Advancing STEM Education: A2020Vision

By BodgerW. Byhee

Now is the time to move beyond

the slogan and make STEM

literacy for all students an

educational priority.

(I(eefe, 2010). Once again, the education community has embraced a slogan without really taking the time to clarify what the term might mean when applied beyond a general label. When most individuals use the term STEM, they mean whatever they meant in the past. So STEM is usually interpreted to mean science or math. Seldom does it refer to technology or engineering, and this is an issue that must be remedied.

hen STEM education first appeared, it caught the attention ofseveral groups. Botanical scientists were elated, as they thought educators had finally realized the importance of a main part ofplants. Technologists and engineers were excited, because they thought it referred to a part of the watch. 'Wine connoisseurs also were enthusiastic, as they thought it referred to the slender support of a wine glass. And, political conservatives were worried, because they thought it was a new educational emphasis supporting stem cell research. Actually, none of these perceptions of STEM meet the current use as an acronym for Science, Jechnology, Engineering, and Mathematics education.

If STEM education is going to advance beyond a slogan, educators in the STEM community will have to clarify what the acronym actually means for educational policies, programs, and practices. The following discussion presents several things that STEM might mean for contemporary education. First, it may mean recognition that science education has been diminished during the No Child Left Behind era, which is ending. The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) could underscore the importance of science, and by their close association, technology and engineering, in school programs.
Second, based on the observation that STEM is often a term for science or mathematics, STEM should mean increased emphasis of technology in school programs. With reference to technology, there are very few other things that influence our everyday existence more and about which citizens know less. It is time to change this situation. I am referring to a perspective and education programs larger than Information Communication Technology (ICT). ICT is, of course, part of technology programs. Third, STEM could mean increasing the recognition of engineering in I(-12 education. Engineering is directly involved in problem solving and innovation, two popular themes (Lichtenberg, 'Woock, & Wright, 2008). Engineering has some presence in our schools, but certainly not the amount consistent with its careers and contributions to society. Ifthe nation is truly interested in innovation, recognizing the T and E in STEM

STEM had its origins in the 1990s at the National Science Foundation (NSF) and has been used as a generic label for any event, policy, program, or practice that involves one or several of the STEM disciplines. However, a recent survey on the "perception of STEM" found that most professionals in STEM-related fields lacked an understanding of the acronym STEM. Most respondents linked the acronym to "stem cell research" or to plants

30

O TSCHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING TEACHER

SePtember 2o1O

would certainly be worth emphasizing (I(atehi, Pearson, &

Feder,2009). Fourth, all STEM disciplines present opportunities for stressing 21st Century skills. Students can develop 21st Century skills such as adaptability, complex communication, social skills, nonroutine problem solving, self-management/ self-development, and systems thinking (NRC, 2010). In STEM programs, student investigations and projects present the time and opportunity for teachers to help students develop 21st Century skills.

organizing education so the respective disciplines can be integrated and instructional materials designed, developed, and implemented. Educators must confront and resolve a number of challenges if they are to advance STEM literacy.

Addressing Challenges to Advancing STEM Education

Advancing STEM education presents several significant challenges. Use of the acronym and the associated ambiguity has served as a rallying point for policy makers and some educators. The power of STEM, however, diminishes quite rapidly as one moves away from national policies and toward the realization of STEM in educational programs. Here, I am not implying changes in the individual "silos" of STEM; rather I am referring to an integrated perspective of STEM as a long-term goal (Sanders, 2009). So, let's examine
some of the challenges. The first challenge involves actively including technology and engineering in school programs. Although one can

Fifth, STEM could mean an integrated curricular approach to studying grand challenges ofour era. I am referring to challenges such as: energy efficiency, resource use, environmental quality, and hazard mitigation. The competencies that citizens need in order to understand and address issues such as these are clearly related to the STEM disciplines, which should be understood before addressing other disciplines such as economics and politics. Now is the time to move beyond the slogan and make STEM literacy for all students an educational priority. The public may be ready for such a reform (fohnson, Rochkind,

& ott,2010).

Clarifying the Purpose of STEM Education

Clarifying STEM literacy and establishing this as a fundamental purpose of school programs is a first step in advancing STEM education. The following description is modified from the PISA 2006 Science framework (OECD, 2006). In general, STEM literacy includes the conceptual
understandings and procedural skills and abilities for individuals to address STEM-related personal, social, and global issues. STEM literacy involves the integration of STEM disciplines and four interrelated and complementary components. STEM literacy refers to the following:

identify technology and engineering programs, the scale at which they are in schools is generally quite low. Scaling up technology and engineering courses and appropriately including the T and E in science and mathematics education seem reasonable ways to meet this challenge. Note, however, that this approach maintains a "silo" orientation for the
separate disciplines. Suggesting that technology and engineering be incorporated in science education is not new. Sciencefor All Americans (AAAS, 1989) and subsequently Benchmarksfor Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993) and the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996), all included standards related to technology and engineering. For example, Sciencefor All

. . .

Acquiring scientific, technological, engineering, and mathematical knowledge and using that knowledge to identify issues, acquire new knowledge, and apply the knowledge to STEM-related issues.
Understanding the characteristic features ofSTEM disciplines as forms of human endeavors that include the processes ofinquiry, design, and analysis. Recognizing how STEM disciplines shape our material, intellectual. and cultural world. Engaging in STEM-related issues and with the ideas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics as concerned, affective, and constructive citizens.

Americans set the stage with discussions of "Engineering Combines Scientific Inquiry and Practical Values" and "The Essence of Engineering is Design Under Constraint (AAAS, 1989, pp. 40-41). In 1996, the National Science Education Standards included standards on Science and Technology for all grade levels, I(-4,5-8, and 9-12. One of the standards directly addressed the "abilities oftechnological design" as a complement to the abilities and understandings of scientific inquiry standards.

Translating this description of STEM literacy into school programs and instructional practices requires a way of

In addition, there are two very significant initiatives supporting technology and engineering education. First, in March 2010, the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) approved the framework for a national assessment oftechnology and engineering, scheduled for 2014. Second, the new common core standards for science will support these initial standards-based initiatives by including
technology and engineering standards.

31

O TSCHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING TEACHER O september 2O1o

One of the most significant challenges centers on introducing STEM-related issues such as energy efficiency, climate change, and hazard mitigation and developing the competencies to address the issues students will confront as citizens. Addressing this challenge requires an educational approach that first places life situations and global issues in a central position and uses the four disciplines of STEM to understand and address the problem. This has been referred to as context-based science education (Fensham, 2009) and could easily be represented as context-based STEM
Personal

education. Figure 1 is a framework of contexts adapted from PISA Science 2006, but they certainly could represent curricular topics for context-based STEM education.
The educational approach emphasizes competency in addressing the situation, problem, or issue, and not exclusively knowledge of concepts and processes within the respective STEM disciplines. Figure 2 presents competencies that could be used as Iearninq outcomes for

STEM education.

Social

Global

(Self, family, and peer groups)

Health

(The community) Control of disease, socia transmission, food choices,

(Life across the world)

Epidemics, spread of infectious diseases Global consequences, use and conservation of energy
Renewable and nonrenewable, natural systems, popu lation growth, sustainable use
B iod iversity, ecological sustainability, control of pollution, production, and loss

Maintenance of health, accidents, nutritron

Personal use of energy, emphasis on conservation and eff iciencv Personal consumption of materia ls

community health
Energy

efficiency
Natural res0urces

Conservation of energy, transition to efficient use and nonfossil fuels

Maintenance of human populations, quality of life, security, production and distribution of food, energy
su pp ry

Environmental
q

Environmental ly friendly

ua

lity

behavior, use and disposal of materials Natural and human-induced, decisions about housing

Population distribution, disposal of waste, environmental impact, local weather Rapid changes (earthquakes, severe weather), slow and progressive changes (coastal erosion, sedimentation), risk assessment
New materials, devices, and processes, genetic modif ication, weapons tech nology, transport

of soil
Hazard

mitigation

Climate change, impact of modern warfare

Frontiers of science, technology, engineering, mathematics

Interest in science's explanations

of natural phenomena, sciencebased hobbies, sport and leisure,

music and personal technology

Extinction of species, exploration of space, origin and structure of the universe

Figure 1. Contexts for STEM Education No/e. Adapted from: Assessing scientffic, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006 (OECD, 2006)

Identifying STEM issues . Recognizing issues that are possible to describe from a STEM perspective . ldentifying keywords to search for STEM information . Recognizing the key concepts from STEM disciplines Explaining issues from STEM perspectives o Applying knowledge of STEM in a given situation . Describing or interpreting phenomena using STEM perspectives and predicting changes r ldentifying appropriate descriptions, explanations, solutions, and predictions
Using STEM information r Interpreting STEM information and making and communicating conclusions . ldentifying the assumptions, evidence, and reasoning behind conclusions o Reflecting on the societal implications of STEM developments
f igule 2. STEM Competencies Nofe. Adapted from: Assessing scientffic, reading and mathematical literacy: Aframeworkfor PISA 2006 (OECD,2006).

32

O TTCuNoLoGY AND ENGINEERING TEACHER

September 2o1O

Innovative changes implied by this discussion should be initiated with curriculum supplements that demonstrate a change in emphasis within many I(-12 programs. This approach is modest but achievable, since such changes take advantage of opportunities that exist within current school programs.

for professional development. Figure 3 outlines design specifications for the proposed instructional units.
The instructional approach begins with a challenge or problem that engages students. The challenge is appropriate to their age, grade, and developmental stage. As they explore options and gain an understanding of the problem, they

Advancing STEM: A Curricular Theory of Action

The theory of action centers on model instructional units that are based on contemporary issues in the contextual categories described in Figure 1. These instructional units would be of varying lengths for elementary, middle, and high school levels, perhaps2,4, and 6 weeks at the respective levels. So, I am not suggesting a complete reform of the STEM education system. Although the units would present an integrated approach to STEM-related issues, the units could be introduced in the "silos" of STEM school programs.

must "reach out" to the respective STEM disciplines and apply knowledge and skills to the problem. The knowledge and skills that students use in the development of the model units and that they use to design solutions would be from various documents such as common core standards and the NAEP technology and engineering literacy framework. Figure 4 presents a framework characterizing the central emphasis on contextual problems and the connections among STEM disciplines.

Using model instructional units as the basis for introducing an integrated approach to STEM education will present a challenge, but the fact that the units are brief and can be accommodated within current programs makes the goal achievable. This approach is a positive and constructive response to classroom teachers' requests for instructional materials that both exemplify the innovation and are easy for them to implement. Further, they provide opportunities

TECHNOLOGY

National Standards
NAEP 2009 Framework Common Core Science

.
.

ITEA Standards NAEP 2012 Framework for

Standards

Technological Literacy
o Common Core Science

Standards

Based on Learning Research described in several NRC reports; e.9., How People Learn (NRC, 2OOO), Taking

LIFE AND WORK SITUATIONS THAT INVOLVE STEM (e.g., Environment, Resources, Health, Hazards, Frontiers)

Science to School(NRC, 2007).

Represent an lntegrated Instructional Sequence as recommended in America's Lab Report (NRC, 2006); i.e., an instructional model. Developed Using Backward Design (see Wiggins and

MATHEMATICS

McTighe, 2005).
a a

Emphasize Competencies

Common Core Standards NCTM Standards

Common Core Science Standards NAE Reports

Include Opportunities to Develop 21st Century Workforce Skills (e.g., NRC, 2010) Present Units Lasting:

Figure 4. A Framework for Model STEM Units

) Elementary (K-5) (6-8) ) Middle (9-I2) ) High

2 weeks 4 weeks 6 weeks

Advancing STEM: A Decade of Action

This section describes the larger picture of how we can initiate and bring about the changes described in the Iast section to a scale that matters within the U.S. education
systems.

Field-Tested and Revised Based on Feedback and Evidence of Effectiveness. Contextual issues related to STEM as central theme of units (see Figure 1).
Figure 3. Design Specifications for Exemplary STEM Units

Achieving higher levels of STEM literacy cannot be accomplished quickly; it will take a minimum of ten years. Figure 5 presents specifications for phases and goals for a

33

O TTCHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING TEACHER O september 2O1O

Phase

Timeline
Two years

Goal

Initiating the STEM education reform

Bringing the STEM reform to scale Sustaining the STEM education reform Evaluating the STEM education reform

Design, develop, and implement model instructional units

Change policies, programs, and practices at local, state, and national levels

Six years
Two years

Build capacity at the local level for continuous improvement of school science and technology programs
Provide formative and summative data on the nature and results of the reform efforts

Continuous, with a major evaluation in 10 years

Figure 5. A Decade ofAction: Phases and Goals

decade of reform centering on advancing STEM education

in the United States.

The primary work for the initial phase of reform occurs in the first two years. This phase would be "Introducing little changes with big effectsl'This phase centers on the

Districts begin the process of selecting and implementing curricula that emphasizes STEM literacy as they become
available. Professional development aligned with the new programs is ongoing. The central goal of this phase is to revise local, state, and national policies, develop new school programs, and align teaching practices with the goals of STEM literacy.
By the end ofthis phase, states would have new standards and assessments, new teacher certification requirements would be in place, new instructional materials for core

funding and the development of model STEM units.The model STEM units use major contexts as the "topicsj' (e.g., energy efficiency, hazard mitigation, and health) and emphasize competencies as learning outcomes. This phase includes field-testing and final production of the units and complementary assessments. Participating districts select schools, and implementation begins with accompanying
professional development.

Providing model STEM units, professional development, and exemplary assessment at the elementary, middle, and high school levels would have an impact on the system, increase understanding and acceptance of STEM among school personnel, increase support by policy makers and administrators, and promote understanding by the public. The units would provide a basis for answering the public's questions about what changes involve and why they are

and supplemental programs would be available, and the professional development of teachers would be aligned with the new priorities. This phase likely would present the most difficulty as policy makers and educators directly confront resistance to change and criticism ofthe new initiatives and changes in policies, programs, and practices.
The work of sustaining "building local capacity for a national purpose" is concentrated in the final two years of the decade. The work focuses on building local capacity for ongoing improvement of STEM education at the district level. These efforts phase out the use of external funds for the reform effort and phase in school districts'use ofresources in response to the new advances in science and technology and the implied changes for the school programs.

important-especially for children.

The second phase is "Systemic changes that ma[<e a differencel' Bringing the reform to scale takes six years. After the initial phase, efforts to bring the reform to a significant scale expand. Evaluations of teachers' responses and students' achievement, abilities, and attributes are reviewed and analyzed. These data form the basis for

revision of the original models of instructional units, the development of new models of instructional units, and a compelling case statement for the continued expansion of the reform. This phase includes major efforts to review and revise state policies and standards and create new criteria for local and state adoptions of instructional materials. Publishers would begin developing new editions of core and supplemental programs. Through this entire period,
professional development of STEM teachers continues.

Evaluation involves continuous feedback about the work and changes in content and curricula, teachers and teaching, and assessment and accountability. Clearly, feedback occurs during all phases for "monitoring and adjusting to changel'The feedback informs judgments about the models of instructional units and issues associated with their implementation and the professional development ofteachers. Evaluations and feedback are conducted and available at the school district, state, national, and even international levels. School districts and states implement their own evaluations. Results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), and international assessments TIMSS and PISA also provide feedback about the progress of reform efforts.

34 . TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING TEACHER I

SCPtCMbCT 2010

Conclusion
In the late 1950s, this nation responded to national and international challenges with a major curriculum reform. The reform took a decade and lasted a decade or more. Advancing STEM education with a 2020 vision could respond to myriad contemporary challenges the nation
now faces.
,*3<

References
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarksfor science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Fensham, P. (2009). Real world contexts in PISA science: Implications for context-based science education. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching a6@):88+-896.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: Aframeworkfor PISA 2006. Paris: OECD. Pearson, F. & Young, A.T. (Eds.). (2002). Technically speaking: \Yhy all Americans need to know more about technology. \07ashington, DC: National Academies Press. Rutherford, F. I., & Ahlgren, A. (1989). Sciencefor all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press. Sanders, M. (2009). Integrative STEM education primel The Technology Teacher, 68(4). 20-26.

Rodger W. Bybee, Ph.D., is director emeritus of BSCS. Prior to joining BSCS,

he was executive director of the National Research Council's Center for Science,

Garmire, E. & Pearson G. (Eds.). (2006). Tech tally:

'Washington, DC: National Academies Press. International Technology Education Association (ITEA/
S t an d ar d s fo r te chn o I o gi c a I literacy: Contentfor the Study of Technology, Reston, VA: Author. Johnson, f., Richkind, J., & Ott, A. (2010). Are we beginning

Appro aches to assessing technological literacy,

Mathematics, and Engineering Education

(CSMEE) in Washington, D.C.

ITEE A). (2OOO I 2OO2 I 2007 ).

to see the light? Public Agenda Survey. I(atehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (Eds.). (2009). Engineering in I(12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. I(eefe, B. (2010). The perception of STEM: Analysis, issues, andfuture directions. Survey. Entertainment and Media

Communication Institute.
Lichtenberg, f., Woock, C., & Wright, M. (2008). Ready to innovate: Are educators and executives aligned on the creative readiness of the U.S. worlcforce? Conference Board, Research Report 1424, New York: Conference Board, Inc. National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). (2008). N A E P 2 0 0 9 s ci e n c e fr am ew o r k. (U sing Te chnolo gical Design), NAGB. National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). (2010). N AEP technology and engineering framew ork. NAGB. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Research Council (NRC). (20i0). Exploring the intersection of science education and 2lst century skills: A workshop summary'Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

35

O TTCNNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING TEACHER

september 2010

SEPTEMBER

0ontents
.
VOL.

70.

NO.

19
Preferences of Male and Female Students for
TSA Gompetitive Events
An explanation of why female students may be avoiding TE courses, a presentation of research-tested sets of tools for TE teachers to fix the problem, and a suggested pathway towards technological literacy for all students.
CHARLES R. MITTS AND W. J. HAYNIE. III

Departments
1 ITEEA Web News

Features

Editorial: The Necessity of Ghange

KATIE DE LA PAZ

STEM News STEM Calendar Resources

30 36

Advancing STEM Education: A 2020 Vision

This article sets out to clarify the purpose of STEM education as well as address challenses to its advancement.
RODGER

I
16

W. BYBEE

in Technology
and

Engineering
Classroom Challenge

2010 Supermileage Competition photos

27 ,??1i,;

squad

Publisher, Kendall N. Starkweather, DTE EditoFln-Chiel, Kathleen B. de la Paz

Editor, Kathie F.
ITEEA Eoard

I|EEA is an atliliate ol the Aneilcan Association tor the Advancenent of Science. Technology and Engineerirg

Advertising Sales: ITEEA Publications Department

Change of Address

Cluff

of Dhectols

lercrer, ISSN:

703-860-2 100 Fax: 703-860-0353

Subscription Claims All subscription claims must be made within 60 days of the {irst day of rhe month appearing on the cover of the lournal. For combrned rssues, claims wiil be honored within 60 days from the lirst day of the last month on the cover. Because of repeated delivery problems outside the continental United States, journals will be shipped only at the customer's risk. ITEEA will ship the subscription copy but assumes no responsibi I ity thereafter.

Gary Wynn, DTE, Prcsident

Ed Denton, DTE, Past President Thomas Bell, DfE, Prcsident-Elect Joanne Trombley, DhectoL Region I Randy McGrifl, Dircctor, Region il lvlike Neden, DfE, Director, Region lll Steven Shumway, Dirccto| Region lV Greg Kane, Director, ,ffEl4-Cs Richard Seymour, 0ircctor, C|TE Andrew Klenke, Dircctuf |ECA Marlene Scott, Dircctot, TECC Kendall N. Starkweather, DTE, CAE, Executive Directol

0746-3537 , is published eight times a year (September through June, with combined
December/January and lvlay/June issues) by the International Technology and Engrneerrng Educators Association, 1914 Association Drive, Suite 201, Reston, VA 20191. Subscripiions are included in member dues. U.S. Library and nonmember subscriptions are $90; g1 10 outside the U.S. Single copies are $10.00 for members; $1 1.00 for nonmembers, plus shipping and handling.
Technology and Engineering Teacher is listed in the Educational Index and the Current lndex to Journal in Education. Volumes are available on lvlicrofiche from University lvlicrofilm, PO. Box 1346, Ann Arbor, lvll 48106.

Send change of address notification promptly. Provide old mailing label and new address. Include zip r 4 code. Allow six weeks for change.
Postmastel

Send address change to: Technology and Engineering Teacher, Address Change, ITEEA,

1914 Association Drive, Suite 201, Reston,

VA

20191-1539. Periodicals postage paid at Herndon, VA and additionat mailing offices.

Emailr kdelapaz@iteea.org World Wide Web: www.iteea.org

GREENWOR KS'"