Managing STEM learning: a typology and four models of integration

To develop a framework for conceptualizing and managing integration in STEM learning, that can help address key issues in its research and implementation worldwide.,Integration in learning is a complicated but not a well-defined concept and therefore it is difficult to illustrate in theory and practice how to conceptualize, manage and implement integrated STEM learning with aims to enhance students' learning effectiveness and multiple-thinking ability. Based on a typology in integrated learning, this article re-conceptualizes integrated STEM learning into a comprehensive framework of three categories, six subcategories and four basic models. With this framework, how to manage integrated STEM learning and related issues in schools for effectiveness are discussed.,As a typology, integration in STEM learning can be classified as content integration, pedagogical integration and learner integration. They can be further differentiated as six subcategories: subject integration, domain integration, method integration, cognitive integration, SEN integration and diverse ability integration in STEM learning. Depending on the extents of content integration and pedagogical integration, four basic models of integrated learning can be identified in theory and practice. The categories, subcategories and basic models have their own characteristics, strengths and limitations. Strategies are developed to address the characteristics and related key issues of each category of STEM learning.,The framework may help to analyze the key issues of integrated STEM learning in research and development, such as “Why and what integration in STEM learning is important and necessary in curriculum reforms for the future?”, “How the integrated STEM approach is different from the traditional subject approach?”, “How the STEM learning activities can be integrated and managed effectively for enhancing students' learning effectiveness and multiple thinking capacity?”, and “What key implications can be drawn for managing and implementing STEM learning?”,Based on the proposed typology and models of STEM learning, various strategies of managing STEM are discussed and developed, which will contribute to policy formulation and professional practice of integrated STEM learning locally and internationally.,The proposed typology and models of STEM learning and related new ideas and perspectives will contribute to future research and development in this area locally and internationally.

[1]  Jiwon Hwang,et al.  Stemming on STEM: A STEM Education Framework for Students with Disabilities , 2016 .

[2]  William J. Therrien,et al.  Science Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities: A Meta–Analysis , 2011 .

[3]  Tai Hoi Theodore Lee,et al.  Inquiry learning in a special education setting: managing the cognitive loads of intellectually disabled students , 2015 .

[4]  Y. Cheng,et al.  Broad-based national education in globalisation: Conceptualisation, multiple functions and management , 2017 .

[5]  P. Blatchford,et al.  The challenges of implementing group work in primary school classrooms and including pupils with special educational needs , 2015 .

[6]  Nancy Budwig,et al.  Concepts and tools from the learning sciences for linking research, teaching and practice around sustainability issues , 2015 .

[7]  D. Newton,et al.  Creativity in 21st-century education , 2014 .

[8]  M. César,et al.  From exclusion to inclusion: Collaborative work contributions to more inclusive learning settings , 2006 .

[9]  M. Berkowitz,et al.  Thinking (Scientifically) Responsibly: The Cultivation of Character in a Global Science Education Community , 2014 .

[10]  C. Nilholm,et al.  Conceptual diversities and empirical shortcomings – a critical analysis of research on inclusive education , 2014 .

[11]  Kristina Kaufman,et al.  21 Ways to 21st Century Skills: Why Students Need Them and Ideas for Practical Implementation , 2013 .

[12]  Y. Cheng Development of multiple thinking and creativity in organizational learning , 2005 .

[13]  S. Reindal Discussing inclusive education: an inquiry into different interpretations and a search for ethical aspects of inclusion using the capabilities approach , 2016 .

[14]  Rhona Sharpe,et al.  Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age , 2007 .

[15]  Marcia C. Linn,et al.  The Knowledge Integration Perspective on Learning and Instruction , 2005 .

[16]  S. Akaygun,et al.  STEM Images Revealing STEM Conceptions of Pre-Service Chemistry and Mathematics Teachers , 2016 .

[17]  Kalle Juuti,et al.  Maker-Centered Project-Based Learning in Inclusive Classes: Supporting Students’ Active Participation with Teacher-Directed Reflective Discussions , 2020, International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education.

[18]  Kyriaki Messiou Research in the field of inclusive education: time for a rethink?* , 2017 .

[19]  Azilawati Jamaludin,et al.  Problem-solving for STEM learning: navigating games as narrativized problem spaces for 21 century competencies , 2017 .

[20]  Mary Webb,et al.  Current and future research issues for ICT in education , 2013, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[21]  Todd R. Kelley,et al.  A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education , 2016 .

[22]  Yuan-Hsiang Lin,et al.  Impact of augmented reality lessons on students’ STEM interest , 2016, Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning.

[23]  T. J. Kennedy,et al.  Engaging Students In STEM Education , 2014 .

[24]  Alvar Saenz Otero,et al.  STEM Education , 2019, Teaching Elementary STEM Education.