STEM Education: An Illuminating Earthquake in Our Global World

Although the notion of STEM education has been anticipated since the 1990s in the United States of America, few teachers appeared to realize how to share STEM teaching several decades later. However, Americans recognized the country may drop behind in the universal economy and started to heavily concentrate on STEM education and jobs (Friedman, 2005).

Developing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, particularly for traditionally deprived groups, is widely realized as substantial to the U.S.’s long-term security and economic growth. STEM education is actually a complex social phenomenon. (Xie et al., 2015).

Many researchers propose that an interdisciplinary syllabus is the preferable form of curriculum combination. Interdisciplinary curricula begin with authentic world issues or problems. The prime elements that demand to be realized in an interdisciplinary syllabus contain such knowledge and skills as problem-solving skills, critical thinking, and making links with learning practices that connect to personal concepts (Nielsen, 1989).

Anyway, while diverse models have emerged, a dissection of STEM education does manifest an apparent consensus on the universal attributes linked with this innovation (Holmlund et al., 2018).

The universal urgency to develop STEM education may be led by social and environmental effects of the 21st century that in turn jeopardizes economic stability and universal security. The complication of these universal agents reach beyond just assisting students accomplish high scores in science and math assessments (Kelley and Knowles, 2016).

Despite increasing interest to STEM Education throughout the world, there is appreciable orientation as to what institutes STEM Education and what it denotes in expressions of student results and curriculum.

What’s more, STEM integration is realized to become the merging of the branches of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to: (1) heighten student perception of each branch by contextualizing notions, (2) expand student perception of STEM fields through exposure to culturally and socially relevant STEM contexts, as well (3) improve interest in STEM fields by increasing the paths for scholars to step inside the STEM fields (Wang et al., 2011).

STEM combination in the classroom is a kind of curriculum combination. The notion of curriculum integration is challenging and complicated, as combination of subjects is extra than a subject of simply putting various subject regions together. The notion of curriculum combination is obtained from educators’ consciousness that real universe troubles are not isolated into separated fields that are educated in schools (Beane, 1995). However, an incorporated curricular tactic could be implemented to solve universal barriers of the modern universe concerning health, energy, and the environment (Bybee, 2010).

Increased combination of STEM subjects may not become more efficient if there is not a planned tactic to application. Anyway, well-integrated guidance supplies chances for scholars to learn in more pertinent and stimulating practices, promotes the usage of higher standard critical thinking abilities, develops issue solving skills, and elevates retention (Stohlmann et al., 2012).

In short words, improving a conceptual scope for STEM education demands a profound perception of the complications surrounding how commune learn, specifically learning and teaching STEM content. Anyway, the study of STEM exercises can supply a preferable perception of each area and assist teachers recognize key learning results necessary to accomplish STEM studying. STEM integration is a creative way of thinking concerning teaching science and mathematics that has the possibility to affect education in a favorable way. Constructing a strategic tactic to integrating STEM notions demands powerful foundational and conceptual perception of how scholars apply and grasp STEM content.

References:

Beane, J. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 616–622.

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

Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farra, Straus, and Giroux.

Holmlund, TD., Lesseig, K. et al. (2018). Making sense of “STEM education” in K-12 contexts. Int J STEM Educ., 5(1):32.

Kelley, T.R. and Knowles, J.G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. IJ STEM Ed, 3:11.

Nielsen, M.E. (1989). Integrative learning for young children: A thematic approach. Educational Horizons, 68(1): 18–24.

Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. et al. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research., 2(1): 28–34.

Wang, H., Moore, T. J. et al. (2011). STEM Integration: Teacher Perceptions and Practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 1(2): Article 2.

Xie, Y., Fang, M., & Shauman, K. (2015). STEM Education. Annu Rev Sociol., 41:331–357.