{"id":7633,"date":"2017-11-28T16:27:53","date_gmt":"2017-11-28T16:27:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/\/\/"},"modified":"2018-03-07T18:02:37","modified_gmt":"2018-03-07T18:02:37","slug":"editorial-cite-journal-science-education-3-0","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/volume-17\/issue-4-17\/science\/editorial-cite-journal-science-education-3-0","title":{"rendered":"Editorial: Integrated STEM and Current Directions in the STEM Community"},"content":{"rendered":"
Let\u2019s talk about real STEM activities; that is, those that genuinely<\/em> integrate the use of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. In late September 2017, a group of approximately 50 leaders \u2013 organization presidents, journal editors, faculty members, and technology developers \u2013 met to not only discuss technology, but to advance the dialogue about technology in STEM and other areas.<\/p>\n During this National Technology Leadership Summit (NTLS; see ntls.info<\/a>), concurrent \u201cstrand\u201d deliberations took place over 2 days. One of those strands was entitled American Innovations in the Content Areas: STEM<\/em>, and the discussion within that strand is the focus of this editorial. The American Innovations<\/em> project has students reconstruct and enhance early inventions using advanced manufacturing, while exploring related science and mathematical models. As a springboard for discussion, our group engaged in two project activities, one involved taking a series of measurements to derive Ohm\u2019s Law and the other demonstrated an activity that had middle school students derive Ampere\u2019s Law for Solenoids.<\/p>\n Here we outline the three main areas of the group\u2019s discussion, including (a) the benefits of integrated STEM activities, (b) difficulties of implementing integrated STEM activities in schools, and (c) action items to move forward as a STEM community. We encourage your comments and feedback to further this exchange.<\/p>\n First, what are the potential benefits<\/em> of using integrated STEM activities and curricula? The NTLS strand group discussed several types of benefits, such as the following:<\/p>\n Second, we realize and acknowledge that there are challenges and barriers<\/em> to implementing integrated STEM activities\/curricula in traditional courses in typical school settings. These challenges and barriers include the following:<\/p>\n This leads us to the third topic of discussion. What next steps<\/em> can be taken in order to have more widespread integrated STEM activities\/curricula?<\/p>\n In our discussion we used the term \u201cintegrated STEM,\u201d but we used it in a way consistent with a similar term used by the International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA). The ITEEA operationally defines integrative STEM education as \u201cthe application of technological\/engineering design based pedagogical approaches to\u00a0intentionally\u00a0teach content and practices of science and mathematics education through the content and practices of technology\/engineering education. Integrative STEM Education is equally applicable at the natural intersections of learning within the continuum of content areas, educational environments, and academic levels\u201d (Wells & Ernst, 2012\/2015; as adapted from Wells\/Sanders program documents 2006-10).<\/p>\n We hope that you and your colleagues can discuss integrated STEM and ways you could use it in the places where you are teaching (e.g., Burrows & Slater, 2015; Vasquez, 2017). The following list is meant as a starting point, not an exhaustive resources list.<\/p>\n Please add resources in the comments for others to use as well. Together we can move STEM forward, but it will be with an understanding of the barriers and a commitment to trying something new.<\/p>\n Andrea C. Burrows Joe Garofalo Steven Barbato Rhonda Christensen Michael Grant Kinshuk Jennifer Parrish Christine Thomas Tandra Tyler-Wood Burrows, A., & Slater, T. (2015). A proposed integrated STEM framework for contemporary teacher preparation.\u00a0Teacher Education and Practice, 28<\/i>(2\/3), 318-330.<\/p>\n Vasquez, J. (2017, October). A STEM approach to transform teacher education.\u00a0NSTA Reports,\u00a0<\/i>3.<\/p>\n Wells, J., & Ernst, J. (2012\/2015). Integrative STEM education. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech: Invent the Future, School of Education. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.soe.vt.edu\/istemed\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Author Notes<\/h3>\n
\nAndrea.Burrows@uwyo.edu<\/a>
\nCo-Editor CITE Science
\nUniversity of Wyoming<\/p>\n
\njg2evirginia.edu<\/a>
\nCurry School of Education
\nUniversity of Virginia<\/p>\n
\nsbarbato@iteea.org<\/a>
\nCEO, International Technology and Engineering Education Association (ITEEA)<\/p>\n
\nrhonda.christensen@gmail.com<\/a>
\nChair, SITE Information Technology Council
\nUniversity of North Texas<\/p>\n
\nmichaelmgrant@sc.edu<\/a>
\nAECT Executive Secretary
\nUniversity of South Carolina<\/p>\n
\nkinshuk@ieee.org<\/a>
\nEditor, Smart Learning Environments<\/em>
\nUniversity of North Texas<\/p>\n
\njennifer.parrish@unco.edu<\/a>
\nMath and Science Teaching Institute
\nUniversity of Northern Colorado<\/p>\n
\ncthomas11@gsu.edu<\/a>
\nPast President, Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators (AMTE)
\nGeorgia State University<\/p>\n
\ntandra.wood@unt.edu<\/a>\u00a0–\u00a0UNT
\nP.I., American Innovations in an Age of Discovery
\nUniversity of North Texas<\/p>\nReference<\/h3>\n