Amanda Roberts
Department of STEM Education and Professional Studies Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, U.S.A.
Diana Cantu
Department of STEM Education and Professional Studies Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, U.S.A.
Download article
Published in: PATT 26 Conference; Technology Education in the 21st Century; Stockholm; Sweden; 26-30 June; 2012
Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 73:13, p. 111-118
Published: 2012-06-18
ISBN: 978-91-7519-849-1
ISSN: 1650-3686 (print), 1650-3740 (online)
Proponents for STEM education argue it has potential to contribute to student learning; their lives; and global economies. STEM’s promise is viewed with enough credibility that some nations have begun to adopt its principles through mandates and funding. If STEM is seen as a practical solution for future learning; then it is necessary for design and technology instructors to consider how to incorporate STEM strategies into their curriculum. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate three approaches that can be used in STEM education (Silo; Embedded; and Integration) and apply them within the context of a technology education course.
STEM; Instructional Strategies; Silo Instruction; Embedded Instruction; Integration Instruction; Technology Education
Banks; F. (2009). Technological literacy in a developing world context: The case of Bangladesh. In PATT-22: ‘Pupils Attitude Towards Technology’ Conference; p. 24-38; August 2009; Delft; The Netherlands.
Barlex; D. (2009). The STEM programme in England. In PATT-22: ‘Pupils Attitude Towards Technology’ Conference; p. 63-74; August 2009; Delft; The Netherlands.
Bour; I.; Bursuc; A.; & Konstantinidis; S. (Eds). (2011). Proceedings from SEFI ’11: Gender related perceptions of Science; Technology; Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education. Lisbon: Portugal.
Breiner; J.; Harkness; S.; Johnson; C.; & Koehler; C. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics; 112(1); p. 3-11.
Chen; M. (2001). A potential limitation of embedded-teaching for formal learning. In J. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.); Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 194-199). Edinburgh; Scotland: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Inc.
Deslauriers; L.; Schelew; E.; & Wieman; C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science; 332(6031); 862-864. DOI: 10.1126/science.1201783
Dickstein; M. (2010). STEM for all students: Beyond the silos. [White Paper]. Retrieved from http://www.creativelearningsystems.com/files/STEM-for-All-Students-Beyond-the-Silos.pdf
Dugger; W. (2010). Evolution of STEM in the U.S. 6th Biennial International Conference on Technology Education Research. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=silo%20instruction%20and%20stem%20education&source=web&cd=1& ved=0CEsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iteea.org%2FResources%2FPressRoom%2F TERCBeginner.ppt&ei=FRIvT56UBYn00gH2j6nsCg&usg=AFQjCNGfvapUAmsFpGg2PM ufDDVnYqPYPg
Harden; R. (2000). The integration ladder: A tool for curriculum planning and evaluation. Medical Education; 34(1); 551-557.
Hmelo; C.E.; & Narayanan; N.H. (1995). Anchors; cases; problems; and scenarios as contexts for learning. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 5-8). Pittsburgh; PA; U.S.A.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Inc.
International Technology and Engineering Education Association (ITEEA). (2007). Standards for technological literacy (STL): Content for the study of Technology (3rd ed.). Reston;VA: Author.
Jacobs; H. (Ed.). (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation. Alexandria; VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kelley; T. (2010). Staking the claim for the ‘T’ in STEM. The Journal of Technology Studies; 36(1); 2-9.
Laboy-Rush; D. (2011). Integrated STEM education through problem-based learning. [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/dlaboyrush/integrating-stem-educationthrough- project-based-learning
Morrison; J. (2006). STEM education monograph series: Attributes of STEM education. Teaching Institute for Essential Science. Baltimore; MD.
Morrison; J.; & Bartlett; R. (2009). STEM as curriculum. Education Week; 23; 28–31.
Novack; J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or appropriate propositional hierarchies (liphs) leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education; 86(4); 548-571.
Rossouw; A.; Hacker; M.; & de Vries; M. (2010). Concepts and contexts in engineering and technology education: An international and interdisciplinary Delphi study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education; 21(4); 409-424.
Sanders; M. (2009). STEM; STEM education; STEMmania. The Technology Teacher; 68(4); 20-26.
Wang; H.; Moore; T.; Roehrig; G.; & Park; M. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research; 1(2); 1-13.
Williams; J. (2011). STEM education: Proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education; 16(1); 26-35.
