Research Highlight

RESEARCH
HIGHLIGHTS IN
STEM
EDUCATION
Editors
Dr. Mack Shelley

Dr. S. Ahmet Kiray
RESEARCH
HIGHLIGHTS IN
STEM EDUCATION
EDITORS
Dr. Mack Shelley

Dr. S. Ahmet Kiray
Research Highlights in STEM Education
Editors
Dr. Mack Shelley & Dr. S. Ahmet Kiray
Cover Design and Layout

Davut Alan
This book was typeset in 10/12 pt. Calibri, Italic, Bold and Bold Italic.
Copyright © 2018 by ISRES Publishing
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form,
by photostat, microfilm, retrieval system, or any other means, without prior
written permission of the publisher.

Published by ISRES Publishing, International Society for Research in Education and
Science (ISRES).
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN
978-605-81654-5-8
Date of Issue
December, 2018
Address
Iowa State University, 509 Ross Hall, Ames, IA 50011-1204, U.S.A.
E-mail
isresoffice@gmail.com
www.isres.org
SECTION 1: SPELLING STEM
Defining The ‘S’ in STEM: Nature of Science as a Component of STEM Literacy

6- 13
Valarie Akerson
What is technology (T) and what does it hold for STEM education? Definitions, issues, and tools
14 - 37
Mustafa Koc, Muhammet Demirbilek
The Rise of Engineering in STEM Education: The “E” in STEM

38 - 56
Senay Purzer, Mack Shelley
Mathematics (M) in STEM

57 - 64
Ayse Tugba Öner
SECTION 2: 21st CENTURY SKILLS AND STEM EDUCATION
Integrated STEM Education: Promoting STEM Literacy and 21st Century Learning
66 -80
Lay Ah-Nam, Kamisah Osman
STEM Skills in the 21st Century Education

81 - 101 Ceylan Sen, Zeynep Sonay Ay, Seyit Ahmet Kiray
SECTION 3: DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON STEM EDUCATION
Catalyzing Fundamental STEM Paradigms in the Accountability Millennium

103- 115
Robert M. Capraro
Closing the STEM Achievement Gap from a Unified Global Perspective

116- 134
Julia V. Clark
Promoting STEM Education for All Students

135 - 145
Hakan Akcay
SECTION 4: AN OVERVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON STEM EDUCATION
Active Learning in Undergraduate STEM Education: A Review of Research

147- 164
Martene L. Stanberry, Wanda R. Payne
STEM Professional Development Policies in the United States: Trends and Issues
165 - 182
Kristen D. Perez, David Devraj Kumar
STEM Reasoning and Learning via Science Modeling and Engineering Design Challenges
183- 193
Kathy L. Malone
An Overview of STEM Education and Industry 4.0

194 - 208
Sahin Idin
SECTION 1
SPELLING STEM
4
Defining the ‘S’ in STEM: Nature of Science as a Component of

STEM Literacy
Valarie AKERSON
Indiana University
How did We Get to “STEM?”
It seems we have a new acronym “STEM,” which is sometimes even “STEAM” (just
add “art”) or “STIM” (just add “informatics”) depending on what the individual letters
stand for and who is using the term. Typically “STEM” stands for Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics. But why do we have this new acronym, and what does
it really mean? Bybee (2013) states that the meaning is ambiguous and could even be
considered political. It could even be seen as a buzzword to gain attention and funding.
Instead of stating that their work is in science, technology, engineering, or technology
education, researchers could state they have a “STEM” project, which could gain
attention and possibly more funding as it connects to the newest buzzword. How can
we make “STEM” (or any of its variations) more than a buzzword? How can we include
all the components of STEM in education, in an integrated and meaningful fashion? Is
STEM just a slogan, or can it be a meaningful way of education?
My own perspective is from that of a science educator, trained as a science educator.

In my work I help prepare preservice elementary teachers to teach science. And yet,
it seems that I am now I am also supposed to be preparing them to teach STEM. Yet,
what is STEM? Is it “simply” science, technology, engineering, and mathematics? Or is
it bigger than that?
First—Scientific Literacy
Whatever your definition of STEM, one thing is common—we all agree on the goal for
a scientifically literate public (NSTA, 1982), even if we don’t exactly agree on the same
definition of “Scientific Literacy.”
What is clear is that “simply” understanding science content is not enough for scientific
literacy. Knowing scientific laws and theories, as well as concepts that are found in all the
science textbooks is not enough to be considered scientifically literate. Knowing how
that knowledge has developed through scientific “practices” is also not enough. People
need to actually be able to use the scientific knowledge to help them make informed
decisions about issues that affect them, their lives, and their world. Unless individuals
understand science as a way of knowing, in addition to the content and practices, then
they would not be able to use the knowledge to make informed decisions, and therefore
6
would not be considered scientifically literate. Lederman and Lederman (2014) share
their idea that science can be thought of in at least three interrelated parts: (a) science
as a body of knowledge—the content part of science, the science that you read in
textbooks, (b) strategies for developing scientific knowledge—the methods of science,
the practices of science, and (c) characteristics of the knowledge itself—the very nature
of scientific knowledge (NOS).
Knowing how scientific knowledge is developed, and the characteristics of that

knowledge, is essential to making informed decisions. Without being able to weigh
claims made by scientists, and understanding the strengths and even weaknesses of
that scientific knowledge, people will not be able to make informed decisions about
issues in society. Therefore it is essential that the general public have an accurate
understanding of the very nature of science itself.
In the United States we now have the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) (2013).
These Standards now also incorporate not only science content and scientific practices,
but also engineering practices, that teachers K-12 are responsible for teaching.
Unfortunately, with the exception of a few secondary science teachers, most public and
private school teachers never take even a single engineering course, and likely have
very little understanding of engineering itself. Not only that, but most university science
and mathematics educators, who are responsible for preparing science teachers, also
have never taken an engineering course, and therefore also have limited understanding
of engineering, which limits the connections that can be drawn and interwoven among
the components of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—STEM.
Despite the lack of formal engineering coursework, K-12 teachers are responsible for
teaching science across the three dimensions included in the NGSS. These dimensions
are the Disciplinary Core Ideas, the Science and Engineering Practices, and the Cross-
Cutting Concepts. The Disciplinary Core Ideas are basically the content of science—
the knowledge that has been developed about science—the content found within the
science textbooks. The Science and Engineering Practices include conceptualizing how
scientific and engineering knowledge is developed—the methods used by scientists
and engineers in developing knowledge. The Cross-Cutting Concepts include ideas that
transcend all science content, and are considered then, as part of science. It is within
the Science and Engineering Practices and the Cross-Cutting Concepts that we find ideas
about NOS and scientific inquiry. In the next section we look into the specific aspects
of NOS that are present in the Science and Engineering Practices as well as the Cross
Cutting Concepts. We then turn our attention now to research on NOS and scientific
inquiry.
7
Nature of Science
The Next Generation Science Standards contain ideas about Nature of Science (NOS)
that need to be included in K-12 in science lessons. Within the Science and Engineering
Practices section there are four aspects of NOS to be found that K-12 students should
know by the end of high school. First, scientific investigations use a variety of methods.
One can still often times see a poster of the steps of “The Scientific Method” posted on
a classroom wall, when in reality scientists do not use one simple method. In fact, many
investigations are descriptive and/or correlational, and simply do not fit “the scientific
method.” Second, scientific knowledge is based on empirical evidence. For something
to be a scientific way of knowing, there needs to exist empirical data that supports the
idea. All scientific knowledge is at least partially based on observations of the natural
world. In addition, all theories and laws can be checked against what actually occurs
in the natural world, which will substantiate the scientific knowledge, as well as allow
for predictions. Third, scientific knowledge, though robust, is open to revision in light
of new evidence. If new evidence is found, the scientific knowledge can be changed
or modified. Similarly, reinterpreting existing scientific knowledge can also allow for
changes in scientific knowledge. Fourth, scientific models, laws, mechanisms, and
theories, explain natural phenomena. These are different types of scientific knowledge,
but all help explain phenomena and all arise from interpretation of empirical evidence.
Laws describe relationships among observable phenomena and theories are inferred
explanations for observable phenomena.
There are also four aspects of NOS to be found within the Cross-Cutting Concepts
section that students K-12 should conceptualize. The first is that science is a way of
knowing, that is different from other ways of knowing, such as history, art, philosophy,
and religion. Scientists attempt to explain natural phenomena, and are not involved
in questions that cannot be answered by science, such as whether God exists. Third,
science address questions about the natural and material world. It does not seek to
answer questions outside the natural world. Those questions are important, but cannot
be answered by science. Third, scientific knowledge assumes an order and consistency
in natural systems. By assuming this order we can search for patterns in data and
empirical evidence, and then make predictions and form generalizations to explain the
natural world. And fourth, science is a human endeavor, meaning data are subject to
human interpretation and creativity, as well as being theory-laden and subjective, and
socially and culturally embedded.
NOS and Scientific Inquiry—Influence of Research
There has been ample research on student and teacher understanding of NOS as well
as scientific inquiry over the past six decades. While it is clear that student and teacher
8
conceptions can improve, generally the same misunderstandings are held by students
and teachers now as they were decades ago (Lederman, 2007). Unfortunately, these
misconceptions about NOS and scientific inquiry clearly mean that little progress has
been made in helping students and teachers attain scientific literacy. It is clear from
empirical research that student and teachers’ learning about NOS and scientific literacy
is most effective through explicit reflective instruction (Lederman & Lederman, 2014).
Explicit reflective instruction requires teachers to facilitate discussion and reflection
about the very nature of science itself as investigations are taking place, or as they are
debriefed after being concluded. Therefore the students will be explicitly reflecting on
ideas about NOS as part of their science instruction.
However, this explicit reflective instruction rarely takes place. Unfortunately, despite the
empirical research, there is little change to curricula, or classroom practice. The act of
embedding NOS explicitly takes tremendous effort in adapting lessons and ensuring it is
completed (Akerson, Pongsanon, Nargund, & Weiland, 2014). It is not typically included
in curricula, and therefore even teachers who want to include it need to spend much
time in adapting lessons. This lack of emphasis on NOS in the curricula has influenced
the amount of NOS instruction that takes place in a science classroom—it is still very
little, unless a teacher is very committed to such instruction.
Now, not only are K-12 teachers to teach about science, including NOS, but they also
need to include connections to technology, engineering and mathematics—STEM. And
maybe art too, if they are teaching “STEAM.” Or if you are at Indiana University and
have no engineering department, “Informatics” instead of engineering, and you are
“STIM.” However, with teachers still struggling to not only teach about NOS, despite
the years of empirical research supporting teaching methodology for effective NOS
instruction, it definitely means our job in teacher preparation will entail even more, to
prepare teachers for what they need to do. If they need to conceptualize the Nature of
Science as a way of knowing, certainly they should be able to conceptualize other ways
of knowing that are part of STEM—in essence, what is the nature of the “TEM?”
Defining the Nature of the “TEM”
As a science educator, but also a part of current society, I sought to locate statements on
the nature of technology, the nature of engineering, and the nature of mathematics. I
did what anyone would do—a Google search. In this way, I was able to find what anyone
would commonly find when doing such a search. I conducted this search for definitions
of the Nature of Technology, Nature of Engineering, and Nature of Mathematics. These
definitions will be reported in the sections below.
9
Nature of Technology
When searching for information regarding Nature of Technology, I was able to locate
an entire book (Arthur, 2011) that described “The Nature of Technology: What it is
and How it Evolves.” In essence, the Nature of technology involves three definitions.
First, technologies are combinations of elements that exist. Second, the elements
that comprise technology are technologies themselves. Finally, all technologies use
phenomena to some purpose. Therefore, technology is purposeful. In addition to
these three definitions of technology, Arthur adds three meanings of technology to the
nature of technology—or the characteristics of technology. First, there exists individual
technologies, or “a means to fulfill a human purpose.” Technology, again, is purposeful,
and the purposes are to solve issues or problems of a human nature. The second includes
the bodies of technologies, such as semi-conductors, or robotics, or “an assemblage of
practices and components.” This portion of the definition to me is similar to the content
part of science—the “stuff” of technology. The third meaning of technology is its largest
sense, “The entire collection of devices and engineering practices available to a culture,
and is dependent on scientific knowledge.” This portion of the definition, as I read it,
comprises the content, products, and practices of engineering, more of the “nature” of
technology.
Nature of Engineering
A search for a definition of the Nature of Engineering enabled me to locate the National
Academy of Engineering’s president Wulf’s definition from 1997. They state simply that,
“Engineers apply their knowledge in science and mathematics to design and create
things, develop existing technology, and invent new methods and processes.” Their
definition is very brief and there did not seem to be an updated definition, at least not
one that turned up easily in the search. Regarding the definition, it is apparent that
engineers base their designs, in part, on their scientific knowledge, and use that to
develop new ideas, processes, and technologies. Note that there is no description of
the “engineering design process” that is part of many K-12 STEM curricula.
Nature of Mathematics
Like the search for the definition of the Nature of Engineering, my search for the definition
of the Nature of Mathematics similarly turned up an older document—this time a full
book chapter within the Handbook of Research on Mathematics, by Dossey (1986). A
search for a more current version was not readily found, so I used this chapter. From this
chapter I gleaned that mathematical objects are invented or created by humans. These
creations are not arbitrary, but arise from activity with already existing mathematical
10
objects, and from the needs of science and daily life. Once these mathematical objects
are created they have properties that are well-determined with we may have great
difficulty in discovering, but which are possessed independently of our knowledge of
them. To me, this means that mathematics is also a problem-solving entity that is also
connected to science, as its creation arises as a result of the needs of science. Once it
exists and is created by humans, it has characteristics that then remain, independent of
human knowledge about them.
Back to STEM
If we are going to teach STEM as a discipline itself, do we need to prepare teachers to

understand the nature of each of these disciplines that comprise STEM, as well as the
connections among them? It seems that teachers would need to know the natures
of the disciplines they are to teach. But if we haven’t been successful in the past in
helping teachers better conceptualize nature of science, as well as teach it, how can we
help them better conceptualize all four disciplines, plus the connections among them,
and then teach these ideas to students? A search for a definition for the nature of
STEM yielded no results. Does this mean that we need to define what is exactly the
nature of STEM? Would that be the way to go, to have only one term about which to
conceptualize its nature?
And what about scientific literacy? Do we now focus on STEM literacy instead? But if we
cannot agree on a definition of scientific literacy can we agree on a definition of STEM
literacy? Bybee (2013) offers the following suggested definition of STEM literacy:
(1) Knowledge, attitudes, and skills to identify questions and problems in life
situations, to explain the nature and designed world, and to draw evidence-based
conclusions about STEM related issues.
(2) Understanding of the characteristic features of STEM disciplines as forms of

human knowledge, inquiry, and design.
(3) Awareness of how STEM disciplines shape our material, intellectual, and cultural
environments
(4) Willingness to engage in STEM issues and with the ideas of science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics as a constructive, concerned, and reflective citizen.
It would seem evident that to demonstrate STEM literacy, as defined above, individuals
would need to conceptualize the nature of the disciplines that comprise STEM, as well
as the kinds of knowledge generated in each discipline, along with the connections
among them. Not an easy feat to conceptualize these, or to teach these ideas. How
then, do we get to STEM literacy? If we look back at the definitions of the “TEM” in
STEM, we can see that Nature of Technology—is dependent on scientific knowledge,
11
Nature of Engineering—Engineers apply their knowledge in science, and Nature of

Mathematics, mathematical artifacts are created not arbitrarily but arise from activity
with already existing objects, and from the needs of science. All the other disciplines in
STEM connect somehow to science. It seems the “S” in STEM is important.
This insight into science being a very important component of STEM raises the question
how can technology, engineering, and mathematics progress without an understanding
of science and its nature? Science is a part of each discipline’s nature. It would be
difficult for these disciplines to make progress without understanding the nature of
scientific knowledge. Therefore it is not only important for NOS to be understood by
those studying science, but also those studying STEM disciplines.
Therefore, I raise a call for renewed emphasis on research on NOS in science as well
as STEM. How can accurate conceptions of NOS influence conceptions of STEM? What
does an accurate conception of NOS mean for those who operate in the STEM field, or
for those required to teach STEM K-12?
We need a definition of STEM that we can agree upon, as well as a definition of the
nature of STEM. How do we know when we are “doing STEM?” Many projects claim to
be STEM projects or programs, but what are the natures of those projects—are there
some essential components that are necessary to be included in order to be labeled
“STEM?” Or to be labeled “good STEM?”
Are there different kinds, or levels of “STEM?” What does it mean to be STEM? And
yes, the S in STEM really is that important—we need to know NOS as part of scientific
literacy, but also as part of STEM literacy. There is no STEM without the S.
CONCLUSION
Let us all work hard with our research toward resolving these issues about defining
STEM and its nature. And not only just conduct the research, but also make impact
on classroom practice. The research on teaching NOS effectively is clear, yet still little
change has been seen in classroom practice. Making an impact on classroom practice is
easier said than done, as past research on teaching NOS has shown. Hopefully working
together to define these ideas we can make better, and quicker, impact, helping improve
scientific and STEM literacy.
REFERENCES
Akerson, V.L., Pongsanon, K., Nargund, V., & Weiland, I. (2014). Developing a professional
identity as a teacher of nature of science. International Journal of Science
Education.
12
Arthur, W. B. (2011). The Nature of Technology: What it is and how it Evolves. New York:
Free Press.
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The Case for STEM Education: Challenges and Opportunities.
Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Dossey, J.A. (1992). The nature of mathematics: Its role and influence. In D. A. Grouws
(Ed.) Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning. (Pp 132-161)
Indianapolis, IN: Macmillan.
Lederman, N.G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N.
G. Lederman (Eds) Handbook of research on science education, (pp. 831-879).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature
of science. In N.G. Lederman and S.K. Abell (Eds) Research on Science Education,
Volume II (pp. 600-620). New York: Routledge.
National Science Teachers Association (NSTA, 1982). Science-technology-society: Science

education for the 1980s. Washington, DC.: Author.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states by states.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Wulf, W .A. (1997). Changing Nature of Engineering. The Bridge, 27 (2), 1.
13
What is Technology (T) and What does it Hold for STEM Education? Definitions,
Issues, and Tools
Mustafa Koc
Suleyman Demirel University
Muhammet Demirbilek
Suleyman Demirel University
The Conception of Technology
Scholars and politicians in the field of education acknowledge the potential and
promise of technology for learning and teaching. It has recently become the most
important and urgent agenda in most of the countries’ educational policies and
curriculum developments. In fact, it is often considered as a quick solution to our
educational challenges. We, as educators, are clear that technology opens new horizons
for students, teachers and educational settings. Nevertheless, decades of research
and personal experiences have shown that technology integration into schools is a
complex and multi–dimensional process. Effective and successful technology use in
the educational settings requires us to know and work on several factors and make
them to be consonant with each other. The first perhaps the most important one is to
have a comprehensive conception of technology because it directly contributes to the
development of teachers’ belief systems. While some factors have been disappearing
with the increased access to technology and improved teachers’ relevant competencies,
teachers’ beliefs persist to be a key factor as they are robust and resistance to change
(Ertmer, 2005).
Unless we have a clear understanding of what technology actually means, we will most
probably miss the point of pedagogical value and transformative role of technology in
education and thus fail to achieve a true and beneficial integration. The result would
likely be a technically–oriented and superficial implementation and ultimately an
unprofitable investment. Being an overly optimistic or pessimistic about technology will
also lead to the adoption of it either as a magic wand to fix educational problems or a
threat to disrupt educational activities. A recent study in Turkey shows that pre–service
teachers have a restricted conception of technology mostly focusing on artifacts and
technical characteristics, and calls for a teacher education culture and curriculum that
emphasize a broader and balanced view of technology (Koc, 2013). It is well–known
that teachers’ pre–existing beliefs and views act as a filter for the acceptance of new
knowledge and tools and significantly shape their usage in general teaching practices
(Pajares, 1992; Richardson, 1996).
14
This is also true for teachers’ specific technology integration practices (Ertmer &
Ottenbreit–Leftwich, 2010). Therefore, providing teachers with a well–rounded
conceptual base about the nature of technology is a first vital step because it influences
how they adopt and apply technology in their pedagogical acts (Koc, 2013).
The word of “technology” is known to be derived from Greek words “techne” referring
to manufacturing (e.g., techniques of tablets, 3D printers) and the arts (e.g., techniques
of teaching, drawing) and “logic/logos” meaning word, thought, speech or principle.
From this linguistic aspect, technology is defined as an endeavor or study on making
a craft or mastery of an art. This is why it is prevalently known as the application of
scientific knowledge and skills to our practical problems. It is not a distinct discipline
itself but rather a practice of any discipline like constructive technology, educational
technology, medical technology, and so on. This definition obviously involves both a
tool/end and its process of production and consumption. However, our everyday
understanding of technology is often bound to its instrumentalist perspectives. When
talking about the use of technology in education, we usually refer to only technological
tools and its features (e.g., tablets, robots, interactive boards). As we explain in the
following sections, such a conception represents a restricted view of technology and its
implementation. Strict subscription to this school of thought can hinder to think about
and plan technology integration in detail and hence may lead to be unsuccessful or
ineffective in this affair.
A closer look from the philosophical perspective reveals diverse approaches to

understanding the meaning of technology and its consequences on human life. In his
book, Critical Theory of Technology, Feenberg (1991) distinguishes various theories
in terms of their prepositions about the nature of technology on two continuums.
One indicates the extent of autonomy; technology is either autonomous or human–
controllable. The other illustrates the degree of value–ladenness; technology is either
neutral or value–laden. Based on the intersection of these continuums, he identifies
four main types of theories of technology: instrumental, deterministic, substantive, and
critical view.
The “instrumentalist perspective”, often optimistic about technology, view technology

as morally neutral and human–controllable. Technology is usually identified as anything
mechanical or electrical tool that can be used for achieving a pre–determined end,
either bad or good, and can be humanly controlled. According to Feenberg (1991), it is
subservient to values established socio–cultural and political spheres. While technical
aspects including appearance, utility, popularity, and aesthetic features are usually
highlighted, factors such as the historical context and social shaping of a technology,
human experiences and activities surrounding the technology are not considered. As
we mentioned earlier, it is the most widely accepted view of technology not only in
15
education sector but also in all other areas of the society. Technology is viewed as a
rational and universally applicable entity so it is free of cultural, political, and ideological
values. Due to this decontextualization, technology is expected to function in the same
way and serve the same purposes anywhere it is used regardless of where it is originally
produced. Moreover, technology itself and its consequences on human lives or society
in general are considered to be independent of each other. Individuals are responsible
for proper or improper usage of the technology, not the technology itself. The neutrality
assumption has been criticized due to its ignorance of possible political, social, and
human influences on the process of technology development and implementation.
For example, Pacey (1992) gives an example of snowmobile use in Canada and North
America. He points out that snowmobile is always regarded as the same machine
whether it is used for earning a basic living, recreation, or environmentally destructive
sport. He further argues that when a technology fails or has unintended or negative
results, according to the instrumentalist view, the technology itself should not be
blamed but rather “its misuse by politicians, the military, big business and other” is the
causal factor (p. 2).
“Technological determinism” is another prevailing way of thinking about technology

and its function in the society. It argues for a one–directional relationship between
technology and society in which the former develops apart from the latter and
autonomously causes social change and directly impacts people (MacKenzie, 1998). It
is very popular and highly adopted among the politicians and development institutions.
They usually advocate technology as the cause of success or failure (e.g., learning
problems, low achievement, and high efficiency). According to Feenberg (1991),
technological determinism is based on the following two arguments:
1. The pattern of technical progress is fixed, moving along one and the same track
in all societies. Although political, cultural, and other factors may influence
the pace of change, they cannot alter the general line of development, which
reflects the autonomous logic of discovery.
2. Social organization must adapt to technical progress at each stage of development

according to the “imperative” of technology. This adaptation executes an
underlying technical necessity (pp. 122–123).
Technology impacts everyone’s life because more aspects of life in technological/

networked society are becoming mediated by the use of digital technologies.
According to the technological determinist position, people generally do not have
any influence over the direction of technological evolution and thus technology is an
autonomous and revolutionary force characterized by two oppositional perspectives:
utopian or dystopian. The utopian position constructs technology as a positive and
16
uplifting force that addresses and ultimately eradicates much of human misery while
increasing opportunities for social progress. It is the common sense perspective and
is associated with an enlightenment scientific–based social narrative of progress. This
perspective, for instance, suggests that information and communication technologies
liberate societies through facilitating an increase in social and economic capital and
democratic participation (Katz & Rice, 2002). A dystopian perspective, on the contrary,
believes that technology is an inherently dehumanizing force that will lead to social
and physical destruction of society. For example, Postman (1992) and Slouka (1995)
argue that the main problem of technology is its increasing isolation of people within
virtualized simulations of reality that cuts them off from the real natural world. Based
on the notion of social constructivism, some scholars propose “social construction of
technology approach” to dispute technological determinism (MacKenzie & Wajcman,
1999). The relationship between technology and society is claimed as the opposite of
what is claimed in technological determinism: the latter shapes the development of the
former. The proponents of this approach assert that technology is not immutable but
is a dependent variable characterized by human engineers, market forces, consumer
needs and demands, and all other social factors.
Unlike the instrumental approach, the “substantive theory of technology” treats

technology not a neutral tool, but rather embedded with values and ideologies in order
to “constitute a new type of cultural system that restructures the entire social world as
an object of control” (Feenberg, 1991, p. 7). It also holds that technology is autonomous
and “tends to function independently of the system it serves…in the manner of a robot
that no longer obeys its master” (Postman, 1992, p. 142). From this point of view, it
resembles the theory of technological determinism. The substantive theory asserts an
underlying essence or autonomous force to technology that overrides all traditional
and competing values. Social changes are believed to be influenced if not determined
by technological innovations since technology is fundamentally defined more than a
machine and can very well embody or constitute social and cultural dimensions that
may involve profound alterations for societies. Therefore, technical progress can
overcome human willpower and have a substantive impact on individual ad community
which, according to Ellul (1990), can be in three kinds: the desired, the foreseen, and
the unforeseen.
The substantive view is best known through the work of Ellul and Heidegger. Ellul’s (1964)
book, The Technological Society, describes the gradual process by which technology
is subverting and absorbing the traditional values of human society. Ellul specifically
defines technology as “la technique” which he defines as “the totality of methods
rationally arrived at and having absolute efficiency (for a given stage of development)
in every field of human activity” (1964, p. xxv). He argues that the technical erodes
17
the bonds of traditional social groups, communities, and human relationships without
building new social structures in their place. Technique itself becomes the central
focus of society as the human being is progressively transformed into the object of
technique (Ellul, 1964). Heidegger (1977) approaches the essence of technology from
an ontological perspective and associates it with his concept of “Dasein”, the essence
of “Being”. For Heidegger, the essence of technology relates to how technology as a
phenomenon is “coming to presence” or evolving via human actions. He introduces the
concept of “enframing” as the essence of technology, which is a way of understanding
being, or as he phrases, a way of revealing. He argues that “techne” is a kind of knowing
and its essence lies not in manufacturing goods or using tools, but in revealing. The
danger of technology, for Heidegger, is that the machines begin to alter human existence
and shape human destiny, and therefore, prevent individuals from understanding their
own being and natural objective identity. Complementing this notion, Feenberg (1991)
claims:
The issue is not that machines have “taken over”, but that in choosing to use
them we make many unwitting cultural choices. Technology is not simply a
means but has become an environment and a way of life: this is its “substantive”
impact. (p. 8)
Criticizing and synthesizing instrumental and substantive views of technology, Feenberg

(1991) proposes a “critical view of technology”, a dialectical approach, in order to reveal
the complex relationships between modern society and technology. He (1991) rejects
the “autonomous” premise of substantive argument and the “neutrality” notion of
instrumental view. However, he adopts the value–ladenness premise of the former and
reflects the latter’s argument that technology is under human control. According to
Feenberg (1991), critical theory uncovers the values and assumptions influencing the
design and construction of a technological tool. Being a valuable alternative discourse,
it challenges the idea of being trapped into the dilemma of either accepting whatever
technology is available or assuming a useless anti–technological position. The critical
perspective considers a given technology in terms of not only its design phase but also
its diffusion and use contexts. Thus, technology and society are seen to be dialectically
intertwined.
Having been influenced by the work of Marx and Marcuse, Feenberg (1991) refers to
the concept of “technological ambivalence” by examining Marx’s three critiques of
technology to uncover the connection between capitalism and technology: (a) “product
critique” which focuses on the purposes for which technology is designed, (b) “process
critique” regarding how technology is employed to accomplish those purposes, and (c)
“design critique” related to the ways in which technical principles are applied in the
design of technology (pp. 31–32).
18
According to his critical analysis:
Technology is not a thing in the ordinary sense of the term, but an “ambivalent”
process of development suspended between different possibilities. This
“ambivalence” of technology is distinguished from neutrality by the role it
attributes to social values in the design, and not merely the use, of technical
systems. On this view, technology is not a destiny but a scene of struggle. (p. 14)
The term “technological ambivalence” emphasizes the various kinds of possibilities

and choices available to society regarding technology adoption. Moreover, the decision
process which reviews these potentialities is social, not technological, and involves
complex social, cultural and hegemonic power relations. Feenberg, referring to work
of Marcuse and Foucault, proposes that such decisions are mediated by a “technical
code” that represents certain values and interests of the dominant social groups, and
that ideas at the design phase of technology reflect “capitalist rationalization” of the
modern society. For this reason, “technology is a dependent variable in the social
system, shaped to a purpose by the dominant class, and subject to reshaping new
purposes under a new hegemony” (p. 35). Different values and choices of designing
certain technologies may frame different possible ways of life. This can be achieved,
in Feenberg’s sense, through democratic means including greater participation in the
design and development of technology.
Our intention for reviewing these views is to illustrate that there is not a unique philosophy
of technology and its implications for a society. Besides, technology itself is constantly
changing and developing from day to day. Therefore, understanding technology and its
consequences on a society requires the engagement of various theories and practices
in other disciplines as well. The aforementioned views suggest that the relationship
of technology with any social institutions remains complicated. This also applies to
education. They indicate how technology integration into education is a complex and
uneasy issue from not only practical but also philosophical aspects. Each theory has
both strengths and weaknesses. Educators need to know all philosophical approaches
to technology and its implications for education so that they can develop a broader
and balanced personal standpoint of technology integration. Combination of diverse
perspectives might also contribute to the development of analytical frameworks for
determining and implementing optimal educational policies.
The Role of Technology in STEM Education
From the above review of various thoughts of technology, we now realize that the
term “technology” should refer to not only technical tools but also human activities
including multifaceted organizations and value systems. This realization involves more
comprehensive and precise conception of technology. To make such a general and
19
systematic meaning of technology, Pacey (1992) proposes the concept of “technology–

practice”, which is “the application of scientific and other knowledge to practical
tasks by ordered systems that involve people and organizations, living things and
machines” (p. 6). He categorize technology–practice into three general aspects: (a)
organizational aspect that consists of activities of the designers, engineers, factories,
users, and consumers, (b) technical aspect that refers to machines, techniques as well
as the knowledge and skills to operate them, and (c) cultural aspect that means values,
ethical codes, awareness, and creative activity, which influence the designers and
inventors of technology. He considers the “technical aspect” as a restricted meaning
of technology, and defines the general meaning by including all three aspects together
which constitutes the concept of technology–practice. We believe that Pacey’s (1992)
conceptualization is very appropriate to explain technology integration in educational
settings. When we talk about the use of technology in teaching or learning, which is a
special case of technology–practice, we need to consider all technical, organizational
and cultural aspects.
TECHNICAL
Robotic kits, Arduino sets,
Coding tools, 3D designing
and printing, Drones, GIS,
GPS, Web 2.0
Technology Use
in
CULTURAL ORGANIZATIONAL
STEM Education
Constructivist approaches, Activities of teachers,
Inquiry-oriented, Problem- students, educational
based, Project-based politics, economics,
learning, Interdisciplinary industry, makers
curriculum, Collaboration
Figure 1. A Framework for Technology Use in STEM Education
Using Pacey’s (1992) general conceptualization of technology–practice as a theoretical

base, we propose a three–legged framework for technology use in STEM education
(Figure 1). Our framework highlights that effective technology integration to support
STEM attitudes, knowledge and skills requires the consideration and coordination of
technical, cultural and organizational factors. As suggested by the aforementioned
philosophical perspectives of technology, it considers not only technological devices
but also relevant human activities surrounding them and the values influencing
their production and consumption. Hence, it acknowledges technology use in STEM
education as not value–free and neutral.
20
All three factors need to work together to comprise technology implementation into
STEM approach. Just like a tripod lost the stability when any of its legs is broken down,
technology integration may also fail when any of these is neglected or has some
deficiencies or impairments.
The first aspect “technical context” refers to hardware and software tools that support
the development and implementation of STEM–based learning activities. Examples of
currently available ones include but not limited to robotic kits, arduino sets, coding
programs, 3D printers, cloud computing, geographic information systems (GIS), global
positioning systems (GPS), Web 2.0 tools. In the proceeding section of this chapter,
we introduce some of these tools in detail and discuss their educational potentials.
Technological tools to be used for STEM activities are expected to include manipulative
options through which students can design, develop and program interactive artifacts
(Ortiz, Bos, & Smith, 2015). In this way, they are able to observe the consequences of
the changes they make on some factors on the status of others (e.g., casual relationships
between independent and dependent variables). Such tools also promote computational
thinking, systematic reasoning, creativity and problem–solving, which are among the
skills that we must teach our children in the 21st century. One another benefits of
these technologies is to engage students in hands–on experimentation through which
they can collect and analyze contextual data and translate abstract mathematics and
science concepts into concrete real–world applications (Nugent, Barker, Grandgenett &
Adamchuk, 2010).
Schools needs to plan a special budget for integrating STEM learning activities as
accessing related technologies is relatively expensive. This may not be easily achieved
by those public schools especially in the developing countries where such tools are
usually imported. Technical infrastructure is an essential determinant of technology
use in STEM education. Istanbul Aydın University organized the First STEM Education
Workshop in 2015 in order to identify deficiencies and gaps in the Turkish K–12 and
higher educational system germane to STEM and then suggest curricular and practical
solutions to overcome these shortcomings. This was a comprehensive assessment
of STEM implementation in Turkey with the participation of academicians, experts,
administrators and teachers. The workshop report concluded that the most crucial
shortcomings were related to such issues as interdisciplinary cooperation, teacher
competency, technical infrastructure, student guidance, measurement and evaluation,
curriculum integration and STEM courses (Akgündüz, Ertepınar, Ger, Sayı & Türk,
2015). Technical infrastructure here involves labs, ateliers and related technological
equipments. It is the core element and thus any problem in its presence and function is
automatically reflected in other issues, especially STEM practices in the schools.
21
It is again important to acknowledge that, as our framework emphasizes, equipping

schools with STEM–related technical tools is necessary but it alone is not adequate
to ensure successful implementation. Organizational and cultural contexts should be
considered as well. Unfortunately, technical aspects usually come to the forefront while
others are less considered, if not completely ignored, in the process of technology
integration. This gives the impression that capitalistic, populist and instrumentalist
thoughts and movements seem to be more dominant than social, humanistic and
pedagogical ones. Çepni (2017) argues that the presentation and perception of
advertising and marketing readily–prepared/assembled tools (e.g., robotics, electronic
circuits, coding) that are not associated with math and science learning objectives is
one of the biggest mistake in STEM adoption in Turkey. He warns that such an approach
may lead to the inflation of performing activities opposite to STEM philosophy (i.e.,
consumption–oriented rather than production–oriented) and eventually emergence of
a STEM–tools garbage. Therefore, technical context need to be grounded on a well–
established philosophical and scientific base.
The second aspect “cultural context” involves educational philosophies, policies,

theoretical beliefs and values related to teaching and learning, and curriculum objectives.
Such issues have direct influence on the determination of the role of technology in the
schools. Technology integration has been defined by the activities and indicators of
how teachers and students use technology. Prior studies reveal that in many cases, it
has meant different things to different people, and the term appears to have evolved
over the years. Therefore, how technology should be utilized in the schools has been
an ongoing discussion among the educators. Generally speaking, three conditions stand
out when thinking about the possible ways of using it for educational purposes: learning
about technology, learning from technology, and learning with technology.
Learning about technology represents the awareness and literacy of technological tools.
In this way of using technology, the aim of education is often the technology itself and
to teach student how to operate it. This is usually observed when a specific technology
is first introduced and diffused to a society and thus can be described as the beginning
stage of technology integration. Learning from technology represents behaviorist
perspectives for learning. Technology is usually programmed either to deliver education
content or to offer drill–and–practice activities. The interaction between technology
and a learner is one–directional from technology to the learner. It can be described
as the intermediate stage of technology integration. Finally, learning with technology
represents constructivist approaches to learning in which learners are decision makers
and active participants of knowledge construction with the help of technological tools
to support learning goals. It can be identified as the advanced stage of technology
instruction. A critical review of literature on effective technology integration reveals
22
that learning from technology is not the most effective way to improve learning in spite
of helping learners to gain lower level sub–skills easily and perform them automatically
whereas learning with technology is well–suited for meaningful learning by encouraging
learners to actively process and organize information (Koc, 2005).
STEM education is mainly based on the constructivist epistemology because it

advocates critical thinking, creativity, problem–solving, designing and productivity,
entrepreneurship, authentic learning experiences and performance–based assessments
(Çepni, 2017), which all are also premises of constructivist learning. Constructivists
believe that humans have the ability to construct knowledge through an active process
of discovery and problem solving. They regard technology as assistant for knowledge
construction. In constructivist use of technology, fundamental tasks of learning such as
planning, decision–making, and self–regulation are the responsibility of the learner, not
the technology. Technical tools which support constructivist learning are often defined
as cognitive tools, whose core attribute is not in the information that they carry, but the
forms of learner activity and engagement that they support and encourage. In a similar
vein, Jonassen (2000) developed the ideas of “mindtools”: computer based tools that
have been “adapted or developed to function as intellectual partners with the learner
in order to engage and facilitate critical thinking and higher–order learning” (p. 11).
According to him, the role of a mindtool is to extend the learner’s cognitive functioning
during the learning process, and to engage the learner in operations while constructing
knowledge that they would not have been able to accomplish otherwise. “Mindtools
enable learners to become critical thinkers. When using cognitive tools, learners engage
in knowledge construction rather than knowledge reproduction” (p. 18). Therefore, it is
reasonable to say that those technologies with cognitive tool characteristics are highly
suitable for STEM education. Technology can be very functional to support meaningful
learning when it is used to engage students in active, constructivist, intentional,
authentic and cooperative learning (Jonassen, Peck & Wilson, 1999). Such engagements
are also sought in STEM approach to prepare students as productive workers of future
workplace. In fact, some constructivist strategies approaches including inquiry–
oriented, problem–based, and project–based learning have been applied to improve
STEM education (Kim et al., 2017).
The third aspect “organizational context” refers to appreciation of technology as human

activity and part of life. It represents many facets of educational administration, policy
makers, academics, teachers, students, and related professional organizations. It makes
explicit the role of such actors in technology integration. Any attempts for STEM–
related technology practices in the schools should be primarily driven by educational
stakeholders and organizations, not the external political and economic environments
and imperatives, as we frequently encounter. Çepni (2017) indicates how STEM is
23
increasingly represented in exhibitions, fairs, clubs rather than educational institutions

and their programs as one of the mistakes being made in STEM practices in Turkey.
Teachers ought to embrace STEM and diffuse its innovations within their educational
environments. Moreover, the success of technology integration depends on its actors’
adaptation to technical and pedagogical changes. Teachers are the key role for making
any changes in education. As Hargreaves (1994) points out, “the involvement of teachers
in educational change is vital to its success, especially if the change is complex and is
to affect many settings over long periods of time” (p. 11). The organizational context
emphasizes an alignment and compatibility between the design and development of
STEM technologies and the implementation of them in the schools. Educators should
take active role in both phases to prevent from the potentials gaps and mismatches.
Effective teacher preparation is the most crucial enabler for using STEM technologies.
Teachers should be taught about how to operate related devices and implement them
as learning and teaching tools as well as given the best examples of technology use
accordant with STEM concepts and principles. This is required for not only computer
teachers but also all branch teachers because STEM emphasizes an interdisciplinary
approach. However, we observe that pre–service teacher education programs in Turkey
do not have adequate technology courses. Just like a number of pedagogical formation
courses to gain general competencies of teaching profession, there should also be
technological formation courses to gain STEM–related technological knowledge and skill
sets. Professional development activities (e.g., in–service training programs, congress/
symposiums, publications) and incentives can also be offered to school communities in
order to be adapted to STEM technology implementations and related new roles.
Current Technological Tools for STEM Education
STEM in education plays a critical role in preparing students for careers as adults. Nearly
80% of future careers will require some STEM skills. Therefore, a stimulating STEM
education is essential for developing the basic analytical, problem–solving and critical
thinking skills central to academic achievement and workforce readiness in the 21st
century (Moeller, 2012). Technology in STEM subjects refers to tools that make abstract
ideas more concrete and accessible through experiential learning and provide dynamic
representations of STEM systems to enhance student learning of complex concepts.
As psychologists and philosophers have long argued (Clark & Chalmers, 1998) that
technology in STEM education has the potential to promote sensory motor experiences
which has a vital role on cognitive development. These technological tools provide
opportunities for learners to explore and examine abstract concepts in concrete ways.
Technological tools both digital and hardware may provide concrete, hands on, graphical
symbolic experiences in STEM teaching and learning environments. They make students
accessible to design, explore and test the knowledge they acquired at varying levels. A
24
wide range of digital technologies may provide opportunities for students to develop a
formal model of a real world situation to carry out safe and efficient simulated virtual
experiments in both formal and informal learning environments and to realize their
project ideas in project based learning conditions.
Technology offers many opportunities, as a contributory subject, for the teaching of

STEM content through enabling tools and practical application of skills (Sidawi, 2009).
It plays a vital role in instruction as well as STEM teaching and learning but it requires
careful integration. Even the latest state of art technological tool may not replace human
social interaction or good teaching. Therefore, students may need scaffolding, guidance
and caring during the learning process. For a successful STEM education, we need to use
the technology to solve complex problems that work across the disciplines. To achieve
this goal, we, as educators, need to blend technology in methods that help to scaffold
and develop independent learning in our students (Davies et al., 2013). According to
Pasnik and Hupert (2016) technology STEM learning and teaching can be enhanced if
technology is used to provide models, promote social interactions, collaborations and
opportunities to develop science skills, practices. As we argued earlier, technology use
in STEM should focus on learning with technology rather than learning from technology.
The following are a short introduction of the most popular STEM technology tools,
hardware and software that teacher can facilitate in their STEM teaching both in formal
and informal learning environments.
3D Printing
Three dimensional (3D) printing, also known as “additive manufacturing” or “rapid

prototyping”, is a manufacturing process that builds layers to create a 3D solid object
from a digital model created with computer–aided design (CAD). Objects are constructed
based on their digital graphical model using a layering process and printed using
various materials such as: rubber, metal, plastics, and even sugar or hot cacao powder
(Figure 2). It is a rapid prototyping technology that has gained increasing recognition
in many different fields. 3D printing technologies for creating tactile experiences offer
revolutionary ways of conveying spatial information and multimodal learning. They
offer economical alternative to creating 3D models that increases opportunities for
customization and experimentation in educational and medical implications. 3D printed
models can offer innovative ways of understanding spatial concepts for objects that
would otherwise be too large, small, valuable, or dangerous to hand to a student in
teaching and learning process.
3D printers are gaining popularity internationally across STEM education. In order to

prepare today’s students to take on STEM jobs in their futures, they need to experience
STEM subjects in an engaging, exciting, and hands–on way. 3D printing as a multisensory
25
experience is a great way to make this possible. Therefore, 3D printing technology is

critical to raise students up for a competitive world particularly in STEM contexts (Easley,
Buehler, Salib & Hurst, 2017). It has a radically transformative effect and can support
vital skills development in many subject domains. It has implications most obviously for
creative thinking and design. Therefore, there is a considerable potential of 3D printers.
For instance, it enables links to be made between mathematics, design and physics.
Furthermore, in science education, 3D printers can be utilized to present atomic structure
in Grade 10 Chemistry classes, with a positive correlation found between its integration
into instruction and learning (Chery, Mburu, Ward & Fontecchio, 2015). Additionally, 3D
printers can be utilized in a context to discuss the properties of plastics, to build models
for teaching science such as molecules, eye–balls, cells and sine waves, and to build
components for working equipment such as rockets in integrating science teaching into
STEM. In Mathematics, for instance, 3D printer can be utilized to demonstrate a 3D
graph for various algebraic equations as well as producing examples of regular shapes.
3D printing technology is proving to be one of the most adaptable and innovative

technologies of the 21st century, with diverse applications spanning medicine,
engineering, art, design and even the domestic realm. Therefore, they offer an
opportunity for schools to explore innovative ways of teaching STEM subjects,
stimulating students’ interest and enriching the curriculum. This evolving technology is
also being used in the education sector, transforming the STEM curriculum and creating
powerful learning tools. 3D printing experiences enrich the learning environment
providing students with hands–on experiences using an actual manufacturing tool and
generate numerous creative and useful products.
Utilizing 3D printers requires hands–on skills technique and being able to follow step–
by–step instructions which are relevant to STEM related career. Even though the use
of 3D printing technologies is relatively new in educational settings, the disciplines
of architecture and engineering were early adopters of additive manufacturing
technologies (Celani, 2012). Students in engineering, especially mechatronics,
mechanical engineering and also architecture are expected to master CAD programs.
Therefore utilizing 3D printers in STEM education is crucial to prepare them to the future
STEM careers. 3D printer can be utilized in two ways in STEM education. First, STEM
learners can use 3D printers for the process of making the 3D print file and print the
tactile object using a 3D printer as a design and production phase. The second, using
3D printers as a way to experience a tactile object that would not be possible without
touching or handling the 3D print itself (Kolitsky, 2014). 3D printers can be used to
create 3D replication of famous artists’ art works in order to examine them by touching
which would not be possible in real world. 3D printing can also enable students who are
blind to experience visual art.
26
Figure 2. Graphical Representation of 3D Printing
In order to integrate 3D printing and design into STEM classroom, teachers and students
need to utilize 3D design software to modify and create parts. CAD and computer–aided
manufacture (CAM) contributes to developing students’ practical skills to “achieve a
professional quality” (Ofsted, 2011 as cited in Jones, Tyrer & Zanker, 2013). The most
common 3D design and CAD programs that work well for teachers are SketchUp and
ThinkerCAD. Other programs such as Solidworks and Autodesk 360 can be too complex
to start with for beginners.
SketchUp
SketchUp is a design program that was supported by Google. It is a very crisp program
that clearly shows how objects are forming. In other words, it shades the sides so that
students easily know which side of a cube is the top.
It has reference features in the viewport so that students can easy know which direction
is up or right or left regardless of what angle they are looking at an object from. SketchUp
uses the same methodologies as more advanced design programs to create shapes.
They have you draw a sketch on a 2D plane and then that sketch can be “extruded” to
create a 3D shape.
The disadvantage of SketchUp is that it is not very 3D printer friendly. The Beta Cloud
version does not generate .STL or .OBJ files which are necessary to 3D print an object.
27
The desktop version of the software can export those files, but it is not as simple as
other programs. Overall, SketchUp is a good program for introducing CAD in general to
beginners.
ThinkerCAD
ThinkerCAD is a program created by Autodesk. It allows beginners to

drag and drop basic shapes into a workspace and then reshape them.
Student may place a cube into the workspace and then grab the edges
and corners to turn it into a board or some other rectangular prisms.
When it comes time to create a file for 3D printing, TinkerCAD allows saving and
exporting in 3D printing formats (.stl, .obj.). It is entirely cloud–based, so schools that
have moved away from desktop labs can use it easily. The downside of TinkerCAD is that
it is highly dependent on dimensioning. However, overall it is an excellent program to
start students out with.
Robotic in STEM
Robotics in K–12 STEM education is a growing field and getting popular at all levels
each year. Studies show that robotics can be utilized in STEM education for a variety of
purposes such as motivating students to seek STEM careers (Ruiz–del–Solar & Aviles,
2004), improving critical thinking and problem solving skills (Eguchi, 2014; Ricca, Lulis
& Bade, 2006), enhancing students’ ability to solve logical and mathematical problems
(Lindh & Holgersson, 2007) and encouraging collaboration and team work (Eguchi,
2016; Weinberg, White, Karacal, Engel & Hu, 2005).
The notion of using robotics in education goes back to earlier research on Seymour
Papert’s LOGO programming work in the 1970s. He created LEGO programming
language that children can program computer and robots to gain sense of control over
technology. Papert believes that students learn better when they are experiencing and
discovering things by themselves (Papert, 1980). According to Slangen, Keulen and
Gravemeijer (2011), robots can be utilized to do math and science rather than study
them by contextual learning with the premise that an engaged student learns better.
With the help of STEM educational robots students can take the knowledge from math
and physics and apply them to real world situations. For instance, in order to assign a
task to a robot, students needs to apply their coding, math and physics knowledge in to
practice (Eguchi, 2014).
There is an increasing reliance and dependence on technology and computer

programming in today’s society. Educational STEM robots can bridge this gap by bringing
basic programming languages allowing students not only have fun but also learn coding
to prepare themselves in the future competitive market. STEM robot kits allow students
28
to learn concepts through trial and error, application, and hands–on experiences,
ensuring that they understand what they are dealing with. Many educational robotic
kits are used in all educational levels such as Lego Mindstorms and mBot.
mBot
mBot is an entrance level educational robot, suitable for beginners in STEM learning.
mBot is easy to assemble and works together with mBlock, a graphical program inspired
by Scratch 2.0 to provide hands–on experience with programming, electronics, and
robotics. Drag–and–drop graphical programming software, mBlock, enables hardware
connectivity to provide a quick and easy way to learn programming through robot
control and interactions.
Figure 3. mBot Educational Robot
LEGO Mindstorms
LEGO Mindstorm kit is developed to allow learners to build customizable, programmable

robots while teaching the principal concepts of physics, mathematics and engineering.
It is a programmable teaching tool which was designed through inspiration by Piaget’s
theories of cognitive development (Piaget & Inhelder, 1966).
Programming Mindstorms robot is done via a flowchart language called Robolab,

based on a language called LabVIEW. The programming structure simulates a flowchart
design icon by icon and allows the robot to perform different operations autonomously.
The graphical approach allows students to build programs by dragging and dropping
virtual representations of various operations such as moving, braking, or rotating an
arm attached to a motor. The iconic blocks are then connected via a virtual “wire”. The
program created via the graphical sequence of operations is then uploaded to the brick
and the robot performs the commands as programmed (Chetty, 2015).
There are two generations of Mindstorms currently in use: NXT (second generation)
and EV3 (third generation) (Figure 4). Major NXT parts are orange and EV3 parts are
red. EV3 software is compatible with the NXT parts with a few exceptions (Valk, 2014).
29
Figure 4. LEGO Mindstorms EV3 Kit
Laser Cutting
Laser cutting is a technology that uses a laser to cut materials for industrial manufacturing
applications. A laser cutter uses a coherent beam of light to cut material, most often
sheet metal, but also wood, diamond, glass, plastics and silicon (Figure 5). The beam
is directed through a lens via mirrors or fiber optics. The lens focus on the beam at the
work zone to burn, melt or vaporize the material. Exactly which process the material
undergoes depends on the type of laser cutting involved.
Figure 5. Laser Cutting Machine
Laser cutting can be divided into two types: laser fusion cutting and ablative laser cutting.
The former involves melting material in a column and using a high–pressure stream of
gas to shear the molten material away, leaving an open cut kerf. In contrast, the latter
removes material layer by layer using a pulsed laser, which is like chiseling, only with
light and on a microscopic scale. This generally means evaporating the material, rather
than melting it (Wright, 2018).
30
Laser cutting allows schools to bring hands–on interactive technology to a lab or

makerspace. The laser cutting brings engagement to all students, regardless of age,
gender and interests.
Arduino
The origin of Arduino comes from Ivrea, Italy in 2005. The aim is to support students
in their projects in order to create a cheap and efficient prototyping. The Arduino
developer group led by Massimo Banzi and David Cuartielles decided to name the
project prototype after a historical character named “Arduin of Ivrea”. “Arduino” is the
Italian version of the name, meaning “strong friend” (Wheat, 2011).
Arduino is an open–source electronics platform based on easy–to–use hardware and

software. It is intended for anyone making interactive projects. It provides a simple way
to learn how to program microcontrollers to sense and react to events in the real world.
Its software is written in C or C++ programming language. The Arduino development
board is an implementation of wiring, a similar physical computing platform, which is
based on the processing multimedia programming environment (Arduino, 2011). Basic
model of Arduino is shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Basic Arduino Set
Arduino consists of many sensors in order to receive inputs from its environment and
allows the user to control lights, motors and other actuators. It is an easy tool to be
used by students without a background in electronics and programming. Arduino IDE is
programming environment that allows the user to draft different kind of programs and
load them into the Arduino microcontroller (Banzi, 2011).
Makey Makey
The Makey Makey is a microcontroller that has been pre–programmed. It connects to

your computer via USB and has a range of standard keyboard inputs (space, arrows,
click, etc). The Makey Makey interprets basic electronic connections as inputs and sends
31
these signals to your computer as keyboard inputs. It is a circuit board that allows users
to connect everyday objects to computer programs using alligator clips and a USB cable
(Figure 7). The board uses closed loop electrical signals to send the computer either a
keyboard stroke or mouse click signal.
Makey Makey is part of a creative and technological downshift in which very smart
electronics are simplified to make the world manipulable by ordinary people in ways
previously available only to developers. It is an invention kit that encourages people
to find creative ways to interact with their computers, by using everyday objects as
a replacement for keyboards and mice. Makey Makey is a useful, hands–on learning
technology tool for learners of all ages, regardless of their academic strengths or
weaknesses. Students can create anything from works of art to game controllers and
more. Scratch is a drag and drop interactive programming interface that allows students
to create interactive stories, animations, and games and interfaces with Makey Makey.
Figure 7. Make Makey Kit
Raspberry Pi
The Raspberry Pi is a low cost, credit–card sized computer that plugs into a computer
monitor or TV, and uses a standard keyboard and mouse. It is a capable little device
that enables people of all ages to explore computing, and to learn how to program in
languages like Scratch and Python. It was originally designed for education, inspired by
the 1981 BBC Micro. Its creator Eben Upton’s goal was to create a low–cost device that
would improve programming skills and hardware understanding at the pre–university
level. But, thanks to its small size and accessible price, it was quickly adopted by
tinkerers, makers, and electronics enthusiasts for projects that require more than a basic
microcontroller (such as Arduino devices) (Figure 8). Raspberry Pi can be utilized as a
STEM tool for students to learn programming and coding because everything around
them is more or less computerized in some or the other way. Therefore, Raspberry Pi
can help students make interesting STEM projects by making a replication of computing
machine that they see around them or do it yourself projects. STEM education aims
at teaching students the concept behind things they see in their day–to–day life. One
of the most common things students observe is the weather. Sunlight, rain, snow – all
of these become a thing of curiosity. Raspberry Pi box can be converted into a small
weather station using Python programming that enables interacting with the USB
32
connected weather stations. Thus, teachers can enrich the world of STEM education by
encouraging students to make rather than only observe.
Figure 8. Raspberry Pi Microcontroller
Drones
Unstaffed flying objects, unmanned aerial vehicles, remotely piloted aircraft. These
are all alternative names for drones. Drones or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) have
been used in the military since at least 1849. However, the development of lightweight
materials improved communications technologies and decreasing costs have made
drones more accessible and affordable to the educational use. These factors have also
allowed drones to be used for a variety of purposes outside the military, including aerial
surveillance, monitoring, deliveries and STEM education.
How do drones can be utilized in STEM education? Students may learn programming
drones for a specific purpose. They can work on about how fast the drone would go
with the coded instructions with factors such as calculating if there was wind on the
day, what the potential wind resistance would be. They test the manual flight of the
drones, so they can get an idea of how the flight dynamics and pattern of flying work
for them.
One of the best ways to use drones in the classroom is to have students design and build
their own drone as a class project. Making drones in the classroom may teach students
to learn about robotics, math, electronics, chemistry, programming, and hands–on
experience. Furthermore, students acquire the analytical thinking skills needed to
understand how many different disciplines function together. Thermographic cameras
are helping students studying courses related to photography, media and entertainment
in nighttime scenarios.
The incorporation of thermal imaging in drones may improve learning in dark. Student
may use drones to collect samples from the locations where they may not reach or go
due to health risks, geological barriers. They may track wild or sea animals to identify
them in the wild and track their movements from above.
33
Figure 9. An Educational Drone
Scratch
Scratch is a computer–coding tool designed to increase digital literacies promoting

technological careers for students. It is a free visual programming language developed
by the Lifelong Kindergarten group at the MIT Media Lab (Resnick et al., 2009). Scratch
was developed for young people develop their visual programming language made
up of block code which they drag to the workspace to animate sprites. Students can
complete a range of projects including programming and sharing interactive stories,
games, and animations.
Figure 10. Screenshot of Scratch
References
Akgündüz, D., Ertepınar, H., Ger, A. M., Sayı, A. K. & Türk, Z. (2015). STEM eğitimi çalıştay
raporu: Türkiye STEM eğitimi üzerine kapsamlı bir değerlendirme [STEM Education
Workshop Report: A comprehensive evaluation on STEM education in Turkey].
İstanbul: İstanbul Aydın Üniversitesi.
Arduino, (2011). Introduction. Available at: http://www.arduino.cc/en/Guide/

Introduction
Banzi, M. (2011). Getting started with Arduino. Cambridge: O’Reilly.
34
Celani, G. (2012). Digital fabrication laboratories: Pedagogy and impacts on architectural

education. Nexus Network Journal, 14, 469–482.
Chery, D., Mburu, S. Ward, J., & Fontecchio, A. (2015). Integration of the arts and
technology in GK–12 science courses. 2015 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference,
1–4.
Chetty, J. (2015). Lego mindstorms: Merely a toy or a powerful pedagogical tool for
learning computer programming? Proceedings of the 38th Australasian Computer
Science Conference.
Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
Çepni, S. (Ed.). (2017). Kuramdam uygulamaya STEM eğitimi [STEM education from
theory to practice]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Davies, P., Kent, G., Laurillard, D., Mavrikis, M., Noss, R., Pratt, D. et al. (2013). The Royal
Society vision: The impact of technological change on STEM education. London:
Institute of Education University of London.
Easley, W., Buehler, E., Salib, G. & Hurst, A. (2017). Fabricating engagement: Using 3D
Printing to engage underrepresented students in STEM learning. Paper presented
at ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Columbus, Ohio.
Eguchi, A. (2014). Educational robotics for promoting 21st century skills. Journal of
Automation, Mobile Robotics & Intelligent Systems, 8(1), 5–11.
Eguchi, A. (2016). RoboCupJunior for promoting STEM education, 21st century skills,
and technological advancement through robotics competition. Robotics and
Autonomous Systems, 75(Part B), 692–699.
Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. New York: Vintage.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: the final frontier in our quest for
technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development,
53(4), 25–39.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit–Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How

knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersects. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.
Feenberg, A. (1991). Critical theory of technology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture
in the postmodern age. New York: Teachers College Press.
Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology and other essays. New York:
Harper & Row Publishers.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking.

Columbus, OH: Prentice–Hall.
35
Jones, L. C. R., Tyrer, J. R., & Zanker, N. (2013). Applying laser cutting techniques through
horology for teaching effective STEM in design and technology. Design and
Technology Education: An International Journal, 18(3), 21–34.
Katz, J. E., & Rice, R. E. (2002). Social consequences of Internet use: Access, involvement
and interaction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Kim, C., Yuan, J., Kim, D., Doshi, P., Thai, C. N., Hill, R. B. et al. (2017). Studying the usability
of an intervention to promote teachers’ use of robotics in STEM education. Journal
of Educational Computing Research. doi: 10.1177/0735633117738537
Koc, M. (2013). Student teachers’ conceptions of technology. A metaphor analysis.

Computers & Education, 68, 1–8.
Koc, M. (2005). Implications of learning theories for effective technology integration

and pre–service teacher training: A critical literature review. Journal of Turkish
Science Education, 2(1), 2–18.
Kolitsky, M. A. (2014). Reshaping teaching and learning with 3D printing technologies.

E–mentor, 4(56), 84–94.
Lindh, J., & Holgersson, T. (2007). Does lego training stimulate pupils ability to solve
logical problems? Computers & Education, 49(4), 1097–1111.
MacKenzie, D. (1998). Knowing machines: Essays on technical change. Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.
MacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (1999). Introductory essay: The social shaping of
technology. In D. MacKenzie & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The social shaping of technology
(pp. 3–27). Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
Moeller, P. (2012). Where the jobs will be in 2020. U.S. News and World Report. http://
money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2012/09/10/where–the–jobs–will–
be–in–2020
Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Adamchuk, V. I. (2010). Impact of robotics
and geospatial technology interventions on youth STEM learning and attitudes.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 39–408.
Ofsted, (2011). Meeting technological challenges? Available at: http://www.ofsted.gov.
uk
Ortiz, A. M., Bos, B., & Smith, S. (2015). The power of educational robotics as an
integrated STEM learning experience in teacher preparation programs. Journal of
College Science Teaching, 44(5), 42.
Pacey, A. (1992). The culture of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy

construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York:
Basic Books.
36
Pasnik, S., & Hupert, N. (2016). Early STEM learning and the roles of technologies.
Waltham, MA: Education Development Center.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1966). La psychologie de L’enfant. Paris: P.U.F.
Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York:

Knopf.
Ricca, B., Lulis, E., & Bade, D. (2006). Lego Mindstorms and the growth of critical
thinking. Paper presented at Intelligent Tutoring Systems Workshop on Teaching
with Robots, Agents, and NLP.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102–119). New York:
Macmillan.
Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Hernandez, A. M., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K. et
al. (2009). Scratch: Programming for everyone. Communications of the ACDM,
52(11), 60.
Ruiz–del–Solar, J., & Aviles, R. (2004). Robotics courses for children as a motivation tool:
The Chilean experience. IEEE Transactions on Education, 47(4), 474–480.
Sidawi, M. (2009). Teaching science through designing technology. International Journal

of Technology and Design Education, 19, 269–288.
Slangen, L., Keulen, H. V., & Gravemeijer, K. (2011). What pupils can learn from
working with robotic direct manipulation environments. International Journal of
Technology and Design Education, 21, 449–469.
Slouka, M. (1995). War of the worlds: Cyberspace and the high–tech assault on reality.
New York: Basic Books.
Valk, L. (2014). Lego Mindstorms Ev3 discovery book: A beginner’s guide to building and
programming robots. San Francisco, CA: No Starch Press.
Weinberg, J. B., White, W. W., Karacal C., Engel, G., & Hu, A. (2005). Multidisciplinary
teamwork in a robotics course. Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical
Symposium on Computer Science Education, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Wheat, D. (2011). Arduino Internals. New York: Apress.
Wright, I. (2018). An engineer’s guide to laser cutting. Available at: https://www.

engineering.com/AdvancedManufacturing/ArticleID/16808/An–Engineers–
Guide–to–Laser–Cutting.aspx
37
The Rise of Engineering in STEM Education: The “E” in STEM
Senay Purzer
Purdue University
Mack Shelley
Iowa State University
Introduction
Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics are central to many countries’ focus
on education and workforce development. Hence, educational systems worldwide are
moving towards a more integrated vision of STEM education. By bringing together the
silos of several disciplines, STEM education promises to promote the critical thinking,
creative thinking, and problem-solving abilities of students—not just the memorization
of facts. In fact, the information and Internet age have made access to factual information
so easy that the next generations need knowledge and skills beyond knowing facts.
The integration of the STEM constellation of disciplines is best accomplished through
engineering, a discipline that is inherently interdisciplinary and focuses on problem
solving. In this chapter, we argue that the rise of engineering in integrated STEM
education will profoundly change educational systems worldwide.
Why a Focus on Integrated STEM Education?
According to the National Academy of Engineering (2014), promoting integrated STEM

in K-12 education is necessary, to develop students’ readiness for a STEM workforce
and to promote STEM literacy regardless of whether students pursue a STEM career
or not. The STEM movement arises from these two aforementioned needs which
necessitate attention to both cognition and motivation. Most STEM projects aim to
engage student motivation by presenting students with real-world-like problems
that require interdisciplinary knowledge and abilities to solve problems—often
collaboratively. During such problem-solving, students make connections among STEM
disciplines, develop 21st century competencies as they think critically and creatively,
and develop appreciation and interest in STEM disciplines. Hence, the STEM movement
supports student engagement while promoting integration of the disciplinary content
and practices of the STEM disciplines, which traditionally are taught in silos.
What is STEM?
In recent years, the term, “STEM education” has become a commonly-used term in
K-12 education. According to Purzer & Sneider (2010), the initial use of the term was
SMET, which was then reordered by Judith Ramaley, an NSF director from the Education
38
and Human Resources Division as STEM. Peter Faletra, a NSF director from the Office of
Science division of Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists, has also been
cited as an influential person in the transition from SMET to STEM. While driven by a
common set of goals stated above, there are various definitions and models of STEM
education in the literature.
Some definitions of STEM are based on the content and whether the emphasis of a specific
discipline is supported by others, or by the order in which the disciplines occur as part
of a curriculum. Traditionally, for many educators STEM was equated with science and
mathematics, while engineering and technology take smaller supporting roles (Bybee,
2010). Bybee argues that a true STEM education integrates all four disciplines and
must introduce engineering to promote problem-solving and innovation, stating that,
“Given its economic importance to society, students should learn about engineering
and develop some of the skills and abilities associated with the design process” (p. 996).
Another group of definitions of STEM focus on curriculum and instruction. For example,
according to Moore and colleagues (2014), integrated STEM education is an approach
to curriculum design that combines some or all of the four disciplines of STEM into a
unit or lesson by connecting the disciplinary subjects with real-world problems.
Alternatively, Kelley and Knowles (2016) define integrated STEM education as an

approach to teaching the STEM content from two or more STEM domains with a focus
on students’ use of disciplinary practices and the applications of STEM content through
an authentic context.
What is the Role of Engineering in Integrated STEM Education?
Engineering, with its interdisciplinary nature and its focus on problem solving, is the most
natural anchor for STEM integration. The discussion of engineering as a core subject in
K-12 education has emerged in 2009 by a report published by the National Academy of
Engineering (Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the
prospects) and followed by many others (see Figure 1). Recognizing the importance of
engineering and technology, the National Assessment Governing Board has developed
and implemented the TEL assessment in 2014 for the assessment of technology and
engineering education in the U.S. (See https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/tel).
Similarly, published in 2012, A Framework for K-12 Science Education (2012) integrates
science and engineering while heavily influencing the development of the Next
Generation Science Standards (NGSS) (Achieve, 2013).
39
Figure 1. A Chronological Perspective of Policy Movements in Engineering and STEM in the

United States
As illustrated in Figure 2, we conceptualize the role of engineering within STEM as

subsuming the processes, models, and societal impact of each of the other three STEM
components. Engineering, driven by problem-solving and innovation, uses scientific
knowledge and models from science, technological tools and prototype modeling
methods from technology, and mathematical analysis and models from mathematics.
Figure 2. Engineering as an Integrator of STEM Disciplines
Engineering involves more than simply applying knowledge of mathematics, science,

and engineering. Similar to science, engineering also involves designing and conducting
experiments. Engineers do not only design artifacts but also systems, components,
40
or processes to meet desired needs of users and clients. Engineers work closely with
others requiring abilities to communicate well and function on multidisciplinary teams.
Moreover, beyond having abilities necessary to meet technical specifications, engineers
also carry professional and ethical responsibility and understand their decision can
impact people, their environment, and the economic wellbeing of their organizations.
It is important to note that not all design is contained within the discipline of engineering.
Engineers share this creative endeavor with many other design professionals, ranging
from fashion and graphic designers to architectural and industrial designers (Fosmire &
Radcliffe, 2013). Engineering differs from other design disciplines with its STEM-focus
and differs from other STEM disciplines with its purpose (that is, the questions that
engineers address) and its focus on constraints and trade-offs. For example, there are
differences in the questions raised by scientists and questions raised by engineers.
Examples include:
Scientist: Why does an apple decompose?
Engineer: How can we maintain freshness of the apple for longer periods of
time?
How can we reuse, reduce, or recycle agricultural waste?
Scientist: How does energy transform from one form to another?
Engineer: How can we effectively use solar energy to generate power?
Scientist: Why do we see different phases of the moon?
Engineer: How do we get to the moon?
If we take any of these questions with the viewpoint of the engineer, we would find that
the solution would require an exploration or an understanding of the scientific question
but also more. The engineer must also understand the context from whence the
problem has emerged, define design specifications (criteria and constraints), generate
a variety of solutions to select from, and make trade-off decisions as engineering does
not involve a correct solution but one that satisfies the needs of the user or client.
STEM Education in the United States
In 2015, in the United States 91% of young adults ages 25 to 29 had a high school
diploma or its equivalent, compared to 83% for OECD countries overall, and 36%
had a bachelor’s degree or higher. Further, 46% had an Associate’s degree or higher
(compared to 41% for OECD countries), 36% had a Bachelor’s degree or higher, and
9% had a Master’s degree or higher. In school year 2013–14, 82% of public high school
41
students graduated with a regular diploma, with 68% of 2014 high school completers
enrolled in college the following fall, of which 44% went to 4-year institutions and 25%
went to 2-year institutions. In contrast, OECD (2018) reports that tertiary educational
attainment for Turkey in 2016 of 19%, a tertiary graduation rate of 69%, and 70% of
those aged 15-19 are enrolled in secondary education.
The United States has a large pipeline of students potentially headed for higher
education. Public school enrollment in 2013–14 was 50.04 million, with 35.25 million in
prekindergarten through grade 8 and 14.79 million in grades 9 through 12. An additional
5.4 million students were enrolled in private schools in 2013–14, of which 4.1 million
were in prekindergarten through grade 8 and 1.3 million in grades 9 through 12. Overall,
about 9.7% of all students in the United States are enrolled in private schools.
Higher education in the United States in Fall 2014 included total enrollment of 17.29
million, 10.78 million of whom were enrolled full-time and 6.51 million enrolled part-
time. A larger fraction (28%) were enrolled in at least one distance education course,
and 12% were enrolled exclusively in distance education.
Postbaccalaureate enrollment in the United States in Fall 2014 included total enrollment
of 2.91 million, of whom 1.67 million were enrolled full-time and 1.24 million were
enrolled part-time. Of graduate enrollment, 33% were taking at least one distance
education course and 25% were enrolled exclusively in distance education.
Some countries generate a large number of degrees in engineering. Using the United
States as a case in point, in 2013-2014 31,800 associate’s degrees in engineering were
conferred by postsecondary institutions (compared to 36,900 in 2003-2004), 99,000
bachelor’s degrees in engineering were conferred (compared to 73,000 in 2003-2004),
42,400 master’s degrees in engineering were conferred (compared to 32,600 in 2003-
2004), and 10,000 doctoral degrees in engineering were conferred (compared to 3,800
in 2003-2004).
The higher education system in the United States is huge, providing for a wide variety
and large numbers of different types of institutions, many of which offer degrees in
engineering.
In 2013-2014 the total number of postsecondary institutions was 7,236, of which 4,724
are degree-granting; of the degree-granting institutions 1,685 are 2-year institutions
and 3,039 are 4-year institutions. Many of these higher education institutions in the
United States provide degrees in engineering. In 2013-2014, 345 institutions offered
an associate’s degree in engineering, 519 offered a bachelor’s degree in engineering,
318 offered a master’s degree in engineering, and 215 offered a doctoral degree in
engineering. Also, 1,160 institutions offered an associate’s degree in engineering
42
technologies and engineering-related fields; with 404 offering bachelor’s degrees, 176
offering master’s degrees, and 18 offering doctoral degrees in this area.
The higher education pipeline in engineering clearly requires students who receive
adequate training in secondary or elementary levels (e.g., Park, Yoon, Hand, Therrien, &
Shelley, 2013a, 2013b, 2013c; Schoerning, Hand, Shelley, & Therrien, 2015; Villanueva,
Hand, Shelley, & Therrien, forthcoming). Knowing when students have achieved an
appropriate level of skill in engineering is not simple to ascertain. A key concern is
how to assess student competencies in engineering. One immediate difficulty is that
engineering is multidimensional and overlaps with other disciplines. Some areas, such
as software engineering, can be joint programs (e.g., with the College of Liberal Arts
and Sciences at Iowa State University). Engineering also is closely related to science
generally and specific areas of science such as physics. The necessity for success as
engineering undergraduates is that students do well in physics, calculus, and other STEM
courses closely related to engineering (Laugerman & Shelley, 2013; Laugerman, Shelley,
Mickelson, & Rover, 2013; Rover, Mickelson, Hartmann, Rehmann, Jacobson, Kaleita,
Shelley, Ryder, Laingen, & Bruning, 2014; Laugerman, Shelley, Mickelson, & Rover, 2013;
Laugerman, Rover, Shelley, & Mickelson, 2015; Laugerman, Rover, Mickelson, & Shelley,
2015; Laugerman, Rover, Mickelson, & Shelley, forthcoming-a, forthcoming-b). What it
takes for students to flourish in engineering classes, and in particular the appropriate
application of scaffolding, have been addressed by Boylan-Ashraf, Freeman, and Shelley
(2015) and Boylan-Ashraf, Freeman, Keles, and Shelley (2017).
Measurement of Student Learning— Can PISA data inform STEM learning outcomes?
A fuller appreciation of the measurement of student learning and of the universality

of interest in STEM learning outcomes requires a global perspective. It is important to
recognize and make optimal use of the trans-national nature of research on education
(Shelley, Yore, & Hand, 2009). By comparing student performance across counties, such
research can inform public policy and help countries strive for and achieve the high-
quality education necessary for workforce development and economic growth.
Although Engineering clearly is included in the definition of STEM, it is not addressed

as clearly as Science and Mathematics, or Reading, in leading assessments of student
performance such as PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/). Because of its comprehensive approach, we concentrate
here on PISA, which is sponsored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) headquartered in Paris, France. The 2015 study is the latest
available from PISA; a new wave of data is being collected in 2018.
43
Figure 3. Map of PISA Countries and Economies, 2015 (OECD, 2016, p. 27)
We argue that PISA data with its focus on science, mathematics, literacy, and problem
solving can be used to evaluate key aspects of STEM literacy. The Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is composed of 35 counties (as the gray
text in Figure 3 shows). In 2015, an additional 37 non-OECD countries and economies
also participated in PISA (see blue text in Figure 3). Figure 4 lists these countries and
economies as well as partner countries and economies that have participated in earlier
waves of PISA prior to 2015.
Figure 4. List of PISA Countries and Economics, 2015 (OECD, 2016, p. 27)
PISA tests are administered every three years. The emphasis of the tests varies among
science, mathematics, and reading; it is important to note that there are no PISA test
items related to engineering (nor none directly related to technology), although the
2015 PISA data do include problem-solving, which is closely aligned with the STEM
movement. The 2015 PISA round was focused on science.
44
Data were collected from about 540,000 15-year-old students in 72 countries and
economies, who were tested on science, reading, mathematics, and collaborative
problem-solving. Table 1 presents information about PISA scores and wealth measured
in GDP per capita for a selected set of countries that are the focus of subsequent
discussion. Singapore ranks at the top among nations and economies in PISA results,
the United States is roughly in the middle, Turkey ranks among the lower-performing
countries, and Tunisia is representative of the lowest-performing countries on PISA
metrics. There is a clear relationship between higher PISA scores and higher per capita
gross domestic product (GDP).
Table 1. PISA Scores Compared to Economic Development for Selected Countries
Country PISA Scores GDP per capita (in $US)

Science/Reading/Mathematics/Problem-solving (NationMaster.com)
Singapore 556/535/564/561 $51,709
United States 496/497/470/520 $49,965
Turkey 425/428/420/422 $10,666
Tunisia 386/361/367/382 $4,236
PISA assesses the extent to which students who are near the end of their compulsory
education have acquired key knowledge and skills essential for full participation in
modern societies. The assessment focuses on the core school subjects of science,
reading, and mathematics. Students’ proficiency in an innovative domain is also
assessed (in 2015, this domain was collaborative problem solving). The assessment
does not just ascertain whether students can reproduce knowledge; it also examines
how well students can extrapolate from what they have learned and can apply that
knowledge in unfamiliar settings, both in and outside of school.
This approach reflects the fact that modern economies reward individuals not for
what they know, but for what they can do with what they know. PISA is an ongoing
program that offers insights for education policy and practice, and that helps monitor
trends in students’ acquisition of knowledge and skills across countries and in different
demographic subgroups within each country. PISA results reveal what is possible
in education by showing what students in the highest-performing and most rapidly
improving education systems can do. The findings allow policymakers around the world
to gauge the knowledge and skills of students in their own countries in comparison
with those in other countries, set policy targets against measurable goals achieved
by other education systems, and learn from policies and practices applied elsewhere.
While PISA cannot identify cause-and-effect relationships between policies/practices
and student outcomes, it can show educators, policymakers, and the interested public
how education systems are similar and different, and what that means for students
(http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf).
45
The primary public policy purpose of the PISA measurements of student achievement is
to provide information about workforce development and economic growth based on
secondary-school-level educational attainment of concepts and applications. There is
a strong emphasis on equity, and on policies and procedures to help countries achieve
high-quality and efficient schools. In the 2015 PISA data, Singapore outperformed the
rest of the world; the top OECD countries in terms of student achievement were Japan,
Estonia, Finland, and Canada.
Figure 5. Gains in PISA Science Scores Between 2006 and 2009, Before and After
Accounting for Demographic Changes (OECD, 2016, p. 86)
Mean student test scores for the PISA 2015 results in Science were 493 for all OECD
countries combined, 425 for Turkey, and 496 for the United States. In Reading, the
mean OECD score was 493, with 428 for Turkey and 497 for the United States. The
OECD mean Mathematics score was 490, as compared to 420 for Turkey and 470 for the
United States. Relationships among PISA Science, Mathematics, and Reading scores in
Turkey have been explored (Shelley & Yildirim, 2013).
In Chile, Denmark, Mexico, Slovenia, Turkey, and the United States, between 2006
and 2015, students’ socio-economic status became less predictive of performance
and weakened in its impact on performance, while these countries’ average level of
achievement remained stable.Gains were made in many countries in science, taking
into account demographic changes that occurred in that decade (see Figure 5).
46
Four Components of STEM Learning Measured by PISA
PISA scores provide an interesting opportunity in examining STEM learning outcomes

from the perspective of four variables: collaborative problem-solving, scientific literacy,
mathematical literacy, and reading performance. If STEM education efforts are effective,
we would expect students to grow in these four aspects. To illustrate rate this, we use
radar graphs to show PISA scores in science, mathematics, problem solving, and reading
for Singapore (a high-performing country), the United States (average), Turkey (low
performer), and Tunisia (one of the lowest performing countries) (see Figure 6).
Figure 6. Comparing Four Countries on PISA 2015 Outcomes
It is evident (Figure 6) that a country that is lower on one of the four outcomes
also is lower on the other outcome metrics. Also evident is that each country has a
unique pattern of student outcomes (See Figures 7). Singapore excels in all areas but
comparatively less so in reading. United States students do best in problem-solving and
comparatively much less well on mathematics. Turkish students do best on reading and
comparatively more poorly on mathematics and problem-solving. Students in Tunisia
do relatively better on problem-solving and science, but are very low on all metrics
compared to global norms.
(b)
(a)
47
(c) (d)
Figure 7. PISA 2015 Outcomes for Singapore, United States, Turkey, and Tunisia
While traditionally the PISA scores have been used to compare countries, and the
motivation from such competition has been used to inform policy changes for better
education, each country can also use the PISA scores examine their specific STEM motif
and build on their strengths. In Figures 7a, 7b, 7c, and 7d, we illustrate the respective
strengths and weaknesses on four dimensions of PISA for four countries. For example,
based on this visualization, we recommend that the United States can leverage its
strength in collaborative problem-solving to better integrate science, mathematics, and
literacy. STEM curricula can be developed with a focus on problems, while making the
application of science and mathematics concepts explicit using instructional models
such as Learning by Design (Kolodner 2002; Kolodner et al, 2003). Turkish educators
can explore integrating their STEM education in closer alignment with reading, which is
their strongest dimension.
Instructional approaches such as Novel Engineering, developed by researchers at Tufts

University might be applicable (McCormick & Hammer, 2016). In Novel Engineering,
students read books, identify the needs of a book character, and design solutions to
meet the needs of book characters.
Measurement of Student Learning—Can we assess integrated learning outcomes?
While the promise of STEM education is significant in both promoting student engagement
and learning outcomes associated with knowledge and practices, assessment in such
rich learning environments is a challenge. The essential components of integrated
assessment (see Figure 8) require that it emphasizes the multidimensionality of
learning, the requirement that assessment be sensitive to what students are learning
but at the same time allow transfer abilities, provide reliable and fair measures of
student learning, allow for differentiation across STEM areas and across students, and
have educational value (Purzer et al., 2016).
48
Figure 8. Framework for Integrated Assessment
While the requirements may seem lofty for what an effective assessment must entail,
the use of performance assessments can help measure multiple aspects of learning.
However, research on performance assessment in integrated STEM is not well-studied
in the literature. Caution must be taken in several ways. In struggling to establish
appropriate criteria for evaluating student proficiency in engineering, it is common to
encounter what we can refer to as “myths” of engineering education assessment.
The overarching myth is the belief that the concepts of validity, reliability, and fairness
are meant only for psychometricians and do not apply to classroom assessment in
engineering. Related to this overarching myth are three specific myths:
• Myth #1: Student-designed prototype performance is a reflection of student

(science) learning.
• Myth #2: Rubrics designed specific to projects are a sign of best practices.
• Myth #3: Assessment is not appropriate in project-based or integrated STEM

because tests are not appropriate and engagement means learning.
Myth #1: Student-designed prototype performance is a reflection of student

(science) learning.
There is much more to students’ performance in design than simply a reflection of

their learning from science. Students must be able to address multiple design goals
simultaneously that both apply and transcend learned science knowledge.
For the Energy3D Software project (http://energy.concord.org/energy3d/), students

concurrently were striving to achieve net zero or positive energy, minimize cost of the
49
project, provide a house large enough for a family of four, and design a structure with
curb appeal that would elicit positive reactions from those who viewed the house.
Energy3D is a simulation-based engineering tool for designing green buildings and

power stations that harness renewable energy to achieve sustainable development.
Users can quickly sketch up a realistic-looking structure or import one from an existing
CAD file, superimpose it on a map image (e.g., Google Maps or lot maps), and then
evaluate its energy performance for any given day and location. Based on computational
physics and weather data, Energy3D can rapidly generate time graphs (resembling data
loggers) and heat maps (resembling infrared cameras) for in-depth analyses. At the
end of the design, Energy3D allows users to print it out, cut out the pieces, and use
them to assemble a physical scale model. Energy3D has been developed primarily to
provide a simulated environment for engineering design (SEED) to support science and
engineering education and training from middle schools to graduate schools (Chao et
al., 2017).
There is considerable value-added when students conduct systematic experiments.

Student practices related to experimentation such as conducting more experiments
(overall) and conducting more systematic experiments are associated with higher
levels of performance in strategic design knowledge and science learning gains (Vieira,
Goldstein, Purzer, & Magana, 2016; Chao et al, 2017).
Hence, we argue that rather than assessing the performance of student-designed

prototypes, instructors should use these prototypes to elicit students’ justification of
design features and explanations of results from their experimentation.
Hence, rather than a narrow focus on evaluations of the performance of student

prototypes, teaching and assessment practices should emphasize student justification
of their design decision and reflective design practices.
Myth #2: Rubrics designed specific to projects are a sign of best practices.
While rubrics or assessment guides are critical for performance assessment, the utility of
these tools depends on their usability across multiple projects. Hence, rubrics designed
with attributes specific to a project will not be useful when it is time to evaluate a new
project. Alternatively, rubrics with too broad descriptions are not useful as they will
have limited utility in helping students see the specific areas in which they need to
improve. Hence, we recommend designing and testing rubrics that will work across at
least three projects covering overlapping learning objectives; this approach provides
pertinent assessment of engineering design.
50
Figure 9 provides a schematic overview of the process of student assessment. The

diagram outlines the iterative nature of assessment, linking the need to assess for
planning, interpreting student learning, providing feedback to students, students using
feedback to improve their understanding, and using assessment results to inform
instruction and provide further input into planning for additional assessment.
--Educational Value--
--Multi-dimensionality--
--Instructional Sensitivity--
--Differentiation--
--Fairness--
--Reliability--
Figure 9. A Process for Pertinent Assessment
• Step 1 is to start with specific learning goals and competencies that cut across
projects. These goals may include decision-making, critical thinking, creativity,
communication, and other desirable student outcomes (see Table 1). Specific
performance expectations should be developed associated with each goal.
• Step 2 is to develop analytic rubrics (scoring guides) and iteratively map rubric
components to specific competencies associated with those components. In
developing these rubrics it is important that performance descriptions are not
too specific to a project but rather can cut across multiple projects.
• Step 3 is to plan for and give students at least three project opportunities to
demonstrate their learning. With the first opportunity, students are learning.
• With the second opportunity, students are learning what is expected and how
to respond to feedback. With the third opportunity, students have gotten to the
point that they can demonstrate that they have learned what is expected.
• Step 4 is to chart individual student progress and to summarize group progress

on specific goals and competencies.
51
Myth #3: Assessment is not appropriate in project-based or integrated STEM because

tests are not appropriate and engagement means learning.
In fact, assessment of student competencies is integral to gaining a good idea of how

much and how well students have learned. Several key elements in this process of
assessment are presented in Table 2, with the relevant performance expectations for
each assessment element.
Table 2. A sample of Critical STEM Competencies
Competency Definition Sample Performance Expectation

Problem Scop- Develop a problem statement • Ask questions relevant to the problem
ing from the perspective of stakehold-
ers. Refine the problem statement • Explains the problem based on synthe-
as additional information is found sis of client, user, or other stakeholder
through the process of design. needs.
• Explains key design specifications (in
terms of criteria and constraints) that
address what the client wants and what
the user needs within the problem’s con-
textual constraints.
Evidence-Based Use evidence to support decisions • Makes explicit reference to data when
Decision Making when problem scoping, compar- explaining trends, justifying decisions, or
ing alternatives, and optimizing a making comparisons.
design solution.
• Identifies relevant assumptions needed
to be made in cases when there are barri-
ers to accessing information.
Idea Fluency Generate ideas fluently. Take risks • Generates a wide range of solutions in-
when necessary. cluding ideas not readily obvious or com-
binations of ideas in new ways.
Engineering Recognize how contemporary is- • Recognizes that cultural, economic, envi-
Ethics sues as part of cultural, economic, ronmental and other non-technical fac-
and environmental factors impact tors influence design decisions.
engineering design and practice.
Process Aware- Reflect on both personal and • Identifies strengths in problem solving/
ness team’s problem solving/design design approach clearly related to the
approach and process for the pur- problem.
pose of continuous improvement.
• Identifies weaknesses in the approach
used, with discussion of how those lim-
itations impact the process.
Technical Com- Communicate engineering con- • Presents all visual representations (fig-
munication cepts, ideas, and decisions effec- ures, images, sketches or prototypes)
tively and professionally in diverse with high technical quality, labeling key
ways, such as written, visual, and components to show their form and func-
oral. tion.
• Communicates professionally using scien-
tific and technical vocabulary.
Teamwork Contribute to team products and • Contributes to the team tasks and discus-
discussions sions.
52
Conclusion
As countries all over the planet focus on STEM education initiatives and seek stronger
economic growth through workforce development, the need to integrate the elements
of STEM becomes increasingly important. Concurrent with that integrative imperative is
the need to incorporate Engineering more directly into the STEM constellation alongside
Science, Technology, and Mathematics. Both goals can be achieved most functionally
by recognizing and making use of the inherently integrative nature of Engineering. A
more prominent role for the “E” in STEM will yield benefits for each of the Science,
Technology, and Mathematics moving parts that constitute the constellation. Related to
the integration of Engineering is the need for accountability in conducting assessments
of the effect of engineering curricular innovations on student outcomes. A stronger
role for Engineering in STEM and its focus on problem-solving can help to close the
achievement gaps in STEM and help establish the preconditions for stronger analytical
skills globally.
Acknowledgement
Sections of this work are based upon work supported by the National Science
Foundation (NSF) under Grant DUE #1348547 and DRL 1543175. Any opinions, findings,
and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper, however, are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF
References
Achieve (2013). Next generation science standards. Retrieved February 2018. http://
www.nextgenscience.org.
Boylan-Ashraf, P., Freeman, S. A., & Shelley, M. C. (2015). A case for the need of using
scaffolding methods in teaching introductory, fundamental engineering mechanics
classes. Journal of STEM Education, 17(1), 6-12.
Boylan-Ashraf, P., Freeman, S. A., Keles, O., & Shelley, M. C. (2017). Can students flourish
in engineering classrooms? Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research,
18(1), 16-24.
Bybee, R.W. (2010). What Is STEM education? Science, 329(5995), 996. www.sciencemag.
org
Chao, J., Xie, C., Nourian, S., Chen, G., Bailey, S., Goldstein, M. H. , Purzer, Ş., Adams, R.
S., & Tutwiler, M.S. (2017). Bridging the design-science gap with tools: Science
learning and design behaviors in a simulated environment for engineering design.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(8), 1049-1096.
Fosmire, M., & Radcliffe, D. (Eds.) (2014). Integrating information into the engineering
design process in engineering education. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University
Press.
53
Goldstein, M. H., Purzer, S., & Adams, R. S. (2015). Exploring the relationship between
student reflectivity and their understanding of informed design. Presented at
the 6th Annual Research in Engineering Education Symposium, July 2015, Dublin,
Ireland.
Goldstein, M. H., Purzer, S., Meji, C. V., Zielinski, M., & Douglas, K. A. (2015). Assessing
idea fluency through the student design process. Proceedings of the ASEE/IEEE
Frontiers in Education Conference, October 2015, El Paso, TX.
Goldstein, M. H., Purzer, S., Zielinski, M., & Adams, R. (2015). High school students’
ability to balance benefits & tradeoffs while engineering green buildings. Paper
presented at the 122nd ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, June 2015, Seattle,
WA.
Kelley, T., & and Knowles, G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM
education. International Journal of STEM Education. 3(11), 1-11. DOI 10.1186/
s40594-016-0046-z.
Kolodner, J. L. (2002). Facilitating the learning of design practices: lessons learned from
an inquiry into science education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3),
9–40.
Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar,
S., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the
middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design (tm) into practice.
The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547.
Laugerman, M., Rover, D., Shelley, M., & Mickelson, S. (2015). Determining
graduation rates in engineering for community college transfer students using
data mining. International Journal of Engineering Education 31(6A), 1448–
1457.
Laugerman, M., Rover, D., Mickelson, S., & Shelley, M. (2015). Estimating survival rates
in engineering for community college transfer students using grades in calculus
and physics. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and
Technology, 3(4), 313-321.
Laugerman, M., Rover, D., Mickelson, S., & Shelley, M. (forthcoming). Student success
drives an effective transfer partnership in STEM. Advances in Engineering
Education.
Laugerman, M., Rover, D., Mickelson, S., & Shelley, M. (forthcoming). The middle years
in engineering: student success drives an effective transfer partnership in STEM.
Advances in Engineering Education.
Laugerman, M., & Shelley, M. A. (2013). Structural equation model correlating success
in engineering with academic variables for community college transfer students.
Proceedings of the 2013 American Society for Engineering Education Annual
Conference & Exposition. Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering
Education http://www.asee.org/public/conferences/20/papers/6699/view.
54
Laugerman, M. R., Shelley, M., Mickelson, S. K., & Rover, D. T. (1013). An initial evaluation
of a STEP initiative: The Engineering Admissions Partnership Program designed to
increase success of community college transfer students. International Journal of
Engineering Education, 29(5), 1260-1269.
McCormick, M. E., & Hammer, D. (2016). Stable Beginnings in engineering design.

Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 6(1), 4.
Mina, M., Somani, A., Tyagi, A., Rover, D., Feldmann, M., & Shelley, M. (2006). Learning
Streams: A Case Study in Curriculum Integration. Proceedings, 35th ASEE/IEEE
Frontiers in Education Conference (pp. F1D-5–F1D-9). Piscataway, NJ: Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
National Academy of Engineering & National Research Council. (2009). Engineering

in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects.
Washington, DC: National Academies press.
National Research Council. (2010). Common Standards for K-12 Education? Washington,
DC: National Academies Press. http://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17226/12990
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices,
crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Academy of Engineering & National Research Council (2014). STEM Integration
in K-12 Education: Status, Prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington,
DC: National Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/read/18612/chapter/4#33
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2016). PISA 2015 Results
(Volume I): Excellence and Equity in Education. OECD Publishing: Paris. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en (Accessed on 5 February 2018).
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2018). Population with

tertiary education (indicator). doi: 10.1787/0b8f90e9-en (Accessed on 20 January
2018).
Park, Y., Yoon, S. Hand, B., Therrien, W., & Shelley, M. (2013a). The effectiveness of
argument-based teaching & learning approach for improving the science and
math ability and the relation of critical thinking ability to the science and math
ability of elementary students with special needs. Journal of Special Education &
Rehabilitation Science, 52(4), 411-433.
Park, Y., Yoon, S., Hand, B., Therrien, W., & Shelley, M. (2013b). The effectiveness of
argument-based teaching & learning approach for improving the critical thinking
and scientific ability of elementary students with special needs,” The Journal of
Special Children Education, 15(4), 491-515.
Park, Y., Yoon, S., Hand, B., Therrien, W., & Shelley, M. (2013c). The effectiveness of
argument-based teaching & learning approach for improving the vocabulary,
reading, writing ability of students with special needs in inclusive education,”
Korean Journal of Special Education, 48(2), 301-317.
55
Purzer, S., Dasgupta, A., Gajdzik, E., Moore, T., Tank, K. (August 2016). A Framework
for evaluating quality in classroom assessment for STEM4LIFE. The 3rd P-12
Engineering and Design Education Summit. Chicago, IL.
Purzer, S., Goldstein, M. H., Adams, R. S., Xie, C., & Nourian, S. (2015). An exploratory
study of informed engineering design behaviors associated with scientific
explanations. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(9).
Rover, D. T., Mercado, R. A., Zhang, Z., Shelley, M. C., & Helvick, D. S. (2008). reflections
on teaching and learning in an advanced undergraduate course in embedded
systems,” IEEE Transactions on Education, 51(3), 400-412.
Rover, D., Mickelson, S., Hartmann, B., Rehmann, C., Jacobson, D., Kaleita, A., Shelley,
M., Ryder, A., Laingen, M., & Bruning, M. (2014). Engineer of 2020 outcomes and
the student experience,” Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Frontiers in Education
Conference (pp. 140-146). Oklahoma City, OK: Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers.
Schoerning, E., Hand, B., Shelley, M., & Therrien, W. (2015). Language, access, and
power in the elementary science classroom. Science Education, 99(2), 238–259.
Shelley, M. (2009). Reflections on teaching and learning in an advanced undergraduate

course in embedded systems—Methodology and data analysis,” Annals of
Research on Engineering Education, 4(2), posted February 21, 2009 (http://www.
areeonline.org/?id=7932.)
Shelley, M., & Yildirim, A. (2013). Transfer of learning in mathematics, science, and
reading among students in Turkey: A study using 2009 PISA data. International
Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology, 1(2), 83-95.
Shelley, M. Yore, L., & Hand, B. (Eds.). (2009). Quality research in literacy and science
education: International perspectives and gold standards. Dordrecht, NL:
Springer.
Sneider, C. & Purzer, Ş. (2014). The rising profile of STEM literacy through national
standards and assessments (pp. 3-19). In Ş. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. Cardella (Eds.).
Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices.
West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Vieira, C., Goldstein, M. H., Purzer, Ş., Magana, A. J. (2016). Using learning analytics
to characterize student experimentation strategies in the context of engineering
design. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(3), 291-317. DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.18608/jla.2016.33.14
Villanueva, M. G., Hand, B., Shelley, M., & Therrien, W. (forthcoming). The conceptualization
and development of the practical epistemology in science survey (PESS). Research in
Science Education.
56
Mathematics (M) in STEM
Ayse Tugba ONER
Istanbul Medeniyet University
Nowadays STEM is one of the hot topics in our world. On the one hand most of the
readers know that STEM stands for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics,
on the another hand they probably agree on the equally importance of each subject for
human beings. However for some of us (i.e. mathematics educators), one letter, which
is M, is more salient than others. Especially in STEM education “what is the meaning of
mathematics?” is a crucial question, which will be discussed in the rest of this chapter.
Definitions of M in STEM could have different meanings for individuals. Clark-Wilson

and Ahmed (2009) stated this difference as how M in STEM should be interpreted; it
could be increasing the achievement in mathematics or including mathematics in an
integrated curriculum. The former allows us to segregate mathematics but the latter
requires interwoven structure, which would be more proper to indicate as M in STEM.
Therefore, it would be fair to state that mathematics in STEM should be used more than
a service subject for the other three subjects (Clark-Wilson & Ahmed, 2009).
Mathematics could be accepted as an essential subject for many, and for mathematics
teachers it is serious and valuable subject because it provides a connection between
subjects. However mathematics teachers had some concerns about understanding
the significance of “mathematics” by others. In fact, Coad (2016) reflected teachers’
opinions in his paper where he gathered and presented their ideas emerged from a
meeting (i.e., workshop). These reflections were as follows: 1) to use mathematics as a
data presentation tool can result in discrediting mathematics; 2) do not expect students
to understand every detailed mathematical procedure in STEM activities yet accept
mathematics as a part of STEM projects; 3) mathematics is inevitable component of
STEM activities; 4) assessing mathematical achievement and engagement is important;
5) the difficulty of differentiation of mathematical outcome in STEM activities. Also Clark-
Wilson and Ahmed (2009) focused on determining mathematics teachers’ practices, who
involved in STEM collaborative professional development (CPD) projects, by examining
their perceptions about M in STEM and exploring what makes rich STEM CPD and how
mathematics was defined in STEM. The results were that there should be definitely a
shared vision and pedagogy about mathematics in STEM. In addition to that developing
the view of using mathematics to a broader perspective was another result. One of the
concerns was also giving each subject an essential importance and keeping their integrity
as well. Difficulty of preparing authentic mathematical activities without focusing only
about the content with concerns was another problem. These reflections and results
revealed that mathematics’ role in STEM was not crystal clear, which is understandable
57
because I believe mathematics’ role in STEM is not just about only being a subject it also
has different roles. Even though mathematics as an academic subject is not included in
a STEM activity, this does not mean it is not included because from my standpoint M in
STEM also means “mathematical thinking and understanding”, “mathematical problem
solving”, “mathematical reasoning”, and “ mathematical modelling”.
Mathematical Thinking and Understanding
Instead of teachers teaching students any rule about any subject with rote
memorization, teaching them a style of thinking is in need of today’s world (Winchester,
2007). Mathematical thinking is a style of thinking that is an interrogation of our world
(Winchester, 2007), and therefore it is used widely in educational context. For instance,
a teacher, who searched for the definition of mathematical thinking to ensure that
she conveys thinking mathematically to her students, realized that the symptoms in
mathematical thinking were actually “generic thinking skills and could be applied to all
subjects and problems that we encounter in life” (Pitt, 2002, p. 4). This is exactly what
educators are looking for in STEM projects- thinking skills required to solve real-life
problems. Therefore, mathematical thinking is one of the reasons why “M” needs to be
considered as an essential element of STEM.
There is not a specific and one definition of mathematical thinking (Lane, 2005;
Sternberg, 1996). Researchers focused on analyzing, conjecturing, proving, reasoning,
justifying, formalizing, generalizing, and advanced thinking (Ball, 2002; Dreyfus,
1990; Lane, 2005; Mason, Burton & Stacey, 2010; Polya, 1954; Selden & Selden,
2005). Sternberg (1996) addressed different explanations of mathematical thinking
made by researchers, organized all approaches, and categorized these approaches
as psychometric, computational, anthropological, pedagogical, and mathematical.
Sternberg (1996) pointed out following abilities as mathematical thinking according to
different approaches: Fluid intelligence (i.e., the importance of sequence and speed or
reasoning), crystallized intelligence (i.e., the importance of knowledge and language
skills), memory ability, visual apprehension (Carroll, 1996), information-processing
(i.e. quantitative & qualitative reasoning) (Mayer & Hegarty, 1996), analogical thinking
(Ben-Zeev, 1996), and creative thinking. Especially Ben-Zeev’s (1996) explanation of
mathematical thinking was dramatic because analogical thinking in mathematics occurs
when “one forms a mapping between past problems one has solve and the present
problem one is seeing to solve, and also when one seeks to see the relations among a
set of problems one needs to solve in the present” (Sternberg, 1996, p. 307).
This explanation shows us that this style of thinking is actually what commonly used in
STEM projects or challenges. Starting from this point of view, it would be unfair not to
state the mathematical thinking as a part of STEM.
58
Mathematical Problem Solving
STEM projects or activities start with a problem, which can be real-life problem or
a problem expecting to motivate students and brought to class by teacher. The very
first step of STEM activities is to understand or determine the problem, which is the
foundation of other steps. Lack of depth and comprehensive understanding of a problem
situation could end with undesired results. Therefore, understanding the problem is
essential to complete STEM projects. When this first step is ensured, changes on the
rest would be acceptable with regard to situation, project, or activity, etc.
After understanding the problem, students would be expected to solve the problematic
situation. Solving problem does not have to be related with mathematics because the
definition of ‘problem’ is more generic. However, even though students do not solve
any mathematical problem as content, they would still involve in problem solving
process. Mathematical problem solving strategies were elaborated by Polya (1957)
for mathematics: understanding problem, devising a plan, carrying out the plan, and
looking back. These strategies “help an individual to understand a problem better or to
make progress toward its solution” (Schoenfeld, 1985, p. 23) and when these strategies
are examined, they are obviously vital steps to solve any kind of given problem. Thus,
when students actually solve any problem situation, they actually use the ability of
problem solving. Therefore problem solving is an essential, unignorable, and necessary
ability to be used during STEM projects.
Mathematical Reasoning
In STEM practices, mathematical knowledge and understanding are inevitable elements.

Reasoning -a component of these elements- was stated as “the principal instruments
for developing mathematical understanding and for constructing new mathematical
knowledge” (Ball & Bass, 2003, p. 30). The importance of reasoning was mentioned
in mathematics and science standards from different aspects. For instance, reasoning
and proof was one of the five process standards in Principles and Standards for School
Mathematics; therefore, reasoning was emphasized several times in Common Core
State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) as well. The idea of reasoning were also
emphasized in Next Generation Science Standards Practices (NGSS) (e.g., constructing
explanations and designing solutions, engaging in argument from evidence).
These standards (i.e., CCSSM and NGSS) not only shapes states’ standards but also are
used as resource while comparing other countries’ standards. The stress on reasoning
in both science and mathematics standards is an indicator of mathematical reasoning
being a necessary element in STEM.
59
Mathematical reasoning was defined differently by researchers. Ball and Bass (2003)
stated two types of reasoning: reasoning of inquiry and reasoning of justification. The
former was a process when mathematical reasoning was used during exploration of
new ideas and the latter was used during proving mathematical claims. Reasoning of
justification in mathematics was consisted of two parts: the base of public knowledge
and mathematical language (Ball & Bass, 2003). The base of public knowledge was
basically defined as the knowledge known by and explicit for every individual in the
community (e.g., students, teachers, mathematicians). Mathematical language was
symbols, terms, representations etc. that was used to communicate in the community
for clarity of mathematical ideas, claims and so on. Structural and process aspects of
mathematical reasoning was elaborated in Jeanotte and Kieran’s (2017) study. The
structural aspects of mathematical reasoning were listed as deductive, inductive and
abductive. The emphasis in these aspects were on being true, likely, or generating data
and justification in the best way, respectively. Regarding process aspect of mathematical
reasoning, searching for similarities and differences, validating, and exemplifying were
other components (Jeanotte & Kieran, 2017). Generalizing, conjecturing, identifying a
pattern, comparing, and classifying were listed as processes of mathematical reasoning
related searching for similarities and differences. Validating, justifying, and proving dealt
with the changing the epistemic value one way or another, modifying the epistemic
value with data or support, and modifying the epistemic value with data or support
from being likely to true, respectively (Jeanotte & Kieran, 2017). Lastly, exemplifying
was defined as a mathematical reasoning process covers previous two process related
aspects: searching for similarities and differences, and validation (Jeanotte & Kieran,
2017).
Generally as the last phase of STEM PBL activities ends with communication and
reflection of students’ outcomes (Capraro, Capraro, & Morgan, 2013), especially if
engineering design process is followed. When students perform this last phase, they also
use their reasoning ability. They need to explain their ideation and the reason why they
choose to solve problem in their specific way. This process requires reasoning abilities
such as justification, proving, and validation. For instance, when students were asked
to explain their reasoning while solving given task, they used variety of representations
such as analogy, diagrams, verbal or written statements to form conjectures, generalize,
explain, validate and justify (Vale et al., 2017).
These types of representations were mostly used to perform engineering design process’
steps during STEM PBL activities. Therefore, mathematical reasoning is an inevitable
skill required in STEM education.
60
Mathematical Modelling
Mathematical modelling is almost an inevitable process in today’s world. Mathematical

modelling is “the process of solving problems set in the real world” (Berry, 2002, p.
214). It is actually a transition between real world and mathematics and during this
transition the structure of real-life situations are probed through mathematics (Erbas
et al., 2014). Researchers did not have a consensus about perspectives on this topic
but they agreed on that mathematical modelling is in need when real word situation
problems are solved (e.g., Berry, 2002; Blum & Borromeo Ferri, 2009; Niss, 2012).
Mathematical modelling was classified according to its usage in problem situations- as

a vehicle or content. When mathematics was used as an aid to introduce or understand
other curricular materials, it was used as vehicle; when mathematics was used to learn,
improve and apply mathematical knowledge to solve real life problems, it would be
used as content (Galbraith, 2012). In addition to that Kaiser (2005) and Kaiser and
Sriraman (2006) classified different perspectives of modelling and listed as: a) realistic
or applied, b) contextual, c) educational, d) socio-critical, e) epistemological and f)
cognitive. Even though different explanations existed in the literature, the modelling
process was defined almost similar by researchers.
Mathematical modelling process definition had variaty (Galbraith, 2012; Galbraith &
Stillman, 2006; NCTM, 1989; Pedley, 2005) in literature however fundamental phases
were similar and as following: 1) understanding the given situation; 2) formulating a
mathematical model; 3) analyzing and solving the model; 4) comparing model with
reality and validating; 5) revisiting the process if necessary. When STEM activities’
design process was examined, STEM design phases included most of them (Capraro et
al., 2013), so these steps are subpart of STEM design process. Therefore, even though
STEM projects does not include mathematics as content in it, mathematical modelling
would be part of these projects, thus ‘M’ would be automatically included.
Conclusion
STEM education is a popular subject for many countries, however we all know applying
STEM education truly in schools require many changes. These changes extend from
curriculum to teachers. When we think about all these requirements to establish well-
applied STEM activities, hierarchically curriculum could be listed at the top. However
it is so remarkable not to come across with connections among standards of STEM
subjects in curriculum, whereas for instance most science standards already include
mathematics and mathematical procedure in it. Therefore even though assuming not
to include mathematics as a subject in STEM activities seems possible, when science or
other two disciplines involves in STEM projects, mathematics indirectly involves as well.
Thus, the importance of ‘M’ in STEM is impossible to ignore.
61
In this chapter, how “Mathematics” in STEM would be an unavoidable part of STEM

and how it should be perceived other than being a subject was emphasized, because
mathematics is “the world’s single largest educational subject … applied in a multitude of
different ways in a huge variety of extra-mathematical subjects, fields and practice areas”
(Niss, 2012, p. 49). Studies revealed that mathematics is a very important subject for
students’ STEM degree or career choice. Students’ mathematics achievement predicted
their STEM degree attainment (Tai, Sadler, & Mintzes, 2006; Tyson, Lee, Borman, &
Hanson, 2007) and mathematics was one of the important factors explaining STEM
career choices (Nicholls, Wolfe, Besterfield-Sacre, & Shuman, 2010). In addition to that
STEM environments in early years increased their mathematics achievement compared
to others (Oner, 2015). These results showed that mathematics is an essential subject
to shape students’ future but this does not mean it is not possible to arrange a STEM
activity not involving mathematics as subject (i.e. content) when it is needed. What I
would like to emphasize is that notwithstanding ‘M’ in STEM is not obviously included
in any activity, it is still would be used as ‘mathematical thinking and understanding’,
‘mathematical problem solving’, ‘mathematical reasoning’, and/or ‘mathematical
modelling’.
References
Ball, B. (2002). What is mathematical thinking? Mathematics Teaching, 181, 17-19.
Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2003). Making mathematics reasonable in school. In J.

Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.) A research companion to principles
and standards for school mathematics (pp. 27-44). Reston, VA: National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics.
Ben-Zeev, T. (1996). When erroneous mathematical thinking is just as “correct”: The

oxymoron of rational errors. In R. J. Sternberg, & T. Ben-Zeev (Eds.) The nature of
mathematical thinking (pp. 55-80). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Berry, J. (2002). Developing mathematical modelling skills: The role of CAS. Zentralblatt
für Didaktik der Mathematik, 34(5), 212-220.
Blum, W., & Borromeo-Ferri, R. (2009). Mathematical modelling: can it be taught and
learnt?. Journal of Mathematical Modelling and Application, 1(1) 45-58.
Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., & Morgan, J. (2013). STEM project-based learning: An
integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach
(2nd edition). Rotterdam, The Netherland: Sense.
Carroll, J. B. (1996). Mathematical abilities: Some results from factor analysis. In R. J.

Sternberg, & T. Ben-Zeev (Eds.) The nature of mathematical thinking (pp. 3-26).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
62
Clark-Wilson, A. & Ahmed, A. (2009). Optimising the M in STEM: Researching

collaborative CPD models that address the ‘M’ in the STEM agenda. Chichester,
UK: University of Chichester.
Coad, L. (2016). The M in STEM what is it really? Australian Mathematics Teacher,

72(2), 3-6.
Dreyfus, T. (1990). Advanced mathematical thinking. In P. Nesher & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.),

Mathematics and cognition: A research synthesis by the International Group
for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 113–134). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Erbas, A. K., Kertil. M., Cetinkaya, B., Cakiroglu, E., Alacaci, C., & Bas, S. (2014).
Mathematical modeling in mathematics education: Basic concepts and approaches.
Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(4), 1621-1627.
Galbraith, P. (2012). Models of modelling: Genres, purposes or perspectives. Journal of

Mathematical Modelling and Applications, 1(5), 3-16.
Galbraith, P., & Stillman, G. (2006). A framework for identifying student blockages during
transitions in the modelling process. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik,
38(2), 143 – 162.
Jeannotte, D., & Kieran, C. (2017). A conceptual model of mathematical reasoning for
school mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 96, 1-16.
Kaiser, G. (2005). Introduction to the Working Group “Applications and modelling”

(G14) Proceedings of the 4th European Congress of Mathematics Education, in St.
Feliu de Guixols, Spain, Feb 16-22, 2005.
Kaiser, G., & Sriraman, B. (2006). A global survey of international perspectives on

modelling in mathematics education. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik,
38(3), 302-310.
Lane, C. P. (2005). Mathematical thinking and the process of specializing. (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI
No. 3469652).
Mason, J., Burton, L., & Stacey, K. (1985). Thinking mathematically. New York: Prentice
Hall.
Mayer, R. E., & Hegarty, M. (1996). The process of understanding mathematical

problems. In R. J. Sternberg, & T. Ben-Zeev (Eds.) The nature of mathematical
thinking (pp. 29-54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (1989). Curriculum and

evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
Nicholls, G., M., Wolfe, H., Besterfield-Sacre, M., Shuman, L. J., & Larpkiattaworn,
S. (2007). A method for identifying variables for predicting STEM enrollment.
Journal of Engineering Education, 96, 33-44.
63
Niss, M. (2012). Models and modelling in mathematics education. EMS Newsletter,

December, 49-52.
Oner, A. T. (2015). Longitudinal examination of Texas science, technology, engineering,

and mathematics (STEM) academies (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas
A&M University, College Station, TX.
Pedley, T.J. (2005). Applying Mathematics. Mathematics Today, 41(3), 79-83.
Pitt, A. (2002). Mathematical thinking? Mathematics Teaching, 181, 3-5.
Polya, G. (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning. Princeton: Princeton University

Press.
Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method (2nd edition).
Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Berkeley, CA: Academic

Press.
Selden, A., & Selden, J. (2005) Perspectives on Advanced Mathematical Thinking,

Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7(1), 1-13.
Sternberg, R. J. (1996). What is mathematical thinking? In R. J. Sternberg, & T. Ben-

Zeev (Eds.) The nature of mathematical thinking (pp. 303-318). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tai, R. H., Sadler, P. M., & Mintzes, J. J. (2006). Factors influencing college science
success. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(1), 52-56.
Tyson, W., Lee, R., Borman, K. M., & Hanson, M. A. (2007). Science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) pathways: High school science and math
coursework and postsecondary degree attainment. Journal of Education for
Students Placed at Risk, 12(3), 243-270.
Vale, C., Bragg, L. A., Widjaja, W., Herbert, S, & Yook-Kin Loong, E. (2017). Children’s
mathematical reasoning: Opportunities for developing understanding and creative
thinking. Australian Primary Mathematics Curriculum, 22(1), 3-8.
Winchester, I. (2007). Scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking,

and thinking well about the present and the future. The Journal of Educational
Thought, 41(3), 207-210.
64
SECTION 2
21st CENTURY SKILLS
AND STEM EDUCATION
65
Integrated STEM Education: Promoting STEM Literacy and 21st

Century Learning
Lay Ah-Namand
Institute of Teacher Education
Kamisah Osman
The National University of Malaysia
INTRODUCTION
Rapid changes such as emergence of k-economy, scientific and technological

innovation, and advances in information and communication technology (ICT) are
visibly experienced in the 21st century. These changes are interconnected and our world
is becoming more complex as these changes continues to increase. The complexities of
today’s world require all people to be equipped with a new set of core knowledge and
skills to solve difficult problems. In fact, the global changes has also changed the skills
needed for success in the workplace. As widely discussed in the literature, 21st century
workplace emphasizes on human capital which are knowledgeable and able to apply
knowledge to generate innovations that can contribute to the betterment of society
and the improvement of the nation’s wealth. In addition to knowledge, innovation in
the 21st century requires a new range of skills known as 21st century skills. For instance,
effective communication and collaboration problem solving skills are part of the 21st
century skills. Increasing levels of complexity require expertise communicate effectively
and work collaboratively with people from all over the world to solve problems or
create novel products. 21st century skills enable one to navigate successfully in the more
complex and competitive life and work environment in the 21st century (Partnership for
21st Century Skills, 2009).
These changes imply that science, technology and innovation are now key for greater
social well-being and economic growth. Furthermore, the complexities of today’s
world require all people to be equipped with science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) knowledge and 21st century skills to solve most problems that are
interdisciplinary in nature. Education is the foundation of human capital development,
thus school needs to produce students who are STEM-literate and competent in the 21st
century skills to become science and technology innovators and remain competitive in
the 21st century labour market.
66
This is highlighted by the CEO Forum on Education and Technology (2001) that the
definition of student achievement in the 21st century must be further expanded to
include the 21st century skills.
In the Malaysian context, the science and technology innovation has been recognized as
essential engine of economic growth to strengthen Malaysia’s global competitiveness
as well as to propel Malaysia into an innovative nation and achieve the goals of Vision
2020. According to the Science and Technology Human Capital
Roadmap (STHCR) 2020, Malaysia requires 500000 science and technology human
capital in 2020 (MOSTI, 2012). Therefore, Malaysia needs to ensure the supply of human
capitals who have mastered the knowledge of STEM and 21st century skills to support
science and technology innovations.
In line with the current global changes as well as the national vision and mission,
Malaysia has instituted the 60:40 (Science/Technical: Arts) Policy to increase the number
of science-stream students. The increase in enrolment, however, should be followed by
an increase in the students’ STEM literacy and 21st century skills. STEM literate students
will be capable of identifying, applying, and integrating the STEM concept to understand
complex problems and generate innovation to solve the problems (Chew, Noraini, Leong
& Mohd Fadzil, 2013). STEM literacy plays an important role in human daily lives in this
era since they are many issues related to science and technology. Meanwhile, the 21st
century skills are needed to enable students to face challenges of work and life the 21st
century (Kamisah, Shaiful Hasnan & Arba’at, 2009).
Henceforth, science education in Malaysia should be shifted to the integration of the

acquisition of knowledge and inculcation of 21st century skills to ensure that students are
well-equipped with knowledge, skills and values essential to the 21st century everyday
life and workplaces productivity.
To contribute towards enhancing the quality of the 21st century human capital, STEM
education and 21st century learning have been introduced by the Ministry of Education.
Since that, acronym STEM and 21st century classroom have been widely discussed
among teachers. However, an understanding of STEM education and 21st century
learning vary especially among science and mathematucs teachers. When hearing the
term “STEM” and “21st century learning”, many conjure images of classrooms equipped
with ICTs or using technologies to teach STEM subjects. Others think of teaching
students about technology. As a results, some schools started equipping classrooms
with computers/smart boards, and began organising apps/robot/software designing
courses for students. Moreover, some of teachers do not realize the interconnection of
the STEM education and 21st century learning.
67
Both are seen as two different approaches with different purposes. In short, teachers
still pose important questions about how to move STEM education and 21st century
education forward.
They struggle to provide students with meaningful STEM experiences that promote
21st century learning. 21st century learning is typically used to describe the types of
competencies needed to thrive in today’s complex and interconnected global landscape
(Bernhardt, 2015).
The inability to understanding meaningfully both STEM education and 21st century
learning seems to be the main weakness of many teachers. We believed that this might
due to lack of relational understanding – a more meaningful learning. There are generally
two different types of understanding: Relational understanding refers to the process
of knowing both what to do and why, and instrumental understanding describe the
process of knowing rules without reasons (Skemp, 1978). It is a widely-held perception
and belief that teachers who understand relationally are more likely to connect new
learning with previous learning. However, many Malaysian in-service teachers were
taught instrumentally during short-term (one-to five-day) or one-off training courses
because given such a limited time. As Orchard and Winch (2015) highlighted, teachers
rely on philosophical ideas or theory to make good professional judgments in addition
to subject knowledge and technical know-how. For instance, teachers must understand
key educational concepts and principles that underpin various practices in order to be
able to explain and justify their judgments to pupils, parents and other stakeholders.
If they just understand instrumentally, they will be operating as mere technicians.
Therefore, in this paper we discuss (1) the theoretical foundations of STEM education,
and (2) the guiding principles STEM education that promote STEM literacy and 21st
century learning. In addition, we also presents the outline of instructional activities
based on the STEM guiding principles.
THERORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF STEM EDUCATION
STEM education is drawn upon two important theories in learning and education which
are constructivism and constructionism. The former focuses on the role of students as
builders of meanings and ideas while the latter added that the building of new ideas
occur best through constructing real-world artefacts.
Constructivism
Constructivist theory focuses on the role of students as knowledge builders. Among the
major theories that contribute to the growth of constructivism include Piaget, Vygotsky
and Bruner’s theories of learning.
68
Piaget’s theory explains how humans organize information into the cognitive
structure and explains how cognitive development occurs. According to Piaget, the
new information is organized into existing cognitive structures (schemata) through
two cognitive processes, namely assimilation and accommodation. Piaget (1970)
asserted that assimilation does not occur without accommodation and vice versa. In
other words, assimilation and accommodation are two complementary processes.
Piaget also introduces the process of ‘increasing equilibration’ as key mechanism in
cognitive development. This process requires equilibrium between assimilation and
accommodation (Piaget, 1970, 1977) to seek for better equilibrium through cycles of
equilibrium, disequilibrium and re-equilibrium. Equilibration therefore is a dynamic
process. According to Piaget (1977), conflict situations can be created to attain the goal.
This means that cognitive development occur when disequilibrium or cognitive conflicts
are resolved (Schunk, 2012). The process of equilibration aims to restore equilibrium or
resolve conflicts through the processes of assimilation and accommodation which are
complementary.
Other aspects in the constructivist theory include learning can be enhanced through
social interaction and discovery. Vygotsky (1978) believed that learning is influenced by
the social environment and emphasized on the role of social interaction in learning and
cognitive development. Collaboration between students with teachers or peers provides
scaffolding to students in the Zone of Proximal Development to help them construct
knowledge. Meanwhile Bruner (1966) believed that learning and problem solving are
the result of the exploration of new knowledge. If students discover knowledge and the
relationships on their own, they will gain a deeper understanding (Bruner, 1962).
Briefly, the constructivist theory states that students do not receive knowledge passively,
but he/she interpret the knowledge received and then modify the knowledge in a form
that acceptable to him/her. In other words, individual student actively constructs new
knowledge pursuant to his/her existing knowledge. Construction of new knowledge
can be improved through social interaction. Through social interaction, triggering
of cognitive conflict and restructuring of ideas will occur when students share their
ideas from their own perspective. However, no interaction would be beneficial if new
knowledge is presented to students traditionally. Instead, student should be given the
opportunity to explore new knowledge.
Constructionism
The theory of constructionism is built on the theory of constructivism which

defines learning as knowledge construction in the student’s mind. In addition to the
constructivist theory, constructionist theory of learning asserts that the construction
of new knowledge happen felicitously in a context where students are consciously
69
involved in the production of external and sharable artefacts (Papert 1991). This theory
emphasizes the role of design (making, building or programming) (Kafai & Resnick,
1996) and external objects (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2006) in facilitating the knowledge
construction. In this process, the designers (or students) create artefacts which are
significant to themselves based on their interests, learning styles and their experience,
and shares their artefacts as well as the artefacts’ designing process with others.
The constructionist theory of learning goes beyond the idea of learning-by-doing as

indicated by Papert (1999a) that ‘I have adapted the word constructionism to refer
to everything that has to do with making things and especially to do with learning by
making, an idea that includes but goes far beyond the idea of learning by doing’. Indeed,
Papertian constructionism challenges the student applying the knowledge being
explored to construct more complex ideas or larger theory. In this process, students’
knowledge serves as ‘instrument of personal power’ (Papert 1980). Thus, traditional
curriculum model that uses themes and projects as a way to help students learn a
particular knowledge or skill (Figure 1) should be flipped (Figure 2) to allow students to
use their knowledge and skills to complete a theme-based project. (Stager 2005).
Figure 1. Traditional Curriculum Model
Figure 2. Constructionist Curriculum Model
Source: Stager (2005)
Computers play a role in the constructionist learning theory. Computers can be used
as a building material (Papert, 1999a) as well as a ‘material to be messed about with’
(Papert & Franz, 1988). Learning occurs when students are ‘messing about’ with the
computer. The introduction of computers is also able to change the context of learning
(Papert, 1991). Computers can serve as a convivial tool (Falbel, 1991). The willingness of
70
students to learn will increase because they can use the computer in building artefacts
(Papert, 1991). Papert (1980) has described that ‘The computer is the Proteus of
machines. Its essence is its universality, its power to simulate. Because it can take on a
thousand forms and can serve a thousand functions, it can appeal to a thousand tastes’.
However, he stressed that the main focus is not on the computer but on the minds of
students (Papert, 1980). Additionally, constructionist theory also values the diversity
of learners and social aspects of learning. According to Kafai dan Resnick (1996), this
theory recognizes that learners can build relationship with knowledge through various
ways, and community members can act as collaborators, coaches, audiences and co-
constructors of knowledge in the constructionist learning environment.
In summary, constructionism proposed that learning can be enhanced if students are

involved in collaborative artefact designing projects using digital tools as construction
material. Furthermore, students should be encouraged to create prototypes or artefacts
from their own ideas. Principles derived from the constructivist and constructionist
learning theories are summarized in Figure 3.
1. Knowledge reconstruction: Student constructs new understanding pursu-

ant to his/her existing knowledge.
2. Collaboration: Peer collaboration may trigger cognitive conflict and this

may result in reconstruction of ideas.
3. Exploration: Understanding is lifted when students discover new knowl-

edge themselves.
4. Problem solving: New understanding occurs when students discover their

own solutions to a problem or a task.
5. Learning through designing: Learning can be enhanced if students are in-

volved in artefact designing projects. Design projects are often interdisci-
plinary, bringing together knowledge from STEM subjects as well as other
disciplines.
6. Construction: Students are challenged to apply what they have learned to

construct more complex ideas or larger theory.
7. Technological literacy: Use technology efficiently and effectively to achieve

specific goals. Students must be technologically literate to live, learn, and
work successfully in today’s Digital Age.
Figure 3. Principles of Constructivist and Constructionist Learning
71
PRINCIPLES OF STEM EDUCATION
Based on constructivist and constructionist learning theories as well as literature

analysis, we identified 11 guiding principles that should be incorporated in STEM
education:
1. STEM education should contribute towards cultivation of STEM-literate

citizenry.
STEM literacy is important both inside and outside STEM fields. Therefore, STEM
education should aim to equip students with knowledge, skills and values that are
relevant to the 21st century workplace and everyday life. These students will be qualified
human capital in STEM-related careers. They will be able to make judicious decisions
to invent new technologies to solve various problems in today’s world. This is also
important for those who never directly pursue STEM-related careers. They will be able
to apply the skills that come from studying STEM subjects in solving many problems in
their daily life which is dominated by science and technology.
2. STEM education should emphasize development of students’ 21st century

skills.
The CEO Forum on Education and Technology (2001) and Partnership for 21st Century
Skills (2009) have proposed that students’ achievement in the 21st century should
be expanded further and emphasis should be given simultaneously on improving
academic achievements and the 21st century skills. Kamisah and Neelavany (2010) have
identified five important clusters of 21st century skills which need to be integrated in
the Malaysian science curriculum, namely (1) digital age literacy, (2) inventive thinking,
(3) effective communication, (4) high productivity, and (5) spiritual values.
3. STEM education should emphasize multidisciplinary or integrated approach
This may include exploring approaches to tackling global grand challenges of the 21st
century such as health, energy efficiency, natural resources, environmental quality and
hazard mitigation (Bybee, 2010). STEM disciplines are interrelated (Balaban & Klein,
2006). However, STEM subjects are taught in silo traditionally. Besides, science and
mathematics have been emphasized more than engineering and technology in primary
and secondary levels. Infusing technology and engineering into science and mathematics
learning can cultivate deeper understandings and better development of skills than
learning the subjects in isolation (Bryan et al., 2016). Thus, emphasis should be given
on providing students with high-quality interdisciplinary STEM learning experiences to
solve real-world problems. These problem may include exploring approaches to tackling
global grand challenges of our era, such as health, energy efficiency, natural resources,
environmental quality and hazard mitigation (Bybee, 2010).
72
Integrated STEM should mean application and integration of engineering practice with
the content and practice of science and mathematics (as well as other disciplines)
to design technologies that solve real-world problems through collaboration and
communication. In this regard, the engineering practice serve as an integrator – bind
together science and mathematics content and practices, as well as meaningfully bring
in other disciplines, to produce technologies for a specific purpose (Bryan et al., 2016;
Moore et al., 2014).
4. STEM education involved designing shareable technologies, leveraging

technologies, and developing technological literacy.
The applications of scientific knowledge and practices to engineering have contributed

to the technologies and the systems that support them that serve people today (National
Research Council, 2012). ITEA (2000) defines technology as “the innovation, change, or
modification of the natural environment in order to satisfy perceived human wants and
needs”.
Clearly, technology means innovation or products (a single device or a complex

systems) that solve problems and extend human capabilities. Design projects are often
interdisciplinary, bringing together knowledge from STEM subjects as well as other
disciplines. Contemporary technologies such as ICT can be leveraged to communicate,
collaborate, solve problems, accomplish tasks and as construction material. However,
the focus of integrated STEM is not on the technology alone, but on the fostering
innovation and invention as well as promoting technological literacy. Technological
literacy is beyond knowledge and application of ICT.
5. STEM education should emphasize collaboration and communication.
Collaboration and communication are two important 21st century skills (Binkley et al.,
2012; NCREL & Metiri Group, 2003; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2009). Students
should be given opportunities to engage in collaborative problem solving or task. Taking
part in collaborative task may deepen students’ understanding as cognitive conflict may
be triggered during activities and hence, new understanding may discover. Moreover,
students should be encouraged to use real-world tools (e.g., digital cameras and digital
video cameras) to communicate their ideas. Besides, they should be encouraged to
communicate information or ideas effectively in multiple format (orally, graphically,
textually, etc.). Limiting student expression to pencil and paper makes the demonstration
of understanding difficult for many students. Contemporary tools can play a facilitative
role in effective collaboration and communication.
73
6. Integrated STEM education should engage students in argumentation through

scientific argumentation and design justification
Just like STEM professionals, students be engaged in learning through inquiry. The
process of inquiry required students to engage in argumentation for a claim or decision.
Argumentation invites diverse opinions from peers with justifications for their claims.
In this process, students make claims based on evidences, listen to input from peers
and defend their claims using well-reasoned justifications. Peer’s input may guide them
towards restructuring existing idea and hence towards deeper level of understanding.
In design activity, engineers collaborate to gather opinions for better solution.

Argumentation is used to justify their design decision and explain design process (Baek,
Koh, Cho, & Jeong, 2015). Justification of design choices is parallel to the argumentation
in science education (Bryan et al., 2016). Bryan et al. (2016) also pointed out that design
justification is one way to require the students to apply the science and mathematics
to the engineering design. This learning experiences provide opportunities for student
to deepen science and mathematics content knowledge as well as engineering thinking
or ‘habits of mind’ (values, attitudes, and thinking skills associated with engineering).
Engineering ‘habit of mind’ align with 21st century skills such as systems thinking,
creativity, optimism, collaboration, communication, and ethical considerations (Katehi,
Pearson, & Feder, 2009).
7. STEM education should incorporate practices of STEM professionals to develop

students’ understanding of the nature of science, technology, engineering and
mathematics.
Practices are behavior that STEM professionals engage in as they investigate, design
and problem solve, as well as build models, theories and systems (Bryan et al., 2016).
Practices involve the use of both discipline knowledge and skills specific to each practice
(NGSS Lead States, 2013). The practices of STEM professionals includes scientific
inquiry, mathematical thinking, and engineering design and engineering thinking.
Repeated opportunities engaging in STEM professionals’ practices contributes to better
understanding of the nature of science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
We believed that developing understanding of the nature of science, technology,
engineering and mathematics is necessary for STEM literacy for the same reasons that
understanding of nature of science and mathematics is a pre-requisite for increasing
science literacy and mathematics literacy (Lederman, Lederman, & Antink, 2013; Ojose,
2011)the primary rallying point for science education reform is the perceived level of
scientific literacy among a nation’s populace. The essential nature of scientific literacy is
that which influences students’ decisions about personal and societal problems. Beyond
this, however, educators work to influence students’ ability to view science through a
more holistic lens. Examining the philosophy, history, and sociology of science itself
74
has the potential to engender perceptions of science, in the broader context, that can
impact the lens through which students view the world. The integration of explicit,
reflective instruction about nature of science (NOS).
8. Finally, students are expected to build new solutions or construct more complex
ideas or larger theory by leveraging of STEM knowledge and practices as well as
21st century skills and resources. In other words, they become creative problem
solvers, innovators and inventors.
IMPLEMENTATION
Based on the constructivist and constructionist learning theories, the IDPCR phases (i.e.
Inquiry, Discover, Produce, Communicate and Review) were designed and developed
to assist students in carrying out both inquiry and design activities. The IDPCR phases
are derived from the BSCS 5E Instructional Model (Bybee et al., 2006) and Creative
Design Spiral (Rusk, Resnick, & Cooke, 2009). It is expected that the acronym IDPCR can
help students remember the five important domains of 21st century skills, i.e. Inventive
thinking, Digital-age literacy, high Productivity, effective Communication and spiritual
values (nilai keRohanian). The five domains of 21st century skills have been identified
by Kamisah and Neelavany (2010). It is important to point out that the IDPCR phases
do not always follow in order. For instance, at any phase, students can communicate
information or findings to people from many different backgrounds and specialties to
gain input from them. They are also encouraged to communicate in groups and report
back with their findings at any phase.
The authors also recognise that the IDPCR phases may be too wordy and abstract for
young learners. For young learner, the phases may be reduced to four phases and
replace the abstract words with Think, Make, Communicate and Improve (TMCI). The
TMCI model is derived from the TMI (Think, Make, Improve) Model (Martinez & Stager,
2013). In our model, ‘communicate’ is added and made explicit as communication
is a fundamental practice of science and engineering (NGSS Lead States, 2013).
Communication is also recognised as one of the important 21st century skills.
Table 1.The IDPCR and TMCI Phases, and Related Phases of the BSCS 5E Instructional
Model, Creative Design Spiral, and the Science and Engineering Practices.
TMCI IDPCR BSCS 5E Instructional Model Creative Design Spiral
Think Inquiry Engage Imagine
Discover Explore Experiment
Make Produce Elaborate Create
Communicate Communicate Explain Share
Improve Review Evaluate Reflect
In the following section, the authors present the outline of instructional activities based on the STEM guiding
principles. The instructional activities were designed to engage students in practices of STEM professionals.
75
Table 2. Outline of Instructional Activities
76
77
Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J., Westbrook, A., & Landes,
N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Colorado
Springs, CO: Biological Sciences Curriculum Studies.
CEO Forum on Education & Technology. (2001). The CEO Forum school technology and
readiness report: Key building blocks for student achievement in the 21st century:
Assessment, alignment, accountability, access, analysis. Washington DC: CEO
Forum on Education & Technology.
Chew, C. M., Noraini Idris, Leong, K. E., & Mohd Fadzil Daud. (2013). Secondary school
assessment practices in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)
related subjects. Journal of Mathematics Education, 6(2), 58–69.
Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2006). Overview of research on the educational use of video

games. Digital Kompetanse, 1, 184–213.
Falbel, A. (1991). The computer as a convivial tool. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.),
Constructionism (pp. 29–37). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Kafai, Y. B., & Resnick, M. (1996). Introduction. In Y. Kafai & M. Resnick (Eds.),
Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world
(pp. 1–8). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Kamisah Osman, & Neelavany Marimuthu. (2010). Setting new learning targets for
the 21st century science education in Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 2, 3737–3741.
Kamisah Osman, Shaiful Hasnan Abdul Hamid, & Arba’at Hassan. (2009). Standard
setting: Inserting domain of the 21st century thinking skills into the existing science
curriculum in Malaysia. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 2573–2577.
Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (2009). Engineering in K–12 education: Understanding
the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: the National Academies
Press.
Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific
inquiry as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy.
International Journal of Education in Mathematics Science and Technology, 1(3),
138–147.
Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering
in the classroom. Torrance, CA: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.
Moore, T. J., Glancy, A. W., Tank, K. M., Kersten, J. A., Smith, K. A., & Stohlmann, M.
S. (2014). A framework for quality K-12 engineering education: Research and
development. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 4(1), 1–13.
MOSTI. (2012). Science & Technology Human Capital Roadmap (STHCR) Towards 2020.
Kementerian Sains, Teknologi dan Inovasi. Retrieved from http://www.mosti.gov.
my/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2393&lang=en
78
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices,
crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press.
NCREL, & Metiri Group. (2003). enGauge 21st century skills: Literacy in the digital age.
Napierville, IL & Los Angeles, CA: NCREL & Metiri Group.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Ojose, B. (2011). Mathematics literacy: Are we able to put the mathematics we learn
into everyday use? Journal of Mathematics Education, 4(1), 89–100.
Orchard, J., & Winch, C. (2015). What training do teachers need? Why theory is necessary
to good teaching. Impact, 2015(22), 1–43.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorm: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic
Books.
Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism

(pp. 1–28). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Papert, S. (1996). A word for learning. In Y. Kafai & M. Resnick (Eds.), Constructionism in
practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world (pp. 9–24). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Papert, S. (1999a). Eight big ideas behind the constructionist learning lab (Vol. 405).
Retrieved from http://stager.org/articles/8bigideas.pdf
Papert, S. (1999b). Introduction: What is Logo? Who needs it? In C. Fonseca, G. Kozberg,
M. Tempel, S. Soprunov, E. Yakovleva, H. Reggini, … D. Cavallo (Eds.), Logo
philosophy and implementation (pp. IV–XVI). Canada: Logo Computer System Inc.
Papert, S., & Franz, G. (1988). Computer as material: Messing about with time. Teachers
College Record, 89(3), 408–417.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). P21 framework definitions. Retrieved from
http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/P21_Framework_Definitions.pdf
Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget’s theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s manual of child

psychology (3rd ed., pp. 703–732). New York: Wiley.
Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. New

York, NY: Viking Press.
Rian Vebrianto, & Kamisah Osman. (2014). BIOMIND: Strategic science learning
approach towards preparing 21st century Indonesians. Technics Technologies
Education Management, 9(2), 361–368.
Rusk, N., Resnick, M., & Cooke, S. (2009). Origins and guiding principles of the Computer
Clubhouse. In Y. B. Kafai, K. A. Peppler, & R. N. Chapman (Eds.), The Computer
Clubhouse: Constructionism and creativity in youth communities (pp. 17–25).
New York, NY: Teachers College.
79
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th ed.). Boston,

MA: Pearson.
Skemp, R. R. (1978). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. The

Arithmetic Teacher, 26(3), 9–15.
Stager, G. (2005). Papertian constructionism and the design of productive contexts for
learning. In Proceedings of EuroLogo 2005 (pp. 43–53). Retrieved from http://
eurologo2005.oeiizk.waw.pl/PDF/E2005Stager.pdf
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
80
STEM SKILLS in the 21ST CENTURY EDUCATION
Ceylan Sen
Bozok University
Zeynep Sonay Ay
Hacettepe University
Seyit Ahmet Kiray
Necmettin Erbakan University
Introduction
STEM education, as one of the most striking educational movements in recent years
(Kuenzi, 2008; Reiss & Holmen, 2007; Sanders, 2009), is an interdisciplinary field of
study linking science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (National Governors’
Association, 2007).
Mobley (2015) describes STEM education as “an educational approach in which

interdisciplinary applications are made to solve problems in real life and links to
different disciplines are created”. STEM education emerges as an interdisciplinary
concept involving teaching science, technology, engineering, and mathematics under
one roof. STEM education provides a positive contribution to students’ basic skills
(problem solving, critical thinking, etc.) by creating interdisciplinary study opportunities
(Australian Education Council, 2015). In addition to supporting development of 21st
century skills such as STEM literacy, problem solving, critical thinking and creativity
(Australian Education Council, 2015; Bybee, 2010; Innovation America Task Force, 2007;
Morrison, 2006), STEM education emphasizes three fundamental elements (problem
solving, innovation, and design) that have a significant place on every countries’ agenda
(Hernandez et al., 2014).
STEM education is a learning and teaching approach that integrates science, technology,
engineering and mathematics knowledge and skills (Maryland, 2012). STEM education
is aimed at the development of students’ research-questioning, logical reasoning, and
working behaviors in a collaboration. In this respect, the aim of STEM education is to
train qualified individuals to meet the 21st century workforce needs (Moore, 2009).
With the STEM education, it is aimed that students will work to find solutions to
complex problems and global problems and to improve their real life situations (Breiner,
Harkness, Johnson, & Koehler, 2012; Sanders, 2009; Wang, Moore, Roehrig, & Park,
2011).
81
21st Century Skills
The 21st century skills have great importance for a successful school and business life
(Washer, 2007). Because transferring the courses in the education programs to the
students is necessary for academic success but it is not enough to make a difference in
the 21st century we are in (Jerald, 2009). In this context, education is being regulated in
order to meet the needs of workforce in industry and economy-oriented occupational
fields (Bingimlas, 2009; Gooderham, 2014; Hudson, 2001). It is aimed to educate the
individuals who can respond to the needs of the 21st century with these regulations
made in the field of education. Thus, interdisciplinary education programs are offered
as an alternative to traditional education for the development of 21st century skills
(Davies & Ryan, 2011).
One of the aims of STEM education is to develop individuals’ 21st century skills
(Bybee, 2010). These skills are expressed by NAS (2014) as “providing a meaningful
and deep understanding and transfer of knowledge among disciplines”. In the 21st
century education, the importance of realizing interdisciplinary, personalized, inclusive,
flexible, collaborative, student-centered, engaging and exciting teaching environment
has been expressed by Cookson (2009) as follows. In providing quality education, global
competitive environment, classes and schools must be structured towards 21st century
skills and knowledge and skills must be integrated and implemented by educators.
Our world is rapidly evolving in terms of technology and knowledge, and students need
to develop the skills they need to be in the changing world (Darling-Hammond, 2010;
Friedman 2005; Wagner, 2008). Education is increasing its importance every day in
terms of adaptation to changing world and economic competitiveness. Moore (2009)
states that in the 21st century, with the changing educational insight, the targeted
skills to be acquired by the students must change as well. While students are aiming to
compete in a global economy, education and skills at the K-12 level need to be aligned
to this goal (Darling-Hammond 2010; Friedman, 2005; Wagner, 2008). For this purpose,
curriculum, content, and evaluations should be adapted to student skills and needs and
focused on 21st century skills (Friedman, 2005).
Jukes & Macdonald (2007) suggest that 21st century skills must be understood by
teachers and taught to students with an effective teaching style. In an effective 21st
century education, it is aimed to acquire basic skills such as reading, speaking, and
writing as well as social, academic, and engineering skills (Jukes & Macdonald, 2007).
In this context, Jerald (2009) describes the skills that individuals should have in the 21st
century society; basic knowledge and skills (academic knowledge and skills), literacy
skills (ability to apply academic knowledge and skills in real life) and 21st century skills
(ability to use literacy and other skills at any time to succeed in different areas of life).
82
Today, many sectors expect individuals to have the skills appropriate for the needs of
the age, such as problem solving, creative thinking, high communication skills, being
open to collaboration, having responsibility, etc. (Eryılmaz & Uluyol, 2015). 21st century
skills helps students to easily adapt to the new situation while they are being taught the
new knowledge (Dede, 2010). Along with these skills, students are able to adapt to the
ever-changing and evolving global community (Pearson, 2014).
When the literature is examined, there is no consensus on what the 21st century skills
are (Sahin, Ayar, & Adıgüzel, 2014). However, various institutions and researchers are
conducting extensive researches to explain these skills. One of the most important
work undertaken in this regard was the Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Partnership
for 21st Century Skills (2011) explain the 21st century skills as follows:
Figure 1. Partnership for 21st Century Skills
Fundamental Issues & 21st Century Themes: Basic topics include fields such as reading,
science, mathematics, language, history, and economics. It is aimed to transfer
knowledge to solve social problems such as global awareness, finance, economy,
environment and health, which are more complex in the academic sense, by associating
these basic fields with each other.
Learning and Innovation Skills: With the school and non-school experiences, it is aimed
to ensure that students are in an effective learning process. In addition to giving the
knowledge to students, awareness should be raised in self-development and innovation
in the changing world.
• Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Ability: Critical thinking involves effectively
analyzing and evaluating assertions, evidence, and beliefs.
In the 21st century, problem solving skills are effective in helping individuals solve
unconventional situations with effective methods.
• Communication: The individual must express his/her ideas in various contexts by

using verbal or written communication tools effectively. Effective communication
skills gain importance in this direction.
83
• Collaboration: Individuals need to be able to work in a respectful manner with

different teams in the educational environment and business life. With the
collaborative education practices, students should be immersed in collaboration.
• Creativity and Innovation: The ability to produce a broad idea to create new and
useful ideas.
Knowledge, Media and Technology Skills: The skills that individuals should have in the
21st century are (i) access to a wealth of information, (ii) adaptation to rapid changes
in technologic tools, and (iii) contributing by working individually and in collaboration.
• Knowledge Literacy: Accessing and evaluating knowledge critically and

competently, managing the flow of knowledge from various sources.
• Media Literacy: Understand how and why media messages are created;
understanding and using the most appropriate media creation tools and features
to bring media products to the market.
• ICT (Information and Communication Technologies) literacy: Using technological

tools as a means of researching, organizing, evaluating and transmitting
information.
• Life and Career Skills: In today’s global competition, students need to be

careful to improve their life and career skills in highly competitive life and work
environments.
• Social and Intercultural Skills: Students need to have content knowledge, social
and emotional competencies in order to be able to take place in real life and in
future working environment.
K-(4-8) STEM Skills in Turkey
In Turkey’s Middle School Mathematics Course (5, 6, 7 and 8. Classes) Curriculum (2013),
the targeted basic skills were determined as problem solving, mathematical process skills
(communication, reasoning, and association), sensual skills, psychomotor skills, and
information and communication technologies. In the updated Mathematics Curriculum
(MoNE, 2018a), mathematical skills have been included as mathematical competencies.
Mathematical competencies include the ability and desire to use mathematical modes
of mathematical thinking (logical and spatial thinking) and presentation (formulas,
models, fictions, graphics and tables) at different levels.
In the Science Curriculum (MoNE, 2018b), specific skills in the field were categorized as
scientific process skills, life skills, and engineering and design skills. Scientific process
skills include observing, classifying, recording data, constructing hypotheses, using and
84
modeling data, changing and controlling variables, experimenting. Life skills include
analytical thinking, decision-making, creativity, entrepreneurship, communication and
teamwork skills related to access to and use of scientific knowledge. Engineering and
design skills in the curriculum include strategies on how students can create products
and how they can add value to these products using the knowledge and skills they
acquire by integrating science, mathematics, technology and engineering and bringing
students to the level of being able to make innovations with an interdisciplinary
approach to the problems.
Objectives of the 7th and 8th grade Technology and Design Teaching Program (MoNE,
2018c) are to raise individuals who are able to observe and interpret the objects,
events and phenomena around in an analytical way, to identify the problems and
develop creative and original alternative suggestions, and make evaluations of these
suggestions and make decisions for the best suggestion. At the same time, it is aimed
to raise individuals who observe, examine, sensitive to environment, feel responsible
about the problems that affect human life, propose innovative and original solutions
to these problems by using analytical thinking system, have self-confidence, and have
skills to work in collaboration.
In this study, it was aimed to examine the skills that are aimed to be taught in science,
mathematics, technology and design courses for the 4-8 classes prepared by the
Ministry of National Education and the 21st century skills defined by Partnership for 21st
Century Skills (2011) and to define the STEM skills within the scope of STEM education.
Identification of STEM skills is aimed at identifying the specific skills of STEM training.
The aim of this study is to examine the skills that are aimed to be taught in science,
mathematics, technology and design courses for the 4-8 classes prepared by the
Ministry of National Education and the 21st century skills defined by Partnership for
21st Century Skills (2011) and to define the STEM skills within the scope of STEM
education. With the identification of STEM skills, it is aimed at identifying the specific
skills of STEM education.
STEM SKILLS
When the literature is examined, it is seen that some skills are accepted as STEM
skills and there is a common understanding. These skills are emerging in the form of
Engineering Based Problem Solving Skill, Association Skill, Engineering Based Design
Skills, Innovation, Digital Competence, Creativity, and Communication and Collaboration.
Engineering Based Problem Solving Skill
In STEM education, problem-solving skills are effective in engineering processes that

involve planning, designing, constructing, and evaluating for a specific problem (Bagiati
85
& Evangelou, 2016; English & King, 2015). Problem solving processes in students’
engineering work are described as follows (English, King, & Smeed, 2017; Lucas, Claxton,
& Hanson, 2014):
• Identify the problem situation,
• Produce possible solutions for the problem and to evaluate the solutions to
meet the problem,
• Test the possible solutions and solve the problem.
During the STEM activities, the students are “learning while doing design” by testing
and checking their products during the engineering process brought to the problem
solving stage (Crismond & Adams, 2012). STEM education provides a rich content for
engineering-based innovative and creative problem solving (Bagiati & Evangelou, 2016;
English, 2016). English, King, and Smeed (2017) describe the following steps for problem
solving in STEM education:
1. Determining and Identifying the Problem Situation: In determining the

problem situation, which is the most basic stage of the design process, the
problem situation is extensively addressed and the limitations and targets are
determined (Atman et al., 2014; Watkins et al., 2014). Since real-life problems
in STEM activities are complex, determining these problems and defining their
limitations is effective in constructing problem solutions (Jonassen, Strobel, &
Lee, 2006). The problem situation is an important step because it affects the
process of designing and delivering products (Atman et al., 2008). Determining
the problem situation is an essential step in the design model and specifies
the choice of material to be used for the product that will help in solving the
problem (English, King, & Smeed, 2017).
2. Product Development for Problem Solving: In order to solve the problem in

STEM education, the product is introduced to the market. For this purpose, the
stages of planning, preparing, designing, evaluating, redesigning and producing
products are included (Portsmore et al., 2012). At this stage, students convey
their thoughts about their products in different representations via verbal,
written, visual or 3D modeling (English & King, 2015). Drawing skills of students
in designing by drawing, computer and modeling program skills of students in
3D models, and communication skills of students in expressing thoughts are
effective (Postmore et al., 2012).
3. Product Evaluation and Configuration: The product evaluation phase is important

to develop in-depth understanding of the problem (Mehalik, Doppelt, & Schun,
2008). Kendall (2018) states that product evaluation encourages students
86
in identifying, correcting, and improving the inadequacies of their products.

Students try to identify the causes and shortcomings of the their products and
improve them. Students have the ability to design and produce product based
on academic knowledge of STEM disciplines in problem solving (Watkins et al.,
2014; Katehi, Pearson, & Feder, 2009). In this respect, the students’ failure to
deliver the product may be related to academic knowledge and skills.
Skills for Establishing Relevance
With STEM education, it is aimed to teach students to relate science, technology,

mathematics, and engineering within themselves, with other disciplines, and real life;
therefore, learning will be meaningful. Through within disciplines, interdisciplinary,
and real life relations, instructional content is related to the way it is practiced and
makes it meaningful. The types of relations identified within the scope of the study are
presented below.
Relating Existing Knowledge with New Knowledge: Piaget (1977) expresses learning as
a structure that is improved and organized form of existing scheme by the experiences
acquired through the senses. Pound (1977) states that the beginning of the meaningful
teaching is the preliminary knowledge of the students and that the relation with the
newly learned knowledge should be established. In this direction, it is necessary for
students to make connections between the existing knowledge of students in the
disciplines of science, mathematics, technology and engineering, and the knowledge
they newly learn about these disciplines.
Relating STEM Disciplines within Themselves: In order to establish links between STEM
disciplines, prior knowledge and needs of students for each discipline need to be
identified and addressed. It is also aimed at establishing links between disciplines as well
as the necessity of establishing links between prior knowledge and new experiences in
the realization of the teaching.
By relating STEM disciplines within themselves, students are able to understand the
relationships and benefits among these disciplines rather than thinking that disciplines
include a range of disjointed and isolated concepts and skills. In this way, students can
be aware of the relationships for each discipline.
Students can relate at any stage of education. While students in kindergarten relate the
new knowledge with the experiences they have outside the school, the students at each
level of the elementary education relate the new knowledge with the ones learned in
previous stage and the daily life. In the upper levels of education, this relation can be
improved as abstraction and generalization. Through this relation, students can realize
that each STEM discipline is connected and related.
87
Relation Between STEM Disciplines: In STEM education and its applications, it is also
aimed to enable students to relate disciplines with each other as well as students’
relations for each of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. In this way, how
the disciplines are located in each other, its importance, and its effect are recognized.
Relating STEM Disciplines with Different Disciplines: STEM disciplines can be related
with many fields such as art, language, history, and geography. Instead of introducing
STEM fields as related with each other and isolated from other disciplines, we can claim
that STEM fields are also effective in different disciplines. This provides students with
an awareness of the importance of STEM education. The STEM skill for establishing
relevance scheme defined within the scope of STEM skills is given in Figure 2.
Figure 2. STEM Education Skill for Establishing Relevance
Engineering Based Design Skills
The National Research Council (NRC, 2012) emphasizes, in the development of

scientific content knowledge, the importance of integration education that includes
engineering design practices. Engineering is defined as “systematic design in producing
successful solutions to real life problems” (NRC, 2012). By integrating engineering into
education, students have the opportunity to be effective in solving complex problems
and decision-making in the future (Mangiante & Moore, 2015). The importance of
engineering education arises in having sufficient engineering and scientific knowledge
to make solutions to complex social problems such as environment, energy, economy
and health, and to participate in discussions and to make decisions in these difficult
issues.
It is emphasized by NGSS Lead States (2013) that students should participate in

engineering applications according to their interest and experience while developing
their engineering skills and equality of opportunity should be provided for them. With
88
STEM education, it is also stated that the integrated use of scientific knowledge and
engineering knowledge in the solution of real life problems is effective in the acquisition
of engineering skills of students (Ke, 2014; Thibaut, 2018).
During the STEM education, engineering based design skills are defined by taking
into account the skills that students should have in defining the problem, producing
solutions for the problem and evaluating the solutions.
Designing: Design becomes salient when students put forward the situation for realistic
life problems and develop solution proposals for these problems. Students are expected
to design models for the characteristics of the defined problem and to express and
reflect these designs in different ways (drawing, modeling, presentation etc.).
Explanation of Design Process: Students are expected to explain the effectiveness of

their designs. They need to express themselves what they pay attention to during the
design process, whether the design they create is effective in problem solving, and
about the developmental stages, and at the same time evaluate whether the design
they construct serves to solve the problem.
Selection of Appropriate Materials: Selection of appropriate materials is necessary for

putting the designs created by the students for problem solving as products. For this, it is
important to test and evaluate different material alternatives. The selection of suitable
materials is important for the development of a durable, flexible, and usable product.
Realistic Product Creation: It is important that the designs that are created to solve the
problem are realistic and useful. The fact that the products that students bring to the
market are not realistic can cause the problem resolution to be limited. It is important
to design well and create an effective model in creating realistic products.
Testing Product Quality and Performance: The crated product must be tested in order
to check the durability and operation of it.
The usefulness of the product, its functioning and its effectiveness in problem solving
should be tested.
Product Evaluation and Improvement: Product effectiveness, its functioning, its fit
to desired characteristics, and durability should be evaluated by the student and the
product characteristics should be defined. If the product has incomplete or improvable
characteristics, they should be detected and revised to be used in the best possible way.
Design and Product Comparison: It is a comparison of the design the student has made
for the problem he/she defined with the product characteristics that he/she presents.
At this stage, it is expected that students will question the differences and reasons
89
between what is targeted and what is being done. With the “why” and “how” questions,
It is aimed to evaluate the stages of creating the product.
Innovation Skills
Today, as innovation and development in the field of economy, technology and industry
are rapidly gaining importance, countries need qualified people with appropriate
education to increase and support their knowledge base in this race. At all levels of K-12
education, it is necessary to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for innovation
(OECD, 2011).
Innovation skills provide vocational competence and qualification in the direction

of objectives. It is seen that there are common skills defined when the literature on
innovation skills is examined (Ananiadou & Claro, 2009; Kergroach, 2008; OECD, 2010,
OECD, 2001; Stasz, 2001).
Basic Skills and Digital Age Literacy: Basic skills include the skills for reading, writing
and arithmetic operations. Digital age literacy, which provides information access and
information interpretation of individuals, provides technology flow that enables the
use of digital technology, communication tools and networks. With the development
of Internet and information and communication technologies (ICT), OECD (2008) stated
that digital age literacy has become as important as the basic skills for the future
professions.
Academic Skills: These are related to subject areas such as mathematics, science,
history and geography. Academic skills are generally acquired through education and
transferred to real life and practice.
Technical Skills: These skills are the skills necessary for professional life and include
academic knowledge and skills. It is an increasingly important skill for competence
in product, service, and development processes in response to complex problems in
industrial development and country policies.
General Skills: The skills involved in this category are problem solving, critical and
creative thinking, learning, and managing complex situations.
Social Skills: Social skills include motivation, communication, collaboration and

responsibility skills that enable individuals to interact within a group or with other
groups. The ability to read and manage one’s own and others’ behavior during social
interaction, as well as the development of comprehension, openness and awareness
skills for intercultural communication are important. Leadership: This skill includes
team building and managing, guidance and coordination skills.
90
These skills described are confronted as features that individuals who are effective in
the innovation process must possess. Green, Jones, and Miles (2007) define innovation
processes and effective skills as follows. These are:
1. Choice of ideas and resources: In this first stage, the identification of ideas, the
collection of resources, and the selection of appropriate resources are included.
Review of sources, interpretation of new information obtained, evaluation of
their validity, and discussion of ideas are carried out. Basic, academic, general,
and technical skills are important at this stage.
2. Development of innovation ideas: In this stage of development, individuals

or different groups come together to share ideas, make decisions and work
effectively. Social and leadership skills gain importance at this stage.
3. Testing and commercialization: At this stage, evaluation of trade, benefits and

risks takes place. Customer needs and preferences should be determined in the
preference of the product. At this stage, engineering and marketing skills are
required for product development and commercialization. Risk management,
following and identifying innovations are needed.
4. Implementation and expansion: At this stage, project management, technology

transfer, and coordination of supply chains are included.
Digital Competence
Digital competence includes the effective utilization and use of information and
communication technologies (MoNE, 2018c). Banks and Barlex (2014) state that digital
competence should include the following elements:
• Understanding the use of information and communication technologies (books,

Internet, television, telephone etc.) and their reflection on society (culture,
information access, communication and interaction, meaning making).
• Making use of technological tools to exchange information and create knowledge

via technology as well as face-to-face meetings.
• Effectively utilize and critically evaluate communication technologies to acquire

information.
• Taking advantage of networks and multimedia to share information accessed

with a digitally literate audience.
There is a need for teaching that integrates technology with engineering applications
and includes enriched and high quality teaching materials (PCAST, 2010). With STEM
education, students are able to use algorithmic thinking, calculation techniques,
91
modeling, and abstraction to solve real life problems by taking advantage of technology
(NAE, 2009). Within the scope of STEM education, it is aimed not only to use technology
in education environment, but also to develop technology usage skills of students (Sade
& Coll, 2003). In STEM education, it is aimed students to benefit from the information
and communication technologies in using, accessing and sharing the information with
others while making creative designs, through these activities it is aimed students to
develop their digital competencies (Thibaut, 2018).
Communication and Collaboration
In STEM education where engineering design-focused work is involved, students interact

in a communicative and collaborative way (Crismond & Adams, 2012). Communication
and collaboration have emerged as a necessity in K-12 level engineering programs
(ABET, 2012). In STEM education, students work together as engineers in a team to
present their design projects (Borrego, Karlin, McNair, & Beddoes, 2013).
In STEM education, students use different communication channels such as written,

verbal, visual, and technological. Fluent speech, proper reading and writing, and using
digital technologies are effective in expressing students’ thoughts.
Trilling and Fadel (2009) expressed the importance of effective communication as

follows.
Effective communicative individuals;
• Express their thoughts and ideas in verbal, written and different ways of
communication in different contexts.
• Are effective listeners in developing meaning towards knowledge, value, and

attitude.
• Can communicate with different purposes (informing, motivating, convince

etc.).
• Can benefit from information and communication technologies (computers,

cameras, printers, smartphones etc.) effectively.
In STEM education, students are provided to work in interaction with different teams
and heterogeneous groups. Communication, motivation and entrepreneurship skills are
at the forefront in the social interaction of the students. Leadership skills are effective
in the formation of teams and coordination within the group when students work in
collaboration. The importance of collaboration is described by Trilling and Fadel (2009)
as follows:
• Demonstrate the ability to work effectively with respect to different teams.
92
• Ability to work towards a common goal and to be flexible and adaptable in

making joint decisions.
• Contribution of each individual in group work and shared responsibility.
Socially, communication and collaboration in physical or virtual environment with others

are provided for the development of communication and collaboration skills of students
(Trilling & Fadel, 2009). According to the OECD (2011), social skills in communication
and collaboration are important elements in harmonizing and supporting each other in
the globalized world. The ability to work in multicultural groups affects the work of the
individual in terms of professional and career.
Life and Career Skills
Life and career skills are effective in making individuals fit into work life and real life. In
science education program of Turkey in 2017, these skills were described as analytical
thinking, decision-making, creative thinking, entrepreneurship, communication, and
teamwork (MoNE, 2017).
These skills are also important competencies in STEM education. With STEM education,
it is aimed to develop skills for career and business life following the individuals’
school life (Hall, 2018). Students need to be knowledgeable about the basic scientific
disciplines that will be effective in their future business life. STEM education is effective
in providing students with the knowledge and skills necessary for career and personal
development (P21, 2015). The Framework for 21st Century Learning (P21, 2011)
describes the elements of life and career skills as follows:
Flexibility and Adaptability: The 21st century business environment, working conditions
and needs are changing rapidly, so it is necessary to educate individuals who are not
only equipped in the sense of knowledge but also adapt to changing conditions, new
ideas, and tasks (Kivunja, 2015).
Entrepreneurship and Self-direction Skills: Today, economy and digital technologies

are rapidly evolving and changing. This requires employees to be entrepreneurial and
self-directed to learn new ideas, concepts, and practices to increase their productivity
(Trilling & Fadel, 2009).
Social and Intercultural Skills: In order to be successful in the 21st century business
life, the social and intercultural skills of people need to be effective. These skills
enable people to work together effectively or to work effectively with the people they
communicate with and with different teams (Kivunja, 2015). In the globalizing world,
different countries, different societies, and organizations are involved in shared works
through collaboration and communication with each other. In this respect, the ability of
93
individuals to work intercultural is important in terms of ensuring communication and

collaboration. Productivity and Responsibility: This skill, which is described by Trilling
and Fadel (2009) as “producing results”, includes the productivity, usefulness and high-
quality service elements interacting with each other. Productivity in providing a quality
service includes providing economic support by using resources in the best possible
way. The utility of the resulting service and product is indicative of productivity in the
work.
Leadership: Leadership skills of individuals are effective in coordinating and sharing

tasks among individuals in collaborative group and teamwork (OECD, 2010).
Creativity
Creativity is defined as the ability to think differently and produce ideas as a results of
different thinking (Guilford, 1959). Amabile (1982) refers to creativity as producing new
and appropriate ideas and behaviors. Csikszentmihalyi (1996) defines creativity as new
and valuable ideas or behaviors that are revealed as an interaction of the individual in
their thought and socio-cultural context.
Sternberg and Kaufman (2010) state that creativity is generally defined as an

understanding of authenticity outside of standards, but creativity is a skill far beyond
this definition. Some say creativity is very high level and legendary, while others view it
as a skill that emerges in everyday life (Craft, 2002). Creativity is associated with artistic
activities and practices, as well as scientific understanding and innovations (Runco &
Pagnani, 2011). Creativity is generally defined as “the ability to produce a new, qualified
and appropriate product (idea, thought, behavior etc.)” (Sternberg, Kaufman, & Pretz,
2002).
A framework of creativity that can be incorporated into the teaching process was
created by Rhodes (1961) and a 4-Ps model was defined in this framework (Smith &
Smith, 2010). Rhodes (1961) has described four intertwined elements interacting with
each other on a basis of creativity; person, process, product, and press. The 4-Ps in this
definition are explained below.
Person: This element includes characteristics specific to person such as personality,

intelligence, temperament, attitude, and behavior (Zenasni, Besancon, & Lubart, 2008).
Process: This is the most mysterious component of creativity (Guo & Woulfin, 2016).
The process includes the creative work in students’ practices and activities. In this
direction, various theories and models have been presented in evaluating the creativity
of the researchers and practitioners. For example, establishing relationships between
concepts (Mednick, 1962) or the Gene-Plore model that involves generating ideas for
94
exploring different contexts (Finke, Ward, & Smith, 1992).
Product: The third line of creativity is the product made at the end of the creative
process. Not only the constructions, pictures or inventions that are built as products, but
also ideas and thoughts that are suitable for embodiment are also included as creative
products (Rhodes, 1961). For example, a new building model that the individual has
designed may be a product because of its feasibility, even if it has not been built yet.
Press: Press is the last element of creativity. The press is expressed as the environment in
which the individual interacts (Amabile et al., 2004). Guo and Woulfin (2016) described
elements that include creative environment in schools as teaching style, peer relations,
collaboration, competition, and information and communication technologies.
At the STEM activities, it is aimed students to make a product after an engineering

based work process. With STEM education, students are offered the opportunity to
make products in a creative environment. In this direction, the students have the
chance to design, make products, and evaluate these products within the scope of the
4-Ps creativity model.
Conclusion
Despite the fact that the STEM concept is used frequently today, it is seen that the skills
to be developed in students with STEM education is not mentioned too much. STEM
education is generally seen as a general concept expressing the integration of science,
mathematics, technology, and engineering disciplines. It has become important to
develop skills that will emerge through the integration of these disciplines with STEM
education. In this section, STEM skills by examining the literature is outlined in the
form of engineering based problem solving, establishing interdisciplinary relevance,
engineering based design skills, scientific process skills, life and career skills, creativity,
innovation, and digital competence. In addition to integrating science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics subjects in STEM education, the development of STEM
skills is also of great importance.
References
ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission. (2012). 2011 – 2012 Criteria for Accrediting
Engineering Programs. Baltimore, MD: ABET, Inc.
Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors
and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The Leadership
Quarterly, 15, 5–32.
Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st Century skills and competences for new
millennium learners in OECD Countries. OECD Education Working Papers, 41.
95
Atman, C. J., Eris, O., McDonnell, J., Cardella, M. E., & Borgford-Parnell, J. L. (2014).
Engineering design education. In A. Johri & B. M. Olds (Eds.), Cambridge handbook
of engineering education research (pp. 201–225). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Australian Education Council. (2015). National STEM School Education Strategy 2016-
2026. Retrieved from: http://www.educationcouncil.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/
filesystem/documents/National%20STEM%20School%20Education%20Strategy.
pdf
Bagiati, A., & Evangelou, D. (2015). Engineering curriculum in the preschool classroom:
the teacher’s experience. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal,
23, 112–118.
Banks, F., & Barlex, D. (2014). Teaching STEM in the secondary school: Helping teachers
meet the challenge. Routledge.
Bingimlas, K. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning
environments: a review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science
& Technology Education, 5(3), 235–245.
Borrego, M., Karlin, J., McNair, L.D., & Beddoes, K. (2013). Team effectiveness theory
from industrial and organizational psychology applied to engineering student
project teams: A research review. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 472–
512.
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.
Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and
Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30.
Cookson, P. (2009). What would Socrates say? Educational Leadership, 67(1), 8-14.
Craft, A. (2008). Creativity in the school. Retrieved from: http://www.

beyondcurrenthorizons.org.uk/creativity-in-the-school/
Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning
matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101, 738–797.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Getzels, J. W. (1971). Discovery-oriented behavior and the

originality of creative products: A study with artists. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 19, 47–52.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of

Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 35-47.
Davies, J., & Ryan, M. (2011). Vocational education in the 20th and 21st centuries.
Management Services, 55(2), 31–36.
Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st-century skills. In J. Bellanca & R.

Brandt (Eds.), 21st-century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. 51–76).
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International

Journal of STEM Education, 3(3).
96
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).
English, L. D., King, D., & Smeed, J. (2017). Advancing integrated STEM learning through
engineering design: Sixth-grade students’ design and construction of earthquake
resistant buildings. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(3), 255-271.
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research and
applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the 21st century. New York,
NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Gooderham, W. B. (2015). Integrated instructional programming models for development

of 21st century education core competencies. (Master’s’ Dissertation). Royal Roads
University, Canada.
Green, L., Jones, B., & Miles, I. (2007). Mini study 02 – Skills for innovation. In global
review of innovation intelligence and policy studies. UK: IINNO-GRIIPS. Retrieved
from: http://grips-public.mediactive.fr/knowledge_base/dl/222/orig_doc_file/
Guilford, J. P. (1959). Traits of creativity. In H. H. Anderson (Ed.), Creativity and its

cultivation (pp. 142–161). New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers.
Guo, J., & Woulfin, S. (2016). Twenty-first century creativity: An investigation of how
the partnership for 21st century instructional framework reflects the principles of
creativity. Roeper Review, 38(3), 153-161.
Hall, C. D. (2018). Evaluating the Depth of the Integration of 21st Century Skills in a
Technology-Rich Learning Environment. (Doctoral Dissertation). College of Saint
Elizabeth, NJ.
Hernandez, P. R., Bodin R., Elliott, J. W., Ibrahim B., Rambo-Hernandez, K. E., Chen T.
W. ve Miranda M. A. (2014). Connecting the STEM dots: measuring the effect of
an integrated engineering design intervention. International Journal Technology
Design Education, 24, 107-120.
Hudson, S. J. (2001). Challenges for environmental education: Issues and Ideas for the
21st century. Bioscience, 51(4), 283–288.
Innovation America Task Force. (2007). Building a science, technology, engineering, and
math agenda. Washington, DC: National Governor’s Association.
Jerald, C. D. (2009). Defining a 21st century education. Center for Public education. https://
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0252/e811a5dee8948eb052a1281bbc3486087503.
pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 27.09.2017.
Jonassen, D., Strobel, J., & Lee, C. B. (2006). Everyday problem solving in engineering:
Lessons for engineering educators. Journal of Engineering Education, 95, 139–
151.
Jukes, I., & Macdonald, B. (2007). 21st century fluency skills: Attributes of a 21st century
learner. Retrieved from: http://iinnovatenetwork.pbworks.com/f/twca.pdf
97
Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (2009). K-12 engineering education in the United
States. In The Bridge: Linking engineering and society. Washington, DC: National
Academy of Engineering.
Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2010). The Cambridge handbook of creativity.

Cambridge University Press.
Ke, F. (2014). An implementation of design-based learning through creating educational

computer games: A case study on mathematics learning during design and
computing. Computers & Education, 73, 26-39.
Kendall, A. (forthcoming). Promoting iteration through informal and formal testing.

In L. D. English & T. J. Moore (Eds.), Early engineering learning. Dordrecht, the
Netherlands: Springer.
Kergroach, S. (2008), “Skills for Innovation”, Internal OECD working document, August.
Kivunja, C. (2014). Innovative pedagogies ın higher education to become effective

teachers of 21st century skills: Unpacking the learning and ınnovations skills
domain of the new learning paradigm. International Journal of Higher Education,
3(4), 37 – 48.
Kuenzi, J. J. (2008) Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education:

Background, federal policy, and legislative action, Congressional Research Service
Reports. Retrieved from: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/crsdocs/35/
Lucas, B., Claxton, G. & Hanson, J. (2014). Thinking like an engineer: Implications for
the education system. London, United Kingdom: Royal Academy of Engineers.
Retrieved from: www.raeng.org.uk/thinkinglikeanengineer,
Maryland State STEM Standards of Practice. (2012). Maryland STEM: Innovation today
to meet tomorrow’s global challenges. Retrieved from: http://mdk12.msde.
maryland.gov/instruction/academies/marylandstatestemstandardsofpractice_.
pdf
Mednick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review,
69, 220–232.
Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schun, C. D. (2008). Middle-school science through
design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept
learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97, 71–81.
Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2013). Ortaokul Matematik Dersi (5, 6, 7. ve 8.

Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. Ankara: Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2017). Turkish Science Curriculum. Ankara.
Ministry of National Education [MoNEb]. (2018). Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı
(İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar). Ankara: Talim Terbiye Kurulu
Başkanlığı.
Ministry of National Education [MoNEb]. (2018). Matematik Dersi Öğretim Programı

(İlkokul ve Ortaokul 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar). Ankara: Talim Terbiye Kurulu
Başkanlığı.
Ministry of National Education [MoNEc]. (2018). Teknoloji ve Tasarım Dersi Öğretim

Programı (Ortaokul 7. ve 8. Sınıflar). Ankara: Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
98
Mobley, M. C. (2015). Development of the SETIS instrument to measure teachers’

selfefficacy to teach science in an integrated STEM framework. (Doctoral
Dissertation). Tennessee: University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Moore, B. (2009). Emotional intelligence for school administrators: A priority for school
reform? American Secondary Education, 37(3), 20-28.
Morrison, J. (2006). TIES STEM education monograph series, Attributes of STEM

education. Baltimore, MD: TIES.
National Academy of Engineering. (2009). Engineering in K-12 Education: Understanding

the Status and Improving the Prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies
Press.
National Governors’ Association (2007). Innovation America: A final report. National

Governors Association, Washington DC.
National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A Framework for k-12 science education:
practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington DC: The National
Academic Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2011). Skills for
innovation and research. OECD Publishing, Paris.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2008) Tertiary

Education for the Knowledge Society: OECD Thematic Review of Tertiary Education.
OECD Publishing, Paris.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2010). SMEs,

entrepreneurship andinnovation. OECD Publishing, Paris.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2001).The well-

being of nations: The role of human and social capital. OECD Publishing, Paris.
Partnership for 2181 Century Learning [P21]. (2011). Framework for 21st century learning.
Retrieved from: http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/P21_Framework.pdf
Partnership for 21st Century Learning [P21]. (2015). Career Readiness Initiative.
Retrieved from: https://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/cr/index.asp,
Pearson, S. (2014). The process secondary administrators use to implement twenty-first

century learning skills in secondary schools. (Doctoral Dissertation).University of
Southern California, USA.
Piaget, J. (1977). The language and thought of the child (2nd ed.). London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul. (Original work puplished 1926, reprinted 1934 then 1977).
Portsmore, M., Watkins, J., & McCormick, M. (2012, Nisan). Planning, drawing and
elementary students in an integrated engineering design and literacy activity.
Paper presented at the 2nd P-12 Engineering and Design Education Research
Summit, Washington, DC.
Pound, L. (1977). Supporting mathematical development in the early years. Buckingham,

UK: Open University Press.
99
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology [PCAST]. (2010). Prepare

and inspire: K-12 education in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math)
for America’s future. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from: https://www.nitrd.
gov/pcast/index.aspx
Reiss, M. ve Holman, J. (2007). STEM Working Together for schools and colleges. London:
The Royal Society.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305–310.
Runco, M. A., & Pagnani, A. R. (2011). Psychological research on creativity. In J. Sefton-

Green, P. Thomson, K. Jones, & L. Bresler (Eds.), The Routledge international
handbook of creative learning (pp. 63–71). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Sade, D., & Coll, R. (2003). Technology and technology Education: Views of some solomon
island primary teachers and curriculum development officers. International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1(1), 87e114.
Şahin, A., Ayar, M. C., & Adıgüzel, T. (2014). STEM Related After-School Program Activities
and Associated Outcomes on Student Learning. Educational Sciences: Theory &
Practice, 14(1), 297-322.
Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4),
20-26.
Silva Mangiante, E., & Moore, A. (2015). Implementing Inclusive Engineering Challenges
for Elementary Students. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 51(3), 131-137.
Stasz, C. (2001) Assessing skills for work: two perspectives. Oxford Economic Papers, 3,
385–405.
Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2002). The creativity conundrum. New
York: Psychology Press.
Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., ... &
Hellinckx, L. (2018). Integrated STEM Education: A Systematic Review of
Instructional Practices in Secondary Education. European Journal of STEM
Education, 3(1), 2.
Thibaut, L., Knipprath, H., Dehaene, W., & Depaepe, F. (2018). The influence of teachers’
attitudes and school context on instructional practices in integrated STEM
education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 190-205.
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. New York,
NY: John Wiley.
Uluyol, Ç., & Eryılmaz, S. (2015). Evaluation of FATIH Project in the Consideration of 21st
Century Skills. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 35(2), 210-229.
Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap. New York, NY: Basic Books.
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), 2.
Washer, P. (2007). Revisiting key skills: A practical framework for higher education. Quality
in Higher Education, 13(1), 57-67.
100
Watkins, J., Spencer, K., & Hammer, D. (2014). Examining young students’ problem
scoping in engineering design. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education
Research, 4(1).
101
SECTION 3
DIFFERENT
PERSPECTIVES ON
STEM EDUCATION
102
Catalyzing Fundamental STEM Paradigms in the Accountability
Millennium
Robert M. Capraro
Aggie STEM & Texas A&M University
Introduction
Myriad challenges lurk as the millennium continues to mature and our decade comes
to a close. The four disciplines of science, technology, mathematics, and engineering
(STEM) have been melded into a pronounceable word, not just an acronym. Sometimes
STEM is a noun and sometimes an adjective, but in just the right instance, it is used as
a verb. I do not argue that what has emerged is what was intended, nor do I suggest
that I agree or disagree with how STEM is used. I am simply identifying the trend. As
more people move around the globe for education, for economic opportunities, to flee
oppression, and for leisure they are choosing to remain where they land regardless of
their original purposes for the travel. How do these expats engage with a newfound
homeland? How is what they bring valued and by what standards are we as an evolving
community held accountable? The reality we face every day as educators, education
researchers, and professionals in STEM is that we are accountable for the language we
speak whether it is holistic or disciplinary specific or interdisciplinary in nature. Each
distinct STEM field builds on, relies on, and inter-reacts with the others, more or less,
given some set of conditions, expectations, and potential outcomes. The degree to
which those interactions are positive and impactful rests on how well we are prepared
to integrate into other cultures, and disciplines, and to accept others into ours.
There are many challenges facing STEM education and its successful implementation,
none of which is greater than the ill-informed and self-proclaimed STEM educator or
STEM education specialist (cf. White, 2014). When the National Science Foundation
(NSF) transformed the arrangement of the starting letters for mathematics, engineering,
technology, and science into the ubiquitous STEM, it created a void. Not only did they
create a void, but they expressed that the field should then build the meaning. The
broadest vision for STEM is that it is a new field, and central to the broader impacts
envisaged for the field is the concept of a STEM specialist negating the individual
contributions offered by individuals with deep and specific content expertise (Burggren,
2009). In the narrowest vision of STEM, work in any of the four fields counts as STEM.
However, researchers continue to question how to best fill this void with a suitable
definition and understanding of STEM.
103
A common compromise among researchers is to integrate any two of the STEM fields
into learning, which represents the idea of STEM. As STEM educators, researchers, and
professionals, what do we know as a field and how do we know it? What is right? What
might be wrong?
What we know from science, is that nature abhors a void. While the void concept
works, consider evolution and the work of Darwin – species’ voids are filled,
unfortunately not always as elegantly as the extinct species that vacated it. Perhaps
one of the more prominent void fillers was Homo Sapiens. Many species have gone
extinct since our arrival on the scene with about seven new extinctions every 24 hours
(Vidal, 2011). We rushed into the ecological landscape and quickly put our thumbprint
on all other species and ecosystems on the planet. Since then, humans have become
quite comfortable rushing into voids, even when the desire to enter that void is often
misguided, unwanted, and premature. That void created by the new term STEM became
the destination into which many sprinted. Some transferred from business, some from
law, and some from various education disciplines. The influx of non-subject matter
specialists was potentially damaging to the STEM education mission. There were no
credentials required to proclaim one’s expertise in STEM other than to add four simple
letters arranged into a now meaningful and pronounceable acronym, “STEM,” to one’s
business card. This confluence of events, the acronym, lack of expertise, and lack of a
clear definition and a need to demonstrate STEM prowess gave rise to STEM curricula.
Once again, people rushed into the curricula void proclaiming they possessed STEM
materials, STEM apps, and STEM software. With one proclamation by NSF, came the
progenitors of a new industry, who laid the foundation for STEM schools. STEM schools
needed a curriculum, the development of which required people who knew what STEM
was and how to “do STEM”. The voids were rarely filled by experts but by enterprising
business people ready to develop and proclaim their STEM prowess. The question,
“Why”, might come to mind. Why did the experts wait? Maybe, they were waiting to
see how things shaped up or delaying plans for involvement until national agencies had
better defined the new “field”. The STEM schools came to be hallmarks for schools of
choice. When a school of choice claimed to be a STEM school, parents enrolled their
children in the alleged school of choice, all the while not really asking how that self-
proclaimed school was different from any other school.
The idea of filling voids with STEM generalists is as repugnant as the potential loss of the
Humpback whale, the platypus, the bald ibis (kelaynak ~Ka-lie-nock), or the mudskipper.
The response to filling voids with STEM generalists is to train diverse people in ways that
allow them to be aware of, responsible to, and tolerant of curricular diversity where
groups of individuals work collaboratively to address integrated STEM needs situated
within societal problems.
104
Each person pursuing a STEM degree beyond the baccalaureate does so with the hope
of deepening and enriching his or her knowledge of that subject. If that person persists
in higher education, eventually she or he becomes an expert in that particular STEM
discipline and earns a terminal degree (i.e., Phd or EdD). It is that terminal degree
that signifies that expertise in one very small aspect of a single discipline, and it is the
experiences acquired along the way that build co-constructed and integrated STEM
knowledge. However, these interdisciplinary experiences are often cursory, and some
might argue that they limit individuals to surface-level interdisciplinary STEM proficiency.
For those who pursue higher education, the language of their chosen discipline becomes
ever more complex and the words develop very contextualized meaning that only those
experts know well. The word integrate has one meaning to sociologists and yet another
to mathematicians, and beta has one meaning to a nuclear physicist than say to an
evolutionary biologist, statistician, or even a software developer. Words are complex
and their meaning is firmly situated within specific disciplines. How can experts in one
field really be STEM experts (experts in all)?
How do the ideas of disciplines and voids account for changes in the educational
landscape that are influenced by STEM? The answer can be as convoluted as the
problem. In fact, some argue that STEM really should be STEAM to include art, or
STREAM to include reading and arts. The perfect acronym does not exist. What was
NSF really thinking when they dumped this acronym on the U.S., and because of our
standing, the world? To include art one might think, well, there is no general aesthetic
beauty in science, engineering, technology, or mathematics. Perhaps there simply is
just no creativity in any of the them. However, I argue that this mindset is likely the
real root of the problem. Those advocating for the infusion of other subjects simplify
the experience with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics because all
those subjects have their own intrinsic beauty and artistry, the beauty of a new creative
bridge design or the first time a computer mouse was imagined, or the simplistic beauty
of a succinctly elegant proof in mathematics. Learning to see the creativity and beauty
of every subject cannot be achieved by studying the arts; rather, the beauty of the arts
is learned by studying the arts. In the same manner, the beauty of any other subject is
learned by studying the subject. I flatly reject that arts should be infused because each
of the STEM subjects are in and of themselves creative, artistic, and expressive.
What does it mean to be a STEM major, or STEM specialist? Can someone really be a
STEM specialist? If STEM exists, how is it different from what was done in the past?
Before one can claim to be a STEM specialist it is incumbent to understand where
education came from before STEM in order to develop a model that could and should
be for STEM.
105
Imagining a New Definition and Accepting a New Paradigm
First, does “the” problem really exist? Is there really a thing called STEM education?
If there is such a thing as STEM, how can it be described so that everyone who sees
it knows that it is STEM? How is STEM different from what has always been done?
Finally, what are the anticipated outcomes of STEM done well? While the answer is
trite – “train diverse people in ways that allow them to be aware of, responsible to,
and tolerant of curricular diversity where groups of individuals work collaboratively to
address integrated STEM needs situated within societal problems” – it is not simplistic
in implementation. This is the second time I offer this definition in the hope that one
day it will be embraced. This definition requires new and expanding collaboration,
diversity, and dedication to change, or we are constrained to doing what has always
been done and reaping the same outcomes we have historically seen.
Using ideas from broad contexts across disciplines that are explored through multiple
lenses can provide insights into problems that would otherwise go unexplored or
seemingly unanswered. What we learn from the multiplicative identity property is that
the number of problems multiplied by one person exploring the problem results in
the exact same number of problems. But the nature of STEM work necessitates that
individuals be able to explore more problems effectively, so we need to think about
another property of multiplication that can afford greater diversity in approaches and
solutions. The commutative property is one that can be made analogous to developing
partnerships to solve problems, that is, multiple people working on multiple problems
resulting in potentially more solutions regardless of where we start, either with the
number of problems or the number of people. The importance here is that while
we have a fixed approach, the product or the solutions are greater than the identity
condition given the same sample set. For example, using the identity property, if we
had eight problems, we might have eight solutions at the end (8 × 1) because one person
will develop exactly one solution per problem. At best, we might actually find eight
solutions. However, from the commutative property, if we start with eight problems
and now have two people, the potential solutions increase to 16. Multiple views and
multiple backgrounds facilitate the diversity of approaches to problems and can yield
very different admissible solutions that also might make use of some very creative and
unique options.
Where to Start
The idea of STEM has to start somewhere; and its origin is foundationally rooted in my
primary field, mathematics. This story is inextricably interwoven with politics, mass
media, business, and economics, my personal economy and the economies of countries.
Mathematics is fundamentally a conflicted field. The study of mathematics can be
106
personally viewed as either a process of creation or discovery. Mathematics is either

discovered and has always existed, waiting for someone to stumble across it, or it is
created by individuals or groups of individuals to meet societal needs. The implications
of ones’ beliefs are neither trivial nor rudimentary -- for in one’s own fundamental
beliefs about mathematics lies one’s own life outlook and one’s understanding of the
concept of STEM, in general.
Discovery
For example, mathematics as a process of discovery allows for exact mathematical

models, precise calculations, and most importantly, the ability to predict how the
world works. Take, for example, Professor Peter Higgs. He used mathematics and
mathematical modeling to predict the Higgs boson particle – also named the “god”
particle. This particle was theorized to be responsible for giving other particles mass.
His theory was predicted through a mathematical model in 1964. The technology did
not exist to substantiate the model or test the theory until 2012 when the European
Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN, found evidence to support the existence of
the Higgs boson particle. In 2013, further experimentation found that the particle has
two important properties that professor Higgs predicted: 1) + parity and 2) zero spin.
This shows that mathematically precise models can characterize our natural world well
ahead of being able to demonstrate it.
Creation
Another view of mathematics is that of creation. Our mathematics is created to suit our
own particular view of the natural world and is as fallible as our collective view of that
world. In fact, Eugene Wigner described “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics
in the Natural Sciences”, and Albert Einstein said, “The most incomprehensible thing
about the universe is that it is comprehensible” because mathematics provides the
framework. We create the mathematics to fit our perspectives of the natural world.
Ada Lovelace created an algorithm for calculating a sequence of Bernoulli numbers, now
acknowledged as the world’s first computer program; Euclid created planar geometry
given some very specific assumptions; Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz created
calculus; and ibn al-Haytham created algorithms that support rigorous experimental
methods for controlled scientific testing that substantiate inductive conjectures.
Mathematical models can be created to predict how infectious diseases progress, to
show the likely outcome of an epidemic, and to help inform public health interventions.
These created models use some basic assumptions and mathematics to find vectors for
various infectious diseases and use those parameters to calculate the effects of possible
interventions, like mass vaccination programs or the survivability of a population
107
without vaccination. They can predict whether the spread of a disease is endemic or
epidemic.
The Real Problem
The medical community was taken completely unaware by the Ebola outbreak of 1976
in Zaire, and more recently, by being unable to prepare for the Zika Virus. The Zika
virus surprise makes it difficult to determine its likely outcome vector or its potential
impact on human reproductive success. Given our view of the natural world, we are still
unable to predict the stock market, develop a sustainable economic model, or model
disease etiologies. Therefore, there must be something fallible in the way we view or
interpret the natural world and the mathematics we create to model it. So, there must
be an element of creation and discovery that has yet to occur. For example, the non-
computability of the probability of consequential, but rare, events (this means very
very important) using scientific methods has been explained in the Black Swan theory.
It lies in our lack of understanding of the natural world and inability to model unknown
unknowns. This is a field where likely new mathematical discoveries and creation will
occur.
For those listening for the NEXUS, as you noticed in my examples so far, mathematics
is the tool by which we interpret, describe, and interact with the natural world around
us. Our paradigms and practice intersect to determine the value of the education we
receive and the value we place on sufficiently flexible knowledge that facilitates our
ability to answer questions we have never before conceived. If we continue to have
experts working in silos with others with the exact same training and preparation, we
will stagnate and fail to answer many of the emerging important questions of the new
millennium. So, what model of mathematics do you think we really need, discovery or
creation?
Has anyone suggested that irrational numbers were not created but discovered by
Hippassus of Metapontum, and that pi was discovered by measuring the circumference
of circles and dividing by the diameter? No matter the size of the circle the ratio was
consistent; this result seemingly fits with discovery. However, other ideas have been
invented to account for the natural world. For example, Lobachevsky created non-
Euclidean geometry by simply making a different assumption that seemed to fit with
his version of the world.
While the creation or discovery debate could go on forever, the point is that each form
of mathematics, like the other subjects, is complex and is comprised of various aspects
of discovery and creation. The importance is that no mathematics would ever have
needed to be created without other subjects. Newton, Lobachevsky, Einstein, and
others were all motivated to create mathematics to model the science, technology,
108
and engineering of the world. Regardless of your own personal position exploring the
NEXUS of discovery and creation, the solutions to the challenges of tomorrow lie in
mathematics.
The Nexus of STEM Subjects
So, when is a good model, good enough? When is mathematical estimation sufficient
and the difference between the calculation and estimation trivial. For example, the
formula for pooled standard deviation is SDpooled = √(X1-X̅ 1+X2-X̅ 2 )/(N1+N2). This is the
nexus of creation and discovery. However, the easy version of this formula is SDpooled
EZ
=(SD1-SD2)/2. Which one is the better choice? Which one should we use? Can
you justify your answer? How you answer reveals your personal view of discovery or
creation. More importantly, your choice to use one formula might reveal whether you
are more a mathematician or statistician (see Table 1).
The full formula requires a bit of work, whereas the approximation requires very little.
As you can see, we have an exact mathematical equation for pooled standard deviation,
but does an approximation formula function just as well? Even when the standard
deviations are quite different both formulas work reasonably well.
These formulas work well when the groups sizes are similar, but when one group size
varies greatly from the other and the standard deviations are very different, the EZ
formula can eventually give erroneous results. So, the important question is, what
are you going to use the pooled standard deviation for? The more consequential the
decision, the more precise you need to be, and the more you understand when and
how the formulas work, the more autonomy you have to decide what to use and when.
For a more scientific bent on the idea of invention and creativity, let us consider the
space race. Now for a prominent scientific event, consider the U.S. trip to Mars as a
mathematical model. A National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) engineer
was quoted as saying, “For convenience. . . We consider a simplified conceptual model
that omits details that are likely to have only a minor impact on the outcome.
We assume that there are no forces other than gravity, that there are no changes in
flight conditions, and that the launch is successful if and only if the launch protocol
succeeds in giving the ship enough momentum to escape the planet’s gravity and safely
embark on the space voyage”.
For engineering purposes, mathematics was used to provide “good enough” solutions,
and some terms in an equation were ignored because they were hypothesized to have
only minor impact. The reality is that the model worked, and the ship landed on Mars
and returned to Earth.
109
Table 1. A Comparison of the Two Formulas
Statistics Participant Treatment Control
1 40 55
2 50 60
3 60 65
4 70 70
5 80 75
6 90 80
Mean 65 67.5
SD 18.708 9.354
SDpooled 14.790
SDpooledEZ 14.031
Therefore, building on an Engineering Design model has the greatest potential to

develop the type of thinkers we require, those equipped with the competence and
confidence to question the mathematics and science they were taught and to challenge
the establishment to prove themselves correct.
Engineering design is the creative application of science and mathematics to solve

problems. The truest intent of education, whether we consider the Ottoman Empire,
Roman Empire, or Greek Empire, is in the equity of its availability to the lowliest of
citizens.
The Ottoman Empire, arguably the more recent, was also likely the most democratic
in education policy. An in the Ottoman Empire, arguably the most democratic access
to science and mathematics was achieved. It is through true democratic access to a
high-quality education that we will nurture the next Brahmagupta (around 650 AD), Al-
Khowarizmi (879 AD), Purkinje (1823), Tesla (1900), or Higgs.
STEM Movement and Its Impact on Employment
In the news lately, there has been discussion about liberal arts majors struggling
in the job market. In fact, at a conference in 2013, Mark Andreesen, from Venture
Capitalist, told the crowd that the average English major is likely to end up working
at a shoe store. A McKensey study found that liberal arts majors have higher rates of
unemployment, more debt, and are less happy with their jobs. Compare their situation
to that of engineers, who are in such demand that tech leaders are lobbying intensely
for the increased immigration of skilled individuals in STEM, in part due to the inability
110
of United States universities to produce enough STEM graduates to supply the STEM
job market.
Although mathematics and engineering backgrounds might help get a job, they are no
guarantee of success. In The Wall Street Journal, Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini, who has a
mathematics and accounting background, said, technical skills are “necessary but not
sufficient”. College graduates need to be able to solve problems in complex settings
where the outcome is often clear and explicit while the human quandary for selecting
among possible solution strategies is messy, unspecified, and in the most natural world,
a human experience without a readily available solution.
It is paramount that corporations and business professionals, politicians, STEM

professionals, pre-collegiate and collegiate educators, and administrators collaboratively
engage with current academic, political and business challenges to prepare a citizenry
capable of understanding challenges we do not yet comprehend so that they might
provide the answers to the most perplexing challenges we are bound to face. It is
important to understand that the mathematics we know and force upon students
today may one day be considered completely inadequate and our unwavering dogmatic
worship of it to have been among our greatest collective global foibles.
Higher Education and Its Responsibilities
Higher education institutions in which businessmen and women, politicians, and STEM
disciplinary professionals are prepared must be reengaged around important global
problems. It is only through this integrated learning that procuring solutions is likely.
An immediate problem is that of global climate change. One might think the issue
global climate change to be trivial; some may consider it to have been blown out of
proportion and facts exaggerated to give way to political rhetoric and scholarly band-
standing. It has never been more true than for the facts to be negotiable and beliefs
to be rock solid. Politicians needing a platform champion one view or another without
regard for facts but public opinion, business leaders take a stance favoring their profits,
and climatologists and other STEM professionals struggle to build reputations that will
be aligned with continued funding to support their work. All these stakeholders would
benefit from greater interdisciplinary knowledge and understandings. The climate is
what is, most agree that we cannot change whatever will happen. In fact, the Earth
has experienced major global climate events in its history that had nothing to do with
human intervention.
For example, it was likely major global climate events that changed the course of
evolution on the earth (Cambrian Event and the Ordovician ordeal, to name just two).
Another hot topic for political rhetoric and corporate grand-standing is that of fossil
fuels versus renewable energy. The Fossil fuel debate is one we can ill afford to neglect
111
and argue over. Fossil fuels are nearing their foreseeable exhaustion. Globally, crude oil
prices are hovering around their 10-year low, while prices per liter of fuel are near an
all-time high.
Creating solutions to these issues necessitates qualified individuals who have a

comprehensive and interdisciplinary STEM knowledge that will equip them to develop
innovative strategies and solutions. High-quality integrated STEM education can only
come from clearly articulated definitions, goals, and objectives, which are the only
way to design an aligned curricula. To address the issues related to profit from STEM,
businesses and media outlets must join with education to build stronger programs
that move students into both traditional STEM jobs and those of the “hidden” STEM
workforce, technology and manufacturing careers that require highly specialized STEM
knowledge but not a four-year degree.
What Universities Can Do
The primary problem universities must be prepared to address is the renewable power
grid. Developing silos of renewable energy is not a national response and certainly
will not ensure global access. However, economic power and new empires will rise
depending on the response to a global renewable energy grid. It is up to teachers to
foster interest and build intrigue around interesting and noteworthy problems. They
must spark the creative interest in STEM that will sustain students in the STEM pipeline.
While it is teachers who shoulder the greatest responsibility for building tomorrow’s
greatest thinkers and innovators, it is the university who has the responsibility of
preparing those teachers and providing ongoing, systematic, and sustained professional
development for those already working in schools. It is not important that every
university develop centers of STEM excellence; however, it is essential for universities
to collaborate both within and across institutions.
Before we can expect universities to collaborate, the faculties of business, education,

engineering, science, mathematics, and technology must learn to collaborate and to
build knowledge across those disciplines. It can be much harder for a university to change
their practice, so centers of STEM excellence like BAUSTEM at Bahcesehir University
and Aggie STEM at Texas A&M need to collaborate to ensure that faculty receive
information, generate ideas, and develop research-based rationales for metastasizing
their instructional strategies across disciplines and within their colleges. They must
recognize that highly engaging and dogmatically focused instruction centralized around
large societal themes and issues are going to be required. Unfortunately, this “wicked
problem” is unlikely to be resolved without a systematic approach with many engaged
stakeholders; international discussions about STEM must result in a definition suitable
for addressing global issues. Unless young children are challenged, they will not be
112
ready for re-envisioned university instruction. Change must be approached in small

increments with persistence in a global reform effort. Young children should begin
this process by experiencing classroom instruction rich in understanding of societal
problems that first pertain to their home, classroom, schools, and neighborhoods. As
they get older, their societal views should expand to include their cities, municipalities,
region, country, and world. Once they enter college, they will be capable of considering
global needs as they learn challenging integrated college content. It is likely that the
renewable power grid problem will be addressed within universities before it ever gets
addressed politically or industrially.
Accountability and Time Wasted on Testing
One insidious barrier to global change in education is teacher accountability and

mandatory testing. Accountability is an interesting idea. It is not practical nor is
it particularly interesting from a quizzical and motivated standpoint. It is more
appropriately “interesting” in the sense of I have nothing really nice to say, so I am
using the word interesting so most people will not recognize it as being laden with
disdain and condemnation. We must re-envision the idea that accountability is the
way to achieve economic prosperity. Teaching is not dentistry. If a patient comes in
with a cavity, the dentist drills out the rotten part of the tooth and fills the void with
a durable material. Simple. The dentist is not held accountable for the underlying
causes that precipitated the tooth decay. Why are teachers held accountable for the
myriad social, psychological, and medical mediators to learning? Education is not as
simple as dentistry - there are many ancillary issues surrounding how and under what
circumstances children learn. Teachers can teach and teach well, but some students
still will not learn as fast or to the same degree as other students.
While parents continue to care about high stakes exams and companies make fortunes
perpetuating parent’s fears while propagating myths about teachers’ lack of content
knowledge, underachieving schools, and poorly trained teachers, we continue to expect
more from teachers with less investment. National and multinational companies will
continue to prosper by selling the promises of success but failing to deliver success for
all. Rhetoric will continue from officials looking for reelection to companies trying to
convince state boards of education, school districts, and parents that they have the
children’s best interest at heart.
Businesses sell the idea globally in every language where people have the money to
purchase it; “use our materials for STEM instruction and our tests to make sure the
teachers are really teaching your children”. All this salesmanship and the research is
univocal; no STEM curriculum has been shown to be more effective than a traditional
curriculum, and NSF funded curricula are only marginally better in some very specific
113
instances. The many justifications for and supposed benefit of accountability have
left parents misinformed, and those with the knowledge and authority to do so are
reluctant to set the record straight. When politicians indicate that a test can measure
learning from one year to the next or that a company can develop a test that can assess
if a teacher has done his or her job, they are simply misinformed at best and conspiring
to cheat you at worst. From decades of brain research in the disciplines of neuroscience
and psychology, we know that people learn differently and at different rates. The idea
that any test can evaluate if a child learned one-year’s worth of content is a lie wrapped
up in fear that is propagated to make parents feel better when their child scores high
and loathing when their child scores low. Accountability in its current form should be
reconfigured and instead used to determine what a child can do compared to other
children nationally and internationally. Tests should be comprehensive and meaningful.
Their use should give as much of a “benchmarking” of one child’s knowledge as it does
to understanding what the child needs to learn the following year. Unfortunately,
the curricula each year is not predicated on students’ existing knowledge; the level
of conceptual understanding and skills a child acquires one year has no relation or
influence on what he or she will be required to learn the following year. This system
underscores a costly error in judgement in education by those charged with making
such decisions. The push to have accountability has been at the expense of equity
and social justice. Those who know more continue to learn faster and those who are
struggling will continue to struggle with ever widening deficits. For these reasons, each
time I hear the word accountability, I understand “education for the rich and powerful.”
In conclusion, I look back in history to find someone ahead of his time, an inducted a
quote from Albert Einstein who was talking broadly, so much so, that I have inducted his
sentiments to truly reflect STEM, had that concept been created in his time:
Powerful STEM integration, “. . . can only be created by those who are thoroughly
imbued with the aspiration towards truth and understanding. This source of
feeling, however, springs from religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the
possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that
is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot imagine a scientist without that profound
faith. This situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is
lame, religion without science is blind.” (Albert Einstien, 1936).
REFERENCES
Einstein, A. (1936). ‘Physics and Reality’, in Ideas and Opinions; trans. Sonja Bargmann
(New York: Bonanza, 1954).
Burggren, W. W. (2009). Implementation of the National Science Foundation’s

“Broader Impacts”: Efficiency considerations and alternative approaches. Social
Epistemology, 23(3-4), 221-237.
114
Capraro, R. M. (2016, May). Catalyzing fundamental STEM paradigms and practices.

The nexus of ethical responsibility for co-constructors. International Conference
on Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology (ICEMST), Bodrum, Turkey.
Capraro, R. M. (2016, May). Teaching for learning in the accountability millennium and
the transitional migration: STEM education. Commencement speech Bahçeşehir
Üniversitesi, Istanbul, Turkey.
Gerbner, G. (1956). Toward a general model of communication. Educational Technology

Research and Development, 4(3), 171-199.
Vidal, J. (2011). UN Environment Programme: 200 Species Extinct Every Day, Unlike
Anything Since Dinosaurs Disappeared 65 Million Years Ago. Huffington Post,
5/25/11. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/un-
environment-programme-_n_684562.html on June, 8, 2015.
White, D. W. (2014). What is STEM education and why is it important. Florida Association

of Teacher Educators Journal, 1(14), 1-9.
115
Closing the STEM Achievement Gap from a Unified Global

Perspective
Julia V. Clark
National Science Foundation
Introduction
Closing the achievement gap has become a focal point of education reform efforts and
many nations have made it their mission to close the gap. Efforts to combat the gap
have been numerous but fragmented, and have ranged from affirmative action and
multicultural education to finance equalization, improving teacher quality and school
testing and accountability programs to create equal educational opportunities.
The Achievement Gap is defined in many ways. In the U.S it is defined as the observed
disparity on a number of educational measures in academic performance between
different groups of students, especially groups defined by race/ethnicity, gender, and
socioeconomic status. Other countries use some of these terms, such as socio-economic
status, ethnicity and gender, but they also include geography, race, class and caste in
defining the achievement gap in their country. The achievement gap can be observed on
a variety of measures, including standardized test scores, grade point average, dropout
rates, and college-enrollment and –college-completion rates.
In the U.S., achievement gap is typically used to describe the disparity in test scores
between minorities, usually between Blacks and Hispanics and their White (and Asian)
peers, and between high-poverty students and their more wealthy counterparts. At
each grade level, racial disparities on an array of achievement variables demonstrate
a wide gap in performance, especially in mathematics and science, particularly among
disadvantaged minorities from urban and rural communities. These disparities start
as early as kindergarten, persisting across grades, and in most cases widen over time.
Although standardized tests are the standard measurements for the achievement gap
used in the United States a variety of measures, including standardized test scores,
grade point average, dropout rates, and college-enrollment and-completion rates are
used in other countries.
The United States uses the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP, the
Nation’s Report Card) to assess the performance of students in grades 4, 8, and 12.
It ranks student performance according to three achievement levels: (1) basic—
student has partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental
for proficient at each grade; (2) proficient –student demonstrates solid academic
performance for each grade level assessed; (3) advanced—student demonstrates
116
superior performance. Many countries use the evaluation results of the Program for
International Student Assessment (PISA). Most countries participating in PISA are
members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD),
although the number of participating non-OECD nations and regions is increasing. Most
OECD countries are economically advanced nations (NSB, 2012).
Data from NAEP indicate that Blacks and Hispanics made strides in closing the gap until
the mid-1980s, at which point those gains began to level off. For example, in the 2009
NAEP results, the gap between Black and Hispanic fourth-grade students and their White
counterparts in mathematics was more than 20 points.In eighth-grade mathematics,
the gap was more than 26 points.
Various gaps exist between groups all over the globe. A recent book by Clark (2014)
provides a rich tapestry on the achievement gap in science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM) in selected countries around the world (Australia, Brazil,
Canada, China, UK, Korea, Mexico, Singapore, South Africa, Turkey, and the U.S ), These
countries were selected because of their uniqueness and the work they are doing in
their educational school system to change a practice that will help all students, especially
poor, low-income students and students of color to succeed. The school systems are
also diverse. Each country offers us something to learn. Many countries, especially Asian
countries, have developed and implemented unique models to meet the demands of
today’s learners. For example, in Singapore, the education system is flexible and caters
to every child’s abilities, interests, and aptitudes so as to help each develop to his fullest
potential. It focuses on the development of human resources to meet Singapore’s need
for an educated and skilled workforce. It also facilitates the inclusion of social moral
values to serve as cultural ballast in the face of rapid progress and change.
The countries in the study have all implemented unique system models to meet the
demands of their students. Some of the models include structural, administrative,
curriculum changes that government/policy makers have suggested or enforced.
Some Countries have built strong education systems creating productive teaching and
learning systems by expanding access while investing purposefully in ambitious. There
is no single way in closing the achievement gap.
The Achievement Gap in the United States
The achievement gap in the United States refers to the disparity in academic
performance, as shown by standardized test scores, between groups of students,
mainly minorities: Blacks (African Americans), Hispanics (Latinos), Native Americans
(American Indians), and their White (and Asian) peers. The gap is usually defined
based on students’ performance in elementary and secondary school in the subject
areas of mathematics, science and reading. At each grade level, racial disparities on an
117
array of achievement variables demonstrate a wide gap in performance, especially in

mathematics and science, particularly among disadvantaged minorities from urban and
rural communities. These disparities start as early as kindergarten, persisting across the
secondary grades, and in most cases widen over time.
The achievement performance also differs by family income. At each grade level, in
both mathematics and science, students from low-income families have lower average
scores and are less likely than students from wealthy families to reach the proficient
level. These gaps related to family income are substantial. For example, students from
low-income families are at least three times less likely to score at or above the proficient
level for their grade in both mathematics and science (NSB, 2006). Low income is
measured by whether or not a student is eligible for the free or reduced-priced school
lunch program.
Raising academic achievement levels for all students is a top priority for education
reform at all levels across the United States. Although improvements have been made,
gaps among students of different demographic backgrounds and among schools with
different student populations have been a persistent challenge in K–12 education in the
United States.
Data from National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) indicate that Blacks and
Hispanics have shown improvement since 1990, but the 2011 NAEP data show that
White and Asian/Pacific Islander students continue to outperform students at every
grade level (NAEP, 2011). In both mathematics and science, most 4th-, 8th- and 12th-
grade students did not demonstrate proficiency in the knowledge and skills taught at
their grade level. Racial/ethnic minority students and students from poor families and
disadvantaged backgrounds lagged behind their more advantaged peers, with these
disparities starting as early as kindergarten, persisting across grades, and, for some kinds
of skills, widening over time (NSB, 2006). Despite the improved performance overall,
achievement gaps between these various groups persist and have shown no signs of
narrowing since 1990. Black, Hispanic and Native American students in mathematics
and science are performing at lower levels than are White and Asian students. In 2011,
White students scored higher on average than all other racial/ethnic groups in science.
Asian/Pacific Islander and Native Americans/Alaska Native students scored higher on
average than Black and Hispanic students, and Hispanic students scored higher than
Black students (U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics,
[NCES], 2011). Boys performed slightly better than girls in both subjects.
Overall, large majorities of 4th-, 8th-, and 12th-grade students did not demonstrate
proficiency in the knowledge and skills taught at their grade level.
118
Though a majority of 9th grade students reached proficiency in low-level algebra skills, few
mastered higher level skills. Results of international mathematics and science literacy
tests show that 15-year-olds continue to lag behind their peers in many countries, even
though their scores have improved in recent years (NSB, 2012).
What causes the achievement Gap? The factors are numerous, but some of the strongest
factors include poverty, early childhood learning, teacher quality, and strength of the
curriculum. There are differences in what happens in schools that are associated with
differences in student achievement, including high standards with rigorous curriculum,
and qualified and experienced teachers.
Clark (2014) believes the key factors contributing to the achievement gap can be summed
up in two words: equity and access. Overall, minority students have less access to: (1)
well-qualified science and mathematics teachers, (2) strong science and mathematics
curriculum, (3) resources, (4) classroom opportunities, and (5) information.
Less Access to Well-Qualified Science and Mathematics Teachers
Teacher quality can contribute to the achievement gap. Good teaching matters more
than anything else, but Blacks and other minority students get less than their fair share
of qualified teachers. Minority students get more inexperienced teachers-teachers with
three or fewer years of experience. As shown on the table listed below, inexperienced
teachers are twice as likely to be in schools with a high level of minority enrollment than
in schools with a low level.
Minority students get more inexperienced* teachers
*Teacher with 3 or fewer years of experience. “High” and “low” refer to top and
bottom quantities.
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, “An Indicators Report,” December 2000.
119
More classes in high-poverty schools are taught by the least-qualified teach
*Teachers who lack a major or minor in the field

Source: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, What Matters Most:
Teaching for America’s Future (p.16) 1996
The least-qualified teachers are often assigned to teach minority students. More
classes in high-minority schools than in low-minority schools are taught by out-of-field
teachers-teachers lacking a college major or minor in the field. High-minority schools
contain 50 percent more minority students. Low-minority schools contain 15 percent
or fewer minority students.
More classes in high-minority schools are taught by out-of-field teachers*
*Teachers lacking a college major or minor in the field.

Source: Education Trust (2003).
Further, teachers and principals in low-income, high-minority, inner city schools all report
problems with teacher interest, motivation, preparation, and competence in science
and mathematics instruction. These problems are more evident at the secondary level,
where “nearly all types of secondary schools tend to place their least qualified teachers
with low-ability classes and their most qualified teachers with high ability classes.”
120
Less Access to a Rigorous High-Level Curriculum
Research shows that students’ academic achievement is closely related to the rigor of
the curriculum. Poor and minority students have less access to high-level curriculum.
Minority students consistently achieve and participate less in mathematics and science
and have less access to mathematics and science and high-level curriculum. They
experience less extensive and less demanding courses and programs. They are less
likely to have completed advanced science and mathematics courses.
Differences exist in science and mathematics taking across racial groups. For example,
fewer African American students are enrolled in Algebra II. Whereas 62 percent of
white and 70 percent of Asian students had taken Algebra II in 1998, only 52 percent
of African Americans, 48 percent of Hispanics, and 47 percent of American Indians had
taken this course.
Minority high school graduates are also less likely to have completed advanced
mathematics and science courses, and they are less likely to be enrolled in a full college
prep track.
Less Access to Resources
Research shows that school districts where low-income, high-minority students are
educated consistently receive less state and local money to educate them than do the
districts serving the smallest number of minority students. They received approximately
$614 less per student per year in 2003 (Education Trust, 2006). Students in low-income,
high-minority schools appear to have less access to computers and computer staff,
science laboratories, and related resources.
121
They also lack access to science classes and rigorous science curriculum. Inequities of
technology access exist in America’s schools. School access, however, does not always
mean classroom access, and a digital divide between rich and poor schools still exists.
Schools with high minority enrollment have less access to the Internet than do schools
with low minority enrollment.
Access to technology is more of a given for white students than for minority students.
Data from the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES, 2000) revealed that Internet access in classrooms varies according to school
characteristics. For example, in 1999, 39 percent of instructional rooms had Internet
access in schools with a high percentage of low-income students or high concentrations
of poverty compared with 62 to 74 percent in schools with low concentrations of
poverty.
Less Access to Classroom Opportunities
Teachers of low-income and minority students place less emphasis on essential

curriculum goals such as developing inquiry and problem-solving skills. In low-ability
tracks, almost all goals are less emphasized, expectations are lower, and instruction
is less engaging. There are inequities in school funding. Students from non-white
ethnic groups, with the exception of Asian Americans, appear more likely to attend a
disadvantaged school, in terms of affluence and resources.
The disadvantaged schools are more likely to have low teacher morale, deteriorating
school facilities, fewer materials, lower quality or nonexistent laboratory opportunities,
lower student motivation, and fewer certified teachers--especially for science.
Nationwide, only about 65 percent of eighth-grade teachers report adequate facilities
for laboratory science (NSB, 1996). Performance on the 1996 NAEP in science was
higher for students from well-equipped classrooms.
Less Access to Information
School characteristics (such as courses offered and teacher education and experience),
student characteristics (such as family income), and mathematics and science course
taking all correlated with academic achievement (U.S. ED/NCES 2000c). In addition,
national, state, and school district policies regarding teacher qualifications and
curricula vary, resulting in differences in access to high-quality teachers and higher-
level mathematics and science courses. Low-income, rural and minority parents have
less access to information regarding educational opportunities for their children. In
summary, factors that contribute to the achievement gap in mathematics and science
include inequity in access to qualified teachers, facilities, resources, challenging science,
and mathematics curricula for minority students, and too few students taking advantage
of advanced coursework.
122
In the United States different schools have different effects on similar students.
Children of color, especially Black and Hispanic students, tend to be concentrated in
low-achieving, highly-segregated schools. These minority students are more likely to
come from low-income households, meaning that minority students are more likely
to attend poorly funded schools based on the districting patterns within the school
system.
Schools in lower-income districts tend to employ less-qualified teachers and tend to

have fewer educational resources. Research shows that teacher effectiveness is the
most important in-school factor affecting student learning (Darling Hammond, 2000,
2014; Akiba, 2014).
In an effort to improve the quality of mathematics and science in U.S. schools and to make
mathematics and science accessible to all students, major national reform initiatives
have been designed. The United States has initiated several educational policies and
comprehensive reform initiatives, such as No Child Left Behind Act; America COMPETES
Act, and Race to the Top to help close the achievement gap among minority and poor
students These initiatives have gained wide distribution and have been implemented
by a wide range of U.S. schools, universities, industries and science organizations. These
are the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), America COMPETES Act, and Race to the Top.
The federal government targeted funds directly to low-performing schools through the
School Improvement Grants program, for example, to support changes needed in the
lowest-achieving schools across the nation. No data are available describing the success
of these initiatives in narrowing the achievement gap.
The Achievement Gap in Other Countries
Across the globe, education is essential, bettering the lives of individuals and nations
from poverty to affluence. Yet educational opportunity and the upward mobility it can
bring have not always been equally available to everyone. In rich and poor nations
alike, the disadvantaged--defined by gender and geography, race and religion, class and
caste--fall behind, losing the chance to improve their lives and depriving society of the
contributions they might have made..
As in the United States many countries have developed and implemented unique
education models to meet the demands of their students. Almost every education
system has been involved in restructuring. School administrators, teachers, students,
and parents have found themselves responding to structural, administrative and
curriculum changes that governments say will improve the quality of education, and
many of these changes have been documented and discussed. Some school districts
have shown that all students--regardless of race, ethnicity, income, and background--
can achieve at high levels when provided with the appropriate opportunities. Because
123
every culture is different, the contours of the problem vary from place to place. The
problem is not uniform. The size of the gaps, the severity of the deprivation, and the
identity of the disadvantaged vary from culture to culture.
Everywhere, however, eliminating educational gaps is a complicated endeavor

that demands concerted effort from politicians, bureaucrats, teachers, university
administrators, and policy makers.
Achievement Gap in Korea
The achievement gap is being addressed in various ways in many countries. High
achieving countries-Korea, Singapore, and England have centralized systems of teacher
education and certification with tighter regulatory control by the central government.
Many countries around the world, like Australia, have centralized teacher hiring and
distribution policies.
In Korea inequities in achievement is due to economic disparity and gender inequities.

In regard to STEM education, in comparison to students in other countries, Korean
students routinely outperform students on mathematics and science standardized
examinations In addition, fewer than 6% of Korea’s students fail to complete high
school and more than 70% of students go on to enroll in two- or four-year university of
vocational programs upon completing high school. With regard to access to elementary
and secondary education opportunities, there are few discernable differences in either
school attendance or academic achievement in terms of gender. However, fewer girls
pursue tertiary education than boys and the gender disparity is even greater in graduate
and doctoral programs than in undergraduate studies, so fewer women than men are
entering the STEM workforce in Korea. National assessments do suggest a developing
“gap” in achievement between students in different social class levels and between
students living in different regions of the country. Researchers attribute differences in
educational advancement between boys and girls to historical gender inequities and
differences in achievement is attributed to economic disparities in different regions of
the country (e.g., rural versus urban/suburban areas) and between the social classes.
Economically disadvantaged families (especially those who tend to live in rural areas)
cannot afford private tutoring fees (or access tutors), so these students are not as
competitive on the annual national college entrance exam. These gender and class
inequalities have their roots in socio-historical, political traditions, which have helped
to shape Korea’s education system over the last 500 years. In addition to these issues,
Korea is facing new challenges with regards to educating an increasingly culturally,
ethnically, and linguistically diverse student population resulting from the development
of new immigration policies seeking to create an international workforce. (Martin, et
al, 2014).
124
Achievement Gap in Singapore
Many countries, especially Asian countries, have developed and implemented unique
models to meet the demands of today’s learners. For example, in Singapore the
education system is flexible and caters to every child’s abilities, interests, and aptitudes
so as to help each develop to his fullest potential. It focuses on the development of
human resources to meet Singapore’s need for an educated and skilled workforce. It
also facilitates the inclusion of social moral values to serve as cultural ballast in the
face of rapid progress and change. In Singapore, there are disparities in educational
outcomes between students of differing demographic characteristics, such as ethnicity
and socio-economic status.
In Singapore, there are disparities in educational outcomes between students of

differing demographic characteristics, such as ethnicity and socio-economic status.
The achievement gap in Singapore is defined largely in terms of ethnicity especially
the ethnic Malay minority’s persistent educational gaps vis-à-vis the ethnic Chinese
majority and socio-economic class. However, official data are often scant, especially in
the case of socio-economic gaps. The little data that are available for STEM achievement
are based on ethnicity and highlight Malay students falling behind in mathematics and
science at the primary level and in mathematics at the secondary level. This is despite
the existence over the past three decades of various state-supported Malay community
initiatives such as private tutoring schemes to boost overall Malay educational
achievement. No evidence is provided about the effectiveness of these initiatives in
reducing the achievement gaps. (TAN, 2014).
Achievement Gap in England
There have been various achievement gaps in England over the years – differences in
school attainment by students from different socio-economic classes, different genders
and different ethnic groups. The achievement gap in England is primarily defined in
terms of socioeconomic status. There is a considerable and persistent gap in England
in the rates of participation in higher education between those from higher and lower
socio-economic groups. The gap is often expressed as the difference between those
who are eligible from Free School Meals and the rest of the student population. There
are also gender and ethnicity achievement gaps but the political emphasis in England is
on closing the socioeconomic status achievement gap. The STEM attainment gap during
compulsory education appears driven by similar factors to the general attainment gap,
however there seems to have been less progress. More concerning is the gap in the
proportions who continue studying STEM subjects in post-compulsory education,
particularly between males and females.
There has been more progress in closing the overall socioeconomic status achievement
125
gap in the period between 1997 and 2010, using a diverse range of strategies. Many of
these have run counter to the general thrust of increased market competition to drive
school improvement.
Although Basil Bernstein, a leading English sociologist of education, argued years ago
that “education cannot compensate for society”, policy makers continue to believe that
education and other social policies can help to equalize school performance and life
chances between different social groups. (Whitney, 2014).
Achievement Gap in Turkey
Ensuring students’ access to qualified teachers is an important goal of educational policy

and reform in many countries. There is a lack of highly qualified teachers, especially
in mathematics and science and other STEM fields; low social status and salary of
teachers and their poor working conditions (as in Turkey); a lack of systemic induction
programs; and inequitable distribution of qualified teachers between high-poverty and
low-poverty schools. Many countries show major gaps in students’ access to qualified
teachers between wealthy and high-poverty students, and White and ethnic minority
students. High poverty students and ethnic minority students are twice as likely as
wealthy and White students to be assigned novice teachers. They are also more likely
to be taught by uncertified teachers, as in Africa and the United States.
In Turkish context, achievement gaps refers to differences of students’ mathematics or

science achievement depending on educational factors (e.g., school types or students’
socioeconomic backgrounds), especially in the national context. These achievement
gaps or differences can be observed on individual, group, school, and/or regional levels.
In general, Turkey has a large achievement gap-contributed to four major challenges
which are all connected: quality differences in school types, competitive nationwide
examinations, standardized and teacher-centered science and mathematics teaching
from elementary school through college, and the effects of socioeconomic background
differences on science and mathematics. There is a need to explore relationship patterns
between these challenges.
In Turkey, the number of high school types is very high. While elementary school types
are at expected levels (public and private schools) there are more than twenty types of
secondary schools. In addition to this school type variability, there are big STEM gaps,
in particularly mathematics and science achievement gaps, between these schools.
This challenge seems to be the biggest factor widening mathematics and science
achievement gap in Turkey. As a solution to narrow differences between high schools,
Ministry of National Education (MONE) has started to decrease the number of school
types at high school levels.
126
In 2010, 350 general high schools were converted into Anatolian high schools, and by
the end of 2013, all general high schools are going to be Anatolian high schools. In the
near future, MONE is planning to convert Anatolian teacher high schools into Anatolian
high schools. In the long run, the aim of MONE is to collect similar high schools under
one umbrella and to narrow science and mathematics achievement gaps between high
schools. (Topeu, 2014).
Achievement Gap in Australia
In Australia the achievement gap is identified in relation to socioeconomic status,

Indigeneity and geographical location with students in rural and remote schools generally
achieving lower results than their peers attending city schools. Importantly, these three
components interact with rural locations having a higher population of Indigenous
students and populations with lower SES compared to many affluent suburbs in cities.
These achievement gaps have been considered in government policy for educational
planning in the past, however access to international data sets like PISA have provided
the hard evidence around the extent of this achievement gap. While Australian students
compare favorably to most other western countries regarding their scientific literacy,
gaps emerge in relation to Indigenous and low SES students. For example, PISA 2009
highlighted that Indigenous students achieved mean score that was 81 points below
the Australian mean score whereas students from low socioeconomic backgrounds
attained a mean score 96 points below the Australian mean. Unfortunately, these gaps
are substantive equating to between 2-2.5 years of schooling with an equivalent gap
identifiable for PISA 2009 mathematics.
Attempts to close gaps in Aaustralia has small beginnings of success. For example:
• Emphasis on quality teaching for all students with a focus on dealing with
diversity within the classroom.
• Targeted programs for students from Indigenous and low SES backgrounds
linking them with universities-evidence of traction but still early days.
• Special funding to universities for the inclusion of students from low SES and
Indigenous backgrounds.
• Focus on increasing students from these backgrounds into teacher education

to provide role models-again, early days but there is evidence of improvement.
(Panizzon, 2014)
Achievement Gap in China
Education inequality exists everywhere, and China is no exception. However, the

achievement gap in China takes entirely different forms and has different causes than that
127
in the United States. Achievement gap in China is not primarily an ethnic one. Over 90%
of China’s population is ethnically Han. The achievement gap in China is geographical,
economical, and political. China’s achievement gap is influenced by economic facto. For
example, education in Western China is generally of lower quality than that in more
developed eastern provinces of China. Children in rural areas are much more likely than
those in the cities to drop out of school and to have fewer opportunities to attend
college. The national hukou system, a way to manage population based on their place
of birth, has been another powerful cause of the gap.
In China, achievement has been narrowly defined as the Gaokaao scores. The unequal
educational opportunities are marked between urban and rural areas, between the
Eastern and the Central/Western regions, and between more and less prosperous
provincial areas. In contrast with the United States, where race/ethnicity is the primary
concern for the achievement gap, ethnicity is a much smaller factor in China. Instead,
both the general achievement gap and STEM gap in China are influenced by economic
favors. But more important, both gaps are the product of social, political and historical
factors such as the Hukou requirement, the quota system, and policies of school choices.
China has intentionally created an educational system that deliberately celebrates

achievement gaps based on meritocracy. China has undertaken numerous efforts to
address the inequalities in education, out of national economic and political concerns.
(Zhang and Zhao, 2014).
Achievement Gap in South Africa
Reforms are underway in South Africa to deal with the achievement gap between
advantaged and disadvantaged students. Poor communities, in particular those of rural
Africans, bear the brunt of its past inequalities. South Africa’s focus is on Apartheid
that created racial discrimination/segregation, fiscal inequality. At the height of the
apartheid era, public spending on white children was around 5 times the amount for
Africans. South Africa has participated in seven cross-country comparative studies
and the results were South Africa performed poorly compared to many of its more
impoverished neighbors, and very poorly in relation to developing countries in other
parts of the world. Poorer children receive schooling inferior to that of their more
affluent peers. There are continuing large disparities in the outcomes produced by
different kinds of school linked to past racial affiliation. (Taylor and Muller, 2014).
Achievement Gap in Mexico
There is an inequality gap of the great cultural and socio-economically diversity of the
Mexican population, characterized for the large differences among those more or less
marginalized, with a very high percentage of population in poverty and a high percentage
128
in extreme poverty. There is concern on the achievement of students in rural, urban of

high marginalization, and urban of low marginalization. By addressing this concern, it is
hopeful that improvement toward closing the gap will occur. (Sanchez Martinez, 2014).
Achievement Gap in Canada
Socioeconomic status in high-poverty communities is an issue Canadians having

been dealing with in closing the gap. A concern of Canada public education is that of
achievement differences in national, provincial/territorial, or group performance. In
Canada there is an inter-provincial, gender, and indigenous status gaps. The critical
issue for Canada has been the engagement and performance of indigenous students
(male and female). Canada has used international, national, and provincial (BC) test,
participation, and graduation data to identify gaps across nations, provinces, schools,
gender, and ethnicity (indigenous/non-indigenous). The nation and province difference
are apparent but not super interesting. The gender difference of the past have closed
to where females perform as well or better than males, except their participation in
mathematical sciences in post-secondary level remains less than males. This is critical for
the STEM pipeline issues. Attention is given to language arts, science, and mathematics.
Technology and engineering are not a central part of the school curriculum in most
provinces. To assist in closing the achievement gap, post-secondary institutions in
BC participate in a program that provides scientist, engineers, technologists, and
mathematicians as speakers for schools. The University of Victoria and other university
have offered informal or extra-curricular in summer camps, after school, and Saturday
programs on STEM to encourage and interest girls and boys in these disciplines and
future careers. Similar events and internships have been offered during the Pacific
CRYSTAL and other projects to allow young indigenous people to learn their IKW and
transition to WMS. These projects have real potential, but they are small in number
and recent arrival in STEM education platform. Clearly, the New Framework for
Science Education K-12 (NRC, 2012) recognizes that science and engineering practices
will provide a justification for more in and out of school opportunities like these for
indigenous and non-indigenous girls and boys. (Yore, 2014).
Achievement Gap in Brazil
In Brazil, the achievement gap focuses on the prevalence of socio-economic differentials

between Black and White Brazilians. There is the persistence of gaps in the quality of
education provided to Blacks and Whites. In Brazil, test scores in the southeast top
those in the northeast.In the United States graduate from high school at far lower rates
than their White and Asian peers.
Around the world, in countries rich and poor, some groups succeed educationally –
attending school, earning high grades and test scores, completing college degrees –
129
whereas others struggle, for a complex mix of historical, cultural and economic reasons.
( Rangel & Madeiria, 2014)
Summary
Research conducted around the world shows inequity to qualified teachers, facilities,
resources, challenging mathematics and science curricula, and opportunities; and too
few students enrolled in advanced coursework all contribute to the achievement gap in
mathematics and science. School characteristics such as family income and mathematics
and science course taking are all correlates of academic achievement. In addition,
policies regarding teacher qualifications and curriculum vary from country-to-country,
resulting in differences in access to high-quality teachers and higher-level mathematics
and science courses. For example, high achieving countries-Korea, Singapore, and
England, have centralized systems of teacher education and certification, with tighter
regulatory control by the central government. Singapore and Korea have built strong
education systems creating productive teaching and learning systems by expanding
access while investing purposefully in ambitious educational goals using strategic
approaches to build teaching capacity. Some countries, like Canada, have raised their
test scores and high graduation rates in Canadian schools by providing more resources.
Australia is focusing on ways to improve the socioeconomic status in relation to the

achievement of secondary science and mathematics students. Australia is also looking
at ways to ensure that schools are empowered in a sustainable way Many countries
like Australia also have centralized teacher hiring and distribution policies. Turkey is
also looking at quality differences in school types and teacher effectiveness. Poverty
and unequal resources and unequal distribution of curriculum and teachers are serious
in some of the countries such as Mexico, the United States, and Brazil. Low-income
children are much less likely to have access to early learning opportunities than
their more affluent peers. These inequalities translate into disparities in the number
of qualities and other educators, and to unequal access to high quality curriculum.
Teachers in high need schools have an average lower levels.
England describes how they narrow the socio-economic achievement gap in England
under its New Labor Government in an effort to equalizing school performance.
Turkey has recently science and mathematics reforms built on the Ministry of National
Education (MONE) student-centered and flexible learning and teaching methods instead
of standardized teaching. Brazil is exploring unique ways of eliminating racial disparities
in socio-economic outcomes in Brazil. Reforms are underway in South Africa to deal
with the achievement gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Poor
communities, in particular those of rural Africans, bear the brunt of its past inequalities.
Government has embarked on a strategy in the interests of improving quality in poorly
130
performing majority schools, strengthening school supervision, holding schools

accountable for the performance of their learners, and strengthening initial teacher
training.
In the United States, there are two achievement gaps in its education systems. The first
of these – well-documented, widely discussed, and the focus of education reform efforts
for the past decades or longer - is the gap between the quality of schooling that most
middle class children (wealthy) gets in America and the quality of schooling available for
most minority and poor children – and the consequent disparity results. The second one
is the global achievement gap – the gap between what even our best suburban, urban,
and rural public schools are teaching and testing versus what all students will need to
succeed as learners, workers, and citizens in today’s global knowledge economy. There
is also a large gap in STEM education in the United States compared to many countries.
Achievement in the United States since its founding has been concentrated in just a
few places, which has created a gap that correlates with economic and educational
disparities observed today.
The commonality that exists in the achievement in most of the countries is socioeconomic
status. A very important concern is the level of education and inequitable distribution
of support to schools in low income and minority communities. Low-income children
are much less likely to have access to STEM and other learning opportunities than their
more affluent peers. Economics is a critical determinant to access. To improve student
achievement and opportunities demands access and equity
Concluding Remarks
Across the globe, in both rich and poor nations, education is essential and it is the
key to developing the intellectual capacity of our children. Nothing is more vital to
our country’s future than ensuring that all students receive a quality education. Gains
in student achievement can most likely be realized wherever along the development
continuum the effort is made.
The success of education in this century and the century to come will depend on the
extent to which we educate all of our children and the achievement gap is closed so
that No Child is Left Behind..
The level of education and inequitable distribution of support to schools in low income
and minority communities is a very important concern in many of the countries
Economics is a critical determinant to access. To improve student achievement
and opportunities demands access and equity. Education provides the basis for
infrastructure development, adequate sustenance, health care, healthy and sustainable
environments, civic and social order and growth, and productive civil order and growth,
and productive civil and international relations.
131
Several countries have shown that access and equity are compelling factors in closing
the achievement gap. Providing all students (rich and poor, male and female, Black,
Hispanic, Native Americans, Indegenous, and other ethnic groups) with well-prepared
and qualified teachers, adequate funding and resources, rigorous mathematics
and science curriculum, opportunities with high expectations, will go a long way to
promoting excellence and in closing the achievement gap.
Data from the various countries suggest several conclusions. First, they confirm that
socioeconomic status is a strong and consistent determinant of academic achievement
in all countries and contribute to the achievement gap. The issues of access, equality
and equity are important concerns in education reform and become salient political
concerns. In practice, however, in many countries, the children who most need an extra
educational boost are the least likely to get it. Lower-quality schooling appears to help
perpetuate inequality rather than combating it.
The time is ripe for a concerted effort to improvement the achievement of all of our
students. By focusing our attention on closing the achievement gap, with immediate
attention to STEM, we will be able to give local, State, and Federal educational agencies
a call for action that is substantive, timely, and sufficiently targeted that it is reasonable
to anticipate progress.
We live in an era in the history of nations when there is a greater need than ever for
coordinated political action and responsibility. Collaboration between the various
countries, learning from each other, and sharing with each, can serve to elevate an
international dialogue on the critical issues associated with the achievement gap
and provide concrete examples to foster a solution. New ideas coming from other
countries, and having other countries understand and learn from each other, can help
in transforming education and in the closing of the achievement gap.
It is the hope that the findings and analysis and the overall issues of the achievement gap
will benefit not only the further development of each region but also other international
communities. Perhaps most importantly, all the countries will keep the goal of closing
the achievement gap and raising the achievement performance of all the children in
STEM at the forefront of their attention. In this way, we would be working together to
solve a problem of global significance.
Disclaimer:
The views of this manuscript are those of the author and not those of the National
Science Foundation (NSF)
132
References
Akiba, M. & Liang, G. (2014) Teacher Qualification and the achievement gap: A cross-
national Analysis of 50 Countries. In J.V. Clark (Ed.) Closing the achievement gap
from an international perspective; Transforming STEM for effective education
(pp.21-40). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
American Educational Research Association. 2004. Closing the Gap: High Achievement
for Students of Color, Research Points, Fall 2004, Washington, DC.
Clark, Julia V. 1996. Redirecting Science Education: Reform for a Culturally Diverse
Classroom, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Clark, Julia V. 2014 Closing the Achievement Gap from an International Perspective:
Transforming STEM for Effective Education. Dordrecht,Netherlands: Springer.
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). 2009. Effects of Teacher Professional
Development on Gains in Student Achievement: How Meta Analysis Provides
Scientific Evidence Useful to Education Leaders, Washington, DC.
Darling-Hammond, L. 2000. Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state

policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives 8 (1) (1 January).
Darling-Hammond, L. (2014) Closing the achievement gap: A systemic view: In J.V. Clark
(Ed.) Closing the achievement gap from an international perspective; Transforming
STEM for effective education (pp. 7-20). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Education Trust. 2003. African American Achievement in America. Washington, DC:

Education Trust.
Education Trust Data Bulletin. 2001. The Other Gap: Poor Students Receive Fewer
Dollars. The Education Trust, March 6, 2001.
Developments in Finance, 1996. NCES 97-535. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics. pp. 197- 210
Madeira, R. & Rangel, M. (2014). Racial achievement gaps in another America: Discussing
schooling outcomes and affirmative action in Brazil. In J.V. Clark (Ed.) Closing
the achievement gap from an international perspective; Transforming STEM for
effective education (pp. 127-160), Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Martin, S, (2014). Employing a sociohistorical perspective for understanding the impact

of ideology and policy on educational achievement in the Republic of Korea. In
J.V. Clark (Ed.) Closing the achievement gap from an international perspective;
Transforming STEM for effective education (pp. 229-250), Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Springer.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 2001. The Nation’s Report Card:
Mathematics 20000. NCES 2001-517, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 2001b. The Condition of Education 2001.
NCES 2001-072. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 2011. The Nation’s Report Card: Science
2009. NCES 2011-451. Washington, DC.
133
National Science Board (NSB). 1996 Science and Engineering Indicators 1996. Arlington,
VA: National Science Foundation.
National Science Board (NSB). 2006 Science and Engineering Indicators 2006. Arlington,
VA: National Science Foundation
National Science Board (NSB). 2012. Science and Engineering Indicators 2012. Arlington,
VA: National Science Foundation. (NSB 12-01).
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. Public Law No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
Washington, DC: U.S. Congress.
Panizzon, D. (2014). Securing STEM pathways for Australian high school students from low-SES
localities: Science and mathematics academy at Flinders (SMAF). In J.V. Clark (Ed.)
Closing the achievement gap from an international perspective; Transforming
STEM for effective education (pp.285-306), Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Peske, H. & Kati, H. (Eds.). (2006). Teaching Inequality. Washington, DC.: Education Trust.
Sanchez-Martinez, A. (2014). Achievement gap in Mexico: Present and Outlook. In

J.V. Clark (Ed.) Closing the achievement gap from an international perspective;
Springer.
Tan, J. (2014). Closing the achievement gap in Singapore. In J.V. Clark (Ed.) Closing
the achievement gap from an international perspective; Transforming STEM for
effective education (pp. 251-262), Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Taylor, N. & Muller, J. (2014). Equity Deferred: South African schooling two decades into
democracy. In J.V. Clark (Ed.) Closing the achievement gap from an international
perspective; Transforming STEM for effective education (pp. 265-282), Dordrecht,
The National Science Board Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics,

Science and Technology 1983. Educating Americans for the 21st Century.
Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
Topcu, M. S. (2014). The achievement gap in science and mathematics: A Turkish

Perspective. In J.V. Clark (Ed.) Closing the achievement gap from an international
perspective; Transforming STEM for effective education (pp.193-213), Dordrecht,
Whitty, G. & Anders, J. (2014). Narrowing the achievement gap: Policy and practice
in England. In J.V. Clark (Ed.) Closing the achievement gap from an international
perspective; Transforming STEM for effective education (pp. 163-191), Dordrecht,
Yore, Larry D. (2014). Closing the science, mathematics and reading gaps from a
Canadian Perspective: Implications for STEM Mainstream and Pipeline Literacy.
In J.V. Clark (Ed.) Closing the achievement gap from an international perspective;
Springer.
Zhang, G. & Zhao, Y. (2014). Achievement gap in China. In J.V. Clark (Ed.) Closing
the achievement gap from an international perspective; Transforming STEM
for effective education (pp.217-228), Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

134
Promoting STEM Education for All Students

Hakan AKCAY
Yildiz Technical University
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) reports Project 2061:
Science for All Americans (1989) and Benchmarks for Science Literacy (1993) as well as
the National Research Council (NRC, 1996) in the National Science Education Standards
(NSES) emphasize the importance of science and technology. These social aspects of
science and technology are a form of content for K-12 science. The Standards state
that, “a person should be able to identify scientific issues underlying national and local
decisions and express positions that are scientifically and technologically informed” (NRC,
1996, p.22). These reports also describe the relationship among science, technology,
and society. “Science and technology are closely related. A single problem often has
both scientific and technological aspects (NRC, 1996, p.24). The AAAS Benchmarks also
state that “Technology usually affects society more directly than science because it
solves practical problems and serves human needs. Science affects society mainly by
stimulating and satisfying people’s curiosity and occasionally by enlarging or changing
their views of what the world is like” (AAAS, 1993, p. 45).
The National Science Education Standards also emphasize a goal that students should
achieve scientific literacy, which is defined as the knowledge and understanding of
scientific concepts needed for daily living. The National Science Teachers Association
declares that a scientifically literate person is one who can ask and determine answers
to questions derived from curiosity about everyday life experiences (NSTA, 1996).
Rutherford and Ahlgren, authors of Science for Americans, state that “ the world has
changed in such ways that scientific literacy has become necessary for everyone, not
just a privileged few; science education will have to change to make that possible”
(AAAS, 1993; Hollenbeck 2003). Bybee (1993) suggests that students should learn basic
concepts of science, process, and problem-solving skills, and the interactions of STS as
they apply their knowledge to real-life concerns and issues (Lumpe, Haney & Czerniak,
1998).
Scientific literacy enables people to not only use scientific principles and processes in
making personal decisions but also enables them to participate in discussions about
scientific issues that affect society. Scientific literacy increases many skills that people
use in everyday life, like being able to solve problems creatively, thinking critically,
working cooperatively in teams, and using technology effectively. Understanding
scientific knowledge and processes contributes in essential ways to developing these
skills. The economic productivity of society is related to the scientific and technological
skills of the people. However, achieving scientific literacy will take time, because the
135
National Science Education Standards call for dramatic changes in what students are
taught, how student performances are assessed, how teachers are educated and stay
current, and the complex relationships between school and community (NRC, 1996).
Ramsey (1993) suggests that there is a relationship between scientific literacy and
social responsibility. Merely memorizing facts for a science test is not sufficient in a
world in which background of scientific and technologic knowledge is imperative for
making decisions on personal, community, national and global levels.
A focus on the relationship among science, technology, and society is essential for
achieving basic science literacy. Students, the next generation, need to be able to
analyze evidence, to understand the relevance of science based issues to their everyday
lives, and to understand that the scientific endeavor is governed by social values (NRC,
1996; deBettencourt, 2000). Seventeen features are identified by NSTA to define quality
of scientifically literate person. These features include being able to:
• Use concepts of science and of technology as well as an informed reflection of

ethical values in solving everyday problems and making responsible decisions in
everyday life, including work and leisure;
• Engage in responsible personal and civic actions after weighing the possible
consequences of alternative options;
• Defend decisions and actions using rational arguments based on evidence;
• Engage in science and technology for the excitement and the explanations they
provide;
• Display curiosity about and appreciation of the natural and human-made world;
• Apply skepticism, careful methods, logical reasoning, and creativity in

investigating the observable universe;
• Value scientific research and technological problem solving;
• Locate, collect, analyze, and evaluate sources of scientific and technological

information and use these sources in solving problems, making decisions, and
taking action;
• Distinguish between scientific/technological evidence and personal opinion and

between reliable and unreliable information;
• Remain open to new evidence and the tentativeness of scientific/technological

knowledge;
• Recognize that science and technology are human endeavors;
• Weigh the benefits and burdens of scientific and technological development;
136
• Recognize the strengths and limitations of science and technology for advancing
human welfare;
• Analyze interactions among science, technology, and society;
• Connect science and technology to other human endeavors, e.g., history,

mathematics, the arts, and the humanities;
• Consider the political, economic, moral, and ethical aspects of science and
technology as they relate to personal and global issues;
• Offer explanations of natural phenomena which may be tested for their validity
(NSTA, 1990).
Scientific Literacy
Scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and

processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs,
and economic productivity. In the National Science Education Standards, the content
standards define scientific literacy as following; scientific literacy means that a person
can ask, find, or determine answers to questions derived from curiosity about everyday
experiences. It means that a person has the ability to describe, explain, and predict
natural phenomena. Scientific literacy entails being able to read with understanding
articles about science in the popular press and to engage in social conversation about
the validity of the conclusions. Scientific literacy implies that a person can identify
scientific issues underlying national and local decisions and express positions that are
scientifically and technologically informed. A literate citizen should be able to evaluate
the quality of scientific information on the basis of its source and the methods used to
generate it. Scientific literacy also implies the capacity to pose and evaluate arguments
based on evidence and to apply conclusions from such arguments appropriately (NRC,
1996)
Scientific literacy is important for two views. The first one is macro view that promotes
scientific literacy that includes benefits to national economics, science itself, science
policymakers, and democratic practices, as well as to society as a whole. Second one is
micro view that turns to the direct benefits of scientific literacy to individuals, it has been
suggested that improved understanding of science and technology is advantageous to
anyone living in science and technology dominated society.
Bybee (2013) clearly articulates that the overall purpose of STEM education is to further
develop a STEM literate society. His definition of “STEM literacy” refers to an individual’s:
137
• Knowledge, attitudes, and skills to identify questions and problems in life

situations, explain the natural and designed world, and draw evidence-
based conclusions about STEM-related issues.
• Understanding of the characteristic features of STEM disciplines as forms of

human knowledge, inquiry and design;
• Awareness of how STEM disciplines shape our material, intellectual, and

cultural environments; and
• Willingness to engage in STEM-related issues and with the ideas of science,

technology, engineering and mathematics as a constructive, concerned, and
reflective citizen.” (p.101).
What is STEM education and why do we need it?
Although STEM education have attracted attentions of thousands of researcher

from all over the world recently, it has its origins in 1990s (Bybee, 2013). There are
different views about it. In their study, Breiner and colleagues (2012) found that there
is not certain definition or conceptualization of STEM even among faculty members.
Whereas some part of researcher think that STEM education occurs when integrating
science, technology, engineering and mathematic curriculums to familiarize students
about how scientists and engineers work in their real context, some other advocate
that the goal of STEM education is to direct students into sub-branches of it in order
to have qualified scientists and engineers in the future and to be competitive among
developed and developing countries (Breiner, Harkness, Johnson & Koehler, 2012).
In general, it can be said that STEM education enables students to produce products
through multidisciplinary knowledge. STEM education is the intentional integration
of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, and their associated practices
to create a student-centered learning environment in which students investigate and
engineer solutions to problems, and construct evidence-based explanations of real-
world phenomena with a focus on a student’s social, emotional, physical, and academic
needs through shared contributions of schools, families, and community partners.
There are two main ideas behind STEM education, one of which is about political and
societal reasons and the other one is educational deficiencies. In political and societal
perspective, nations need an innovative STEM workforce to be competitive in the 21st
century (Corlu, Capraro & Capraro, 2014, p. 75). When the US realized this fact, they
launched the STEM project more accurately. Innovations in science and technology will
give rise to be competitive for countries in this century and one of the major ways for
such innovations seems as educating students through STEM education. The National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (2011) state that innovations in science
138
and technology mainly results of developments in science, technology, engineering

and mathematics. In another report published by the Committee on Prospering in the
Global Economy of the 21st century (2007), it is stated that for the nation’s welfare and
well-being, STEM skills should be focused much more and three major advices were
published in the report. These are (1) augmenting the number of successful students in
science and mathematics at K-12 level through developing teaching strategies for that
level, (2) supporting the projects about security and quality of life and (3) increasing
the prompts for innovation (Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the
21st century, 2007). There are a lot of reports (e. g. U.S. Commission on National
Security/21st Century, 2001) which emphasize that focusing on science, technology and
mathematics are crucial for economic growth, the nation’s development and security
and competitiveness among other developed and developing countries.
In terms of educational deficiency viewpoint, in traditional teaching approaches it

is common to teach the subjects separately. In other words, there is less emphasis
on the connections among disciplines. In STEM education, the important concept is
‘integration’. Integrating science, technology, engineering and mathematics is vital
cornerstone of it. For instance, an engineer needs different scientific disciplines
knowledge and mathematics and technology information in order to produce
highly qualified engineering designs (Breiner et al., 2012). This can be achieved by
STEM education easily, which requires integration of various disciplines. This lack of
integration in traditional teaching approaches necessitated STEM education as a
powerful approaches in educational context. The following tables identify several points
of contrast between STEM-based program and standard (traditional) science programs
concerning goals, instruction, teacher, students and evaluation. Table 1 indicates the
differences between STEM-based program and traditional science program in terms of
the goals of science education.
Table 1. Contrast between STEM-based and Traditional Classrooms –Goals
STEM-Based Classrooms Traditional Classrooms

Curriculum is problem-centered, flexible, and Curriculum is textbook-centered,
culturally as well as scientifically valid inflexible; only scientific validity is
considered
Multifaceted questions used as organizers, of-
ten with local and community relevance Textbook controlled; student ques-
tions often ignored because the
Use of natural environment, community re- course structure is set
sources, and students themselves as part of the
study Contrived materials, kits, classroom
bound resources
Information is in the context of the student as a
person in cultural/social environment Information is the context of the
logic and structure of the disipline
Table 2 indicates the differences between STEM-based program and traditional science program in terms of the
instructional model of science education
139
Table 2. Contrast between STEM-Based and Traditional Classrooms-Instruction

Student centered Teacher centered
Individualized and personalized, recognizing student Some group work, primarily in
diversity the laboratory, following textbook
directions
Cooperative work on problems and issues
Students seen as recipients of instruction
Students are considered in instruction (active
partners) Teachers ignore students in terms
of what they might bring to the
Teachers build on student experiences, assuming instructional process; use information
that students learn only from their own experiences assumed to follow rote learning
Table 3 indicates the differences between STEM-based program and traditional science
program in terms of the role of science teachers.
Table 3. Contrast between STEM-Based and Traditional Classrooms- Teachers

Teachers are seen as model learners Teachers are seen as disseminators of
information
Teachers exercise freedom to stimulate student
interest and involvement Teachers see their role as delivering
content and determining the exact
Teachers have a well-thought out research based structure of their courses
rationale for teaching science
Teachers typically do not have a
Philosophical position influences all aspects of research based rationale for teaching
curriculum planning and teaching practices science
Curriculum and teaching practices
generally routine
program in terms of the role of students in science classroom
Table 4. Contrast between STEM-Based and Traditional Classrooms- Students

Students are at the center of classroom Students are recipients of what the
teachers dictates
Students are more active, involve in real life prob-
lem solution Students involved in directed activities
unrelated to their own lives
Students can transfer their learning to their daily liv-
ing and to meeting social needs There is no demonstration of the use of
information taught and learned outside
Students extend the classroom activities outside the the classroom
school
Students rarely practice or think science
Students indicate interest outside the science classroom
Students question more; student question used Student express lack of interest in sci-
ence classes
Students questions less; student ques-
tions often ignored
program in terms of the student evaluation in science classes.
140
Table 5: Contrast between STEM-Based and Traditional Classrooms- Evaluation
Testing and evaluation stress the use of concepts and Starting correct solutions to preplanned
processes to interpret personal and social problems problems is focus
and issues
Application is rarely approached in
Student evaluation is based on growth in rational de- teaching and evaluation
cision-making
Typical assessments do not facilitate
Creativity skills and positive attitudes are stressed development of creativity skills nor
and used for assessment positive attitudes
Assessment is often provided by exter-
nal examiners or by textbook authors
Why do we need STEM?
Integrated education, such as STEM, has enormous benefits for students (Stohlmann,
Moore & Roehrig, 2012). It has an impact on students’ problem solving skills, develops
higher order skills and support deep understandings (c.f. Stohlmann et. al, 2012).
Specifically, STEM education enables learner to be innovative and problem solver,
logical thinkers, to use technology appropriately and effectively (Morrison, 2006). In
their study, Basham and Marino (2013) state that STEM learning forces students to use
higher order thinking skills instead of lower ones such as calling knowledge in a simple
form. Out of the effects of STEM education on students’ cognitive skills, the other
crucial acquisition of it is that it enables students to get familiar with and to experience
engineering design, which is important for developing solutions about the problems
in society (Basham & Marino, 2013) such as air pollution, traffic jam and so on. Bybee
(2013) summarizes four main points between STEM education and other educational
approaches. These are
• Addressing global challenges that citizens must understand
• Changing perceptions of environmental and associated problems
• Recognizing 21st century workforce skills
• Continuing issues of national security (Bybee, 2013, p. 33).
To sum up, STEM education tries to find solutions for problems mainly related with real
life context-based issues. It is believed that educating learners based on this approach,
and then the nation’s welfare and competitiveness will increase in international context.
The reasons behind this view are that STEM education help students to develop their
higher order skills, creativity and understandings.
141
How do we integrate STEM in schools / How do we prepare STEM

curriculum?
Project based learning and inquiry learning might be two main teaching methods in
STEM curriculum. In such learning environments, curriculum materials should be
appropriate with the teaching methods (Baran, Canbazoğlu-Bilici & Mesutoğlu, 2015).
The crucial point is that enabling students to act as real scientists such as generating
products through discovery learning techniques.
One of the efficient ways to provide STEM education in schools is that increasing
usage of information technologies (Ministry of National Education, 2016). MNE (2010)
launched FATIH project (Action of Enhancing Opportunities and Improving Technology)
and encouraged teachers to use EBA (Educational Informatics Network). Both of them
provided interactive boards, internet connection and tablet computer for students
and teachers. The importance of technology enhanced learning environments can be
explained that it provides opportunities like problem determining to research, data
collection and analyze, product development and creating new inventions and designing
innovations (MNE, 2016). On the other hand, usage of information technologies also
provides opportunities for everyone in the classroom, which is important for promoting
STEM education for all students. In the report published by MNE (2016) summarizes
the importance of technology enhanced learning environments in STEM education as
following:
• Facilitating STEM education which is based on questioning, researching, product

development and inventing,
• Providing an environment to students independent from time and location for

STEM education,
• Supporting STEM education by using digital multimedia laboratory materials,
• Providing equal opportunities in STEM education for children at socioeconomically

low and high background, and
• Helping students to learn with lesson activities based on questioning, researching,

product development and inventing (NME, 2016, p. 54).
Furthermore teaching coding in computer systems is another crucial step in STEM

education for students in order to development technologically developed products.
All these need highly educated teachers to reach the goals through STEM education.
For this reason, universities and NME should increase the collaboration for helping
teachers to get familiar with usage of technology in classrooms in terms of pedagogic
approaches. For example, in US, there are high collaborations between universities and
142
the primary, middle or high schools to develop and apply qualified STEM curriculums
(Stohlmann, Moore & Roehrig, 2012).
Conclusion
Although STEM education has roots from last decade, it attracted scholars’ attention
mainly in the last 10 years. The primary reason of being popular in recent term is
usually related with U.S policies. In other words, to have competitive generations in
future among developed or developing countries, it is believed that STEM education
helps learners in order to be innovative, problem solver, designer and producer. There
have been conducting many researches, which usually concluded with supporting the
view. Students, who expose to multi-disciplined teaching approach, like STEM gives
better result when compared to their counterparts in terms of productivity, innovative
outcomes and accomplishment. Such findings also supported STEM education to be
used in different regions and countries.
In other respect, it is important to provide equal opportunities for students so as

to take advantage of STEM education abundantly. One of the efficient ways is that
using information technologies in the classrooms. Technology enhanced learning
environments enable learners and teachers to determine problem, data gathering and
analyzing, visualization and designing easily. Information technologies also serve as
time and location independence.
The other crucial point in STEM education is that teacher education. Because of the
fact that teachers are mainly responsible for teaching in the classroom, it is vital to
have qualified teachers in terms of STEM education. Teachers should be aware of
integration of different disciplines through teaching process and should act as guidance
in the classroom. In order to help teachers, universities and schools should increase
collaboration and teacher should be supported through workshops and in-service
teacher education activities.
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1990). Science for All
Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1993). Benchmarks
for Science Literacy: A Project 2061 Report. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989). Project 2061: Science
for all Americans. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement
of Science.
Baran, E., Canbazoğlu-Bilici, S. & Mesutoğlu, C. (2015). Fen, teknoloji, mühendislik
ve matematik eğitimi (FeTeMM) spotu geliştirme etkinliği [Science, technology,
engineering and mathematics (STEM) public service announcement (PSA)
development activity]. Araştırma Temelli Etkinlik Dergisi (ATED), 5(2), 60-69.
143
Basham, J. D. & Marino, M. T. (2013). Understanding STEM education and supporting

students through universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children,
45(4), 8-15.
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.
Bybee, R. W. (1993). Reforming science education: Social perspectives and personal
reflections. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The Case of STEM Education: Challenges and Opportunities.
Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century (2007). Rising
Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Empowering America for Brighter
Economic Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Corlu, M. S., Capraro, R. M. & Capraro, M. M. (2014). Introducing STEM education:
Implications for educating our teachers for the age of innovation. Education and
Science, 39(171), 74-85.
deBettencourt, K.B. (2000). Science technology society and the environment:
Scientiic literacy for the future. In Kumar,D.D. and Chubin, D.E. (eds.), Science
Technology and Society A Sourcebook on Research and practice. (pp. 141-164).
New York, NY: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hollenbeck, J. E. (2003). Using a Constructivist Strategy and STS Methodology To
Teach Science with the Humanities.
Lumpe, A. T., Haney, J.J. & Czerniak, C. M. (1998). Science teachers beliefs and
intensions to implement Science-Technology-Society (STS) in the classroom.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9, (1), 1-24.
Ministry of National Education (MNE) (2010). FATİH projesi [FATIH project].
Retrieved from http://fatihprojesi.meb.gov.tr/
Ministry of National Education (MNE) (2016). STEM eğitim raporu [STEM education
report]. Retrieved from http://yegitek.meb.gov.tr/www/meb-yegitek-genel-
mudurlugu-stem-fen-teknoloji-muhendislik-matematik-egitim-raporu-hazirladi/
icerik/719
Morrison, J. (2006). TIES STEM Education Monograph Series: Attributes of STEM
Education. Baltimore, MD: TIES.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering & Medicine (2011). Rising above the
gathering storm revisited: Rapidly approaching category 5: Condensed version.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards.
Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
National Science Teacher Association (1990). Science/Technology/Society: A New
Effort for Providing Appropriate Science for All (Position Statement) In NSTA
Handbook. 47-48.
Ramsey, J. (1993). The science education reform movement: Implication for social
responsibility. Science Education, 77,2, 235-258.
144
Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J. & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching

integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education
Research (J-PEER), 2(1), 28-34.
U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century. (2001). Road map for national
security: Imperative for change. The Phase III report of the U.S. Commission on
National Security/21st Century, Washington, DC.
145
SECTION 4
AN OVERVIEW OF THE
LITERATURE ON STEM
EDUCATION
146
Active Learning in Undergraduate STEM Education: A Review of

Research
Martene L. Stanberry
Tennessee State University
Wanda R. Payne
Tennessee State University
Introduction
Traditionally, the college classroom has been a place where professors lecture and
students are expected to listen and learn with little to no participation. However, there
has been a movement toward transforming the college classroom to foster dynamic
student centered learning. This shift is particularly significant for college students in
pursuit of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees since the
ability to apply the knowledge and theory learned in the classroom is important to
success in their future careers.
In recent years, there has been increasingly more focus on STEM education from a
national perspective (Gasiewski, Eagan, Garcia, Hurtado, & Chang, 2012). Consequently,
it is important for our youth to be equipped with the knowledge and skills to solve
challenging problems, gather and evaluate information, and interpret data. These types
of skills are acquired by studying science, technology, engineering, and mathematics,
subjects collectively known as STEM (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). However,
the number of students who pursue, persist, and complete degrees in STEM is low. In
fact, based on national college and university statistics, only about 40% of students
who plan to complete a degree in a STEM area actually do so (President’s Council
of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2012). As a result, nationally there is a lack
of STEM professionals, which leaves us with less talent available to be innovators of
science and technology.
When students are taught to think deeply, they have opportunities to become the
future innovators, educators, researchers, and leaders in our country and the world.
But, according to a recent report by the U.S. Department of Education, not enough of
our youth have access to quality STEM learning opportunities and too few students see
these disciplines as potential career paths. For example: 81% of Asian-American high
school students and 71% of white high school students attend high schools where a
full range of STEM courses are offered. However, the access to this type of education
is limited for American Indian, Native-Alaskan, Black, and Hispanic high school students
147
(U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Since many students do not have access to a
variety of science and mathematics courses in kindergarten through twelfth grades,
when they enter college they are not necessarily college ready or prepared to thrive in
college level STEM education. Therefore, it is critical to improve k-12 education and to
implement instructional strategies at the collegiate level to enhance the learning and
educational opportunities of every student, including those from underrepresented
groups in order to prepare them for a modern STEM economy.
Minority serving institutions (MSIs), like Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs) and
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) are very important in training
the next generation of scientists, particularly those who are from underrepresented
groups. Specifically, HBCUs are positioned to meet the STEM challenge as “engines of
economic growth and ladders of advancement for generations of African Americans”
(U.S. Department of Education, 2016). In fact, for more than a century, HBCUs have
been frontrunners in educating African-American college graduates who excel in their
fields. Even though our nation’s HBCUs make up only 3% of the colleges and universities,
they produce 27% of African-American students with bachelor’s degrees in STEM fields
(U.S. Department of Education, 2016).
In 2012 the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology developed

a report on the state of STEM in America entitled, “Engage to Excel: Producing One
Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics”. Overall, this article emphasized the importance of increasing the
number of graduates in STEM areas in order to maintain scientific preeminence in the
United States of America. This report specifies challenges that must be addressed in
our college and university classrooms. Three recommendations were highlighted in the
report: improve the first two years of STEM education in colleges/universities, provide
all students with the tools and resources they need to excel, and diversify pathways to
STEM degrees (President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2012).
It is a known fact that sometimes the course content in STEM classes is challenging, but
the learning environment can have a major impact on student interest and motivation.
As a result, many students leave STEM disciplines before they can realize their potentials
(Petrillo, 2016). Studies have shown that teaching techniques that engage students
as active participants improve retention of information and critical thinking skills and
can greatly increase STEM major interest and persistence, compared with traditional
lecture (President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2012).
Figure 1 highlights some of the major factors that impact student success in STEM
courses at the collegiate level. As indicated in Figure 1, there are several factors that
influence student overall performance and success in college level STEM courses.
148
Instructional
Methodology
Previous Student Success

Knowledge Student Motiva-
in Undergraduate tion and Goals
Base STEM Courses
Study Skills
Figure 1. Major Factors Impacting Student Success in Undergraduate STEM Courses
The teaching methodologies utilized by professors can also have a positive impact on
the other major factors that influence student academic success in STEM. The focus of
this paper is the instructional methodology implemented by the professor, specifically
active learning techniques.
Despite what the research has shown about the positive effects of student engagement
on student learning, lecture remains the primary method of instruction in college
classrooms. This style of teaching is referred to as “teaching by telling” because it involves
an instructor centered approach (Freeman, Eddy, McDonough, Smith, Okoroafor, Jordt,
& Wenderoth, 2014). This technique requires little to no participation by the student
during class time. As a result, the professor does not receive immediate feedback about
the student knowledge base or his/her level of understanding of the course material.
In addition, traditional lecture often fails to encourage intellectual engagement which
is an important hallmark of college education (Smith, Sheppard, Johnson, & Johnson,
2005). Therefore, lecture with minimal student participation may have the unintended
consequences of stifling a student’s progress and diminishing a student’s confidence in
his/her ability. While lecture is still an important component of classroom instruction,
it should be supported by student centered instructional strategies.
Classroom environments in which students are given opportunities to participate in

science and mathematical investigation, communication, and group problem-solving,
and simultaneously receiving feedback on their work from both professors and peers,
have a positive effect on learning (Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences,
149
2016). Teaching techniques that include these types of activities are called active
learning methods. Based on a variety of studies, these methods have been shown
to strengthen student comprehension and performance in STEM courses, to enhance
students’ confidence in their ability to do science and mathematics, and to increase
the diversity of the STEM community (Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences,
2016).
One way to improve the first two years of college STEM education is through enhanced
instructional strategies, which actively include the student in the learning process. As
a result, some college professors have developed and utilized more teaching strategies
which engage students in the learning process. One prominent methodology is active
learning.
The term “active learning” as it is currently interpreted dates to the early 1990s and
the work of Bonwell & Eison (1991), building on the work of Revans (1983) (Conference
Board of the Mathematical Sciences, 2016). Researchers have investigated the relative
effectiveness of various classroom strategies that complement other elements of
effective teaching. These include the following: well-designed courses with goals and
learning outcomes clearly communicated to students, allowing students to learn new
material and make connections with previous knowledge, and giving students timely
feedback about their work and thinking related to the course content (Fink, 2013).
In this paper, we examine the literature that considers active learning in STEM education.
We do this in three main sections, aiming to: (a) define some of the major active learning
teaching techniques; (b) highlight key STEM active learning studies conducted; and (c)
discuss the impact of active learning in STEM education on diverse student populations.
Definitions
In recent years, there have been many studies supporting a move toward active learning
in college classrooms, particularly in STEM education. Active learning is a broad term
that encompasses several models of instruction, including cooperative and collaborative
learning, problem based learning, inquiry based learning, discovery learning, and
experiential learning (Barkley, 2010). It is a process of education whereby students
engage in activities, like reading, writing, discussion, or problem-solving that encourage
analysis, synthesis, reflection and evaluation of class content. Active learning techniques
have been shown to improve student retention of information while critical thinking
skills, which result in an increase in STEM major interest and persistence compared to
traditional lecture based instruction. Overall student engagement typically increases
the success rate of students in college classrooms. We highlight some of the strategies
used when active learning techniques are implemented into a course.
150
Cooperative learning is also called peer-team learning and it benefits students in several
ways. This teaching technique involves structuring classes around small groups of
students that work together to pursue common goals while being assessed individually
(Prince, 2004). Cooperative learning should: (i) provide students with a supportive
environment where they can asks questions, (ii) engage students in discussions that
will help them understand important concepts, (iii) encourage students to participate
in teamwork which will benefit them in the future, (iv) allow students to develop better
communication skills, and (v) support peer leaders in gaining important teaching and
leadership skills in a safe environment.
Problem based learning (PBL) is a student centered instructional approach that empowers
students to conduct research, combine theory and practice, and apply knowledge
and skills to develop a viable solution to a well-defined problem (Savery, 2015). This
approach is most successful when the problems selected are interdisciplinary yet not
well structured and the professor guides the learners through the process and gives a
thorough summary at the end of the learning experience. It is an instructional method
where relevant problems can be introduced at the beginning of the lesson and used to
provide the context and motivation for the learning that follows (Prince, 2004). This
type of learning may be extremely beneficial for a student majoring in STEM, especially
engineering, because it helps them make the connection between the theory learned
in class and the practice/application of those skills on real-life problems. Students who
engage in PBL usually acquire skills, such as the following, the ability: (i) to think deeply
and critically, (ii) to analyze and solve multipart problems, (iii) to work cooperatively, (iv)
to effectively communicate their knowledge, and (v) the skill of maximally utilizing the
resources available.
One prominent method used across STEM disciplines is inquiry based learning (IBL). IBL
includes a range of educational methods that allow the student to demonstrate curiosity
and answer questions through an active process of exploration. This technique can be
utilized in one particular instance, over a short period of time, or throughout an entire
course and can be done individually or in small groups (Haq, 2017). This particular
methodology can be implemented with or without the use of technology. One popular
technology tool that has been widely used is clickers. This can be done by creating sets
of multiple choice questions for students to respond to during the class lecture using
clickers. This is a good opportunity for the professor to gain some feedback about each
student’s level of understanding and it is also a way for the students to check their
knowledge.
IBL can also increase the student’s ability to use prior knowledge and newly acquired
knowledge to solve problems, build student confidence in his/her ability, and develop
the student’s teamwork skills.
151
A modern technique that some professors are using in an effort to improve classroom
instruction is called the flipped or inverted classroom. Flipping refers to the process by
which a professor disseminates course content prior to and outside of the classroom
and then uses class time to implement a variety of active learning techniques (Petrillo,
2016). The flipped classroom can have some positive impact on learning outcomes,
student motivation and interest, and overall success in STEM disciplines (Petrillo, 2016).
Perspectives of Active Learning in STEM Education
Since the late 1990s, science educators have been encouraged to implement active
learning strategies to model the methods and mindsets that are at the core of scientific
inquiry and to offer opportunities for students to connect abstract ideas to real world
applications in order to gain skills and knowledge that persist beyond the course in
which it was acquired (Allen & Tanner, 2005). Ross and Fulton (1994) conducted one
of the earlier active learning studies in STEM education. This study was done over
five years in a two course analytical chemistry sequence to assist students in becoming
more effective learners in a non-competitive, cooperative learning environment. The
researchers describe the process by which the two courses were restructured to
incorporate cooperative learning techniques and the distribution of additional study
materials to enhance the students’ learning experiences in these courses.
The senior comprehensive exam results for all students who took the sequential course
were compared for students who were enrolled in the active learning course versus
those who were not and the students who were enrolled in the active learning course
performed moderately better. When compared to the national norms at that time, the
raw scores for 65% of the students who took the standard ACS Analytical Exam Form
AN88 were at or above the national average and 20% of the scores were above the
90th percentile; therefore it seems the students under the active learning instruction
developed a solid background in analytical chemistry while still gaining the rigor
necessary to compete nationally (Ross & Fulton, 1994). The researchers also reported
that students thinking and problem-solving skills improved significantly as a result of
their participation in this active learning course as demonstrated in the students’ ability
to listen, formulate questions and answers more carefully, and their ability to defend
their answers. Another positive benefit of this implementation of active learning was
the improvement in student attitudes toward learning, student development of effective
and efficient learning strategies, and an increase in student motivation to excel.
Even with the documented success of some initial STEM active learning studies,
sometimes it can be challenging for professors and students to adjust to a ‘new’
learning technique which is student centered and requires each student to be
actively involved in the classroom activities, especially in very large class sizes. Allen
152
and Tanner (2005) focused on active learning strategies that can be used with large
class sizes. Specifically, they highlighted the following techniques: (i) beginning and
ending the lecture with student discussion questions, (ii) using classroom technology
for immediate feedback without requiring the professor to spend time grading, (iii)
assigning student presentations and or projects, (iv) using learning cycle instructional
models which involve the students at various phases of the learning experience through
activities like reading, watching video clips, responding to thought-provoking questions,
etc., (v) implementing peer-led team learning, (vi) modeling inquiry approaches, (vii)
using problem-based learning and case studies, (viii) developing a workshop course
which ties all of the classroom concepts and laboratory experiments together, and (ix)
course redesigning or enhancement (Allen & Tanner, 2005). This study highlighted two
major active learning strategies, cooperative learning and problem based learning,
and also identified many other activities that support student engagement. Although
these researchers focused on strategies that work well for large class sizes, all of these
techniques can also be implemented effectively in smaller classes as active learning
activities.
Along with being strategic about which activities are incorporated into the classroom,
when constructing active learning courses it is critical to create a supportive and safe
learning environment; set a positive tone in the classroom from day one. Smith,
Clarke Douglas, & Cox (2009) presented the how people learn framework and the
backward design approach are presented for designing courses that are thoughtfully
constructed to optimize student learning. In the how people learn framework there
are three components which intersect and are all a part of the learning community,
which include learner centered, knowledge centered, and assessment centered
instructional strategies. A learner centered atmosphere ties the interests, strengths,
and preconceptions of learners to their current academic tasks and learning goals
and assists students in identifying how they learn best. Therefore, it is important to
check the academic backgrounds and academic majors of students prior to the first
day of classes. A classroom setting that is knowledge centered is designed based on
an analysis of student learning outcomes and helps students develop the fundamental
knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed for successful transfer of this knowledge. An
assessment centered environment means providing many opportunities to observe and
make evident students’ progress from what they currently understand to the ultimate
learning goals in an effort to allow students to continue improving their weaknesses
and revising their thinking. Providing the students in the class with some type of
assessment or knowledge check each week gives the professor and students constant
feedback about their progress in the course. Community centered means providing
a supportive, enriched, and flexible learning environment inside and outside the
classroom where all students can learn, feel comfortable asking questions, and work
153
together (Smith et. al., 2009). All of these elements impact the overall success of STEM
course implementation and student achievement academically and professionally. The
backward design process requires the professor to do the following: (i) identify learning
outcomes, (ii) determine what assessments will be used, and (iii) plan instruction with
a focus on student engagement pedagogies (Smith et. al., 2009).
In summary, increasing the sense of community among STEM students and between
students and professors within STEM classrooms is valuable, since cooperative learning
researchers and practitioners have shown that positive peer relationships are important
to overall college success. More supportive and engaging learning environments can
help us accomplish our most important outcomes for STEM graduates: stronger critical
thinking and reasoning skills, problem formulation and problem-solving skills, skills for
working in a team, and confidence in developing solutions to practical problems (Smith
et. al., 2009).
In a synthesis of research, Eison (2010) reported that active learning instructional

strategies can be developed and implemented to engage students in creative or critical
thinking, which can be done in pairs, groups, or as a whole class. This study highlighted
some successful studies that have been done with large numbers of students in
different types of STEM courses and the importance of students’ engagement in their
learning. It was also noted that active learning does not require technology and it can
be done can during class time or outside of class time. In this study a combination of
instructional strategies are highlighted and the differences between traditional lecture
and interactive lecture are described.
According to Eison (2010), there are some challenges when implementing an active
learning instructional methodology. For example: the professor may not be able to
cover as much course content within the class time available, preparation for active
learning activities may require more time, large class sizes may impede implementation
of active learning strategies, a lack of materials or equipment needed to support active
learning approaches, and students may resist non-lecture approaches (Eison, 2010). As
a result, it is useful for the professor to begin with traditional instructional strategies
and build up to including more student centered activities.
The lack of academic engagement in introductory STEM courses is considered to

be a leading reason students change to non-STEM majors (Gasiewski et al., 2012).
Recognizing the connection between student engagement and student performance,
the physics faculty at a southern university adapted a model of active, collaborative,
inquiry-based learning for their introductory calculus-based physics courses (Gatch,
2010). In the fall semester of 2006, the faculty piloted its first studio course; a course
that seamlessly integrated the lecture and laboratory courses into one course with
154
much of the class time devoted to student-centered learning. The number of studio
courses increased each semester until the full implementation of studio courses in fall
2008. Assessments of student learning outcomes and surveys of student attitudes were
conducted throughout the conversion from lecture and laboratory courses to the studio
courses. The Force Concepts Inventory (FCI) and the Maryland Physics Expectations
Survey (MPEX) were used for students enrolled in Physics I; and the Conceptual Survey
in Electricity and Magnetism (CSEM) and the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science
Survey (CLASS) were used for students enrolled in Physics II. Results indicated that
students completing the Physics I and Physics II studio courses had greater learning gains
than students who took the traditional courses. The results from the MPEX showed
positive shifts in the independence, math link, concepts, and reality link categories;
negative shifts were seen in the coherence and effort categories. Similarly, the CLASS
showed positive shifts in all categories that were measured for the Physics II students
(Gatch, 2010).
The decision of the faculty to adapt the studio model with student-centered active
learning strategies was supported by the results of the research. Although there was
no disaggregation of the data to reveal any underlying trends in areas such as previous
academic history or ethnicity, the restructuring of the introductory physics courses
has created a format that allows for increased student engagement which is linked to
student performance.
Another study, by Freeman et al. (2014) produced an extensive quantitative analysis of

active learning research in college STEM courses. The researchers tracked and analyzed
studies from and found that 642 of them met the criteria of: (i) contrasting traditional
lecturing with any form of active learning, (ii) occurring in the context of regularly
scheduled undergraduate courses, (iii) being limited to changes in how the classes were
conducted, (iv) involving a course in astronomy, biology, chemistry, computer science,
engineering, geology, mathematics, environmental science, food science, physics,
psychology, or statistics, and (v) including data on student performance. Further
analysis of these studies narrowed the research to 225 studies that had examination
equivalence, student equivalence, instructor equivalence, and data that could be used
for computing effect size (Freeman et al., 2014). A meta-analysis of those 225 studies
gave a result consistent to the results of less rigorous studies – active learning strategies
achieve measurably better student performance outcomes. The research showed that
students in classes taught by traditional lecture were 1.5 times more likely to fail than
students taught in active learning classrooms. When analyzing the data collected and
examining the type of course and the level of course offered, there was statistically no
significant difference in how active learning impacted students in any of the courses
(Freeman et al., 2104).
155
The active learning approach produced the same positive effect in all of the courses
throughout all STEM disciplines. Active learning is a broad term that incorporates
many techniques. Although the study has important implications for college level
STEM education, it does not confer a type of active learning as being more beneficial
to student performance than another. An implication of the study for further research
in college level STEM education is the comparison of the impacts of different active
learning strategies on student performance. Further research could be expanded to
include findings of the impact of active learning on underrepresented minorities who
do not complete undergraduate STEM degrees at the same rate as their counterparts.
As student centered learning strategies become a mainstay in STEM education

reform, problem based learning helps to prepare students to deal with the complex
problems they will encounter in the real world. This learning strategy is well suited for
engineering education because functioning as an effective member of a team to solve
complex problems that are not well structured is what engineers do in practice. In an
investigation of PBL in an undergraduate electrical engineering course in a large mid-
western university, Yadav, Subedi, Lundeberg, & Bunting (2011) used traditional lecture
as the baseline phase and PBL as the experimental phase to compare the learning
gains of students from PBL and traditional lecture. Instructor-developed pre-tests and
post-tests assessed knowledge and conceptual understanding. The study showed that
learning gains from PBL were almost twice as high as learning gains from traditional
lecture (Yadav et al., 2011). This technique worked best in advanced courses with
students who have already acquired strong fundamental skills. This study adds to the
body of empirical data to support PBL as an effective instructional strategy, but more
research needs to be done in this area.
Another study was conducted at a large research university in an introductory biology

course with a high number of students in order to make time for in class cooperative
learning activities which focused on critical thinking (Prunuske et al, 2012). There
were 130 students selected through a competitive application process for enrollment
in this course and they were informed before the first day of class about way the course
would be conducted. The researchers in this study assigned a series of short online
lecture notes for students to read prior to the class meeting where the topic would be
covered so that in class time could be used to focus on doing examples and checking
student knowledge. In addition, clickers were used during class time to assess student
knowledge.
This study showed based on student survey and performance on basic level questions
advantages in utilizing these active learning techniques. There are some benefits to
curricular redesign that integrates in-class cooperative learning activities and technology,
like online lectures and the use of clickers in class (Prunuske et al, 2012). This particular
156
institution has a small percentage of minority students, which is a limitation of this

study.
In an inquiry-based learning study, Kogan and Laursen (2014) reported modest change
when comparing grades in subsequent classes of students who took IBL college
mathematics courses to the grades of students who took non-IBL courses. In a large
scaled mixed methods study involving four universities with IBL Math Centers, the
researchers used students’ academic records, observations, interviews, surveys, and
test data to assess the long-term effects of IBL in college mathematics courses. From
the observation study, the researchers found that the students in the IBL courses asked
more questions and took on more leadership roles in the classroom. In the IBL courses,
60% of class time was spent on student-centered activities; whereas in the non-IBL
courses, over 85% of class time was spent on professor lecture. Courses were chosen
because they had an adequate amount of students enrolled in both IBL sections and
non-IBL sections, their placement was early in the course sequence, and they were
taken early enough to have subsequent courses taken at the time of the study (Kogan
& Laursen, 2014).
When disaggregating the results by prior achievement, this study showed that the
performance of low-achieving students improved after taking IBL courses when
compared to their own prior achievement and to the achievement of students who
did not take IBL courses. When disaggregating for gender, the study revealed that the
impact of having taken IBL courses was mainly effective for women. Women taking non-
IBL courses had a similar success to men, but reported lower confidence at the end of
the course. The study further showed that even though less material was covered in
IBL courses due to the time given to student-centered activities there was no adverse
impact on the students’ performance in subsequent classes. It provided evidence that
IBL strategies can have lasting effects on groups of students whose prior mathematics
achievement may have been low. Thus, this study supports the premise that active
learning can improve student outcomes.
As the popularity of the flipped classroom learning strategy has increased, studies have
been done to determine the impact of this technique on student achievement. Sahin,
Cavlazoglu, and Zeytuncu (2014) sought to answer these questions in a study of 96
students in a college calculus class in the spring 2013 semester at a college in Texas. In
this class, three subjects were taught using the flipped classroom method and seven
subjects were taught using traditional lecture method.
They found that quiz scores of the students were significantly higher for the subjects
taught using the flipped classroom method than for the traditionally taught subjects
(Sahin et al., 2014). Through survey, they also found that the majority of the students
157
felt that the flipped classroom strategy helped them to perform better. The results of
this study align with the results of similar studies on the flipped classroom learning
strategy.
In a subsequent study on the flipped classroom, Petrillo (2016) examined the

effectiveness of the flipped classroom on student grades in the class and student
attitudes/perceptions about their experiences in a flipped or inverted style class. This
study was conducted at a small, comprehensive, American university that has a school
of engineering to determine if the flipped classroom concept would improve student
success rates in first semester college calculus in response to the high failure rate of
students in the course.
A comparison of the success rates for the lecture (fall 2005-spring 2009), lecture with
activities (fall 2009-spring 2012), and flipped classroom (fall 2012-fall 2014) models was
done. The flipped classroom model showed the highest success rate at 69.5%; followed
by lecture with activities at 64%; and lecture at 57.4%. In addition, student surveys
were used to gain insight into students’ opinions about the course content and the
instructional strategies. Due to their success with the flipped classroom implementation,
Petrillo (2016) indicated that this method has been adopted as a standard American
Chemical Society (ACS) for Calculus I and a comparable course for Calculus II is in the
developmental stage.
Cronhjort, Filipsson, and Weurlander (2017) conducted a study in which certain sections
of a class were taught using the traditional lecture method and other sections of the
course were taught using a flipped classroom technique yet all student participants
were administered the same Calculus Baseline Test which included 15 multiple choice
questions divided into three categories: pre-calculus, calculus concepts, and calculus
theory and formalism. This test was given as a pre-test in the beginning of the semester
and as a post-test at the end of the course prior to the final exam. In addition, student
participants were given final examinations and student engagement surveys.
The findings of this study indicated that the flipped classroom benefited students
learning and overall experience in the classroom. The failure rate decreased more and
the highest grade increased more in the flipped classroom compared to the lecture class.
This indicates that the flipped classroom benefited low and high-performing students
(Cronhjort et al., 2017). Similarly, Petrillo (2016) found that the failure rate decreased
when the flipped classroom technique was implemented in the calculus course.
Based on the survey results in Cronhjort et al. (2017), students enrolled in the flipped
classrooms felt more engaged and believed that they were a part of a learning community
in which they were fully involved and contributed to the learning experience, instead of
feeling like isolated independent learners. One setback of the flipped classroom is that
158
students with special needs can find certain aspects of the classroom setting challenging
(Cronhjort et al., 2017).
This study can be augmented by implementing different types of active learning

strategies and creating experiences that facilitate thinking, questioning, application,
and peer interactions. In an effort to determine if the flipped classroom approach had a
greater impact on student performance than traditional and online approaches in a C#
programming course, Sharp and Sharp (2017) conducted a quantitative research study.
The study comprised eight semesters from fall 2012 to spring 2016 and 271 participants
enrolled in an introductory C# programming course.
The data collected each semester were lab assignment scores, exam scores, final exam
scores, and overall course averages. The data analyses revealed that student learning
increased with the flipped instructional approach when compared to the traditional
approach and that additional research must be done to compare student academic
performance between online approaches and the flipped classroom approach (Sharp
& Sharp, 2017).
The study was limited by the number of participants in each method. Of the 271
participants, 136 were in traditional sections, 96 were in online sections, and 39 were in
flipped sections. The results of this study could be strengthened with more students in
the flipped sections. This study does, however, extend the body of work that supports
student-centered learning approaches such as the flipped classroom model.
What follows is Table 1, which summarizes the active learning perspectives in college
level STEM education that were presented in this paper. The type of institution, type
of course, techniques implemented, and the findings are outlined in Table 1. For the
sample size, N represents the total number of students participating in the study and
n represents the number of students participating in the active learning components.
Overall, the results of the research showed that active learning techniques enhanced
student performance and increased learning gains.
Discussion
This paper reviewed analyses of active learning approaches in college level STEM
courses. Throughout our review, we have shown that there is a relationship between
student engagement and student learning. Based on the studies reviewed, student
engagement in the learning process enhances student academic performance, increases
student interest and motivation, and better equips students with the ability to apply the
knowledge and skills gained in their STEM courses to real-life problems.
159
Table 1. Active Learning Studies in Undergraduate STEM Education
Researchers Sample Course Technique Findings

Ross and Fulton students at a pri- analytical chem- cooperative Students in active
(1994) vate liberal arts istry two course learning learning courses
college sequence performed better
than students who
(N=65, n=39) were not.
Gatch (2010) students at a Physics I, inquiry-based Learning gains

large research learning studio were greater in
university Physics II courses studio courses
than in traditional
lecture and lab
courses.
Yadav, Subedi, students at a electrical engi- prob- Learning gains

Lundeberg, and large mid-west- neering course lem-based from PBL were al-
Bunting (2011) ern university learning most twice as high
as learning gains
(N=55, n=55) from traditional
lecture.
Prunuske, Batzli, students at a introductory biol- cooperative Students performed

Howell, and Mill- large research ogy course learning and better on lower-or-
er (2012) university online lecture der cognitive skills
questions.
(N=130, n=130)
Kogan and Laurs- students at two various mathe- inquiry-based Low achieving
en (2014) universities matics courses learning students improved
hosting IBL Math after taking IBL
Centers courses.
(N=2447, n=383)
Sahin, Cavlazog- students at a col- Calculus flipped class- Scores were sig-
lu, and Zeytuncu lege a university room nificantly higher
(2014) in the south for students taught
using the flipped
(N=96, n=96) classroom method.
Petrillo (2016) students at a Calculus flipped class- The flipped

small compre- room classroom model
hensive univer- showed the highest
sity success rate.
(N=530, n=473)
Cronhjort, Filips- Calculus flipped class- The failure rate
son, and Weur- room decreased and the
lander (2017) highest grade in-
creased.
Sharp and Sharp (N=271, n=39) introductory C# flipped class- Student learning
(2017) programming room increased with the
course flipped classroom
approach.
160
However, there can also be some challenges associated with adjusting the method of
instruction to include active learning. These challenges are related to the professor
modifying the way they teach and student reception of and preparedness for a
classroom setting with less traditional teaching strategies. Some of these challenges
include the following: (i) inability to cover all of the required material, (ii) the amount of
time a professor may need to spend on preparing the modified instruction, (iii) ensuring
that the adjustments match well with the professor’s personality and the student
population in the respective class, and (iv) lack of equipment or resources to make the
desired change. Therefore, it is critical for the professors to determine based on their
institution and the institution’s student population what modifications can be made
and include them gradually, if necessary, to avoid some of the potential challenges.
There are a variety of ways to incorporate active learning strategies into college level
STEM courses. Some strategies are designed to encourage each student to express his/
her attitudes and values towards the subject matter and others are designed to increase
retention of the material presented in the class. With the goal of increasing student
academic performance, what follows are three examples of activities that can be used
to enhance student engagement (California State University). A reading quiz can be
used to check student comprehension of the assigned readings to help the students
identify how to perceive the most important parts of what they read. Student summary
of another student’s answer can be used to promote active listening. After a student
answers a question, another student can be asked to summarize the first student’s
response. Concept mapping can be used to help students identify the connections
that exist between terms or concepts covered in the course material. This method
usually assists students with thinking deeper about the concepts and understanding
the material at a higher level.
Technology is another valuable tool that can be used to complement active learning
teaching strategies. Depending on the type of technology utilized, it can be used during
class time or outside of class time.
Many professors are using online learning components, which have been shown to
improve student academic performance (Prunuske, 2012). Online videos, clickers, or
online platforms for discussions/posts/homework are all examples of ways technology
can be incorporated into college level STEM courses.
Learning is active, personal, and intentional, not a passive process (Ross & Fulton, 1994).
Studies indicate that active learning has been effective in engaging students in the
learning process. Moreover, students actively engaged in their own learning experience
increased learning gains and enhanced retention of course material; therefore, they are
more likely to persist in STEM majors.
161
Suggestions for Future Research and Practice
The United States has developed as a global leader, in part due to the intelligence
and efforts of scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians. To ensure our
nation’s continued scientific and technological growth and advancement, supporting
undergraduate student success in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
disciplines is paramount (Espinosa, 2011). Currently, there are not enough people
from diverse populations, including women, participating in the STEM academic and
professional communities. Therefore, to remain as a competitive nation in STEM, it is
critical to create learning opportunities and pathways for all students, including those
from groups traditionally underrepresented in STEM, who are interested and capable
of pursuing education and careers in these fields. The need to broaden participation in
STEM is especially important for those who identify as African American or Black (Upton
and Tanenbaum, 2014). In that regard, Historically Black Colleges and Universities may
have a unique advantage in the nation’s efforts to significantly increase the participation
of this population (Upton, 2014). To support this effort, improved STEM pedagogical
practices, like active learning techniques, have been on the horizon for years. Recently,
these methods have gained increased significance given the desire of educators to
increase the numbers of women and minority students in STEM with the overall goal of
using innovative teaching strategies to benefit all students (Espinosa, 2011).
The value of the diversity of students is recognized when active learning is implemented
in STEM courses (Prunuske et al., 2012). As the body of worked on active learning
strategies in undergraduate STEM education expands, future research should focus
on the impact of innovative teaching strategies on underrepresented groups. It is
important for professors at all types of institutions to search for new ways to engage
all students and enhance the learning environment since the dynamic between faculty
and students in STEM courses impacts the students overall learning experience. If
professors engage students from diverse backgrounds, they are more likely to excel and
persist in STEM majors.
There are several open questions related to the impact of active learning teaching
techniques in college level STEM education. Future research in undergraduate STEM
education should include the following: how to optimize the use of technology in STEM
courses, how to integrate course content across STEM disciplines, how active learning
in a prerequisite course effects performance in subsequent courses, and how active
learning impacts student graduation rates in STEM majors. Increasing the girth of
knowledge on best practices in college level STEM education will lead to the United
States maintaining its position as a leader in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics.
162
References
Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2005). Infusing active learning into a large-enrollment biology
class: seven strategies, from the simple to the complex. Cell Biology Education: A
Journal of Life Science Education, 4(4): 262-268.
Barkley E.F. (2010). Student engagement techniques: A handbook for college faculty.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
California State University, Los Angeles. Active Learning for the College Classroom.
Retieved From the CaliforniaState University website: http://www.calstatela.
edu/dept/chem/chem2/Active/main.htm In-text reference:(California State
University)
Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences. (2016, July 15). Active Learning
in Post Secondary Mathematics Education. Retrieved from the Conference
Board of the Mathematical Science website: http://www.cbmsweb.org/In-text
reference:(Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, 2016)
Cronhjort, M., Filipsson, L., & Weurlander, M. (2017). Improved engagement and
learning in flipped-classroom calculus. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications:
An International Journal of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications.
Eison, J. (2010, March). Using Active Learning Instructional Strategies to Create

Excitement and Enhance Learning. University of South Florida.
Espinosa, L.L. (2011). Pipelines and Pathways: Women of Color in Undergraduate STEM
Majors and the College Experiences That Contribute to Persistence. Harvard
Educational Review, 81(2), 209-240.
Fink, L.D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to

designing college courses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Freeman S., Eddy S., McDonough M., Smith, M., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth,
M. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering,
and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences; 111(23).
Gasiewski, J.A., Eagan, M.K., Garcia, G.A., Hurtado, S., & Chang, M.J. (2012). From
gatekeeping to engagement: a multicontextual, mixed method study of student
academic engagement in introductory STEM courses. Research in Higher
Education, 53, 229-261.
Gatch, D. (2010). Restructuring introductory physics by adapting an active learning

studio model. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,
4(2).
Haq, I. (2017). ABC of Learning and Teaching in Medicine. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley
Blackwell.
Kogan, M., & Laursen, S. (2014). Assessing long-term effects of inquiry-based learning: a
case study from college mathematics. Innovative Higher Education, 39, 183–199.
Petrillo, J. (2016). On flipping first-semester calculus: a case study. International Journal

of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 47(4), 573-582.
163
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to Excel:

Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy. Retrieved from www.whitehouse.gov/
administration/eop/ostp/pcast/docsreports In text reference: (President’s
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2012)
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of
Prunuske, A., Batzli, J., Howell, E., & Miller, S. (2012). Using online lectures to make time
for active learning.Genetics, 192(1), 67-72.
Ross, M., & Fulton, R. (1994). Active learning strategies in the analytical chemistry
classroom. Journal of Chemistry Education, 71(2), 141-143.
Sahin A., Cavlazoglu B., & Zeytuncu Y. (2014). Flipping a College Calculus Course: A Case
Study. Educational Technology and Society, 18(3), 142-152.
Savery, J. (2015). Essential readings in problem based learning. West Lafayette, Indiana:
Purdue University Press.
Sharp, J.H. & Sharp, L.A. (2017). A comparison of student academic performance with
traditional, online, and flipped instructional approaches in a C# programming
course. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 16,
215-231.
Smith, K., Sheppard, S., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2005). Pedagogies of student
engagement: classroom based practices. Journal of Engineering Education: The
Research Journal for Engineering Education, 94(1), 87-101.
Smith, K., Clarke Douglas, T., & Cox, M. (2009). Supportive teaching and learning strategies
in STEM education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2009(117), 19-32.
Upton, R., Tanenbaum, C. (2014, September). The Role of Historically Black Colleges
and Universities as Pathway Providers: Institutional Pathways to the STEM PhD
Among Black Students. STEM at American Institutes for Research: Broadening
Participation in STEM Graduate Education.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015, March 23). Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Math: Education for Global Leadership. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/stem. In-text
reference: (U.S. Department of Education, 2015)
U.S. Department of Education. (2016, March 16). FactSheet: Spurring African-American

STEM Degree Completion. Retrieved from press@ed.gov In-text reference: (U.S.
Department of Education, 2016)
Yadav, A., Subedi, D., Lundeberg, M., & Bunting, C. (2011). Problem-based learning:
influence on students’ learning in an electrical engineering course. Journal Of
164
STEM Professional Development Policies in the United States:
Trends and Issues
Kristen D. Perez
Florida Atlantic University
David Devraj Kumar
Florida Atlantic University
Introduction
In this chapter, an overview of policies regarding professional development for science,

technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education in the United States,
as well as associated trends and issues, are presented and discussed. The historical
outcomes of the education system in the United States has altered legislation which
has, in turn, impacted specific subjects and professional development. The progression
of education and the pieces of legislative policies that advanced education in the
United States have shed light on the creation of professional development for STEM.
Professional Development Policies
In order to understand STEM education, one cannot overlook professional development

policies’ historical context. Education in the United States progressed slowly until the
mid to late 1800s. As the United States entered its industrial revolution period (1860-
1890), the role of schooling in society, in terms of curriculum and methodology, changed
(Del Giorno, 1967). The Nation’s welfare depended on the proper education of its
citizens; this created great concern for the future (Mackenzie, 1894). Concerns for the
Nation’s education prompted the leading educational organization, National Education
Association, to form the Committee of Ten in 1892. The Committee of Ten appointed
conference committees for nine subjects: 1. Latin; 2. Greek; 3. English; 4. Other Modern
Languages; 5. Mathematics; 6. Physics, Astronomy and Chemistry; 7. Natural History
(included Biology, botany, zoology, and physiology); 8. History, Civil Government and
Political Economy; and 9. Geography (National Education Association, 1894).
Organizing the subjects resulted in an increase in students taking science courses, as

well as the inclusion of labs for science whenever possible. Likewise, it gave rise to
the formation of a curriculum structure with defined subjects (Del Giorno, 1967).The
Committee of Ten also established the introduction of certain subjects early on in a
child’s education, and the provisions for instruction in all subjects for both college-
bound and non-college-bound students (National Education Association, 1894, 1918;
165
Weidner, 2004). These changes created opportunities and a need for teachers to
receive professional development.
In the latter part of the 19th century, professional development became a great concern
with the emergence of textbooks that questioned teaching methodology. These
textbooks addressed specific teaching methods, such as not using the textbook alone,
and allowing the student to discover things on his or her own (Del Giorno, 1967). During
this time, teachers received professional development by reading magazines (such as
Science), books, and letters (like the Preston Papers), field experience, and/or trainings
(such as those the Industrial Education Association offered to manual arts instructors).
This created unstructured professional development, or professional development that
occurred without financial assistance from the federal government.
To describe professional development, one must combine several definitions: First,

professional development is a teacher’s ongoing learning experience (Luft & Hewson,
2014). Christopher Day’s (1999) definition of professional development includes all-
natural learning experiences and planned activities intended to provide a direct or
indirect benefit to the individual or school. Through these activities, teachers “renew
and extend their commitment as change agents” (Day, 1999, p. 18). Summarizing these
definitions, one could operationally define professional development as a continuous
learning experience that has a direct and indirect impact on the teacher and the
teacher’s commitment as a change agent in his or her classroom.
There are implications for this definition in legislations at the state and federal levels. At
the state level, for example, in Milwaukee, WI, 1893, Dr. Lorenzo Dow Harvey organized
classes for teachers and principals. They were to meet every other Saturday to “stimulate
teachers’ professional reading and thought on the application of psychological principles
to the everyday situations of the schoolroom” (Bawden, 1950, p. 90). At the federal
level, professional development is first addressed informally in the Morrill Act of 1862,
and first addressed formally (funds allotted for professional development) in the 1978
amendments of Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
One must view the history of professional development -- whether for science,
technology, engineering, mathematics, or other subjects -- through the lens of
educational policy, curriculum, and tools for education. Taking this approach makes it
easier for one to see professional development’s transition from unstructured (which
still takes place today) to structured (mandated by federal and state policies).
A Brief Overview of STEM Professional Development Policies Past
From the mid 1800s to the early 1950s, science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics education took slightly different paths. This led the federal government
166
to pass legislation that directly impacted each subject differently. Teachers received
professional development for each subject in the 1800s and early 1900s mainly
through journal articles and books. By the mid 1900s, professional development for
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics educators had expanded to include
preparatory courses and some formally structured programs (Del Giorno, 1967; Hurd,
1961). As the nation entered the 1950s, the federal government had enriched itself
with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education policy. Educational
policies from this point forward included rhetoric related specifically to these subjects.
Much of the federal education policy in the 1990s and 2000s concentrated on standards,
assessment, and accountability (Hurst, Tan, Meek, & Sellers, 2003). States were under
federal mandates to create standards and assessments that required teachers to be
trained and educated on updates for each state’s educational directives. States had
to review and revamp many of the professional development programs that already
existed to accommodate these federal mandates. Moving into the 2000s, the federal
government embedded itself further into science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics education, as well as teacher professional development, with a major
educational reform act: No Child Left Behind.
STEM Education Professional Development Policies Present
The chief educational policies passed from 1950 to 1999 facilitated the transition
of professional development from solely unstructured, to both unstructured and
structured, providing trainings for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
teachers. The policies also offered much support and funding for the development
of curriculum for K-12 science and mathematics. Engineering and technology K-12
curriculum did not receive as many provisions as mathematics and science, but would
eventually receive attention in the 2000s. Along with funding and support came
mandates on the programs for research, placing science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics education and its professional development under much scrutiny.
STEM – a buzzword/term used in reference to science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics, and professional development and education related to these subjects
-- began to emerge among policy writers and education professionals.
The National Science Foundation coined STEM (science, technology, engineering,

and mathematics) some time in the early 1990s (Dugger, 2016a). Even though the
acronym included engineering and technology, when used, it most often referred to
mathematics and science. This could be because past federal policy stated that science
included engineering and technology; in many instances, engineering and technology
were described as tools used in education, rather than subjects in their own right. It
was not until 2010 that the term, STEM appeared in a federal policy and was defined
167
as “the academic and professional disciplines of science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics” (America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, 2011, §2). Just like the unclear
use of the acronym, STEM, the realm of professional development was murky. In turn,
it received criticism.
Progress Through the Teacher Pipeline: 1992–93 College Graduates and Elementary/
Secondary School Teaching as of 1997 acknowledged research that indicated K-12
teacher professional development was “viewed as inadequate by many scholars and
policymakers, and initiatives to improve [were abundant]” (Henke, Chen, & Geis, 2000,
p. 2). A core argument was that formal professional development would not have lasting
effects unless it was connected to the classroom (Fullen, 1991). The National Center for
Education Statistics (2001) found that only 18 percent of public school teachers felt that
professional development was connected to other programs at their schools.
It was also suggested that teachers were more likely to participate in professional
development that focused on state or district curriculum and performance standards
(80 percent), while 74 percent preferred integration of educational technology trainings,
and 72 percent preferred an “in-depth study of the subject area of the main teaching
assignment” (Parsad, Lewis, Farris, & Westat, 2001, p. 4). A study for mathematics and
science education indicated that instruction around use of technology in the classroom
was teachers’ most highly perceived need within professional development. Content
knowledge was teachers’ second most highly perceived need (mathematics and science
content for elementary teachers and science content only for middle school teachers;
high school teachers were not concerned with content knowledge) (Weiss, Banilower,
McMahon, & Smith, 2001). The findings in these studies, as well as with several others,
prompted policy writers to include provisions for professional development in the
rewrite of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, No Child Left Behind.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) included not only improvements for
professional development and stipulations for stronger accountability, but also
initiatives to help revitalize STEM education (United States Department of Education,
2012). The NCLB allowed funds to be combined from Title II of this Act (“preparing,
training, and recruiting high quality teachers and principals”), other Acts, and other
sources for professional development (No Child Left Behind, 2002, §1119).
It also specified that there should be a
“(2) focus on the education of mathematics and science teachers… [that

development] continuously stimulate teachers’ intellectual growth and upgrade
teachers’ knowledge and skills… (3) bring mathematics and science teachers…
together with scientists, mathematicians, and engineers to increase the subject
matter knowledge of mathematics and science teachers… (5) [and] improve and
168
expand training of mathematics and science teachers… in effective integration

of technology (§2201).”
The NCLB focused strongly on professional development in science and mathematics.

Engineering was encompassed in science, and technology education was viewed as it
had been in previous educational policies: a tool to enhance education.
The focus on professional development within mathematics and science education was
further established in NCLB through provisions to grow partnerships with mathematics
and science educational agencies outside of the classroom.
The Mathematics and Science Partnerships (MSPs) had a goal to improve students’
academic achievement in mathematics and science through quality instruction. The
MSPs’ purpose was to encourage higher institutes to improve teacher education for
mathematics and science teachers by “focus[ing] on the education of mathematics
and science teachers as a career-long process that continuously stimulates teachers’
intellectual growth and upgrades teachers’ knowledge and skills” (No Child Left Behind,
2002, §2201). The MSPs were to bring together educators and other professionals
in mathematics and sciences to improve teaching skills by exposing teachers to
sophisticated laboratory equipment and other resources. The creators of MSPs hoped
that teachers would be able to develop curriculum that aligned with the state’s standards,
and that teachers would enforce the “standards expected for postsecondary study in
engineering, mathematics, and science” in classrooms (No Child Left Behind, 2002,
§2201). To fulfill NCLB requirements, states were mandated to create assessments and
curriculum that aligned with standards. The assessments would show the long-term
trend in reading and mathematics for students, and create an avenue for improving
professional development.
By 2004, all states had professional development requirements for license renewal that
varied in criteria from superintendent recommendations to 150 hours of professional
development (Cavell, Blank, Toye, & Williams, 2004). 37 states had funds specifically
for professional development programs, 24 states established policies that aligned
professional development with state content standards, and 35 had standards in place
for professional development (Cavell, Blank, Toye, & Williams, 2004; Skinner, 2005).
States’ initiatives for professional development created an increase in teacher

participation, but “most teachers’ professional development experiences were not
of high quality” (National Science Board, 2006, p. 1-41). In 2007, Rising Above the
Gathering Storm stated that teachers were the key to improving student performance,
which influenced the government to place a stronger emphasis on STEM education in
the next federal policy.
169
In Rising Above the Gathering Storm (2007), a committee formed by the National
Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine,
voiced their concerns on the erosion of the scientific and technological building blocks
that were needed to maintain the United States’ economic leadership. The report
identified two key challenges connected to STEM skills: the creation of high-quality jobs
for Americans, and the nation’s need for affordable, clean, and reliable energy. The
committee recommended four actions to focus on helping the country to overcome
these challenges; one of the actions called for changes in K-12 education. This action step
was referred to as 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds and would recruit 10,000 science
and mathematics teachers annually, educating 10 million minds. Rising Above the
Gathering Storm (2007) acknowledged the teacher shortage. Likewise, it acknowledged
that students had only a 40 percent chance of having a teacher for chemistry who had
majored in the subject. If the subject were English, however, that possibility rose to 80
percent (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute
of Medicine, 2007). Rising Above the Gathering Storm (2007) specified a need for
professional development opportunities that were high-quality, focused on content, had
a significant effect on student performance, included year-long mentoring, contained
pedagogical strategies, and provided high-quality curricular materials. To tackle the
goal of 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds, federal policymakers drafted a bill to provide
resources for the enhancement of STEM education and professional development.
The America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology,

Education, and Science Act of 2007, or America COMPETES Act, was “an Act to invest
in innovation through research and development, and to improve the competitiveness
of the United States” (intro.). The America COMPETES Act Title VI was devoted
to education, and allotted grants for teachers to earn master’s degrees in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics education. The America COMPETES Act
authorized programs for teachers to experience research, and created other professional
development opportunities to enhance teachers’ science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics content knowledge. The “National Panel on Promising Practices in
K-12 STEM Teaching and Learning” was tasked with “identifying promising practices for
improving teaching and student achievement in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics” (§6131).
Technology and engineering, for what seemed like the first time in a federal educational
policy, were treated as separate subjects, and the acronym, STEM was used. It was not
until the Act was reauthorized in 2010 as the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act
that STEM was defined. In December 2007, America’s economy began to show signs of
instability. The federal government signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009 (ARRA) to avert education cuts (United States Department of Education,2009a).
170
The ARRA allotted $4.35 billion in funds for a competitive grant program called
Race to the Top. A criterion on the application required states to include a plan for
high-quality professional development, and the government gave priority to STEM-
focused applications (United States Department of Education, 2009b). The monetary
investments from ARRA and Race to the Top provided education the means to continue
to move forward. According to the Nation’s Report Card 1990-2007 and the Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study or TIMSS 1995 and 2007 reports, overall,
the nation was making progress. In 2010, the America COMPETES Act was reauthorized
to continue the growth of STEM education.
In America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, there were many provisions for improvement
in education and professional development for science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics. The Office of Science and Technology Policy established a committee –
CoSTEM -- to coordinate Federal STEM education and STEM programs (§101). CoSTEM
was tasked with creating a five-year strategic plan that pledged money for recruiting
high-quality STEM teachers, producing high-quality professional development,
strengthening the infrastructure for supporting STEM instruction and engagement, and
providing STEM resources and equipment (National Science and Technology Council
Committee on STEM Education, 2011). In America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, each
letter in the acronym, STEM was used liberally throughout the policy as an abbreviation
for its associated subject -- not to describe an integration of the subjects.
The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 brought about more changes to
STEM education. A section entitled Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
Support Programs, which housed the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of
2010, reflected many advances. This act made available $9.3785 billion to be used for
education and human resources at the National Science Foundation (§503).
This allotment of funds to the National Science Foundation (NSF) was important
to STEM education because in 2012, an analysis of federal funds suggested that the
majority of STEM education funding and professional development came from the NSF.
This analysis stated that the NSF was a “key component of the federal STEM education
effort” (Gonzalez, 2012, p. 1).
A 2010 report by the Committee on Standards for K–12 Engineering Education

emphasized the lack of attention that the “T” and “E” in STEM had historically received.
The America COMPETES Act of 2007 and America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of
2010 seemed to be the first federal education policies to pull technology and engineering
out from under the umbrella of science. Though it was not very clear in the policies,
the “T” in STEM was addressed in education as a tool to help improve or enhance the
curriculum of other subjects.
171
For technology education to take a stand among the major subjects, a clear definition
– in addition to standards – was necessary. The first standards written for technology
education were the 2000 Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study
of Technology (2000/2002/2007). Within these standards, technology and technology
education were defined.
“Technology is the innovation, change, or modification of the natural world

or environment to satisfy perceived human wants and needs…Technology
education is [further] a study of technology, which provides an opportunity for
students to learn about the process and knowledge related to technology that
are needed to solve problems and extend human capabilities” (International
Technology Education Association, 2007, p. 242).
Having a clear definition of technology, technology education, and standards provided

the “T” in STEM with the foundation to become its own entity during the 2015
Elementary and Secondary Education rewrite debates.
In the same 2010 report, The Committee on Standards for K-12 Engineering Education
provided several reasons as to why engineering had yet to create K-12 standards. The
Committee stated that engineering education was strongly connected to science,
mathematics, and technology. The standards for engineering education were the same
as the standards for these subjects. Thus, engineering education did not need its own.
Another rationale was that K-12 engineering was still in its infancy, making it difficult
for engineering education to stand on its own (Committee on Standards for K–12
Engineering Education, 2010). However, engineering education was not without some
guidelines. The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) adopted
Engineering Criteria (EC) 2000 in 1996.
The criteria that EC2000 and later amendments set were directed toward post-
secondary education programs. This did not prevent K-12 educators from using the
EC2000’s criteria to create curriculum for the “E” in STEM. From 2010 to 2015, STEM
education and professional development for each of these content areas experienced
growth. The federal government’s focused on creating integrated curriculum for STEM,
and on recruiting highly qualified STEM teachers.
In order to practice the integration of STEM, educators fashioned curriculum by using

the standards that the “National Council of Teachers of Mathematics’ Principles and
Standards for School Mathematics (2000) , the National Research Council’s National
Science Education Standards (1996) , Standards for Technological Literacy (2000), the
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology’s Engineering Criteria 2000 (1997),
and the Common Core State Standards Initiative for Mathematics (2011)” (Asunda,
2012, p. par. 18) had set forth.
172
The government debated STEM-specific standards, but had not yet set federal mandates.
Though still on rocky ground, curriculum for STEM education was advancing. Teachers
for STEM education, on the other hand, were in short supply, and many teachers were
expected to retire over the next several years. These issues prompted the White House
to run a campaign to recruit more STEM educators.
In 2011, President Obama set out to obtain 100,000 well-qualified mathematics and
science teachers in ten years. The 100Kin10 was launched through the efforts of the
Carnegie Corporation of New York and Opportunity Equation, to meet the President’s
goal. The 100Kin10’s objective was to help train and retain STEM teachers by bringing
together various sectors (i.e. federal, corporate, universities, and nonprofits). By August
2013, 100Kin10 had raised over $53 million, and was committed to training 40,000
teachers by 2016 (National Science Board, 2014). The debate over criteria and plans
for reaching the President’s goal and stalling ESEA’s reauthorization made it necessary
for President Obama to provide waivers for stipulations in the No Child Left Behind Act.
The NCLB included a deadline: all students needed to be proficient in math and reading
by 2014. The waiver provided states with the flexibility to create their own plans for
failing schools, as well as student-achievement goals (McNeil & Klein, 2011). The
requirements for states to utilize the waiver included the creation of standards that
focused on college and career readiness, and the development of teacher evaluations
based on students’ performance. The exchange over the flexibility of NCLB’s mandates
caused a shift in the theme of teacher professional development, from primarily
content-focused to standards-based instruction emphasis. The National Survey of
Science and Mathematics Education (2012) reported that 64 percent of science and
76 percent of mathematics teachers had participated in professional development
directed toward states’ science and mathematics standards (Banilower, Smith, Weiss,
Malzahn, Campbell, & Weis, 2013).
These findings countered those in 2000, when most science and mathematics teachers
indicated that professional development was content-focused (Weiss, Banilower,
McMahon, & Smith, 2001).
In 2015, after much debate and many amendments, the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act was reauthorized as Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The Nation’s
commitment to equal opportunity for all students was renewed. The ESSA included
STEM education and professional development, but not to the extent proposed in the
first drafts. It required the integration of engineering design skills and practices into
the states’ science assessments (§1201). In addition, states were expected to carry out
programs that provided alternative routes for state certification, “especially for teachers
of… science, technology, engineering, mathematics” (§2101).
173
The ESSA made states and local agencies responsible for developing and providing
professional development for teachers to promote high-quality instruction in science,
technology, engineer, ing, mathematics, and computer science (§2101, §2103). The
ESSA allotted grants for STEM partnerships, which would replace the MSPs that were no
longer receiving funding, and mandated that teachers with professional development
instruction regarding the use of technology to enhance student achievement in STEM
areas, including computer science (§4109). The ESSA used the acronym STEM to refer
to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics which under the section, “well-
rounded educational opportunities.” The ESSA provided local education agencies with
funds to create opportunities such as programs and activities for STEM (§4107). The
ESSA contained a section for “STEM Master Teacher Corps,” which were “State-led
effort[s] to elevate the status of the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
teaching profession” (§2245). Another use of the acronym described what a “STEM-
focused Specialty School” was:
“a school, or dedicated program within a school that engages students in

rigorous, relevant, and integrated learning experiences focused on science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics, including computer science, which
include authentic schoolwide research” (§4102).
The ESSA used the term, “integration” in conjunction with STEM, though it provided
no further clarification on what this integration should have been for curriculum or
standards development. Under the current federal educational policy – ESSA -- each
subject (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) has been addressed
in some fashion. The policy still favors science and mathematics education, but it
also tackles technology and engineering. In ESSA, the integration of STEM emerges,
and professional development for STEM teachers is created or enhanced to include
integration.
Discussion
The following discussion will identify any trends and issues in STEM education profes-
sional development policies
Trends
Based on the information stated above, it is obvious that professional development

in STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) has varied
widely in the past, but is progressing in similar ways in the present. In the past,
professional development for STEM lacked structure, policy, and adequate curriculum
materials and other resources. The emphasis on individual subjects such as science,
174
technology, engineering and mathematics was high, and there was competition among
these subjects for prominence and attention. This inspired individuals, groups, and
organizations to create, offer, and participate in professional development depending
on the STEM subject.
At the beginning of the twenty-first century, legislation impacted educational programs

for students, as well as professional development workshops that science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics teachers attended. The federal government passed
several policies that had major ramifications for these subjects’ curriculum, standards,
and professional development. The “T” and “E” in STEM began to assert themselves
and create their own identities, separate from mathematics and science.
The NCLB was a comprehensive bill that brought accountability to education and
stressed the need for interactions between America’s STEM businesses and STEM
education. The America COMPETES Act placed heavy emphasis on STEM education
and teacher recruitment for these subjects. Both the America COMPETES Act and the
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act stipulated provisions to strengthen teaching
and learning in the primary and secondary levels of STEM education. Both policies
provided funding to the National Science Foundation for professional growth trainings,
program and curriculum development, and standards geared toward the integration of
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
President Obama’s goal of 100,000 teachers for STEM is well on its way to being achieved.
The 100Kin10 program has trained more than 40,000 STEM teachers, and has received
tens of thousands of dollars to improve teachers’ skills and provide support to help
keep STEM educators in the classroom longer (100Kin10, 2016).
The ESSA has delivered a foundation for STEM education and its integration. The “T” in
STEM has become stronger. Technology is an elective area in most states; over 28,000
men and women teach it (Dugger, 2016b). Technology education is now well-defined;
and standards for the subject are in place.
The “E” in STEM is slowly progressing; some promising things are developing in the field.
In Framework for Quality K-12 Engineering Education (2014) authors Moore, Glancy,
Tank, Kersten, Smith, and Stohlmann proposed a clear definition for K-12 engineering
education programs. These advances will help guide policy makers and educators in
the creation of curriculum and standards for engineering, and in the integration of
engineering in STEM (Moore, Glancy, Tank, Kersten, Smith, & Stohlmann, 2014).
STEM no longer places emphasis on science and/or mathematics alone. Each content
area in the acronym is now addressed individually. In addition, the National Engineering
Council and the National Research Council of the National Academies considers the
175
integration of these subjects vital to the success of the nation’s sustainability in

innovation and foundation for successful employment. Even though the most recent
federal educational policy – ESSA -- did not define STEM in terms of curriculum and
standard-integration, it did contain provisions to form STEM-based programs and
professional development models. STEM education continues to advance, and STEM
educators will receive the training and support they need to help nurture the nation’s
aspiring scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians: the future “STEMists.”
Issues
As noted earlier, there is an expectation that teachers develop curriculum that

aligns with standards and complies with NCLB’s requirements. The NCLB’s increased
accountability mandates to states to create assessments in reading and mathematics
opened up opportunities for professional development through Math Science
Partnerships (No Child Left Behind, 2002). However, as Trivedi (2014) pointed out, a
lack of adequate accountability measures continues to haunt professional development
in STEM education. Considering the integrated nature of a set of distinct disciplines,
establishing a set of unified assessments is not an easy task. Additionally, gender and
socioeconomic achievement gaps, accessibility gaps, and poor teacher quality continue
to add more challenges to STEM professional development.
Massimo (2015) and Hademenos (2017) observed similar issues, and suggested
strategies -- such as revising structured, traditional, compartmentalized curriculum into
integrated STEM curriculum, and developing suitable STEM teaching methods, as well
as motivational learning activities and assessments – to overcoming these challenges. In
context, teacher expertise is crucial. Considering the present state of the teaching force
in science, technology, engineering and mathematics -- the limited teacher expertise
and experience, especially in the elementary grades -- it is difficult for teachers to fully
integrate these disciples into successful STEM lessons. On the other hand, forcing
teachers at the secondary level with well-structured, discipline-based expertise to
accommodate other disciplines in the name of STEM education is not without issues. As
a case in point Kumar, Thomas, Morris, Tobias, Baker and Jermanovich (2011a, 2011b)
noticed elementary teachers benefited significantly more than secondary teachers in
a science professional development effort. This reflected the need for more science
in elementary teacher development. University faculty from science, technology,
engineering and mathematics could successfully partner with teachers to make STEM
integration more meaningful in teacher professional development. See Kumar and
Altschuld (2008) for an example of how such a partnership was behind a successful,
NSF-funded teacher preparation project in science.
As Marder (2013) stated, though integrating science, technology, engineering and
176
mathematics under STEM is a worthy undertaking, “we—the scientists, mathematicians,

and engineers who will be asked to help implement the new standards—do not ourselves
always possess the full set of skills that STEM education will ask of our students” (p.
150). Morever, in an overcrowded curriculum, pressuring teachers to find time for cross-
disciplinary themes and activities in STEM is a complicated matter that needs carefully
thought-out professional development efforts, regardless of elementary, middle or
secondary level. Since school districts evaluate teacher performance, they must be
involved in professional development so that teachers are not set up to fail -- asked to
do one thing, and then evaluated on something else.
Limitation of appropriate contexts where multiple competencies from the STEM

disciplines can overlap poses an obstacle to successful STEM implementation
(Massimo, 2015). Not every concept cuts across science, technology, engineering and
mathematics. This leaves teachers with the task of hunting for overlapping contexts,
limiting successful implementation of STEM in schools.
When it comes to funding STEM professional development with public (e.g., NSF) and
private funds, STEM education is not without its critics. For example, according to
Zakaria (2015) “consider America’s vast entertainment industry, built around stories,
songs, design and creativity. All of this requires skills far beyond the offerings of a
narrow STEM curriculum” (n.p.). There is no simple response to such criticisms. As
Zakaria (2015) continued, “America overcomes its disadvantage — a less-technically-
trained workforce — with other advantages such as creativity, critical thinking and an
optimistic outlook.
A country like Japan, by contrast, can’t do as much with its well-trained workers because
it lacks many of the factors that produce continuous innovation” (n.p.). The STEM
education community should take such criticisms into account, seriously reflecting
on the advantages and disadvantages of STEM education. It should approach STEM
professional development with caution, especially where public funds, such as systemic
educational reforms, are involved. Program evaluation plays a key role in this.
As Anderson (2002) pointed out, “the nature of systemic reform is complex and no
one evaluation study has sufficient resources and time to fully investigate the breath
and depth of all the components of restructuring education systems. Systemic reform
involves the simultaneous restructuring of many components of the education system in
order to improve simultaneously the academic performance of all students at all levels
of the K-12 system” (p. 72). STEM education professional development is a complex
systemic reform. Therefore, more comprehensive evaluation (Kumar & Altschuld,
2002) and needs assessment ought to be employed to determine “what is (the current
status or state) and “what should be (the desired status or state)” (Altschuld & Kumar,
177
2010, p. 3) and to guide effective policies leading to successful classroom practices in

science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
Final Note
On a final note, it is extremely important that developers of STEM professional education

policies build these policies on foundations of sound, evidence-based research. If not,
“policymakers are often left with no choice but to base decisions affecting science
[technology, engineering and mathematics] education on the face value of what
are often not-so-well-informed research and development efforts, project findings
of limited scope, and personal opinions of politicians” (Kumar & Altschuld, 2003, p.
561). Likewise, contributions from fields such as the Learning Sciences in improving
our understanding of learning should not be overlooked in developing effective STEM
professional development policies (Kumar, 2017). STEM professional development
remains a fertile field for research and development in K-12 education in the United
States, and developing policies that facilitate successful STEM professional development
will be critical from here on out.
References
100Kin10. (2016). We are a coalition transforming the future of STEM education. 100Kin10.
Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/100kin10-files/100Kin10-2016-Annual-
Report.pdf
Altschuld, J. W., & Kumar, D. D. (2010). Needs assessment: An overview. CA: Sage
Publications.
Anderson, B. (2002). Evaluating systemic reform. Evaluating needs, practices, and

challenges. In Altschuld, J. W., & Kumar, D. D. (Eds) Evaluation of science and
technology education at the dawn of a new millennium. New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers.
America COMPETES Act, Pub. L. No. 110-69, 121 Stat. 572 (2007).
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-358, 124 Stat. 3982
(2011).
Asunda, P. A. (2012). Standards for technological literacy and STEM education delivery
through career and technical education programs. Journal of Technology
Education, 23(2). Retrieved from https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v23n2/
asunda.html
Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weis, A. M.
(2013). Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education.
Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.
Bawden, W. T. (1950). Leaders in industrial education. Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce

Publishing Company. Retrieved from https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.
$b619535;view=1up;seq=7
178
Cavell, L., Blank, R. K., Toye, C., & Williams, A. (2004). Key State education policies on
PK-12 Education: 2004. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Committee on Standards for K–12 Engineering Education. (2010). Standards for K-12
engineering education? Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
Day, C. (1999). Developing teachers: The challenges of lifelong learning. London: Falmer
Press.
Del Giorno, B. J. (1967). The impact of changing scientific knowledge on science

education in the United States since 1850. The University of Connecticut. Ann
Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, Inc.
Dugger, W. E. (2016a). Evolution of STEM in the United States. XXII International

Conference on Technological Education in Schools, Colleges, and Universities
(pp. 1-43). Moscow, Russia: ITEEA. Retrieved from https://www.iteea.org/File.
aspx?id=96139&v=535ac9f0
Dugger, W. E. (2016b). Technology education in the United States. XXII International

Conference on Technological Education in Schools, Colleges, and Universities.
Moscow, Russia: ITEEA. Retrieved from https://www.iteea.org/File.
aspx?id=99041&v=8cc2c3f0
Every Student Succeeds Act, Pub. L. No. 114-95, 129 Stat. 1803 (2015).
Fullen, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change Michael G. Fullan with
Suzanne Stiegelbauer. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Gonzalez, H. B. (2012). An analysis of STEM education funding at the NSF: Trends and
policy discussion. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.
Hademenos, G. (2017). The problem (and possible solution) of STEM education. Austin,
TX: The Science Teachers Association of Texas.
Henke, R. R., Chen, X., & Geis, S. (2000). Progress Through the Teacher Pipeline: 1992–
93 College Graduates and Elementary/Secondary School Teaching as of 1997.
National Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement. United States of America: United States Department of Education.
Hurst, D., Tan, A., Meek, A., & Sellers, J. (2003). Overview and Inventory of State Education
Reforms: 1990 to 2000. National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Education.
Hurd, P. D. (1961). Biological education in American secondary schools, 1890-
1960. Retrieved from https://babel-hathitrust-org.ezproxy.fau.edu/cgi/
pt?id=mdp.39015070535466;view=1up;seq=8
International Technology Education Association. (2007). Standards for Technological

Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology. Reston, VA: International Technology
Education Association.
179
Kumar, D. D. (2017). Analysis of an integrated technology supported problem-based

learning STEM project using Selected Learning Sciences Interest Areas (SLSIA).
International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(1),
53-61.
Kumar, D. D., Thomas, P. V., Morris, J. D., Tobias, K., Baker, M., & Jermanovich,
T. (2011a). Effect of current electricity simulation supported learning on the
conceptual understanding of elementary and secondary teachers. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 20(2), 111-115.
Kumar, D. D., Thomas, P. V., Morris, J. D., Tobias, K., Baker, M., & Jermanovich, T.
(2011b). Erratum. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(2),
116.)
Kumar, D. D., & Altschuld, J. W. (2008). University science and education faculty
partnership in teacher preparation: Role of a technology innovation. Science
& Society, 6(2), 197-202.
Kumar, D. D., & Altschuld, J. W. (Eds.) (2003). Science education policy: A symposium.
The Review of Policy Research, 20(4), 561-645.
Kumar, D. D., & Altschuld, J. W. (2002). Complementary approaches to evaluating

technology in science teacher education. In Altschuld, J. W., & Kumar, D. D.
(Eds.), Evaluation of science and technology education at the dawn of a new
millennium. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Luft, J. A., & Hewson, P. W. (2014). Research on teacher professional development

programs in science. In N. G. Lederman, & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of
Research on science education (pp. 889-909). Retrieved from https://www-
routledgehandbooks-com.ezprox
Mackenzie, J. C. (1894). The Report of the Committee of Ten. The School Review, 2(3),
146-155.
Marder, M. (2013). Perspectives on interdisciplinary science education. CBE-Life

Sciences Education, 12, 148-150.
Massimo, A. (2015). Stem education and the curriculum: Issues, tensions and challenges.
International STEM high-level policy forum on “evidence-based science education
in developing countries,” Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
McNeil, M., & Klein, A. (2011). Obama offers waivers from key provisions of NCLB: Plan
waives cornerstone provisions of law. Education Week, 31(5), 1, 20-21.
Moore, T. J., Glancy, A. W., Tank, K. M., Kersten, J. A., Smith, K. A., & Stohlmann, M.
S. (2014). A Framework for Quality K-12 Engineering Education: Research and
Development. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 4(1), 1-13.
Morrill Act of 1862, U.S.C. 321(1862).
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of

Medicine. (2007). Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing
America for a Brighter Economic Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.17226/11463
180
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
National Education Association. (1894). Report of the Committee of ten on secondary

school studies. New York: American book company. Retrieved from https://
archive.org/details/reportofcomtens00natirich
National Education Association. (1918). Commission on the reorganization of secondary

education. Washington: Government Printing Office. Retrieved from https://
archive.org/details/cardinalprin
National Science and Technology Council Committee on STEM Education. (2011). The
Federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education
portfolio. Washington, D.C.: Executive Office of the President.
National Science Board. (2006). America’s pressing challenge– Building a stronger

foundation: A Companion to science and engineering indicators 2006. Arlington,
VA: National Science Foundation.
National Science Board. (2014). Science and Engineering Indicators

2014. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 14-01).
Parsad, B., Lewis, L., Farris, E., & Westat. (2001). Teacher preparation and
professional development: 2000. U.S. Department of Education. Washington,
D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.
Skinner, R. A. (2005). State of the States. Education Week, 24(17), 77-79.
Trivedi, V. (2014). What is wrong with STEM education? Retrieved from https://www.
huffingtonpost.com/vinay-trivedi/stem-education_b_5101816.html
United States Department of Education. (2009a). The American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act of 2009: Education Jobs and Reform. Retrieved from U.S.
Department of Education: https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/
factsheet/overview.html
United States Department of Education. (2009b). Race to the Top Program Executive
Summary and Key Policy Details. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://www2.
ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf
United States Department of Education. (2012). About ED/Overview: The federal role
in education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html
Weidner, L. (2004). The N.E.A. Committee of Ten. Retrieved from History of American
Education: Progressive Period: https://www3.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/
neacom10.html
Weiss, I. R., Banilower, E. R., McMahon, K. C., & Smith, P. S. (2001). Report of the 2000
National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon
Research, Inc.
181
Zakaria, F. (2015). Why America’s obsession with STEM education is dangerous. The
Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/
why-stem-wont-make-us-successful/2015/03/26/5f4604f2-d2a5-11e4-ab77-
9646eea6a4c7_story.html?utm_term=.3ce109d5b758
182
STEM Reasoning and Learning via Science Modeling and

Engineering Design Challenges
Kathy L. Malone
Nazarbayev University
Introduction
The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) and Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA) studies have shown that many countries across
the world need to improve not only student content scores in science and mathematics
but also their reasoning skills (Mullis, Martin, Goh, & Cotter, 2016; OECD, 2016). The
OECD has recommended that these nations consider implementing authentic practices
in STEM education. Two authentic practices that could be implemented by these nations
include model-based science curriculum units (Gilbert, 2004; Jackson, Dukerich, &
Hestenes (2008), Passmore, Stewart, & Cartier, 2009; Windschitl, Thompson & Braaten,
2008) as well as the introduction of engineering design challenges (Zeid, Chin, Duggan
& Kamarthi, 2014).
Model-Based Pedagogical Techniques
Model-based pedagogies are either based on the use of existing models to make
predictions or the development of models from empirical data using a modeling cycle.
Model-based science is an authentic practice as it is routinely utilized by scientists.
Scientists are continually developing theoretical or empirical models consisting of
multiple representations (Hestenes, 2010; Kozma, 2003).
Model-based pedagogies make use of scientific models in different ways. One model-
based intervention in biology was developed by Passmore and Stewart (2002). They
developed a model-based curriculum that introduced students to already existing
models of natural selection. Students’ were asked to deploy the models while problem
solving using real world data. During these deployments students could either confirm
or refute the existing models they were presented.
An empirical approach, Modeling Instruction, was developed for physics education

by Wells, Hestenes and Swackhamer (1995). This program scaffolded students in
the development of lab activities in order to collect data pertinent to the scientific
phenomena under study. The collected data was then analyzed in order to construct a
scientific model along with its multiple representations. The student generated models
were then deployed during problem solving activities.
183
The models developed within the context of this curriculum are continually revised
based upon the model’s ability to be predictive in multiple contexts. But, models and
modeling cycles can be defined in multiple ways.
What is a Model?
In this article a scientific model is thought to be either conceptual or mental in nature

(National Research Council, 2012). Mental models can only be made visible through
the conceptual model representations produced by students. These conceptual model
representations allow the scientific phenomena being studied to be made more
understandable as well as predictable by students through the use of these multiple
representations. These representations can include, graphs, algebraic equations,
verbal descriptions, pictorial drawings as well computer simulations. These explicit
representations produced by students allows them to better understand their implicit
mental models. An example of the scientific model of constant velocity along with
some of its representations can be seen in Figure 1. Expert problem solvers can easily
switch between the model representations thus improving their ability to solve more
complex problems (Harrison & Treagust, 2000).
Figure 1. Constant Velocity Model and Its Representations (adapted from

Dukerich, 2015)
Models and the Modeling Cycle
Scientific models and their associated representations are created within a modeling
cycle. One modeling cycle that has been used extensively within the Modeling
Instruction pedagogy includes model development and model deployment (Jackson et
al, 2008). This simplified cycle can be expanded into a more in-depth model (see Figure
2). At the beginning of the modeling cycle students encounter scientific phenomena
such as a car moving at a constant velocity. The students discuss what variables can
184
be collected via hands-on activities. They design an experiment and collect data. Using
the data collected the students can develop the scientific model along with its multiple
representations. The newly developed model can then be used to predict outcomes
for both the original phenomena as well as similar phenomena in different contexts.
When the initial model fails students can refine the model allowing it to become more
predictive in diverse situations. When the model fails to be predictive in a new situation
or context the students may have to start over by developing a new model that will be
predictive in this new situation. For example, this can occur when students attempt to
use the constant velocity model to predict outcomes for a situation where the object is
moving at a constant acceleration. In this situation the students realize after attempting
to revise the constant velocity model that a new model is required. Thus they develop
a model of constant acceleration.
Figure 2. The Scientific Modeling Cycle
Engineering Design Challenges
Engineering design challenges have been used at many grade levels from kindergarten
to university level. The challenges are developed so that they sustain student interest
while making use of the engineering design process (EDP). The challenges are usually
based on real-world problems for which students can construct viable solutions making
use EDP and their knowledge of a variety of academic subjects. The key to a good
engineering challenge is that it must be open ended enough to allow for multiple solution
paths (i.e., there is no “right” answer to the problem). An example of an engineering
design challenge would be to assign the problem of how to control an invasive species.
This can be a complex problem that becomes even more complex when one of the
constraints of the problem is that groups must have an ecologically friendly solution
(Malone, Schuchardt & Schunn, 2018). Thus, engineering design challenges lead to
higher order problem solving that requires the use of collaboration, communication,
creativity and systems thinking. During the creation of a solution the students working
185
on engineering design challenges discover that failure can be a positive motivator

during the problem-solving process by allowing for improvements in the final prototype
or process. Thus failure is an expectation of any design challenge. In addition, the
challenges drive home the idea that engineers have a desire to improve the world for
its inhabitants.
Engineering Design Process
The engineering design process (EDP) is an iterative process that engineers advance
through when solving an engineering design challenge and producing a final solution.
There is not a single process that has been approved by all engineers and EDP can range
from a complicated cycle to only a few steps.
A simplified version would start with the introduction to the problem and discovering
the constraints of the problem (see figure 3). This step, the asking stage, allows the team
to clarify the problem as well as conduct background research into the science behind
the problem. After a through understanding of the problem students can brainstorm
solutions and decide on initial tentative solutions, during the imagining stage. During
the planning stage, the team must propose the development of the solution by
diagramming a possible solution and deciding on the materials to be utilized. After
diagramming the possible solution, the team must create the prototype or process and
test out the possible solution during the creating stage. Finally during the improving
stage of EDP, they must determine the pros and cons of the solution based upon their
testing. This leads them to understand the idea of failure which leads to improvements
of the design. Thus, while improving the design they can be led to more questions and
a recreation of the design moving back to the asking stage.
Figure 3. A Simplified Engineering Design Process
As students engage with EDP they will discover that the process can be used in multiple
contexts not simply STEM fields. This new understanding of EDP gives them a problem-
solving process to incorporate into their lifelong learning goals.
186
Adding the Arts to STEM = STEAM
The use of engineering design challenges can allow for integration of STEM concepts.
However, the introduction of the arts can convert the integration from STEM to STEAM.
One such STEAM integration has been attempted by the incorporation of dramatic
inquiry and dance into primary school STEM curriculum units. Dramatic inquiry (DI) is a
dialogic inquiry and dramatic play-based pedagogy (Edmiston, 2014) One DI approach
is the “Mantle of the Expert” which positions students as expert engineers while
allowing them to engage in scientific inquiry (Heathcote & Bolton, 1995). This approach
allows students to take on the role of expert engineers as they attempt to solve an
engineering design challenge in an authentic fashion. In addition, other components of
artistic expression can also be included into the units such as interpreting the transfer
of energy during a windmill engineering design challenge via interpretative dance
movements. This kinesthetic approach to engineering challenges and EDP allows
students to become more engaged in the STEM subjects thus heightening their interest.
The Efficacy of Authentic Practices
Several studies have shown that the use of modeling-based units and engineering design
challenges at all levels of instruction have improved students’ knowledge of science as
well as other skills such as scientific reasoning and problem-solving.
Research Supporting Modeling Based Practices
Modeling-based practices have been shown to be effective at many different grade

levels. In primary schools modeling-based practices have been used to develop
students’ ability to explain science concepts (Archer, Arca, & Sanmarti, 2007) as well
as their use of modeling practices to reason about scientific phenomena (Zangori &
Forbes,2015). Lehrer and Schauble (2005) have shown that young children can progress
from modeling science ideas through the use of literal representations to more symbolic
and mathematical representations during primary grades. Thus, modeling is a viable
approach for students in these primary grades.
The majority of the research concerning modeling-based practices has taken place within
secondary schools. In secondary schools in the United States, Modeling Instruction
has been the most extensive investigated modeling-based approach to science. It
has demonstrated improvements in conceptual knowledge along with declines in
alternative conceptions in physics (Hestenes, Wells, & Swackhamer, 1992; Jackson et
al, 2008; Malone, 2008; Liang, Fulmer, Majerich, Clevenstine, Howanski, 2012); biology
(Malone, Schuchardt, & Sabree, in press) and chemistry (Malone & Schuchardt, 2016).
187
A similar modeling-based approach that incorporated engineering design challenges

also demonstrated an increase in student conceptual knowledge over the course of a
unit (Malone et al, 2018; Schuchardt & Schunn, 2016).
Multiple model-based practices in science have also demonstrated an increase in the

use of multiple representations in multiple subject areas (Harrison & Treagust, 2000,
Malone, 2008, Malone et al, 2018, Tsui & Treagust, 2013). Multiple representational
use might be the key factor to the improved problem solving and metacognitive skills
developed by Modeling Instruction physics students observed by Malone (2008). The
improvement of scientific reasoning skills when modeling-based practices are deployed
have been observed by several researchers (Coletta, Phillips, & Steinert, 2007; O’brien
& Thompson, 2008; Schuchardt et al, 2008). These model-based practices have also
demonstrated increases in students’ modeling skills in chemistry (Dori & Kaberman,
2012) and in biology (Passmore & Stewart, 2000).
Research Supporting Engineering Design Challenges
Engineering design challenges have been used effectively at many different grade levels.
The use of engineering design challenges has produced conceptual gains in biology and
physical science at multiple levels of schooling including college (Sahin, 2010), high
school (Apedoe, Reynolds, Ellefson, & Schunn, 2008; Ellefson, Brinker, Vernacchio, &
Schunn, 2008; Malone, et al, 2018; Zeid et al, 2014), middle school (Mehalik, Doppelt,
& Schunn, 2008) and elementary school (Lachapelle, Oh, & Cunningham, 2017).
The use of engineering design challenges have also produced increases in scienctific
reasoning skills in eighth grade students (Silk, Schunn & Cary, 2009), mathematical
understanding of secondary schoool students (Hernandez et al, 2014; Schuchardt &
Schunn, 2016), and student engagement at all levels (Doppelt, Mehalik, Schunn, &
Krysinski, 2008; Lachapelle & Cunningham, 2017; Malone, et al, 2018). The integration
of dramatic inquiry and other artistic endeavours with engineering design challenges
has demonstarted an increase in elementary students’ understanding of engineering,
tehcnology and science concepts (Tiarani, Irving, Malone, Giasi, & Kajfez, 2018).
Discussion and Implications
The authentic practices of scientific modeling and engineering design challenges have
been shown to improve student abilities in a multitude of areas. The incorporation of
these practices within classrooms at all levels of schooling should affect the expertise
of students in terms of content, problem-solving and reasoning skills. By enhancing
students’ abilities in these areas, we can produce competent science students ready
to be lifelong learners and successful STEM college students. In fact, there is a strong
correlation between higher scientific reasoning ability and success in STEM courses
both in college and high school courses (Coletta & Phillips, 2005; Coletta, et al, 2007). A
188
concerted effort to implement these authentic practices at all grade levels should allow
for the production of a strong STEM pipeline ensuring the necessary STEM professionals
for the future development of all countries.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The implementation of authentic practices given the knowledge that success in STEM
courses is correlated to scientific reasoning ability makes their incorporation into STEM
classes worldwide an equity issue. If we want all students to succeed to their utmost,
then authentic practices of STEM education must be incorporated at all educational
levels. The incorporation of these practices will lead to a worldwide populace that are
STEM literate and ensure economic growth. However, to realize these goals research
must be enacted in order to determine how best to implement modeling and engineering
at all grades. In addition, longitudinal studies should be conducted to determine the
effects over time on the use of authentic practices across multiple grade levels.
References
Apedoe, X. S., Reynolds, B., Ellefson, M. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Bringing engineering
design into high school science classrooms: The heating/cooling unit. Journal of
science education and technology, 17(5), 454-465.
Archer, A., Arca, M. & Sanmartí, N. (2007). Modeling as a Teaching Learning Process for
Understanding Materials: A Case Study in Primary Education. Science Education,
91, 398-418.
Coletta, V. P., & Phillips, J. A. (2005). Interpreting FCI scores: Normalized gain, preinstru-
ction scores, and scientific reasoning ability. American Journal of Physics, 73(12),
1172-1182.
Coletta, V. P., Phillips, J. A., & Steinert, J. J. (2007). Why you should measure your
students’ reasoning ability. The Physics Teacher, 45(4), 235-238.
Doppelt, Y, Mehalik, MM, Schunn, CD, & Krysinski, D (2008). Engagement and
achievements in design-based learning. Journal of Technology Education, 19(2),
21–38.
Dori, Y. J., & Kaberman, Z. (2012). Assessing high school chemistry students’ modeling
sub-skills in a computerized molecular modeling learning environment.
Instructional Science, 40(1), 69-91.
189
Dukerich, L. (2015). Applying modeling instruction to high school chemistry to improve

students’ conceptual understanding. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(8), 1315-
1319.
Edmiston, B. (2014). Transforming teaching and learning with active and dramatic
approaches: Engaging students across the curriculum. New York, NY: Routledge
Ellefson, M. R., Brinker, R. A., Vernacchio, V. J., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Design‐based
learning for biology. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 36(4), 292-
298.
Gilbert, J. K. (2004). Models and modelling: Routes to more authentic science

education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2),
115-130.
Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical
bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry. Science
Education, 84, 352-381.
Heathcote, D., & Bolton, G. (1995). Drama for learning: Dorothy Heathcote’s Mantle of
the Expert approach for teaching drama. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hernandez, P. R., Bodin, R., Elliott, J. W., Ibrahim, B., Rambo-Hernandez, K. E., Chen,
T. W., & de Miranda, M. A. (2014). Connecting the STEM dots: measuring the
effect of an integrated engineering design intervention. International journal of
Technology and design Education, 24(1), 107-120.
Hestenes, D. (2010). Modeling theory for math and science education. In R. Lesh, C.
R. Haines, P. L. Galbraith & A. Harford (Eds.), Modeling Students’ Mathematical
Modeling Competencies (pp. 13-41). Boston, MA: Springer US.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics
Teacher, 30(3), 141-158.
Jackson, J., Dukerich, L., & Hestenes, D. (2008). Modeling Instruction: An effective
model for science education. Science Educator, 17 (1), 10-17.
Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive
and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13,
205 – 226.
Lachapelle, C. P., & Cunningham, C. M. (2017, June). Elementary engineering student

interests and attitudes: A comparison across treatments. Paper presented at the
American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition,
190
Columbus, OH. Retrieved from https://www.asee.org/public/conferences/78/

papers/20187/view
Lachapelle, C. P., Oh, Y., & Cunningham, C. M. (2017, April). Effectiveness of an

engineering curriculum intervention for elementary school: Moderating roles of
student background characteristics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Education Research Association, San Antonio, TX.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2005). Developing modeling and argument in the elementary
grades (pp.29-53). In T.A. Romberg, T.P. Carpenter, & F. Dremock (eds.),
Understanding Mathematics and Science Matters. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Liang, L. L., Fulmer, G. W., Majerich, D. M., Clevenstine, R., & Howanski, R. (2012). The
effects of a model-based physics curriculum program with a physics first approach:
a causal-comparative study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(1),
114-124.
Malone, K. L. (2008). Correlations among knowledge structures, force concept inventory,

and problem-solving behaviors. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education
Research, 4(2), 020107.
Malone, K.L., & Schuchardt, A. (2016, January). The Efficacy of Modeling Instruction in
Chemistry: A Case Study. Proceedings from HICE 2016: The 14th Annual Hawaii
International Conference on Education, pp. 1513-1518. Honolulu, HI. [ISSN#:
1541-5880]
Malone, K.L., Schuchardt, A.M., & Sabree, Z. (in press). Models and Modeling in
Evolution. In Harms, U. & Reiss, M.J.(eds). Evolution Education Re-considered:
Understanding what works. Springer
Malone, K.L., Schuchardt, A. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2018). Improving conceptual

understanding and representation skills through Excel-based modeling. Journal
of Science Education and Technology, 27(1), 30-44.
Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schuun, C. D. (2008). Middle‐school science through
design‐based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept
learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 71-85.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Goh, S., & Cotter, K. (Eds.) (2016). TIMSS 2015 Encyclopedia:
Education Policy and Curriculum in Mathematics and Science. Retrieved from
Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center website: http://
timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/encyclopedia/
191
National Research Council (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices,
Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework
for New K-12 Sceince Eduation Standards Board on Science Education. Division
of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington D.C.: The National
Academies Press.
O’brien, M. J., & Thompson, J. R. (2009). Effectiveness of ninth-grade physics in Maine:

Conceptual understanding. The Physics Teacher, 47(4), 234-239.
OECD (2016), Low-Performing Students: Why They Fall Behind and How to Help Them
Succeed, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264250246-
en.
Passmore, C., & Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary

biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 185-204.
Passmore, C., Stewart, J., & Cartier, J. (2009). Model‐based inquiry and school science:
creating connections. School Science and Mathematics, 109(7), 394-402.
Sahin, M. (2010). The impact of problem-based learning on engineering students’ beliefs

about physics and conceptual understanding of energy and momentum. European
Journal of Engineering Education, 35(5), 519-537.
Schuchardt, A., Malone, K., Diehl, W., Harless, K., McGinnis, R., and Parr, T. (2008). A case
study of student performance following a switch to a modeling-based physics first
course sequence. NARST 2008, Baltimore, MD.
Schuchardt, A. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2016). Modeling scientific processes with

mathematics equations enhances student qualitative conceptual understanding
and quantitative problem solving. Science Education, 100(2), 290-320.
Silk, E. M., Schunn, C. D., & Cary, M. S. (2009). The impact of an engineering design
curriculum on science reasoning in an urban setting. Journal of Science Education
and Technology, 18(3), 209-223.
Tiarani, V., Irving, K. E., Malone, K.L., Giasi, T., & Kajfez, R. (2018, January). Engineering in
Elementary School Year 2: Building 21st Century Learners. Paper presented at the
2018 Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE) International Conference,
Baltimore, MD.
Tsui, C. Y., & Treagust, D. F. (2013). Introduction to multiple representations: Their

importance in biology and biological education. In Multiple Representations in
Biological Education (pp. 3-18). Springer Netherlands.
192
Wells, M., Hestenes, D., & Swackhamer, G. (1995). A modeling method for high school
physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 63(7), 606-619.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method:
Model‐based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science
investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941-967.
Zangori, L. & Forbes, C.T. (2015). Exploring Third-Grade Student Model-Based
Explanations about Plant Relationships within an Ecosystem. International Journal
of Science Education, 37:18, 2942-2964, DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2015.1118772
Zeid, I., Chin, J., Duggan, C., & Kamarthi, S. (2014). Engineering based learning: a
paradigm shift for high school STEM teaching. International Journal of Engineering
Education, 30(4), 867-887.
193
An Overview of STEM Education and Industry 4.0
Dr. Sahin Idin
Ministiry of National Education (Turkey)
Introduction
It is known that the changes in science, technology and engineering have been
increasing in recent years. We understand these changes by looking at both scientific
studies and inventions, new technological tools and machines and new methods which
have been used in the engineering fields. From this point of view, it is able to be claimed
that education systems are changed to be adopted new changes which have been seen
in industry, as well. STEM education can be identified as one of new approaches to
be used in education system, which also aims students to be able solve problems in
their daily lives. Meanwhile it is thought STEM education must be introduced. There
are some different STEM concept defines in the literature. National Reserach Council
(1996), STEM is an educational and teaching approach which integrates the content
and skills of science, technology, engineering and math. Herschbach (2011), states that
STEM is being created by using capital letters of science, technology, engineering and
math. At this point, it can be asked why countries need STEM Education and need STEM
activities and applications in their education systems. To answer this question, U.S.
former president Barack Obama’s call to action on new developments in Industry of
USA’s education system can be said the reason of changes. He said “One of the things
that I’ve been focused on as President is how we create an all-hands-on-deck approach
to science, technology, engineering, and math. We need to make this a priority to
train an army of new teachers in these subject areas, and to make sure that all of us
as a country are lifting up these subjects for the respect that they deserve” (White
House, 2013). After Obama’s talk on STEM Education there were seen efforts in the
USA’s states. The similar efforts can also be seen in European Union (EU) and EU paid
attention more efforts on STEM Education and EU (created many STEM projects such as
Scientix, STEM Alliance and so on. STEM projects have also been continued by EU and
European countries. At this point, the relationship STEM Education and Industry should
be explained. In this context, the skills of STEM education can be stated to understand
the relationship between STEM Education and Industry 4.0. The Partnership for 21st
Century Skills (2011), defines 21st century’s skills “collaborating, communication, critical
thinking and creativity. National Research Council (2010), states 21st century’s skills
“nonroutine problem solving, self-development, systematic thinking, adaptability and
complex communication skills. Besides them, innovation, employability and efficient
team working can also be given as 21st century’s skills. The 21st skills are paid attention
194
which we are able to understand it by Obama’s statements regarding USA’s efforts

toward STEM Education. It is clearly understood that 21st century workforce need people
who are donated with 21st century skills. Gonzales, Jones & Ruiz (2014) also revealed
the importance of STEM Education and its features related to industry. In their opinion
completion of the first 21st century decade launched a global competitiveness pace in
economical markets which had initiated an instructional paradigm shift for learning and
teaching. Banks & Barleks (2014), STEM learning carries out in the real World, in this
context schools work with industry including other learning centers. World Economic
Forum (2016), points out according to a popular expectation that 65% of children who
entering primary school today will ultimately end up working in completely new job
types that do not yet exist. European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, (2016), states that
improving and promoting entrepreneurship education is one of the key policy objective
for the EU and it provides skills, knowledge and attitudes that are developing an
entrepreneurial culture. It is thought that the introduction of Industry 4.0 is necessary.
Wang et. al. (2016), states that Industry 4.0 is the proliferation of cyber-physical systems
that introduces the fourth stage of industrialization. It is useful to be given Industrial
revolutions which facilitate the relationship between STEM Education and Industry. In
the figure 1, the development of industry is given since 1784 till now.
Figure 1. The Four Industrial Revolutions (graphic by Kagermann et al., 2013)
As it can be seen by looking at figure 1, first industrial revolution initiated by using

steam water in the industry, the requirement energy was provided by manufacturing
with water and steam power. When entering 19th century, second industrial revolution
started by using electrification in the industry. Second industrial revolution lasted to
1970s, then, third industrial revolution started by operation of electronics and IT for
195
automation of production. After all, today, we are mentioning about Industry 4.0,
because it is on the basis of cyber physical systems. Technology and its applications
which are used in Industrial fields have been changing in time. Kurfuss (2014), describes
all Industrial revolutions processes. It states that first industrial revolution was driven
by the advent of steam engines being used to power production facilities. Second
industrial revolution was driven by the assembly line, exemplified by Henry Ford a
century ago. Third industrial revolution, which occurred in the 1970s, was driven by
the use of computers in production. For instance, the use of CNC machines, computer
processing of quality and logistics information, were transformed during the 3rd
industrial revolution. Valdez et. al (2015), describes Industry 4.0 is a paradigm shift in
manufacturing technology.
It is seen that there have been carried out some studies within Industry 4.0. European
Parliament (EP) (2016), Industry 4.0 was initially coined by the German Government.
Stock and Seliger (2016), presents an overview of different opportunities for sustainable
manufacturing in the scope of Industry 4.0. Germany Trade & Invest (2017), states
that “Industry 4.0” or “Smart Industry” refers to the technological evolution from
embedded systems to cyber-physical systems. It also represents the coming fourth
industrial revolution on the way to an internet of things, data and services. EP (2016),
states that Industry 4.0 has main features. These are “Interoperability, Virtualisation,
Decentralisation, Real-Time Capability, Service orientation and Modularity”.
Figure 2. Technologies of Industry 4.0 (TÜSİAD, 2016)
The elements of Industry 4.0 are the cloud, additive manufacturing, augmented
reality, big data and analytics, autonomous robots, simulation, horizontal vertical
system integration, the industrial internet of things and cyber-security. Industry 4.0 has
nine advanced technological products and already some of them have been using in
manufacturing.
Rüßmann et. al (2015), But it can be said that with Industry 4.0, those given technologies
transform production: isolated, fully integrated, automated and optimized production
196
inflow; changing traditional production relationships among producers, and customers

and suppliers between human and machine. Although there have been created some
studies which integrates both STEM Education and Industry 4.0, it can be seen that
they are not enough. It is also known that some of them are not directly linked to
each other. Flynn (2012), investigated the relationship between STEM principles for
advanced manufacturing education. West (2012), examined that how Australian
universities could be best prepare STEM graduates in the scope of in the academic
researches and economy. Landivar (2013), investigated the relationship between
science and engineering education and employment in STEM occupations. SIEMENS
(2017) investigated in its study, the relationship between STEM and Industry 4.0 and it
was highlighted them importance of STEM in integrating Industry 4.0. When we focus
on both Turkish STEM Education situation and Industry 4.0, it is seen that there have
been prepared some reports and studies by private institutions and public institutions.
TÜSİAD (2014) prepared a report, it highlighted the importance of STEM Education for
future, within STEM Education and its relationship with Industry. Ministry of National
Education (2016), states the significance of STEM Education within the scope of future
jobs.
STEM Education and Industry have been paid attention to provide people having 21st
century’s skills. At this point, it is very important to focus on Turkey’s situation on
Industry 4.0 and STEM Education. It has been seen that there have been carrying out
some studies which have been creating both by public and private institutions. However,
it is also seen than these studies are not enough and it has not affected STEM Education
system in Turkey. A report conducted by Turkish Ministry of National Education (MEB,
2016), also highlighted similar views. It states that STEM Education should be more
considered for the future of Turkey and should also be integrated with Industry.
European Comission (2016), vocational and training is precious for feeding job-specific
and and transversla skills, fascilating the transition to employment and maintaining and
updating the skills of the workforce.
World Economic Forum (2017), several countries in the Middle East and North Africa
region have also been investing in technical and vocational education and training
(TVET), notably Egypt and Turkey, although this particular form of education remains
under-used across the region. There can be seen some studies related to Turkey’s
current situation on its education system and workforce. Turkish Industry and Business
Association (2016), estimated that growth targets will be realized, in this context, the
need for labor employed in industry will increase and also this labor force will be more
skilled. Turkey Scientific and Technological Research Institution (2016), states that
challenges of Turkey within smart technology are “need for higher skilled labor force,
premature de-industrialization and low export share of high-tech products.” World
Economic Forum (2017), quality of Turkey’s education system is under Word Average
197
(3.8) and potential impact of job automation may be challenging. It is estimated that
52% of all work activities are susceptible to automation.
There are some international exams carried out such as PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS. PISA is an
international important exam since countries are able to see their position their current
situation within science, math and reading. PISA is carried out every three years (OECD,
2017). To be able to understand Turkish students’ skills in science, math and reading,
PISA 2015 scores are important indicators for the educators and policy makers and
it gives concrete evidences to link between current STEM Education and Industry in
Turkey. Some countries’ PISA 2015 scores are given in table 1.
Table 1. PISA 2015 Results of Top Five Countries and Turkey
Science Math Reading

1.Singapore 556 564 535
2.Japan 538 532 516
3.Estonia 534 520 519
4.China (Taipei) 532 542 497
5.Finland 531 511 526
OECD Average 493 490 493
Turkey 425 420 428
According to PISA 2015 results, Turkish students’ science test average was 425; math
average was 420 and reading test average was 428. It can be seen that Turkish students’
scores within those mentioned subjects are under PISA averages (OECD, 2016). Turkish
students’ math, physic, chemistry and biology test scores are not expected level in a
national examination which is called “Examination of Bachelor Placement”. Turkish
fourth grade high school students’ math average is 10.38 (under 50 questions); physic
average is 5.48 38 (under 30 questions); chemistry average is 10.56 38 (under 30
questions) and biology average is 8.5 38 (under 30 questions) (ÖSYM, 2016). It is able
to be said that Turkish students cannot transfer their knowledge within those subjects
into their life. This result also means that many of Turkish students have not had 21st
skills. Due to these given reasons the study can be said it is an original study which have
not been studied yet.
So, it also promotes academic studies which are directly linked both STEM Education
and Industry 4.0. After all, aim of the study is to investigate the current situation of
STEM education and Industry 4.0 in Turkey.
The Data of the Study
The data of the study were taken both international and national references such as
articles, reports, doctoral dissertations and statics of Turkish Education System and
Turkish Industry System. The obtained data from Ministry of National Education’s
198
studies and reports and from other ministries, international exams’ reports and results
gave very important knowledge for the study.
In this study the data were analyzed through document analysis. Within this context, 191
articles were investigated within STEM education, 16 articles were investigated within
Industry 4.0. 25 doctoral dissertations were looked into which were prepared based on
STEM education and totally nine international reports were investigated within STEM
education and Industry 4.0.
Table 2. The Data of the Study
PhD Articles Reports Books Total

Dissertation
STEM Education 25 191 9 3 228
Industry 4.0 - 16 8 1 25
STEM Education and Industry 4.0 - 5 2 7
The data of the study is given in table 2. The finding of this study have been obtained
based on these studies that are already given in table 1. According to the table 1, totally
260 academic studies were investigated and analyzed to create of the data of this study.
Including academic studies carried out at national and international level, both national
public institutions and private institutions’ report were considered, as well.
What Have Been Found?
As mentioned previously, STEM studies have been increasing in Turkey. Although this
result, it is not enough for a Turkish education system since Turkey has 80 million
populations and it has to be ready for Industry 4.0. It is claimed because Turkish
students’ science, math and reading achievements are not at expected level. It can be
seen by looking at both national and international exams’ results such as PISA, TIMSS
and TEOG. There are some indicators which help us to understand the current situation
of STEM Education in Turkey.
By looking at the data which has include top 1000 high school students’ choice the
placement of STEM fields can help us to understand the position of STEM fields choice
in Turkey.
All engineering fields, computer sciences, mathematical sciences and scientific fields
have been included in STEM fields jobs. Medicine sciences have not been included
in STEM fields. National Science Foundation (NSF), which is the great association and
supports STEM fields, also do not include Medicine into the STEM fields (NSF, 2015). In
figure 1, it can be said that the STEM fields placement have been changing and it has a
wave.
199
Figure 3. The Ranking Placement of Top 1000 Students in STEM Fields Within SSPC
(Student Selection and Placement Center) Akgündüz et al (2015),
It is seen that the STEM placement was 85.63 % in 2000; 27.88 % in 2010 and 38.23 %
in 2014. The choice of STEM fields career have been tried to be promoted in USA and
European Countries, within this scope there were set up some STEM organizations and
associations both in USA and in EU. Those organizations create some STEM projects
which aim to get students toward STEM fields. It is expected that having 21st century
skills for a society or country will be very important to conduct Industry 4.0. The skills
of 21st century are “critical thinking, effective problem solving, innovation, creativity,
team working, communication and collaboration”. This result shows us there must be
taken necessary precaution in STEM fields choice and it is also necessary to encourage
STEM career. There is a report that confirms results which are given in the figure 3.
World Economic Forum (2017), stated in its report that the World Economic Forum’s
Future of Jobs analysis had found that by 2020, 21% of core skills in the countries of the
Gulf Cooperation Council and 41% of those in Turkey are going to be different compared
to skills which were needed in 2015.
Vocational high schools and technical high schools are important organizations for
Turkey so that they support industrial firms’ labor. We have some interesting results of
students, who have studied in an industrial vocational high schools. Within the scope
of LYS 2016. According to results, 40.225 students participated to this exam and their
both math and science average was 160,98, while Anatolian’s high school students
average was 221.785 and science high schools students’ average was 360.409 (ÖSYM,
2016). There are some international studies which are focused on Turkey’s industrial
organizations.
200
King of Netherland (2017), found some findings on the awareness among Turkish
companies regarding Industry 4.0 and it reveals that 22% of the companies have
extensive knowledge, 59% has general knowledge and 19% have no knowledge about
such developments.
This result is similar with ÖSYM’s results of vocational students’ in Turkey. Because,
vocational students’ 21st skills are important for Turkish future Industry to have much
more quality within Industry 4.0. It is unfortunately seen that Turkish vocational
high school students’ achievements are not located at desired level. At this point, an
international study carried out by OECD (2009), can be given to support previous results
of the study.
Figure 4. Share of Workforce in Science and Technology Occupations (2008)
The share of workforce was investigated in a study carried out by OECD (2009), it presents
us to understand share of the workforce in science and technology occupations among
30 countries. It is seen that Turkey is located at the end of the ranking within share of
the workforce in science and technology occupations. This result is seen that is suitable
within Turkish students PISA 2015 scores in science and math.
Another important indicator within current STEM Education situation in Turkey is

STEM organizations and their studies. Turkish universities must have important roles to
promote STEM Education and to link between STEM Education and Industry. It has been
found that there have been created some STEM centers in some Turkish universities.
It has been understood that there are four STEM centers which were created by four
universities. The first of it was set up in 2014 in a private university. When we focus
201
on business sector’s efforts for STEM Education within Industry 4.0, it is able to be
said that TÜSİAD has conducted some studies which are related STEM Education and
Industry 4.0. In its first report (TÜSİAD, 2014) on STEM Education, it portrays a frame
for the STEM Education. Actually in all these studies, TÜSİAD tries to reveal the current
situation of STEM Education and what will be done to promote Industry 4.0 in the future
for of Turkey.
There are some national public organizations that they prepare reports and publish
articles and they launch some calls on Industry 4.0. The Scientific and Technological
Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) is one of guide, which has launches many calls,
publish studies and support both public and private national institutions within the
scope of STEM Education and Industry 4.0. TÜBİTAK (2016), reveals that there have
been carrying out some workings within Industry 4.0 which we can understand it via its
Tenth Development Plan. The tenth development plan defines those strategic features:
*Qualified people and strong society,
* Production based innovation, high growth with sustainability,
* Livable places and sustainable environment,
* To have development providing international cooperation
We are able to understand by looking at those features that those given features already
present the aim of STEM Education and presents 21st century’s workforce. It can also be
claimed from this plan that if desired Turkey has a strong Industry in the future, Smart
Industry or Industry 4.0, Turkish people have to have those features.
King of Netherlands (2017), TÜBİTAK prepared a roadmap within Industry 4.0 for Turkish
Industry. It is defined that technology is devoted three groups following: “Digitalization,
Connectivity and Future factories”. In this roadmap, the content of Industry 4.0 are
framed very well. There have been stated some highlights on advanced manufacturing
in TÜBİTAK’s national call for 2016 and 2017; Additive Manufacturing: Multilayer
additive manufacturing, Rapid prototyping and 3D printing Technologies, CAD/CAM,
simulation & modelling software, Robotics and mechatronics, Flexible manufacturing.
Within the scope of Internet of Things, it is emphasized Sensors and sensing systems,
Virtualization, M2M communication and Cloud computing.
All those given applications are included in ındustry 4.0. It has been found that there is
no model that it reveals the relationship between STEM Education and Industry 4.0. To
link between STEM Education and Industry 4.0, it is given a model, it has been created
by the author, which explains the relationship between STEM Education and Industry
4.0
202
Figure 5. A Model That Shows the Relationship Between STEM Education and Industry
4.0
In this model, it is seen that STEM Education fosters Industry 4.0 with its aims and 21st
skills. It can be understood from the model that STEM Education should be enhanced
to have high quality industry for a country, this can be claimed especially for the Turkey.
Some 21st skills and STEM Education’s aims are very important to have high quality
Industrial System within Industry 4.0. Another significant indicator is to link STEM
Education’s aims and 21st skills. Within this context, they are necessary to be linked to
STEM Education so STEM Education can foster Industry 4.0.
Conclusion
In this study, it has been focused on to set up the relationship between STEM Education
and Industry 4.0 and within this scope to define the relationship and current situation
in Turkey. It has been reached that Turkish education system must consider the role
of STEM Education to reach Industry 4.0. PISA 2015, TIMSS 2015 and LYS 2016 results
within science, math and reading fields have showed us that Turkish students are not
placed at expected level among other countries in terms of achievement of these
fields (OECD, 2016, ÖSYM 2016). Killingsworth (2014), states that industry certificate is
necessary into a skilled-level position in a technology or engineering field.
Gonzales (2010), revealed in his study how global economy motivated both federal
and state governments with private industry to enhance the improvement of STEM
academies. Lars, et al. (2015), state that the manufacturing industry has been continuing
to be a central driver of growth for economies worldwide and in the Industry 4.0 concept,
it is necessary for workers make themselves ready for the new fields of modern smart
manufacturing. Boyd & Tian (2016), reveals that capable workers, who have expertise in
203
STEM, are deemed main fort he researches and development activities which stimulate
economic growth. In Turkey, there are many STEM Centers, which claim that they
donate students with 21st skills and give STEM Education. As mentioned in the previous
section that most of them actually do not give STEM Education and it is already clearly
seen that they are not able to give those educations due to their lack of competent in
STEM Education. Atkinson & Mayo (2010), state that producing more and better STEM
graduates is going to require new institutions; especially new specialty science high
schools and new kinds of programs and even colleges at the BS level.
Although there have been carrying out some limited studies, projects, it is seen that
vocational technical high schools are not supported sufficiently within STEM Education
and Industry 4.0. Vocational high school students should be supported to create new
projects linked to STEM Education and Industry 4.0’ fields, especially. There are some
studies related this study. Hughes (2013), states in her study that partnerships with
industry may be strong enough opportunities for students to investigate fields of STEM
disciplines. Kerr (2013), both industry and education are key pieces in the STEM puzzle.
The integration STEM Education with Industry should be provided to have much more
skilled people, who are equipped with 21st century skills, in 21st century. It can be given
an example that is directly related do this statement. The Guardian (2016), revealed in
its news that Australian high school students made a drug to treat malaria disease. In
the process, it was understood that they have collaboration, team working, effective
communication, critical thinking, innovative approaches, entrepreneurship. Besides it
has been understood by the news that students could manage to produce the medicine
cheaper than other medicines, which are already used by people. This means students’
medicine can support employability for people in the future manufacture.
Recommendations
*STEM Education studies should be organized by Ministry of National Education and

Turkish Universities in collaboration. It means all STEM studies can be carried out
professionally at national level.
*STEM centers could be found and STEM experts can be provided to work in these
centers. They can be supported with real STEM materials which are linked with Industry
in order to make a real STEM Education and to donate students with 21st century’s skills.
*The relationship between vocational high schools and Industry should be carried out
by using STEM Education and its applications to reach Industry 4.0’ features.
204
References
Akgündüz, D., Aydeniz, M., Çakmakçı, G., Çavaş, B., Çorlu, M., Öner, T., & Özdemir, S.
(2015). STEM eğitimi Türkiye raporu: “Günümüz modası mı yoksa gereksinim mi?”.
Retrieved from: http://www.aydin.edu.tr/belgeler/IAU-STEM-Egitimi-Turkiye-
Raporu-2015.pdf
Atkinson, R. D. & Mayo, M. (2010). Refueling the U.S. Innovation Economy: Fresh
approaches to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)
education. Retrieved from: https://www.itif.org/files/2010-refueling-innovation-
economy.pdf
Banks, F. & Barlex, D. (2014). Teaching STEM in the Secondary School. Helping teachers
meet the challenge. Chapter 10. New York: Routledge.
Boyd, M. & Tian, S. (2016). STEM education and STEM work: Nativity inequalities in
occupations and earnings. International Migration, 55 (1), 75-98. doi: 10.1111/
imig.12302
European Parliament (2016). Directorate general for internal policies policy department
a: economic and scientific policy. Industry 4.0 Retrieved from: http://www.
europarl.europa.eu/studies
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, (2016). Entrepreneurship Education at School

in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European
Union. Retrieved from: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/
images/4/45/195EN.pdf
Education Comission (2016). Education and Training Monitor 2016. Retrieved from:
http://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/files/monitor2016_en.pdf
Flynn, E. P. (2012). Design to Manufacture –Integrating STEM Principles for Advanced

Manufacturing Education. 2nd Integrated STEM Education Conference, March 9.
DOI: 10.1109/ISECon.2012.6204167
Gonzales, A. (2010). Toward Achievement in the “Knowledge Economy” of the 21st

Century: Preparing Students Through T-STEM Academies. Doctoral dissertation.
Walden University, United States.
Gonzales, A., Jones, D. & Ruiz, A. (2014). Toward achievement in the “Knowledge
Economy” of the 21st Century: Preparing students through T-STEM academies.
Research in Higher Education Journal ,25, 1-14.
205
GTAI (2017). Industrie 4.0 Smart Manufacturing for the future. Retrieved from:
https://www.gtai.de/GTAI/Content/EN/Invest/_SharedDocs/Downloads/GTAI/
Brochures/Industries/industrie4.0-smart-manufacturing-for-the-future-en.pdf
Herschbach, D. R. (2011). The STEM initiative: Constraints and challenges. Journal of

STEM Teacher Education, 48(1), 96-122.
Hughes, P. A. (2013). STEM Education: An Incongruous Approach A Proposed Reform

Model for a Large Suburban High School. (Doctoral Dissertation). Wilmington
University, United States.
Landivar, L. C. (2013). The relationship between science and engineering education

and employment in STEM occupations. American Community Survey Reports.
Retrieved from: https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acs-23.pdf
Kagermann, H., Wahlster, W., and Helbig, J., 2013, “Um-setzungsempfehlungen für
das Zukunftsprojekt Industry 4.0 –Abschlussbericht des Arbeitskreises Industry
4.0”, For-schungsunion im Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissen-schaft, Berlin,
Germany.
Kerr, J. M. (2013). Examining teacher mental models for the implementation of a STEM-
focused curriculum paradigm in engineering and technology education. Doctoral
dissertation. University of Idaho, United States.
King of Netherlands (2017). Turkey’s Smart Manufacturing Roadmap. Retrieved from:

https://www.rvo.nl/sites/default/files/2017/01/Turkey%20smart%20manuf.pdf
Killingsworth, J. (2014). Influence of Science, Technology, and Engineering Curriculum on

Rural Midwestern High School Student Career Decisions. Doctoral Dissertations.
University of Nebraska, United States.
Kurfuss, T. (2014). Industry 4.0: Manufacturing in the United States. Retrieved from:
http://ostaustria.org/bridges-magazine/item/8310-industry-4-0
Lars, G., Arno, K., Rule, D., Moore, P., Bellman, C., Siemes, S., Dawood, D., Singh, L.,
Kulik, J. & Standley, M. (2015). Industry 4.0. A Discussion of Qualifications and
Skills in the Factory of the Future: A German and American Perspective. Retrieved
from: http://www.vdi.eu/fileadmin/vdi_de/redakteur/karriere_bilder/VDI-
ASME__2015__White_Paper_final.pdf
OECD (2009). Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD Science,
Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2009 Retrieved from: www.oecd-ilibrary.
org/content/book/sti_scoreboard-2009-en.
206
OECD (2016). PISA 2015. PISA Results in Focus. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/
pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf
OECD (2017). About. What is PISA? Erişim adresi: www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa.
ÖSYM (2016). 2016-Lisans Yerleştirme Sınavları (2016-LYS) sonuçları. Erişim adresi:

http://dokuman.osym.gov.tr/pdfdokuman/2016/LYS/LYSSayisalBilgiler19072016.
pdf
MEB. (2016). STEM Eğitimi Raporu. Yenilik ve Eğitim Teknolojileri Genel Müdürlüğü.
Erişim adresi: http://yegitek.meb.gov.tr/STEM_Egitimi_Raporu.pdf
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. National

Academy Press: Washington DC.
National Research Council. (2010). Exploring the intersection of science education and
21st century skills: A workshop summary. National Academies Press: Washington
DC.
National Science Foundation (2015). What we do. National Science Foundation.

Retrieved from: http://www.nsf.gov/about/what.jsp
Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21). (2011). P21 common core toolkit: A guide to
aligning the common core state standards with the framework for 21st century
skills. The partnership for 21st Century Skills, Washington, D. C.: Partnership for
21st Century Skills.
Rüßmann, M., Lorenz, M., Gerbert, P., Waldner, M., Justus, J., Engel, P. & Harnisch, M.,
(2015). Industry 4.0: The Future of Productivity and Growth in Manufacturing
Industries. Retrieved from: http://www.zvw.de/media.media.72e472fb-1698-
4a15-8858-344351c8902f.original.pdf
SIEMENS (2017). STEM & Industry 4.0. Retrieved from: https://blogs.siemens.com/en/

the-curiosity-project.entry.html/30026-stem-industry-4-0.html
Stock, T. & Seliger, G. (2016). Opportunities of Sustainable Manufacturing in Industry

4.0. 13th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing - Decoupling Growth
from Resource Use, Procedia CIRP 40, 536 – 541.
VDI-Wissensforum GmbH (2017). Industryhaus 4.0, Retrieved from: https://www.vdi.

de/artikel/Industry-40-jetzt-wird-es-realitaet/, last retrieved 2015-01-13
Wang, S., Wan, J., Zhang, D., Li, D. & Zhang, C. (2016). Towards smart factory for
industry 4.0: a self-organized multi-agent system with big data base d fee dback
and coordination. Computer Networks, 101, 158-168.
207
West, M. (2012). STEM education and the workplace. Australian Goverment, Office of the
chief Scientist Occasional Paper Series. Retrieved from: http://www.chiefscientist.
gov.au/wp-content/uploads/OPS4-STEMEducationAndTheWorkplace-web.pdf
White House (2013). Educate to Innovate. Retrieved from: www.whitehouse.gov/

issues/education/k-12/educate-innovate
World Economic Forum (2016). The Future of Jobs. Employment, Skills and Workforce
Strategy for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Global Challenge Insight Report.
Erişim adresi: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs.pdf
World Economic Forum (2017). The Future of Jobs and Skills in the Middle East and
North Africa. Preparing the Region for the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
The Guardian, (2016). https://www.theguardian.com/business/video/2016/

dec/02/australian students-describe-how-they-made-copycat-malaria-drug-
video?CMP=share_btn_tw Erişim tarihi: 20.12.2016
TÜBİTAK (2016). Public Policies and Incentives for Smart Manufacturing in Turkey.
Retrieved from: file:///C:/Users/%C5%9EAH%C4%B0N/Downloads/presentation-
sinan-tandogan%20(2).pdf
TÜSİAD (2014). STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, Fen,

Teknoloji, Mühendislik, Matematik) alanında eğitim almış işgücüne yönelik talep
ve beklentiler araştırması. TUSİAD.
TÜSİAD (2016). Industry 4.0 in Turkey as an imperative for global competitiveness an

emerging market perspective. Retrieved from: http://tusiad.org/en/reports/
item/9011-industry-40-in-turkey-as-an-imperative-for-global-competitiveness
Valdeza, A. C., Braunera, P., Schaara, A. K., Holzingerb, A. & Zieflea, M. (2015). Reducing
Complexity with Simplicity - Usability Methods for Industry 4.0 Proceedings 19th
Triennial Congress of the IEA, Melbourne 9-14 August.
208
Research Highlights in STEM Education is published from the selected papers
invited by the editors.
This edition includes 4 sections and 13 papers from the field of STEM Education
All submissions are reviewed by at least two international reviewers.
The purpose of the book is to provide the readers with the opportunity of a
scholarly refereed publication in the field of STEM Education.
Research Highlights in STEM Education is published by ISRES Publishing.

Research Highlight

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Highlight

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Highlight

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RESEARCH

Dr. Mack Shelley

Dr. Mack Shelley

Cover Design and Layout

Research Highlights in STEM Education

Includes bibliographical references and index.

Defining The ‘S’ in STEM: Nature of Science as a Component of STEM Literacy

The Rise of Engineering in STEM Education: The “E” in STEM

Mathematics (M) in STEM

SECTION 2: 21st CENTURY SKILLS AND STEM EDUCATION

STEM Skills in the 21st Century Education

SECTION 3: DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON STEM EDUCATION

Catalyzing Fundamental STEM Paradigms in the Accountability Millennium

Closing the STEM Achievement Gap from a Unified Global Perspective

Promoting STEM Education for All Students

SECTION 4: AN OVERVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON STEM EDUCATION

Active Learning in Undergraduate STEM Education: A Review of Research

An Overview of STEM Education and Industry 4.0

Defining the ‘S’ in STEM: Nature of Science as a Component of

How did We Get to “STEM?”

My own perspective is from that of a science educator, trained as a science educator.

Knowing how scientific knowledge is developed, and the characteristics of that

NOS and Scientific Inquiry—Influence of Research

Defining the Nature of the “TEM”

If we are going to teach STEM as a discipline itself, do we need to prepare teachers to

(2) Understanding of the characteristic features of STEM disciplines as forms of

Nature of Engineering—Engineers apply their knowledge in science, and Nature of

National Science Teachers Association (NSTA, 1982). Science-technology-society: Science

Wulf, W .A. (1997). Changing Nature of Engineering. The Bridge, 27 (2), 1.

Copyright © 2018 by ISRES Publishing

Suleyman Demirel University

Suleyman Demirel University

The Conception of Technology

A closer look from the philosophical perspective reveals diverse approaches to

The “instrumentalist perspective”, often optimistic about technology, view technology

“Technological determinism” is another prevailing way of thinking about technology

2. Social organization must adapt to technical progress at each stage of development

Technology impacts everyone’s life because more aspects of life in technological/

Unlike the instrumental approach, the “substantive theory of technology” treats

Criticizing and synthesizing instrumental and substantive views of technology, Feenberg

According to his critical analysis:

The term “technological ambivalence” emphasizes the various kinds of possibilities

The Role of Technology in STEM Education

systematic meaning of technology, Pacey (1992) proposes the concept of “technology–

Using Pacey’s (1992) general conceptualization of technology–practice as a theoretical

It is again important to acknowledge that, as our framework emphasizes, equipping

The second aspect “cultural context” involves educational philosophies, policies,

STEM education is mainly based on the constructivist epistemology because it

The third aspect “organizational context” refers to appreciation of technology as human

increasingly represented in exhibitions, fairs, clubs rather than educational institutions

Current Technological Tools for STEM Education

Technology offers many opportunities, as a contributory subject, for the teaching of

Three dimensional (3D) printing, also known as “additive manufacturing” or “rapid

3D printers are gaining popularity internationally across STEM education. In order to

experience is a great way to make this possible. Therefore, 3D printing technology is

3D printing technology is proving to be one of the most adaptable and innovative

Figure 2. Graphical Representation of 3D Printing

ThinkerCAD is a program created by Autodesk. It allows beginners to

There is an increasing reliance and dependence on technology and computer