Advertisement

Potential and Challenges in Integrating Science and Mathematics in the Classroom Through Real-World Problems: A Case of Implementing an Interdisciplinary Approach to STEM

  • Wanty WidjajaEmail author
  • Peter Hubber
  • George Aranda
Chapter

Abstract

There is a pressing need to make STEM integration more transparent and balanced across disciplines, to support teachers in fostering this integration, and to evaluate students’ learning through such integration. However, research has been inconclusive as to what effective STEM integration entails. This study employs design-based research methodology in a case study of two teachers from one secondary school that was implementing an interdisciplinary approach in STEM. The findings indicated increased student engagement and enjoyment from the use of real-world problems and apparent student autonomy and ownership of the project. The teachers thought more deeply about how to better integrate interdisciplinary skills and knowledge in their teaching, and they experienced a greater sense of satisfaction in making learning meaningful for students. The challenges that teachers face include the integration of the learning of two subject disciplines into one interdisciplinary discipline that has real-world applications and the time needed to plan collaboratively. An interdisciplinary approach requires a change in school culture as to the provision in the timetable for interdisciplinary planning and to the enculturation of inquiry-based learning.

Keywords

Real-world problems Interdisciplinary approach Mathematics Science Secondary classroom 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the teachers and students in the school who contributed to this study and Dr. Esther Y.-K. Loong for her contribution to the project. The study was funded by Research for Educational Impact, Faculty of Arts and Education, Deakin University, Australia.

References

  1. Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework. Educational Reseacher, 32(1), 21–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blum, W., & Niss, M. (1991). Applied mathematical problem solving, modelling, applications and links to other subjects. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22(1), 37–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bryan, L. A., Moore, T. J., Johnson, C. C., & Roehrig, G. H. (2015). Integrated STEM education. In C. C. Johnson, E. E. Peters-Burton, & T. J. Moore (Eds.), STEM road map: A framework for integrated STEM education (pp. 23–37). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. California Department of Education. (2014). Innovate: A blueprint for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in California public education (STEM Task Force Report). Sacramento, CA: Author. Available from https://www.cde.ca.gov/pd/ca/sc/documents/innovate.pdf.
  5. Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 947–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dreher, A., Kuntze, S., & Lerman, S. (2016). Why use multiple representations in the mathematics classroom? Views of English and German preservice teachers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(2), 363–381.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9633-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. English, L. D. (2009). Promoting interdisciplinarity through mathematical modelling. ZDM Mathematics Education, 41, 161–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1).  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1.
  11. English, L. D. (2017). Advancing elementary and middle school STEM education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(Suppl. 1), S5–S24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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).  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0027-7.
  13. Ferri, R. B., & Mousoulides, N. (2017). Mathematical modelling as a prototype for interdisciplinary mathematics education? Theoretical reflections. Paper presented at the CERME 10, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
  14. Funner, J. M., & Kumar, D. D. (2007). The mathematics and science integration argument: A strand for teacher education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(3), 185–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gardner, M., & Tillotson, J. W. (2018). Interpreting integrated STEM: Sustaining pedagogical innovation within a public middle school context. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. Advance online publication.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9927-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hobbs, L. (2012). Teaching out-of-field: Factors shaping identities of secondary science and mathematics. Teach Science, 58(1), 21–29.Google Scholar
  17. Hobbs, L., Cripps Clark, J., & Plant, B. (2018). Successful students—STEM program: Teacher learning through a multifaceted vision for STEM education. In R. Jorgensen & K. Larkin (Eds.), STEM education in junior secondary (pp. 133–168). Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  19. Johnson, C. C., & Sondergeld, T. A. (2015). Effective STEM professional development. In C. C. Johnson, E. E. Peters-Burton, & T. J. Moore (Eds.), STEM road map: A framework for integrated STEM education (pp. 203–210). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johri, A., Roth, W.-M., & Olds, B. (2013). The role of representations in engineering practices: Taking a turn towards inscriptions. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(1), 2–19.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope. Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2000). Developing model-based reasoning in mathematics and science. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23(4), 512–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leung, A. (2018). Exploring STEM pedagogy in the mathematics classroom: A tool-based experiment lesson on estimation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. Advance online publication.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9924-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lowrie, T., Downes, N., & Leonard, S. (2018). STEM education for all young Australians: A Bright Spots STEM Learning Hub Foundation Paper for SVA, in partnership with Samsung. Canberra, ACT: University of Canberra STEM Education Research Centre. Retrieved from http://www.socialventures.com.au/assets/STEM-education-for-all-young-Australians-Smaller.pdf.
  26. Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: Country comparisons—International comparisons of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council of Learned Academies. Retrieved from https://acola.org.au/wp/PDF/SAF02Consultants/SAF02_STEM_%20FINAL.pdf.
  27. 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. College of Pre-College Engineering Education, 4(1).  https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1069.
  28. Nadelson, L. S., & Seifert, A. L. (2017). Integrated STEM defined: Contexts, challenges, and the future. Journal of Educational Research, 110(3), 221–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pearson, G. (2017). National academics piece on integrated STEM. Journal of Educational Research, 110(3), 224–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ríordáin, M. N., Johnston, J., & Walshe, G. (2016). Making mathematics and science integration happen: Key aspects of practice. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 47(2), 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sanders, M. E. (2012). Integrative STEM education as best practice. In H. Middleton (Ed.), Explorations of best practice in technology, design, & engineering education (Vol. 2, pp. 103–117). Queensland, Australia: Griffith Institute for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  32. Schoenfeld, A. (2004). Multiple learning communities: Students, teachers, instructional designers, and researchers. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 237–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shaughnessy, J. M. (2013). Mathematics in a STEM context. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 18(6), 324–327.  https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacmiddscho.18.6.0324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Siekmann, G., & Korbel, P. (2016). Defining ‘STEM’ skills: Review and synthesis of the literature. Adelaide, Australia: National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER). Available from https://www.ncver.edu.au/research-and-statistics/publications/all-publications/what-is-stem-the-need-for-unpacking-its-definitions-and-applications.
  35. Stinson, K., Harkness, S. S., Meyer, H., & Stallworth, J. (2009). Mathematics and science integration: Models and characterizations. School Science and Mathematics, 109(3), 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Treacy, P., & O’Donoghue, J. (2014). Authentic integration: A model for integrating mathematics and science in the classroom. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 45(5), 703–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tytler, R. (2016, July 24–31). Challenges for mathematics within an interdisciplinary STEM education. Paper (keynote) presented at the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education. Hamburg, Germany.Google Scholar
  38. van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (2006). Educational design research. Abingdon, England: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vasquez, J. A. (2014). STEM beyond the acronym. Educational Leadership, (December), 10–15.Google Scholar
  40. Vasquez, J. A., Sneider, C., & Comer, M. (2013). STEM lesson essentials, Grades 3–8: Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  41. 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).  https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314636.
  42. Williams, J., Roth, W.-M., Swanson, D., Doig, B., Groves, S., Omuvwie, M., et al. (2016). Interdisciplinary mathematics education: A state of the art. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Arts and Education, School of EducationDeakin UniversityBurwoodAustralia

Personalised recommendations