering design approach. That is, the chapter starts with requirements or specifications, emphasizes metrics, and then prepares prototypes that meet the requirements. It embraces the argument that "faculty members of the twenty-first-century college or university will find it necessary to set aside their roles as teachers and instead become designers of learning experiences, processes, and environments" (Duderstadt, 2008).
The study committee has taken stock of the health of our nation's research universities today and envisioned the role we would like them to play in our nation's life 10 to 20 years from now. They have found that without reservation, our research universities are, today, the best in the world, yet they face critical threats and challenges that may seriously erode their quality. In response to its charge, the committee produced this report---their vision for strengthening these institutions so that they may remain dynamic assets over the coming decades---as the launch of a decade-long effort involving many constituencies. In order for the pro- gram they outline to ensure we have strong research universities 20 years from now that remain critical national assets, the actions necessary to implement their recommendations and achieve our goals will necessarily evolve as their details are thought through, new challenges and opportunities arise, and as we surely emerge from the economic circumstances present at the time of their writing. Experience with earlier reports, such as Rising Above the Gathering Storm, suggests that the role of this report should be to lay out and justify the findings concerning the challenges and needs, provide general recommendations that may be adapted to changing circumstances, and then develop implementation plans for each constituency that will evolve and adapt in a changing world (e.g., the economy). America's research universities have been "breaking through" to create a better life for Americans for more than a century. While Bell Labs and their counterparts have given way to Silicon Valley and their counterparts, American research universities continue to provide the heartbeat that keeps major innovation alive. The plan for action in this report, when followed for the remainder of this decade, will set the course for continued American leadership and good jobs for Americans. As this report is finalized, citizens from all over the world question America's capability to lead the world to a new century of growth. As Americans, we must accept this challenge, and these 10 recommendations hold a critical key to that success.
Next Generation Science Standards identifies the science all K-12 students should know. These new standards are based on the National Research Council's A Framework for K-12 Science Education. The National Research Council, the National Science Teachers Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Achieve have partnered to create standards through a collaborative state-led process. The standards are rich in content and practice and arranged in a coherent manner across disciplines and grades to provide all students an internationally benchmarked science education. The print version of Next Generation Science Standards complements the website and: Provides an authoritative offline reference to the standards when creating lesson plans. Arranged by grade level and by core discipline, making information quick and easy to find. Printed in full color with a lay-flat spiral binding. Allows for bookmarking, highlighting, and annotating.