Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 51, Issue 6, pp 869–884 | Cite as

The Role of Mathematics in interdisciplinary STEM education

  • Katja MaassEmail author
  • Vince Geiger
  • Marta Romero Ariza
  • Merrilyn Goos
Survey Paper
  • 239 Downloads

Abstract

In times of rapid technological innovation and global challenges, the development of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) competencies becomes important. They improve the personal scientific literacy of citizens, enhance international economic competitiveness and are an essential foundation for responsible citizenship, including the ethical custodianship of our planet. The latest programme for international student assessment results, however, indicate that even in economically mature countries such as those in Europe, and the USA and Australia, approximately 20% of students lack sufficient skills in mathematics or science. This trend serves to highlight the urgent need for action in relation to STEM education. While it is widely acknowledged that mathematics underpins all other STEM disciplines, there is clear evidence it plays an understated role in integrated STEM education. In this article, we address an element of this concern by examining the role of mathematics within STEM education and how it might be advanced through three interdisciplinary approaches: (1) twenty-first century skills; (2) mathematical modelling; and (3) education for responsible citizenship. At the end of the paper we discuss the potential for research in relation to these three aspects and point to what work needs to be done in the future.

Keywords

STEM education Mathematical Modelling Education for responsible citizenship Twenty-first century skills Socio-Scientific Issues The role of Mathematics in STEM Numeracy 

Notes

References

  1. Akerson, V. L., Burgess, A., Gerber, A., Guo, M., Khan, T. A., & Newman, S. (2018). Disentangling the meaning of STEM: Implications for science education and science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Applebaum, S., Barker, B., & Pinzino, D. (2006). Socioscientific issues as context for conceptual understanding of content. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  3. Archer, L., Osborne, J., DeWitt, J.,Dillon. J. Wong, B. & Willis, B. (2013). Aspires—Young people’s science and career aspirations, age 10–14. King’s college, Department of education and professional studies.Google Scholar
  4. Ärlebäck, J. B., & Albarracín, L. (2019). The use and potential of Fermi problems in the STEM disciplines to support the development of twenty-first century competencies. ZDM Mathematics Education.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01075-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ärlebäck, J. B., & Doerr, H. M. (2018). Students’ interpretations and reasoning about phenomena with negative rates of change throughout a model development sequence. ZDM Mathematics Education, 50(1–2), 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Artigue, M., & Blomhoej, M. (2013). Conceptualizing inquiry-based education in mathematics. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(6), 797–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ATC21S (2009). About the project. Retrieved from http://www.atc21s.org/.
  8. Au, W. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: High-stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Australian Council of Learned Academies (ACOLA). (2013). STEM: Country comparisons: International comparisons of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Final report. Melbourne, Australia: ACOLA.Google Scholar
  10. Barak, M., & Assal, M. (2018). Robotics and STEM learning: Students’ achievements in assignments according to the P3 Task Taxonomy—Practice, problem solving, and projects. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(1), 121–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baran, E., Bilici, S. C., Mesutoglu, C., & Ocak, C. (2016). Moving STEM beyond schools: Students’ perceptions about an out-of-school STEM education program. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 4(1), 9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Barwell, R. (2013). The mathematical formatting of climate change: Critical mathematics education and post-normal science. Research in Mathematics Education, 15(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bergsten, C., & Frejd, P. (2019). Preparing pre-service mathematics teachers for STEM education: An analysis of lesson proposals. ZDM Mathematics Education.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01071-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Beswick, K., & Fraser, S. (2019). Developing mathematics teachers’ 21st century competence for teaching in STEM contexts. ZDM Mathematics Education.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01084-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Heramn, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., et al. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17–66). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Blomhøj, M., & Jensen, T. H. (2007). What’s all the fuss about competencies? In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education (pp. 45–56). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Blum, W., & Leiss, D. (2007). How do students and teachers deal with modelling problems? In C. Haines, P. Galbraith, W. Blum, & S. Khan (Eds.), Mathematical modelling: Education, engineering and economics—ICTMA 12 (pp. 222–231). Chichester: Horwood.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70, 30–35.Google Scholar
  19. California Department of Education. (2014). Science, technology, engineering, & mathematics (STEM) information. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/PD/ca/sc/stemintrod.asp.
  20. Caprile, M., Palmén, R., Sanz, P., & Dente, G. (2015). Encouraging STEM studies: Labour market situation and comparison of practices targeted at young people in different member states. Brussels, Belgium: European Union. Retrieved October 19, 2019 from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/542199/IPOL_STU(2015)542199_EN.pdf.
  21. D’Ambrosio, U. (1999). Literacy, matheracy, and technoracy: A trivium for today. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1(2), 131–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. D’Ambrosio, U. (2003) The role of mathematics in building a democratic society. In B. L. Madison & L. A. Steen (Eds.) Quantitative Literacy: Why numeracy matters for schools and colleges (pp. 235–238). New Jersey: Princeton.Google Scholar
  23. Duijzer, C., Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., Veldhuis, M., & Doorman, M. (2019). Supporting primary school students’ reasoning about motion graphs through physical experiences. ZDM Mathematics Education.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01072-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. English, L. D. (2016a). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(3), 1–8.Google Scholar
  25. English, L. D. (2016b). Advancing mathematics education research within a STEM environment. In K. Makar, S. Dole, J. Visnovska, M. Goos, A. Bennison, & K. Fry (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia 2012–2015 (pp. 353–371). Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. English, L. D., & King, D. T. (2015). STEM learning through engineering design: Fourth-grade students’ investigations in aerospace. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. English, L. D., & Watson, J. (2018). Modelling with authentic data in sixth grade. ZDM Mathematics Education, 50(1–2), 103–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Erdogan, N., Navruz, B., Younes, R., & Capraro, R. M. (2016). Viewing how STEM project-based learning influences students’ science achievement through the implementation lens: A latent growth modeling. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(8), 2139–2154.Google Scholar
  29. Ernest, P. (2002). Empowerment in mathematics education. Philosophy of Mathematics Education Journal, 15(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  30. European Commission. (2013). Reducing early school leaving: Key messages and policy support. Final report of the thematic working group on early school leaving. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/education/content/reducing-early-school-leaving-key-messages-and-policy-support_en.
  31. European Commission. (2016). Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions improving and modernizing Education. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2016%3A941%3AFIN.
  32. European Commission. (2017). White paper on the future of Europe. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/white_paper_on_the_future_of_europe_en.pdf.
  33. European Commission. (2018a). Council recommendation on key competences for lifelong learning. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/education/education-in-the-eu/council-recommendation-on-key-competences-for-lifelong-learning_en.
  34. European Commission. (2018b). ANNEX to the proposal for a council recommendation on key competences for lifelong learning. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/files/annex-recommendation-key-competences-lifelong-learning.pdf.
  35. Eurydice. (2016). Promoting citizenship, common values of freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination through education. Retrieved from https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/ebbab0bb-ef2f-11e5-8529-01aa75ed71a1.
  36. Fitzallen, N. (2015). STEM education: What does mathematics have to offer? In M. Marshman (Ed.), Mathematics education in the margins. Proceedings of the 38th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 237–244). Sydney: MERGAGoogle Scholar
  37. Forgaz, H., Bleazby, J., & Sawatzki, C. (2015). Ethics and the challenges for inclusive mathematics teaching. In A. Bishop, H. Tan, & T. N. Barkatsas (Eds.), Diversity in mathematics education: Towards inclusive practices (pp. 147–165). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Frankenstein, M. (2001). Reading the world with math: Goals for a criticalmathematical literacy curriculum (p. 53). Adelaide: Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers Inc.Google Scholar
  39. Geiger, V. (2019). Using mathematics as evidence supporting critical reasoning and enquiry in primary science classrooms. ZDM Mathematics Education.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01068-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Geiger, V., Forgasz, H., & Goos, M. (2015a). A critical orientation to numeracy across the curriculum. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(4), 611–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Geiger, V., Goos, M., & Forgasz, H. (2015b). A rich interpretation of numeracy for the 21st century: A survey of the state of the field. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(4), 531–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Geiger, V., Stillman, G., Brown, J., Galbraith, P., & Niss, M. (2018). Using mathematics to solve real world problems: The role of Enablers. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 30(1), 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: Creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(2), 193–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Goos, M., Geiger, V., & Dole, S. (2014). Transforming professional practice in numeracy teaching. In Y. Li, E. Silver, & S. Li (Eds.), Transforming mathematics instruction: Multiple approaches and practices (pp. 81–102). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  45. Gordon, J., Halsz, G., Krawczyk, M., Leney, T., Michel, A., Pepper, D., Putkiewicz, E., & Wisniewski, W. (2009). Key competences in Europe. Opening doors for lifelong learners across the school curriculum and teacher education (Warsaw, Center for Social and Economic Research on behalf of CASE Network). https://ec.europa.eu/epale/en/resource-centre/content/key-competences-europe-opening-doors-lifelong-learners-across-school Retrieved August 1, 2017.
  46. Gravemeijer, K. (2007). Emergent modelling as a precursor to mathematical modelling. In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H. W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education (pp. 137–144). Boston, MA: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Gravemeijer, K., Stephan, M., Julie, C., Lin, F. L., & Ohtani, M. (2017). What mathematics education may prepare students for the society of the future? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 105–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Grigutsch, S., Raatz, U., & Törner, G. (1998). Einstellungen gegenüber Mathematik bei Mathematiklehrern. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 19, 3–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Guzey, S. S., Moore, T. J., & Harwell, M. (2016a). Building up STEM: An analysis of teacher-developed engineering design-based STEM integration curricular materials. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 6(1), 11–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Guzey, S. S., Moore, T. J., Harwell, M., & Moreno, M. (2016b). STEM integration in middle school life science: Student learning and attitudes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(4), 550–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human interests (I. J. Shapiro, Trans.). London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  52. Hazelkorn, E., Ryan, C., Beernaert, Y., Constantinou, C., Deca, L., Grangeat, M., et al. (2015). Science education for responsible citizenship: Report to the European commission of the expert group on science education. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  53. Herman, B. Sadler, T., Zeidler, D. & Newton, M. (2018). A socioscientific issues approach to environmental education. In G. Reis, & J. Scott (Eds.), International perspectives on the theory and practice of environmental education: A reader (pp. 145–161).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67732-3_11.
  54. Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  55. Jablonka, E. (2003). Mathematical literacy. In A. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. S. K. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 75–102). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Jablonka, E. (2015). The evolvement of numeracy and mathematical literacy curricula and the construction of hierarchies of numerate or mathematically literate subjects. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(4), 599–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kaiser, G. (1995). Realitätsbezüge im Mathematikunterricht—Ein Überblick über die aktuelle und historische Diskussion. In G. Graumann, T. Jahnke, G. Kaiser, & J. Meyer (Eds.), Materialien für einen realitätsbezogenen Mathematikunterricht Bad Salzdetfurth ü (Vol. 2, pp. 66–84). Franzbecker: Hildesheim.Google Scholar
  58. Kaiser, G., Blum, W., Ferri, R. B., & Stillman, G. (Eds.). (2011). Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling: ICTMA14. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  59. Kaiser, G., & Sriraman, B. (2006). A global survey of international perspectives on modelling in mathematics education. ZDM Mathematics Education, 38(3), 302–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kapa, E. (2001). A metacognitive support during the process of problem-solving in a computerised environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47, 317–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Maass, K. (2004). Mathematisches modellieren im unterricht—Ergebnisse einer empirischen studie. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 25(2), 175–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Maass, K. (2006). What are modelling competencies? ZDM Mathematics Education, 38(2), 113–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Maass, K. (2007). Modelling in class: What do we want students to learn. In C. Haines, P. Galbraith, W. Blum, & S. Khan (Eds.), Mathematical modelling—Education, engineering and economics (pp. 63–78). Chichester: Horwood.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Maass, K., Doorman, M., Jonker, V., & Wijers, M. (2019). Promoting active ciztenship in mathematics teaching. ZDM Mathematics Education.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01048-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Maass, K., & Engeln, K. (2019). Professional development on connections to the world of work in mathematics and science education. ZDM Mathematics Education.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01047-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: Country comparisons. Melbourne: Australian Council of Learned Academies.Google Scholar
  67. Martín-Páez, T., Aguilera, D., Perales-Palacios, F. J., & Vílchez-González, J. M. (2019). What are we talking about when we talk about STEM education? A review of literature. Science Education, 103(4), 799–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mascil. (2013). Classroom materials. Retrieved from http://www.fisme.science.uu.nl/publicaties/subsets/mascil/.
  69. McConney, A., Oliver, M. C., Woods-McConney, A., Schibeci, R., & Maor, D. (2014). Inquiry, engagement, and literacy in science: A retrospective, cross-national analysis using PISA 2006. Science Education, 98(6), 963–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Mildenhall, P., Cowie, B., & Sherriff, B. (2019). A STEM extended learning project to raise awareness of social justice in a year 3 primary classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 41(4), 471–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Miller, J. (2019). STEM Education in the primary years to support mathematical thinking: Using coding to identify mathematical structures and patterns. ZDM Mathematics Education, 51(6), this issue.Google Scholar
  72. Ministerium für Jugend, Kultus und Sport, Baden-Württemberg (2016). Gemeinsamer Bildungsplan für die Sekundarstufe I, Bildungsplan 2016, Mathematik. Retrieved from http://www.bildungsplaene-bw.de/site/bildungsplan/get/documents/lsbw/export-pdf/depot-pdf/ALLG/BP2016BW_ALLG_SEK1_M.pdf.
  73. Mischo, C., & Maass, K. (2013). The effect of teacher beliefs on student competence in mathematical modeling—An intervention study. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 1(1), 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. National Academy of Sciences. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  75. National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.  https://doi.org/10.17226/13165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. National Science Teaching Association (NSTA). (2011). Quality science education and 21st-century skills: Position statement. Retrieved from https://www.nsta.org/about/positions/21stcentury.aspx.
  77. Nicol, C., Bragg, L. A., Radzimski, V., et al. (2019). Learning to teach the M in/for STEM for social justice. ZDM Mathematics Education.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01065-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Nikitina, S. (2006). Three strategies for interdisciplinary teaching: Contextualizing, conceptualizing, and problem centring. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38, 251–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Niss, M. (2018). National and international curricular use of the competency-based Danish “KOM project”. In Y. Shimizu & R. Vithal (Eds.), ICMI Study 24 Conference Proceedings (pp. 69–76). Tsukuba: University of Tsukuba & ICMI.Google Scholar
  80. Niss, M., Blum, W., & Galbraith, P. (2007). Introduction. In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education (pp. 3–32). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Niss, M., & Højgaard, T. (2019). Mathematical competencies revisited. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 102(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2005). Promoting adult learning. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/innovation-education/35268366.pdf.
  83. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2016). PISA 2015 results (volume I): Excellence and equity in education. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  84. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2018). PISA 2021 mathematics framework (Second draft). Paris: Author. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/.
  85. Owen, R., MacNaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2009). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39, 751–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2002). Learning for the 21st century: A report and mile guide for 21st century skills. Retrieved October 19, 2019 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED480035.pdf.
  87. Pearson, G. (2017). National academies piece on integrated STEM. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(3), 224–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Radakovic, N. (2015). “People can go against the government”: Risk-based decision making and high school students’ concepts of society. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 15(3), 276–288.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2015.1062938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371–391.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Satchwell, R. E., & Loepp, F. L. (2002). Designing and implementing an integrated mathematics, science, and technology curriculum for the middle school. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 41–66.Google Scholar
  92. Sawatzki, C. (2013). What financial dilemmas reveal about students’ social and mathematical understandings. In V. Steinle, L. Ball, & C. Bardini (Eds.), Mathematics education: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 602–609). Australia: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.Google Scholar
  93. Schleicher, A. (Ed.). (2012). Preparing teachers and developing school leaders for the 21st century: Lessons from around the world. Paris: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264174559-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Schneider, W., & Artelt, C. (2010). Metacognition and mathematics education. ZDM Mathematics Education, 42(2), 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Schukajlow, S., Kaiser, G., & Stillman, G. (2018). Empirical research on teaching and learning of mathematical modelling: A survey on the current state-of-the-art. ZDM Mathematics Education, 50(1–2), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Sevian, H., Dori, Y. J., & Parchmann, I. (2018). How does STEM context-based learning work: What we know and what we still do not know. International Journal of Science Education, 40(10), 1095–1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Shahali, E. H. M., Halim, L., Rasul, M. S., Osman, K., & Zulkifeli, M. A. (2017). STEM learning through engineering design: Impact on middle secondary students’ interest towards STEM. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(5), 1189–1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Shaughnessy, M. (2013). By way of introduction: Mathematics in a STEM context. Mathematics Teaching g in the Middle school, 18(6), 324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Skovsmose, O. (1994). Towards a philosophy of critical mathematics education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Skovsmose, O., & Nielsen, L. (1996). Critical mathematics education. In A. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education (pp. 1257–1288). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.Google Scholar
  101. Steele, A. (2016). Troubling STEM: Making a case for an ethics/STEM partnership. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(4), 357–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Steele, A., Brew, C. R., & Beatty, B. R. (2012). The tower builders: A consideration of STEM, STSE and ethics in science education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(10), 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Steen, L. (2001). The case for quantitative literacy. In L. Steen (Ed.), Mathematics and democracy: The case for quantitative literacy (pp. 1–22). National Council on Education and the Disciplines: Princeton.Google Scholar
  104. STEM Alliance. (2017). STEM education fact sheets. Retrieved from http://www.stemalliance.eu/publications.
  105. Stillman, G. A., Blum, W., & Kaiser, G. (Eds.). (2017). Mathematical modelling and applications: Crossing and researching boundaries in mathematics education. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  106. Stillman, G., Brown, J., Faragher, R., Geiger, V., & Galbraith, P. (2013). The role of textbooks in developing a socio-critical perspective on mathematical modelling in secondary classrooms. In G. Stillman, G. Kaiser, W. Blum, & J. Brown (Eds.), Teaching mathematical modelling: Connecting to research and practice (pp. 361–371). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Stillman, G. A., & Galbraith, P. L. (1998). Applying mathematics with real world connections: Metacognitive characteristics of secondary students. Educational studies in mathematics, 36(2), 157–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Stump, S. L., Bryan, J. A., & McConnell, T. J. (2016). Making STEM connections. Mathematics Teacher, 109(8), 576–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., et al. (2018). Integrated STEM education: A systematic review of instructional practices in secondary education. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Toma, R. B., & Greca, I. M. (2018). The effect of integrative STEM instruction on elementary students’ attitudes toward science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(4), 1383–1395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Tout, D., Coben, D., Geiger, V., Ginsburg, L., Hoogland, K., Maguire, T., Thomson, S., & Turner, R. (2017). Review of the PIAAC numeracy assessment framework: Final report. Camberwell, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER).Google Scholar
  112. UNESCO. (2005). Scientism: A weed well fertilized in the garden of science education? In Connect: UNESCO international science, technology and environmental education newsletter (Vol. 30, no. 3–4, pp. 2–5.Google Scholar
  113. van der Wal, N. J., Bakker, A. & Drijvers, P. (2019). Teaching strategies to foster techno-mathematical literacies in an innovative mathematics course for future engineers. ZDM Mathematics Education.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01095-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Venville, G. J., Wallace, J., Rennie, L. J., & Malone, J. A. (2002). Curriculum integration: Eroding the high ground of science as a school subject? Studies in Science Education, 37, 43–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Vorhölter, K. (2018). Conceptualization and measuring of metacognitive modelling competencies: Empirical verification of theoretical assumptions. ZDM Mathematics Education, 50(1–2), 343–354.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0909-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Walker, K. A. (2003). Students’ understanding of the nature of science and their reasoning on socioscientific issues: A web-based learning inquiry. Unpublished dissertation. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida.Google Scholar
  118. Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Zevenbergen, R. (1995). Towards a socially critical numeracy. Critical Forum, 4(1), 82–102.Google Scholar
  120. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Zollman, A. (2012). Learning for STEM literacy: STEM literacy for learning. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Zouda, M. (2018). Issues of power and control in STEM education: A reading through the postmodern condition. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13(4), 1109–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Centre of STEM EducationUniversity of Education FreiburgFreiburg im BreisgauGermany
  2. 2.Australian Catholic UniversityBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.University of JaenJaénSpain
  4. 4.University of LimerickLimerickIreland

Personalised recommendations