STEAM Education An Overview of Creating

STE@M Educational Model 1
ST∑@M Education:
an overview of creating a model of integrative education.
Georgette ‘george’ Yakman

PhD Student
Curriclum & Instruction: ISTEM
Virginia Polytechnic and State University
Middle School Technology Education Teacher
Pulaski Middle School - Pulaski, VA
March, 2008
Disclaimer:
It has been said that ‘citation and utilization of scholarly work can be political’ (Petrina, 1998b) in
this case, please accept that it is not politics, but exposure and the limitations of time that has
warranted the inclusion and exclusion of particular authors in this work. I fully welcome receiving
additional works to consider, whether they are in-line or in opposition to the concepts explored in this
paper.
Abstract: ST∑@M is a developing educational model of how the traditional academic subjects
(silos) of science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics can be structured into a framework by
which to plan integrative curricula. It includes reviews of the epistemologies of general and discipline
specific developments in conjunction with the individual discipline’s standards, as related to
integrative, or holistic, education. Investigating these educational relationships to one another is
currently being explored as a way to find the commons of education in relation to pedagogy and
language. Along with the development of commons is the need for the disciplines to work with one
another in a structure that is able to be adaptable to the many variations of discipline combinations that
make up different directions that people in society pursue. This paper is an introduction to concepts on
the development of such a structure.
ST∑@M is a developing educational model of how the traditional academic subjects (silos) can
be structured into a framework by which to plan integrative curricula. ST∑@M is based on STEM
education, which can be defined in two ways:
1. the more traditional way, I like to write as S-T-E-M education, as it represents the individual
‘silo’ fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics education. Each has evolved
to formally include elements of the others within their own standards and practices (American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 1993), International Technology
Education Association (ITEA, 2000), National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM,
1989) & National Academy of Engineering (NAE, 2004).
2. the newer trend is the concept of integrative STEM education. It includes the teaching and
learning practices when the subjects are purposefully integrated (M. Sanders, 2006; VTSOE,
2007). When planning integrative curriculum, one field may be the dominant base discipline or
all may be planned to be more equally represented (J. G. Wells, 2006).
When the argument of discipline-based vs. integrative education has been addressed, there has
been disagreement. There is no argument that there are connections between the disciplines, but there
is in what balance of content of each discipline to teach so as to not lose the uniqueness of the silos.
(Barlex & Pitt, 2000; DeBoer, 1991) Both types of cross-curricular studies can be valuable and reality
based. (Barlex & Pitt, 2000) came up with three distinctions of classification for disciplines being
Intellectual Property of G. Yakman C. 8/7/2010
taught together; Coordination, Collaboration, Integration. Coordination and Collaboration are both
discipline-based (Barlex & Pitt, 2000). It is promoted that multiple methods are needed for
comprehension of applications across the disciplines (Berger & Pollman, 1996; M. J. de Vries, 1996;
DeBoer, 1991; Dewey, 1963; Driscoll, 2005; Hickman, 1992; Loepp, 1999; Paterson, 2007; Petrina,
2007; R. C. S. Wicklein, John W. , 1995; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). This calls for a structure where
individual disciplines can still dominate their own realms, but also where there is constructive time
where interdisciplinary studies can be addressed to promote transference of knowledge.
These trends are having a significant influence on each of the inclusive fields of science,
technology, engineering and mathematics. Leaders in education are heavily promoting the concept that
S-T-E-M and STEM programs be developed to produce more scientists, mathematicians and engineers
who are capable of leading the discoveries and developments of the future. (AACTE, 2007; Act, 2006;
Ashby, 2006; DOE, 2006; Horwedel, 2006; NAE, 2002; National Governors Association. Center for
Best, 2007; Porter, 2006; M. Sanders, 2006; Sarlemijn, 1993; Toulmin, Groome, & National
Governors' Association, 2007; Tyson, Lee, Borman, & Hanson, 2007). This trend lends itself
particularly well to influence the field of Technology Education [TE]. There has been much use of the
design loop in the field of TE. It seems now in the age of recognizing the need to include Engineering
Education to promote a new face of TE as TIDE (Technology, Idea, Design, Engineering) (ITEA,
2008) or STEM, that the design circle might be useful for the field to use to reinvent ourselves as we
did in 1985 when we moved from IA to TE. The goal seems the same as it was then, to ensure that the
field is best able to substantiate itself as the area within the structures of the scholastic world where
students learn about a rapidly changing reality. In order for that to happen, an adaptable system of
discipline relationships would need to be established. Such an adaptable system would have to be
primarily structured around the base elements of education that are true for all the disciplines.
Commonalities in the Development of Modern Education
There have been many philosophers on education since the rise of the current modern educational
structure was established. I will briefly cover the primary general educational theorists and educational
psychologists as well as the collective epistemological movements of the four disciplines of S-T-E-M
as they have matured and grown more interdisciplinary.
Socrates and Aristotle are credited with the concept that the ‘pursuit of knowledge is the highest
good’ and that this is the basis of education (Ulich, 1947). This is still used as the foundational concept
of modern research universities. The ‘New Method’ of education was officially created in the 13th
Century (Ulich, 1947). It is the basis of the modern educational structure still followed in schools
today. Its basis is the concept that schools should be democratic in nature versus the previously used
authoritarian models (Ulich, 1947). This marked a significant shift from the concept of content-focused
curricula to that of promoting a structure of life-long learning.
The first major educational philosopher (epistemologist) who made significant statements that can
give strength to the development of the STEM movement is Descartes. His concepts, introduced in the
early 17th century, included that the goal of education should be to ‘examine all things… including
falsehoods, to know their value (Descartes, 1947).’ He specifically pointed out that this was the only
way to dispel myths and misconceptions not previously challenged. Since this was the time when
science was emerging from alchemy, he made it a point to stress that ‘discovery is more important than
current logic and methods (Descartes, 1947).’ This paved the way for the acceptance of dispelling
myths, not only in findings, but in how the findings were framed, looked for, recorded and interpreted.
Comenius was a contemporary of Descartes who stated that ‘education is a preparation for life
(Comenius, 1947).’ This further opened the door for exploring all means for acquiring knowledge. By
stating that life itself was a study in education, he formally tied that idea to the development of student-
directed and hands-on learning methods. He said that ‘observation precedes analysis’ (Comenius,
1947), meaning that it also precedes the rules of analysis. This allowed the development of current
science practices and the structure of laboratory based classes. Comenius was the first to formally
introduce the world of formal education to the concept that all people needed to be educated in order to
properly function in society. He said that education was for all and specifically named females, the
disabled and most significantly, youth (Comenius, 1947). He stated that the natural curiosity of the
young needed to be exploited by allowing access to formal education for them as well. Comenius made
a strong argument for delivering a holistic approach to education with the following statement:
‘individual sciences are badly taught unless a simple and general survey of the total knowledge is
given before… one ought never to instruct anybody in such a way [of] perfecting one brand of
knowledge to the exclusion of others (Comenius, 1947).’ This clause establishes a basis for applying
integrative education.
Rousseau helped establish the formal divisions of science and their inter-connectedness in reality
and in education. One of his related statements is; ‘the sciences are connected together by a series of
propositions, all dependent on some general and common principles (Rousseau, 1947).’ This statement
set the tone for scientific method used in education.
Pestalozzi promoted a study of in-depth universal knowledge as the basis of education when he
said; ‘principles in regard to education… were founded on an accurate knowledge of the world
(Pestalozzi, 1947).’ With this statement he clarified why in order to accurately study something, one
must study why something is instead of just what it is. To study why something is, one must
investigate how it came to be and how it maintains, in other words, how it interacts with the rest of
reality. This concept is the basis of pure integrative studies.
Herbart helped establish education’s role in character development by saying that; ‘the goal of
education is the development of a person with character and humane convictions who understands the
great art of constructive and harmonious living (Herbart, 1947).’ This statement also lays the
groundwork for the inclusion of a goal of sustainability. Herbart backed up knowledge needing to be
contextual with holistic ideals by saying that ‘to present youth the whole fund of accumulated
experience in a concentrated form, is the highest service which mankind can render to its successors
(Herbart, 1947).’ With this statement, the concept of studying undesirable elements of knowledge
became strengthened in education. Herbart also specifically referenced interdisciplinary studies by
saying: ‘geography, mathematics, the natural sciences and history are combined (Herbart, 1947).’ This
helped lay the basis for the development of Science, Technology, Society/Studies (STS) movement
over a century later.
Froebel’s concepts added more structure to education. He believed that people live ‘in a world of
objects, which influence [them], and which [they] desire to influence; therefore [they] ought to know
these objects in their nature, in their conditions and in their relations with each other and with
[human]kind (Froebel, 1947).’ This concept promoted education including a formal acknowledgement,
survey and mastering of the relationships between objects in their element and all related influences.
He promoted a direct link between education and the industrial field of science by saying that,
‘education as well as science would gain by … a more human, related, affiliated, connected treatment
and consideration of the subjects of education (Froebel, 1947).’ This put emphasis on methods versus
content and prepared learners for reality. This concept applied as well to general education as it did to
the basis of the manual/industrial art’s movements. He promoted endless possibilities in education by
contributing that, ‘the knowledge of life in its totality constitutes science … the apprehension of
[intelligent being’s] life-work and in the accomplishments of their destiny, is the theory of education
(Froebel, 1947).’ This directly correlates to the modern TE/TIDE/STEM philosophies. He laid the
groundwork for guided-inquiry and predated constructivism with the concept of the teacher as a
discovery guide by stating, ‘educational training should be simultaneously double-sided – giving and
taking, uniting and dividing.. active and passive… between educator and pupil (Froebel, 1947),’ He
also promoted real world experiences by saying that ‘children should be brought ‘into harmony with
the past, present and future requirements of the development of humanity and of the race… not in dead
imitation or mere copying, but in the way of living (Froebel, 1947).’ Froebel promoted contextual
learning as the only way to promote real understanding.
Dewey contributed greatly to the field of education. His key goal was for people to be functionally
literate (Dewey, 1963). He promoted integrated and technical literacy to be the cornerstone of this type
of universal literacy. He went so far as to attack the concepts of separating content and context in
learning and separating learning into content-based categories. He used vivid examples of the need for
cross-curricular studies, such as; ‘scientific advances are technological advances: they are advances in
the uses of tools in order to improve and test inferences (Hickman, 1992).’ He sets the stage for
purposeful interdisciplinary studies. He promotes spelling out linkages between concepts, contents and
contexts to look for connections that are not obvious. These concepts are vital fuel and momentum of
ISTEM education. Dewey challenged the structure of scientific hypothesis as potentially ‘mutilating
the facts,’ which leads to questioning the meanings behind them. He promoted that meanings can be
applied in various situations to add context to education. This is a basis of meaningful learning where
inter-related, organized & personally meaningful concepts are learned more deeply. Dewey used
examples of social constructs to show how developed methods and meanings can affect the base
elements of other fields (Dewey, 1963). This concept is essential for integrative education with the
goal of pure knowledge. Dewey recognized the need for separate disciplines, but illustrated how the
connections themselves create a concept of the whole for the learner when he stated that ‘we learn, but
only at the end, that instead of discovering and then connecting together a number of separate realities,
we have been engaged in the progressive definition of one fact (Dewey, 1963).’ This aligns with
primary tenet of constructivism, which it predated by 30 years, that the ‘true understanding of content
comes from learning in situational contexts where students explore for themselves (Driscoll, 2005).’
Conceptual learning is a necessity in integrative education, it is the only way that education can be
planned to be continuously adaptable to the changes and developments of society and reflect them in
the curricula.
From this collection of epistemological statements from well -respected educational
philosophers, a case for integrated curriculum begins to build. The primary thoughts reinforced with
each other’s statements revolve around the concept of providing students with reality-based,
investigative learning experiences that allow students to think and discover the nature of reality and its
inter-connections.
Educational Psychologists
Educational psychology is defined as the study of the acquisition and retention of knowledge
(McDevitt, 2004). This field took off in mid-1900’s and as since then made considerable contributions
to the understanding of tangible and theoretical knowledge. I will cover a brief synopsis of educational
psychologists who have contributed significantly to the field of education, especially those involved in
the constructivist movement.
Piaget is most widely credited with defining the basis of constructivism (Driscoll, 2005). His ideas
were closely related to Vygotsky. Piaget coined the term ‘genetic epistemology’ (Driscoll, 2005) or the
study of how knowledge developed in humans. His primary tenant was that knowledge was a constant
development of misconstrued connections that were adjustable usually through developing deeper
understanding. It was promoted that a reality-based (contextual) learning style was the most conducive
learning environment.
Piaget also believed that ‘children accommodate everything they learn from and about into their
own common sense (Furth, 1970)’ and that is was this commonsense that was the basis of personal
knowledge. Piaget theorized that people who have not yet made the relevant connections, remember
events that they do not fully understand and can be confused about. He says that this creates

‘sociocognitive conflict (Driscoll, 2005),’ which drives a need for more information in order to be able
to make sense of the event.
Vygotsky did not base his theory on children but couched it in terms of the socio-cultural
perspectives that all people experience. He referred to there being group interpretations of the world
and that a person’s exposure to a variety of interpretations causes an assimilation of these to create a
personal interpretation (Driscoll, 2005). Inclusive in societal groups, would also be structural groups of
knowledge. He stated that the connections to how the disciplines developed and function is critical to
understand (Driscoll, 2005). When these two concepts are tied together, one realizes that people are
vastly influenced by the structure of the disciplines which they study. When the disciplines are kept
separate, people are indoctrinated to analyze them and the elements they represent separately.
However, Vygotsky also introduced the concepts of scaffolding and/or spiraling, where people learn
by building on the base of knowledge that they already have and the cross-connects of information
between those concepts (Driscoll, 2005). This element of his work, adds to the concept that if students
keeps building upon the knowledge they have to make sense of things, it is inevitable that the cross-
connections will lead them to build up to a collective knowledge that has elements from all disciplines.
Along these lines, Vygotsky coined the concept of the ‘zone of proximal development (Driscoll,
2005).’ This concept represents what someone already knows, what they can figure out from that
information is considered to be ‘in the zone,’ and what cannot be figured out without more knowledge
is considered not ‘in the zone.’ When this is applied to the culture of education, it should be realized
that collectively, the education industry has obtained a zone of proximal development that affords them
the perspective of knowing that it is in student’s best interest to explore cross-connections and that the
most effective way to do so is to present information to students in a cross-disciplinary way. This
realization is further backed up by his promotion that reality-based situational learning is the best way
to frame guided inquiry in order to provide new and creative connections for concepts (Driscoll, 2005).
This not only allows for new constructed ways of inquiry, but also leaves the door open for fields of
study to evolve as fields themselves evolve. The limiting factor then becomes the interpretation factor.
Vygotsky also stressed the importance that language plays in the need to communicate. He pointed
out ways in which it affected the storing and recollection of interconnected information. He expressed
concerns over the limitations of language and its influences on the thoughts and cognition related to
acquiring and understanding information (Driscoll, 2005). With every language there are limitations of
expression. Since each discipline has its own language, each has its own way of expression that is
unique as well as its own ways of being limited in regards to how other disciplines express themselves
(Huber & Hutchings, 2005; Shulman, 2005b). Vygotsky promoted the need for a common language
among disciplines as being critical for true understanding (Driscoll, 2005). Even though a common
language will itself have limitations, having a common meeting point is the beginning of creating an
even playing field among the disciplines where hierarchy is not as important as the underlying
definitions that can help students find the true pursuit of knowledge that Socrates and Aristotle spoke
of even before the inception of modern education.
There are many other educational theorists who have added more distinction to the ways and
means of creating structure to all types of studies. Some of the more notable include Bruner’s
contributions to cognitive learning with his theories of problem-based learning, Rogers (C. Rogers,
1969), Bloom’s Taxonomy of learning (Bloom, 1974), Gagne’s principles of instructional design
(Gagne, 2005) and Marzano’s instructional strategies (Marzano, 2007), but all of these scholars
support cross-curricular studies in one way or another, and most do in numerous ways. Under the
umbrella terms of cognitive and constructivist learning styles fall the practices of; problem and project
based learning, inquiry learning, authentic, contextual and experienced based learning, deductive
reasoning and discourse, small group interactions, collaborative and community learning, modeling,
critical and higher order thinking and other aspects of learner centered learning (Herman, 1995; Lewis,
2005; Shulman, 2005a). However, it is not just the general education theorists who promote integrative
curriculum. Another primary cross-disciplinary link is the concept, that the individual disciplines are
working towards formally incorporating elements of other fields into their pedagogies (Freire, 1996;
Huber & Hutchings, 2005; Huber & Morreale, 2002; Matthews, 1997). It is now that the individual
disciplines themselves are calling for the need to integrate with the curriculum of other fields that the
whole of education is in a position to shift towards integrative methods. A review of the individual
disciplines will show how that shift has been recently infiltrating the silos from within each of the
discipline’s own structures.
Silo Education
Before the concept of integrative STEM education came into being, there was a long history of
K-12 being taught as individual subjects (silos), primarily revolving around the divisions of
mathematics, science, language arts and social studies. In order to understand how the cross-curricular
studies of STEM came to be understood and developed, a brief history of recent developments in each
silo, including the more recent field of Technology Education, will be reviewed.
Mathematics Education
This review begins with Mathematics Education [ME] as it is one of the earliest disciplines to
emerge in the structure of modern education and has one of the longest histories of being formally
structured for learning. The National Council for Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] is the primary
organization that drives how mathematics has evolved to be taught in the modern K-12 arena. Their
promotion of how mathematics should be studied is used across the country and has arisen from the
concepts that people need to use mathematics to solve problems in science, technology, and everyday
life (NCTM, 1989). The NCTM has published five tenets by which all of their suggested benchmarks,
standards and methodologies revolve around. The first is that there should be a concentrated effort to
convey mathematics to all kinds of learners (NCTM, 1989). This conveys that everyone needs and
understanding of mathematics in order to be functional in society. The second is that now an overall
concept of mathematical theory, history and application should be taught in addition to applied
mathematics, much more then just the hard facts of math operations (NCTM, 1989). By making this
claim, much more than arithmetic needs to be understood, but that for a person to be functionally
literate, a concept of how and why mathematics ‘is’ and ‘works’ needs to be understood. The third
tenet begins to address how to accomplish the first two goals. ‘Currently there are reality-based
projects and activities incorporated into math learning so that students can understand its relation to
other things, not just endless abstract problems (Horton, Hedetniemi, Wiegert, & Wagner, 2006;
NCTM, 1989). This brings mathematics away from didactic learning and instills a necessity to
investigate mathematics in action for deeper understanding. By saying this, the NCTM broke a major
boundary into the structure of traditional modern education, mathematics education has become much
more than worksheets and memorization, mathematics has become an understanding of how things are
understood and defined by the use of mathematics. The next tenet of ME is that technology is now
being more readily used (NCTM, 1989). It is true that calculators and computers have been responsible
for proving much of mathematics that was previously only theoretical, however, the inclusion of
technology into ME is broader than that (Chris Merrill & Comerford, 2004). In order to explore
mathematics through reality-based projects a wealth of technology must be employed. This includes
basic tools including; pencils, paper and rulers through to sophisticated machines and devices that
measure, record and support all structures of mathematical application. All of this comes together into
the last tenet, which says that assessment needs to include projects, constructions, analysis and process
work, as well as (instead of solely) results (NCTM, 1989). This seems to be true of all education,
students need to be assessed on how far through the learning process they have come (Wiggins &
McTighe, 2005). There are many points in the process of learning where mistakes can be made, if
students are only evaluated on their product, then how do they know at which point in the process they
need more information in order to succeed? But when projects are given and evaluated from start to
finish, students are able to demonstrate their understanding of the rules, concepts and applications of
many fields and how they can relate together. All five of these ideas correlate with the interdisciplinary
trends in STEM education.
It is a definition of the four commons of teaching ME from Schawab where a wider view of
mathematics-based integrative education is defined. ’ These are the subject (mathematics), the learner
of mathematics, the mathematics teacher, and the milieu of teaching, including the relationship of
mathematics teaching and learning, and its aims, to society in general (Ernest, 1994). It is this last
statement about mathematics’ relationship to society, which brings in a wealth of applicable
constructivist elements. As Dewey said, “mathematical laws have meaning only in terms of
requirements of transformability within the system of maximum substitutability in which they exist
(Hickman, 1992).” So in teaching about society and how mathematics can both understand and
transform it, it becomes apparent to students how mathematics is applicable and naturally fitting into
all other disciplines of study.
Recently, mathematics has rediscovered itself and the study of it now revolves around social
constructivism and five related ideas accepted in mathematics:
(1) Mathematics is part of and fits into human culture. (2) Mathematical knowledge isn’t by
nature infallible. (3) There are different versions of proof and rigour, depending on time, place,
and other things. The use of computers in proofs is a nontraditional version of rigour. (4)
Empirical evidence, numerical experimentation, probabilistic proof all help us decide what to
believe in mathematics. Aristoltelian logic is not necessarily always the best way of deciding.
(5) Mathematical objects are certain variety of social-cultural-historical objects (Hersh, 1994).
These concepts in ME have direct ties to all fields, especially when on considers that collectively they
make an argument for the essence of mathematics being problem solving, and therefore is needed to
define all kinds of problems as well as analyze and solve them.
There is said to have been a Kuhnian revolution in the field of mathematics (Ernest, 1994; Kuhn,
1970) and that it is now time to account for mathematics more fully, including practices, history,
applications, place in culture including values and education. It is time to show the human face of
mathematics, which is to understand that mathematics is an underlying language that belongs to all
fields (Davis, 1994; Ernest, 1994; Hersh, 1994; Putnam & Spiegel, 1995; Tymoczko, 1994; Wang,
2005). That point is very exciting for integrative education in that the basis of communication is the
language of mathematics and to understand anything, one must understand the basics of mathematics.
This concept has been stated in other ways that illustrate deeper meanings to other fields, both
generally and specifically. On how mathematics is used, a call for action has been made. “It’s time to
let the secret out: mathematics… is a way of thinking and questioning that may be unfamiliar to many
of us, but is available to almost all of us (Paulos, 1995)” This statement was meant to promote the use
of mathematics for analysis on how the field is used to prove and disprove ‘facts’ based on what
elements of mathematical language are used to address which questions. In other words, it is meant to
draw out how mathematics shapes society and how its core elements can be manipulated for a variety
of uses. For instance, Dewey claims that science is ‘math based productive technology used for
analysis of the natural world’ (Dewey, 1963). By saying this, he is claiming that science is a human-
made language made up to organize and understand the natural world. With this statement, Dewey
intrinsically ties the technology of the creating of the mathematics language to the pre-existing
elements of the world. Whereas a mathematics scholar points out that mathematics has been called a
branch of natural science and that instead of the language of mathematics being created by humans, its
facets were discovered as underlying facts of nature (Tymoczko, 1994). Regardless of whether
mathematics is a language that was discovered or created, it is arguably the most primal language by
which all other communication is regulated, defined and understood.
Science Education
Science education [SE] experts have been attesting to the fact that the field of SE has blended
borders, which adds insight to other disciplines (AAAS, 1989, 1993; DeBoer, 1991; Matthews, 1997)
and these thoughts have been supplemented by experts in other fields who recognize SE’s
contributions to understanding in their fields (Barlex & Pitt, 2000; M. J. de Vries, 1996; Dewey, 1963;
J. Dugger, W. E. , 1993; NAE, 2002). The AAAS went as far as to formally include the ‘Nature of
Technology’ with formal ties to engineering concepts, within their own benchmarks and standards
(AAAS, 1993). SE taught as whole fact vs. parts (silos), allows for substantiation with deeper meaning
and transference outside the classroom (AAAS, 1989; Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, & Scott, 1994;
Matthews, 1997). It is this transference of knowledge, an ability to apply scientific thought in novel
situations, which students need in order to be productive members of society. It is through making
sense of science versus just finding out about the facts of science, that students will not only be able to
understand science, but be able to apply it in new situations (DeBoer, 1991). The Greek culture did not
have an understanding of this concept and it therefore kept them from developing experimental science
(Hickman, 1992). Analysis is an important area of science, but without experimental science the field
stagnates. Scientific thought itself is said to include inductive thought, deductive thought, processes
and attitudes (DeBoer, 1991). Therefore, in order for students to understand science, all of these levels
of thought, processes and attitudes need to be formally addressed in SE.
Currently there are three dominant interpretations of teaching science, the first is as a structured
bodies of knowledge (content rich), the second as a set of investigative processes and the third is as
human activity interconnected with technological application and the rest of society, it is this third way
that is necessary for hypothesis generation (DeBoer, 1991; Hodson, 1991; Mellado, 2006) There have
been given three arguments for the third type, it provides motivation to learn in familiar contextual
way, it offers an ability to become functionally literate and it offers values development in education
(DeBoer, 1991). In order to teach this way, there are three curricular needs, there must be an
exploration of existing views to promote the creation of new theoretical ideas, there must be
experimental work and there must be cross-discipline consensus with approved language styles to
promote understanding between the fields of study (Barlex & Pitt, 2000; Hodson, 1991). These
curricular needs are primarily provided through the use of guided discovery (DeBoer, 1991; Driver et
al., 1994; Froebel, 1947; Furth, 1970). SE itself has direct and strong ties to constructivist learning
methods (AAAS, 1993; Matthews, 1997), the three primary ones are that students need to learn to
think in a disciplined, rational way in order to strengthen their intellect, that scientific thinking is
transferable to non-scientific contents and creates more effective people and that future scientists must
know how to think like scientists in order to perform like scientists (DeBoer, 1991). The experts in the
field of SE have invited in the field of technology and it’s related engineering concepts by formally
including them in their benchmarks and have invited in the field of mathematics by promoting the need
of analysis and common language and they have even invited in the social arts by claiming that the
inter-relation of science and human activity is critical to understand to know how science and society
interact and function together.
Technology Education
Technology Education [TE] has traditionally been the K-12 venue for cross-curricular studies. This has
been true from even before TE was TE, but instead was the field of Industrial Arts (Bonser &
Mossman, 1923; P. DeVore, 1976; Foster, 1995; Kirkwood, Foster, & Bartow, 1994; Maley, 1973).
TE’s relationship with science has been intertwined since the beginning of both fields,’ scientific
advances are technological advances,’ (Hickman, 1992) as they lead to the invention and production of
new technologies and ‘advances in the uses of tools are needed in order to improve and test inferences
in science’ (AAAS, 1993). It has been said that science provides the framework by which all
technology is developed and structured to function and that even though science precedes technology,
and that science and technology are independent disciplines with different goals, methods and
outcomes (P. L. Gardner, 1994; P. L. Gardner, 1995), technology ontology predates science and
therefore science and technology are in a dialectical relationship, with neither being a dominant partner
(P. L. Gardner, 1994). The connection between the two fields is a revolving concept – technology and
the engineering involved to create technology, cause permanent changes to science, the natural
elements of our universe, of which they are also made up.
The Maley Plan offered itself as a primary means for applying the principles of mathematics
and science, where science becomes reality and mathematics the tool whereby student-centered
activities revolve around testing, analysis, materials, investigations and process (Maley, 1973). It is this
reality and analysis of results where the concepts learned in the silos come together and transference of
knowledge results to create the next generation of innovators. It stands to reason, that a full study of
technology cannot exclude the study of the science (Bunge, 1966), which it is made up of, the
engineering processes that creates it and the mathematics necessary to understand the developments
and effects of it. Due to this, since the field became TE in 1985, most TE educational theorists and
researchers have put a lot of emphasis on connections to mathematics and science, as they are the
traditional ‘academic’ disciplines which offer the most substantive backing for the positioning of TE in
the broad K-12 curriculum structure (Childress, 1996; P. D. DeVore, 1964; P. L Gardner, 1997;
Laporte & Sanders, 1993; Lauda, 1980; C. Merrill, 2001; Savage & Sterry, 1990). But, there has been
a growing emphasis to substantiate the curriculum from across the S-T-E-M fields and formally tie in
engineering as well (Barlex & Pitt, 2000; Clark & Ernst, 2007; Dakers, 2006; M. J. de Vries, 1996; J.
Dugger, W. E. , 1993; ITEA, 1996, 2000, 2006; Mitcham, 1994; Petrina, 1998a, 2007; G.L Salinger,
2003; Snyder & Hales, 1986; J. Wells, Pinder, & Smith, 1992a; R. C. S. Wicklein, John W. , 1995).
Other experts in the field, further stretched the boundaries of the field to include the development field
of engineering as well as the social, creative and aesthetic fields of the liberal and fine arts, especially
Delmar Olsen, John Dewey and those involved in Jackson’s Mill (Hickman, 1992; Olsen, 1963;
Snyder & Hales, 1986; J. Wells, Pinder, & Smith, 1992b). Leaders in the field of biotechnology have
promoted related curriculum as interdisciplinary in nature and incorporating math, science, art, design
and production (J. Wells et al., 1992b) The field of STS has also been formally linked to the field of
TE to draw out the connections to society and its effects on the direction of the field as well as
technology’s effects on society (Pinch & Bijker, 1994; Karen Zuga, 1991). These forward thinkers
have argued that it is not enough to only understand the elements of how the technology works and
effects tangible objects, but to understand how such technologies are developed through societal
demands and are accepted through the social, economic and aesthetic values of a culture is also vital to
produce a knowledgeable citizenry.
Some educators have not focused on specific content but on a way of offering curriculum that
would involve any and all subjects that were naturally encountered in the investigative process of
instruction. Specifically the IACP focused on problem solving (Lux & Ray, 1971), and some looked at
various kinds of alternative curriculum theories and methods (Barlex & Pitt, 2000; Dewey, 1963;
Loepp, 1999; Petrina, 1998a, 2007; Raizen, Sellwood, Todd, & Vickers, 1995; R. C. S. Wicklein, John
W. , 1995; K. Zuga, 1993). Arguments have been made for using multiple strategies and methods even
within one curriculum so as to make it evident to students that there are numerous ways to discover
knowledge and solve problems based on that knowledge (Dunham, Wells, & White, 2002; M.
Sanders, 2006; Sarlemijn, 1993). Validation that there is not just one best way to teach and learn helps
make the case for cross-curricular content and methodology as a way to make the connections between
the disciplines stronger and students transference, retention and application skills more substantial and
more deeply engrained.
Despite which content, methods and strategies various people in the field of TE have argued
for, one thing that is agreed upon is that the overall goal of the leaders in the profession has been to
create technically and/or functionally literate people despite the rapid changes that technology and our
society produce (Bill, 2006; Dakers, 2006; P. DeVore, 1976; ITEA, 2006). The focus has not been
specific content, but on adaptability, therefore the field has based its teachings on conveying an
understanding of systems and the connections between them (J. Dugger, W. E. , 1993). In order to
accomplish this, ‘the technology laboratory, previously conceptualized as a place to make things,
graduated into more of a place to learn the interconnections of things’ (K. Zuga, 1993). Because of
this ‘TE became one of the few areas of study to adopt a structure that allows for, and encourages,
changes in it’s core structure to accommodate changes in the technological world that inter-relate with
society in a very reciprocal way’ (K. Zuga, 1993). It is this concept that allows the field of TE
adaptability to reflect the changing needs of society and its reflection in education. No other field is
structured to be as responsive and adaptable and this has been a fallacy of the structure of modern
education since its inception. The field of TE has their ‘foot in the door,’ of K-12 education, but they
are not yet situated in a place of acceptance so that all students are given cross-curricular studies to
create functionally literate citizens. That is TE’s new challenge, to prove their place in the structure of
education and to be formally accepted as a substantial field to teach a necessary set of concepts to all
students at all levels.
Engineering Education
‘As developments in science and technology occur, they create new fields together, such as
engineering, which has become a science category of its own’ (AAAS, 1989). Engineering has been
defined as ‘the use of creativity and logic, based in mathematics and science, utilizing technology as a
linking agent to create contributions to the world (AAAS, 1993). Since engineering is a result of
science, technology, and arguably, mathematics as well, its place in education is based on its structure
in reality and it has no history of being a silo discipline. It has been most closely aligned with the study
of TE, as that is its ‘linking’ category to the substantiated fields of mathematics and science. When
students study design and technology, what they are essentially studying is engineering (Barlex & Pitt,
2000). Engineering Education [EE] is unique in that it does not have a history of being part of the K-12
structure as its own discipline. It is therefore hard to find a place for it to fit within a long-established
structure in order to accommodate the urgent call for the development of more engineers to meet the
country’s demands (Act, 2006; Ashby, 2006; Horwedel, 2006; NAE, 2002). There has been a
substantial amount of energy attracting and retaining students into collegiate engineering programs
(EAC, 2004). There have traditionally been two primary focuses of engineering programs, a deep
investigation of a particular field and a broader scope of numerous engineering fields (EAC, 2004).
More recently larger programs are offering both and allowing their students to decide their own
personal scope of engineering education based on their goals (NAE, 2004). Currently there is also a
trend to advance into the future of engineering as primarily a team-based enterprise (EAC, 2004),
which allows engineering students to work together, sharing their own specialties for the creation of
the common good. Although these changes have helped with attraction and retention into collegiate
engineering programs, in recent years there as been a call for the K-12 arena to better prepare students
to take on these challenging courses of study in post-secondary schools (NAE, 2002; G.L Salinger,
2003; Tyson et al., 2007; R. C. Wicklein, 2006). EE based programs are getting a lot of attention in
hopes of bringing EE to the K-12 level ( Salinger, 2005). It is debatable as to if EE is the most
appropriate venue of study to fulfill these needs at the K-12 level, or if a broader more interdisciplinary
approach would be a better venue with which to deliver such contexts.
Students are in need of understanding EE abilities at a younger age in order to be able to be
competitive in the related collegiate and professional arenas. They must learn to apply the techniques
and skills associated with mathematics and scientific principles in order to obtain an ability to be life-
long learners, design and conduct experiments, analyze and interpret data, design systems, components
or processes, work on multi-disciplinary teams, identify contemporary issues and problems, formulate
and solve engineering problems, show responsibility, and communicate in order to impact the world in
positive ways (Grasso & Martinelli, 2007; NAE, 2004). Since that is a lot for one discipline to
accomplish, the formation of relationships between the fields of STEM have become a vital movement
in the educational world in the United States (Act, 2006). For EE to be successful, it is necessary for
the field to draw on and understand the advances made in other fields (NAE, 2004). Within the STEM
education relationship, the act of using science and mathematics to design new technology has become
the general definition of EE (Dugger, 1993). Much discussion has taken place on whether the field of
TE should become blended with the field of EE, just this month a survey on this topic was sent out to
the Intenational Technology Education Association members and over 400 people responded on the
topic in a single day (Litowitz, 2008), also the American Association for Engineering Education started
a new branch in their association last year called the K-12 Engineering Division which includes an
election of three Technology Educators to the nine member board (M. Sanders, 2008). However, if EE
were to become dominant over TE in K-12 education, a disadvantage could take place in that EE could
suffer from a focus on a narrower view of practice without the broader spectrum of social and physical
developments and impacts being studied. When one realizes that engineering is the research and
development involved in the creation of technology (AAAS, 1989) and therefore is a subset of the
larger field of TE, then TE becomes the K-12 venue where the impacts and directions of EE is
evaluated and understood. EE still remains the best venue for content specific studies at the post-
secondary level.
STEM Education
The ‘hard sciences’ club has received so much recent emphasis that it has created a new
educational branch, STEM. This concept is a result of a struggle of hierarchy within education by the
individual branches involved. A scholar in TE summed it up well when he said, ‘STEM is a politically
good move, philosophically, mathematics and science don’t want to adopt technology and neither does
technology want to adopt mathematics and science. There are pitfalls and opportunities with all of
these options. We [TE] are moving towards engineering education and STEM versus becoming part of
science (J. Dugger, W. E., 2007).’ This concept of disciplines having a fear of being lost within other
disciplines encouraged me to find a way to create a framework which all disciplines could be
represented in without fear of being dominated by more politically or economically powerful
disciplines.
STEM to STEAM Education
While studying the common factors of teaching and learning across the disciplines of S-T-E-M, the
influences of the arts disciplines became more apparent, especially those already strongly promoted in
the K-12 atmosphere, language arts and social studies. I started thinking of how to develop an
educational framework that could formally link the study of the hard sciences to that of the divisions of
the arts.
Arts Education
Within the arts there are many divisions. Upon reviewing many educational works related to
teaching the arts, I was unable to find a universal definition of them. I quickly found that within
articles having to do with the arts in education there were distinctly different meanings of ‘arts
education.’ Despite this, I was able to find a way to fit established meanings into categories of an
organizational structure. As I read through articles, I began to sort them into those that were related to
more broadly related realms of education. Those that revolved around English, ESL, sign language or
some other form of art primarily related to communication were put into a category of the language
arts. Those that revolved around things that are traditionally addressed in ‘art’ classes, such as
paintings, sculpture, color theory and tangible creative expressions were put into the category of fine
arts. Those topics that included personal or collective movement, sports, dance and performance were
put into the category of physical arts. Topics that related to particular physical skills or techniques
necessary for manipulating objects were categorized as manual arts. The broadest category was that of
the liberal arts, this one included the social sciences such as sociology, philosophy, psychology,
theology, history, civics, politics and to educators, one of the most important classifications, the field
of education itself. It was then that I realized the oversight that the field of education itself had not
been previously formally included in the structure of the K-12 silos of education.
Within the categories that emerged from this survey, the language arts and social sciences were
the two that had a strong history of being independent disciplines within the structure of modern
education. The fine and physical arts have a place in the structure, but are not traditionally considered
‘academic’ subjects and have been subdivided into specific categories and marginalized in importance.
The manual arts have had a history of being vocational in nature and primarily addressed within the
field of industrial arts, or more recently, TE. The common linking agent among all these fields is that
they have not been invited into the ‘hard sciences’ club of STEM and have not been formally included
into the structure deemed vital to the creation of more highly skilled citizens. I started reviewing the
educational research from these fields to see if there were arguments to be made for the inclusion of
these fields for such a goal.
The field of Language Arts [LA] is seen as universal to all other branches of knowledge, as
without it, the ability to communicate is severely limited (Brown, 2005(Clerk & Rutherford,
2000)IRA-NCTE, 1996). Despite the fact that mathematics is needed to understand any language, it is
the structure of vocabulary based languages that provides the context by which to understand
individual disciplines (J. D. Bransford, Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. , 1999; Brown, 2005; Paterson,
2007). However, it is also such structures that help narrow people’s abilities to communicate across
disciplines and fully understand the deeper meanings that each silo gives to particular words and
concepts (Huber & Hutchings, 2005; Shulman, 2005b). It is with this understanding that an argument
is made for creating a commons of language across the fields of education so that deeper understanding
and transference of knowledge becomes more natural for all students and educators (Brown, 2005;
Paterson, 2007; Ruggiero, 1988). There are numerous writings specific to each field that promotes this
concept, including mathematics (Barwell, 2005), science, (Douglas, Worth, & Klentschy, 2006;
McKee & Ogle, 2005; Sutherland & Dennick, 2002; Torres & Zeidler, 2002; Zmach et al., 2007),
engineering (Grasso & Martinelli, 2007), technology (ITEA, 2006; J. Wells et al., 1992b), history
(Kornfeld & Leyden, 2005) and even the field of LA itself promotes its need to be understood by other
fields for understanding, communication, entertainment, analysis and problem solving (IRA-NCTE,
1996). The underlying argument for the inclusion of LA being formally addressed in all other fields is
that, if you can’t communicate effectively, then how can you prove your conceptions, understandings,
designs and ideas in any other field.
The field of the Liberal/Social Arts [SA] is also important to be understood as a base of other
fields. It is within this context that an understanding of each field’s developments is housed
(Featherstone, 1986; NCSS, 1994). Whether one believes that mathematics was discovered with an
investigation of the laws that prove it to work or created as a means to classify and organize things, its
means of application is one of the oldest applications that humankind has worked with (Ernest, 1994).
Without an understanding of those developments, one cannot truly understand how and why the
ordering of other fields happened when they did. Likewise, the structures of science, technology and
engineering were originally formally created by white men as black people and women were not
formally recognized in the field of discovery until fairly recent times and even within the structure of
the white male development of the hard sciences, society played a large role in the direction of what
developments were promoted or pushed aside. Galileo is a prime example of this, as when he
proclaimed that the earth was not the center of the universe, those in power in the society had him put
under house arrest for daring to make such a statement, whereas had they proclaimed his brilliance and
offered him ways to promote his studies, that field of science would have developed more rapidly.
There have been ten thematic strands developed by the National Council of Social Studies in which to
revolve the teaching of the social sciences around in the structure of K-12 education, they include; 1)
culture, 2) time, continuity and change, 3) people, places and environment, 4) individual development
and identity, 5) individuals, groups and institutions, 6) power, authority and governance, 7) production,
distribution and consumption, 8) science, technology and society, 9) global connections and 10) civic
ideals and practices (NCSS, 1994). It is quite apparent from this list, that this field has strong
connections to all other fields. Recently there has been a flood of papers generated in this field, on the
topic of strengthening the education of students to understand the implications that society, and all its
complicated facets of psychology, politics and social interactions, have on the development of the
world (Feldmann, 2007; Macedo, 2004; Walling, 2007). All of these articles call for the need for
students to understand the basic elements of how society develops with its attitudes and customs in the
past, present and future. This is arguably a cornerstone of the knowledge necessary for students to
become education citizens able to understand the directions that they are responsible for guiding the
world to go in.
The fields of the Fine Arts [FA], Physical Arts [PA] and Manual Arts [MA] are not without
significant bearing on the developments of society and culture as well. Despite these fields having a
marginal place in the structure of K-12 education, they have maintained a place in the structure. That
fact, in and of itself, establishes a level of importance to the necessity of those fields, otherwise the
inclusion of their formal study would have vanished from the K-12 landscape long ago. However,
specifically, each of these fields offers different strengths to education as a whole. Since MA has been
incorporated into the field of TE (Foster, 1995), the arguments for its inclusion have already been
made in this paper. It is here that I will address the cross connections of FA and PA to the rest of the
silos. The field of physical education is usually defended in terms of fitness, especially in a time when
obesity is a growing concern in our country(NASPE, 2004). However, substantial arguments have been
made for a healthy active body attributing to healthy, active mental capabilities as well (Kalyn, 2006;
NASPE, 2004; Vail, 2006). Although the physical arts are promoted heavily in after school activities,
that level of participation cannot be required of all students, so an inclusion in the K-12 structure
becomes even more important if all students are to achieve an appreciation and understanding of its
contributions to their overall physical and mental development. Likewise, the fine arts have been
sectionalized in the K-12 arena into the musical arts and the structural fine arts. Recently there have
been more and more arguments being made to take the direction of such curriculum in the opposite
direction so that within the fields of science (Bopegedera, 2005; Coy, 2007), mathematics (Tan &
Chua, 2006; Ward & Muller, 2006), language arts (Sutherland & Dennick, 2002), social studies
(Kornfeld & Leyden, 2005), technology (J. Wells et al., 1992b) and engineering (Lewis, 2005),
students are exposed to an appreciation of how sound and aesthetics are represented and influence each
of these fields (Appel, 2006; Chedid, 2005; Daniel, Stuhr, & Ballengee-Morris, 2006; Ebner, 2006;
Marshall, 2005, 2006; Mishook & Kornhaber, 2006; Rohrer, 2005; Strokrocki & National Art
Education Association, 2005). The national standards of art includes connections to all fields in the
categories of dance, music, theater and visual arts, (CNAEA, 1994) making it easier for all educators to
formally incorporate direct links to appreciating the roles that the arts take in their particular
disciplines.
STS
Studying these linkages pointed me towards investigating the movement of STS. I soon became
intrigued by that field’s divisions of the study of Science and Technology Studies versus Science and
Technology in Society (Bugliarello, 1988; Pinch & Bijker, 1994; Truxal, 1984), and within each of
those divisions the classifications of ‘scholars’ versus the ‘activists’ Additionally, I was introduced to
philosopher’s perspectives on the nature of science, ethics, constructivism, co-constructivism,
positivism and post-positivism (Kuhn, 1970; Zammito, 2004) and Bruno LaTour’s Actor Network
Theory, (Latour & Woolgar, 1986) all of which, ,includes implications for the field of education
(Karen Zuga, 1991). Although, the inclusion of the STS movement is still new to the development of
this framework, its inclusion in TE (ITEA, 2000; Karen Zuga, 1991) and SA (NCSS, 1994) have
helped establish a place for it in the K-12 learning environments.
Holistic Education
While investigating how each discipline related to each other and provided support for cross-
connections and deeper understanding, I kept being led to studying aspects of attempts at formal and
informal holistic educational models such as those of; Montessori (Maria Montessori, 1914, 1975;
Mario Montessori, 1992), Ruggiero, ((Ruggiero, 1988), Waldorf’s Anthroposophy (AWSNA, 2008)
Reggio Emilia (Firlik, 1996) and alternative schooling movements (Eisler, 2005; Minnis & John-
Steiner, 2005). The most successful institutions of purposefully holistic education include Montesorri
and Waldorf. Maria Montessori attributed holistic learning theories to young children and said they
needed to have a ‘prior interest in the whole; so that they can make sense of individual facts’ (Maria
Montessori, 1914, 1975) Her educational system is one of the most successful systems of ‘holistic’
education established (Mario Montessori, 1992). It was based on fully integrated curricula, delivery
and assessment methods. Waldorf Education is based on Rudolph Steiner’s Anthroposophy theory.
The goal is to help produce a person ‘who is knowledgeable about the world, human history and
culture, who has many varied practical and artistic abilities, who feels a deep reverence for and
communion with the natural world, and who can act with initiative and in freedom in the face of
economic and political pressure’ (AWSNA, 2008). A common misconception in our time is that
education is merely the transfer of information. From the Waldorf point of view, true education also
involves the awakening of capacities—the ability to think clearly and critically, to empathetically
experience and understand phenomena in the world (AWSNA, 2008). Since these two structures of
education have proven to develop functional and universally literate students who have gone on to all
areas of post-secondary educational success, they are models of success for integrative education.
I will define my use of holistic education as denoting life-long learning; therefore I consider all
purposefully planned programs of teaching that have been called holistic education, an attempt at it. I
argue that holistic learning cannot be controlled or planned; it is the interpretation of each person’s
sphere, or universe, of influence. It significantly helps to shape what people do with what they are
exposed to and what they understand (J. D. Bransford, Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. , 1999; J. D.
Bransford, M.S. , 2005; Gagne, 2005; Ruggiero, 1988; Smith, 1998; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).
Since each person’s perspective is different, holistic education cannot be delivered equally to students.
I would consider indigenous tribal learning and some home learning settings, to be as close as possible
to intended holistic education. Otherwise, educational trends geared at educating the whole learner,
tend to have their pedagogy and curriculum fall under the titles of integrated, themed, inquiry,
discovery or reality-based education.
Functional Literacy
A significant common thread that became apparent is that each primary discipline promotes a need
for students to develop a proficiency in the subject that would make them literate enough in the
discipline to be able to continue to adapt to and learn about the basic developments that the field takes.
It led to a conclusion that students need a literacy of a breadth of the primary disciplines, which would
include an ability to transfer knowledge with higher order thinking between disciplines (Freire, 1996;
Huber & Hutchings, 2005; Ruggiero, 1988), or to use Dewey’s term, students need to obtain a
functional literacy(Hickman, 1992). In order for a person to be functionally literate, they have to be
able to adapt to their surroundings, which means observing, thinking, changing and acting constantly.
It was this connection that sealed the argument that more than individual contexts, education needed to
find a way to place emphasis on developing student’s abilities to think across the disciplines. ‘The idea
that it is impossible to teach people to think,… did not proceed from scholarly research, but from an
unscholarly assumption that if thinking was not being taught, and had not been taught, it therefore
could not be taught (Ruggiero, 1988).’ This seemed like a tragedy. However, it also stood to reason,
that if each discipline purposely pointed out the naturally occurring connections to other disciplines,
that students would develop the ability to recognize these connections and that would foster the
creation of cross-disciplined thinkers. This meant that there was no reason to radically change the
structure of K-12 education, but simply to promote the progression of cross-discipline connection that
each field had already been making individually.
At this point, cooperation, not structure, became the limiting factor. There were significant
arguments for the creation of commons in language and pedagogy that would promote more universal
understandings across disciplines. Cooperation among disciplines would provide realistic dynamics
and influences that would allow students to learn how to accommodate to the real world. Co-operation
could ‘also have the effect of encouraging the use of common language, common analogies and an
appropriate level of detail across the subjects thus avoiding misconceptions and regression’ (Barlex &
Pitt, 2000). But in order for students to be able to understand cross-disciplinary concepts, educators
have to find ways to present the information that make sense. ‘Scholars of teaching and learning must
address field-specific issues if they are going to be heard in their own disciplines, and they must speak
in a language that their colleagues understand (Huber & Morreale, 2002), however, they must also
speak in a language that can be understood by those based in other disciplines (Huber & Hutchings,
2005; Shulman, 2005a). Keeping a structure of disciplines is still essential for creating a depth of
knowledge within specific fields, however a breadth and context of knowledge is equally important. In
this way, they are useful for reinforcing each other. There should be a simultaneous awareness of the
interconnectedness (or commons) among subject matter and pedagogies. Instruction should be
purposefully planned to reflect reality (Ruggiero, 1988). The common goal of education should be to
produce functionally literate people who know how to learn and are adaptable to their rapidly changing
environments.
ST∑@M Framework
Once I had been convinced that the fields of the arts were important to the overall creation of
knowledgeable and well-rounded citizens, this investigation led me into a deeper study of each of the
main subject areas with the hope that I would be able to find established definitions and classifications
of the finer educational divisions within each silo. My goal was to find a way to broadly classify all
areas of study into a structure that would allow students to understand the importance of the
relationships of the fields and hopefully come to respect their need to acquire skills in all areas if they
were to become well-rounded citizens. My other goal was to afford academe a structure by which to
help organize the teaching of the fields that would not establish hierarchy, but instead establish a
reflection of how fields of study interconnected with one another in reality so that those connections
could be reflected in scholastic arenas. Such a structure would allow for subjects to be taught based in
one subject with naturally occurring cross-curricular elements to be explored or for topical studies to
be taught through more universally integrative methods.
The following definitions and classifications are the result of that investigation:
Science what exists naturally and how it is affected.
Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Geosciences, Space Science & Biochemistry
(including history, nature of, concepts, processes and inquiry) (AAAS, 1993;
Hodson, 1991)
(mixed) Biotechnology & Biomedical (ITEA, 2000)
Technology what is human-made
Nature of Technology, Technology and Society, Design, Abilities for a
Technological World, The Designed World (including: Medical, Agriculture &

Biotechnology, Construction, Manufacturing, Information and Communication,
Transportation, Power & Energy) (ITEA, 2000)
Engineering the use of creativity and logic, based in mathematics and science, utilizing
technology as a linking agent to create contributions to the world
Aerospace, Architectural, Agricultural, Chemical, Civil, Computer, Electrical,
Environmental, Fluid, Industrial/Systems, Materials, Mechanical, Mining, Naval
Architectural, Nuclear, Ocean (AAAS, 1989; ASEE, 2008; NAE, 2004)
Mathematics Numbers and Operations, Algebra, Geometry, Measurement, Data Analysis &
Probability, Problem Solving, Reasoning & Proof, Communication, (including
Trigonometry, Calculus & Theory) (NCTM, 1989)
Arts how society develops, impacts, is communicated and understood with its
attitudes and customs in the past, present and future
Physical, Fine, Manual, Language & Liberal (including; Sociology, Education,
Politics, Philosophy, Theology, Psychology, History & more…) (CNAEA,
1994; Featherstone, 1986; IRA-NCTE, 1996; ITEA, 2000; NASPE, 2004;
NCSS, 1994)
From all of these investigations, I created the following diagram in order to establish a framework
for giving structure to and analyzing the interactive nature of both the practice and study of the formal
fields of science, technology, engineering, mathematics and the arts.

My first interpretation of how to explain the STEAM linkages was: ‘We now live in a world where;
you can’t understand Science without Technology, which couches most of its research and
development in Engineering, which you can’t create without an understanding of the Arts and
Mathematics.’ This statement was an adaptation of: ‘The study of Technology and Engineering is not
possible without the study of the natural sciences. This in turn cannot be understood in depth without a
fundamental understanding of Mathematics (J. Dugger, W. E. , 1993).’ My adaptation was colorful,
but contrived. Therefore, I persisted on meandering through the silos looking for more structural links.
I returned to reinvestigate the recent Kuhnian revolution in the field of mathematics education (Davis,
1994; Ernest, 1994; Hersh, 1994; Tymoczko, 1994).This led me on to explore the intrinsic element that
mathematics is among the other silos. The fact that kept coming up was that mathematics, and
mathematics alone is essential for the study of the other silos, it is even the base of the study of
languages, which is the next strongest category to provide structure for the other silos. Mathematics is
the primal language that cuts across all other field’s boundaries. It is not just a primal language but a
network of practical and theoretical divisions that interact both with other subjects as well as stands
alone. I had found something that set apart the study of mathematics from that of science, technology
and engineering, that thing was the need for it to be included in the other disciplines. Since
mathematics is the underlying language of all communication, it therefore becomes the linking agent
between concept and understanding in education.
This became a pivotal point in my framework system, but it still did not explain how the arts fit
into the structure. I revisited the literature on the arts and looked for a deeper meaning within all the
individual reasons to include the various fields of art into cross-curricular studies. The answer came
when investigating the field of education itself. At that point my argument became that since the arts
discipline houses the study of education, how can education itself be formally excluded from the study
of STEM education? But, more then that, it became apparent that how interpretation and application
associated with the arts linked things together was the social construction of society. This led me back
to investigate the field of engineering as the division of research and development of technology and
the last piece of the frameworks puzzle became apparent. The arts and engineering contain all of the
divisions that interact with the pure possibilities of the other fields to shape the direction of
development. That was the missing element to this paradigm. A new interpretation of how all the fields
of STEAM linked together, and due to it, STEAM became ST∑@M. The new definition of the
framework became;
ST∑@M: ' Science and Technology, interpreted through Engineering and the Arts,
all based in a language of Mathematics.’
Application
Hopefully, this is where you, the reader, says… how does that apply to the practice and
education of my field?... and how does that effect my concepts of and interactions with other fields?
What applications does this framework have in practical reality? The possibilities of answers to these
questions and more have only begun to be explored.
As you may notice, the pyramid has other labels along its sides as well. These are the keywords
that I have associated with the concepts that I am working on affiliating with the various levels of the
classifications that I have assigned to the fields. Let me explain my definition of the levels.
At the very top of the pyramid is the universal level. This correlates to the concept of holistic
education, which I described earlier, as being the interpretation of each person’s sphere, or universe, of
influence. It cannot be planned or avoided, even when sleeping, people are constantly learning from
and adapting to their environmental influences. The results of these influences, both internal and
external, greatly shape what people do with what they are exposed to and what they understand. For
these reasons, I have associated this first level of the pyramid with life-long education.
Integrated Level
The second level of the pyramid I have labeled the integrated level. It is at this level where
students can obtain a broad scope of all the fields and a basic overview of how they inter-relate in
reality by teaching them with a purposefully planned and reality-based interdependence. An excellent
way to teach about natural inter-relations in practice is to teach thematic concepts that allow for
transference to the realm of education. For example, teaching a unit on biotechnology would allow for
broad or in-depth studies (J. Wells et al., 1992b) of;
• the science of the biological, chemical and physical elements involved,
• the technology of machines, concepts and skills that allow for the construction, production,
transportation, communication and power and energy of the systems studied,
• the engineering of planning and designing with given constructs,
• the mathematics needed to comprehend and develop the project and its results,
• the physical, manual, fine and liberal arts used for both large and intricate elements of the related
topics including the history and politics and
• the language arts to research, convey and report on all of this knowledge.
It is at this stage that students begin to understand what and how to explore all areas of opportunities in
the educational realm. Instructors have the choice of focusing in depth on specific areas or covering a
broad scope of the topic. Teams of teachers can work together to provide in depth coverage of their
areas of expertise while reinforcing what students are learning in other specific areas. For these
reasons, I have associated this second level of the pyramid as being most relevant to primary and
middle school education. However, I find the integrated ST∑@M approach to be appropriate for all
levels of education.
Multidisciplinary Level
The third level of the pyramid I have labeled the multidisciplinary level. It is at this level where
students can obtain a scope of specifically chosen fields and a concentrated overview of how they
inter-relate in reality. An excellent way to teach about natural inter-relations in practice is to teach
reality-based/authentic units. When purposefully planned to cover certain fields and concepts,
instructors can still easily use themed education, however, fields not focused on should not be all
together excluded from the curriculum, but instead, at least explained as being an element of the scope
that would occur in reality. Any of these methodologies, and more, helps allow for transference of
learning from the realm of specific topics to all related topics.
Current trends in education have already established STEM as a relevant block of core fields.
Trends have also shown many of the branches of the arts being more and more marginalized. In public
education, only the language arts and social studies are still formally given substantive attention as
having importance outside of the STEM areas. To me, this is a tragedy, as it eliminates many primary
ways for students to obtain contextual understanding. Therefore, as students are exposed to prominent
and marginalized fields, they begin to understand the hierarchy and politics of both education and
practice. It is here that students might begin to have a concept of specific areas of interest to explore as
potential career paths. For these reasons, I have associated this third level of the pyramid as being most
relevant to current transitional or middle-school education.
Discipline Specific Level
The forth level of the pyramid I have labeled the discipline specific level. It is at this level
where individual silo divisions of fields, or disciplines, are taught at focus levels. It is where individual
subjects are the primary topic of focus, or base-discipline. This is not to say that other subjects are
excluded, subjects should still be covered contextually, however, the primary subject is explored
significantly more in depth then the related fields. It is as this level where the specific divisions of each
silo should be given an overview. This is the level at which to explore what areas of expertise a person
wishes to acquire as career and hobby. Since this is very appropriate for young adults, I have
associated this forth level of the pyramid as being most relevant to secondary education.
Content Specific Level
The fifth level of the pyramid I have labeled the content specific level. It is at this level that
specific content areas are studied in detail. It is here where professional development happens and
students delve into the tighter realm of the specific content areas of their choice, usually in post-
secondary studies. Areas can be studied alone or in specifically grouped clusters from within their own
silos or from across the fields. Again, this should still be relevant and contextual to the world at large,
but this is the point where educational and professional practices most fully interrelate with each
other’s developments.
Marketing
When one looks at the field of Technology Education [TE], it is sadly apparent that the average
person does not understand the scope of the field. The common person thinks of it in one of two
primary ways; the more traditionally common, as the realm of manual and industrial arts, the newer
common perception trend is that it is the study of information technology. Although both of these
concepts are, in part, true, neither come close to defining the breadth or depth of this field. In an effort
to avoid the complications that TE has faced, I have plans to integrate catch-phrases and definitions
into the introductory literature about this newly developing framework. For fun, I have played around
with catch phrases. Although, these are not as academically relevant pursuits as the rest of the scope of
my inquiry, they are imperative for marketing this new theory. Among them, I have tried to appeal to
students (young and mature), parents and guardians, community members, educators, administrators,
business leaders, politicians and agencies. I have also tried to make them succinct so they can be easily
remembered and used in various forms. Some early examples of catch phrases include; ST∑@M
Powered, Full ST∑@M Ahead, Power up with ST∑@M, Don’t Waste Your ST∑@M, Don’t Blow Off
ST∑@M,…
Middle and High School Programs

Recently I have been thinking about development of ST∑@M-based middle and high school
programs and schools. I am currently putting more emphasis on transitioning a Technology Education
middle-school level program to a ST∑@M-based program called ‘What’s Your Point?’ This program
would be a stand alone ST∑@M course which could be introduced to any middle school. It could be
used as a seed for developing integrated curriculum throughout a school.
It would be initially implemented as a way to expose students to a large range of skill sets and
career choices through reality-based integrated learning. Students would perpetually evaluate their
points of interest, experience and talents in relation to a diverse spectrum of careers and the related
discipline skills. They will also be involved in evaluating local, regional, national and international
career path opportunities and developments in historical, current and potential contexts. A portfolio
process would help organize students to further explore potential career paths through projects and
assist them in planning a program of study to meet their personal long-term goals. It will be promoted
to have these personal goals align with regional and national goals as well.
This would allow all students to learn from one another as well as from the person responsible for
the structure of the class. It would allow advanced students to further investigate topics and tangents.
Their interests and skills could be explored and other students would be exposed to their discoveries.
This would both promote others to explore topics further as well as allow students unwilling or unable
to explore those pursuits to at least have an exposure to them and be able to recognize more elements
of understanding which they may encounter later in life. This structure also allows challenged students
a way to fully participate, learn and even teach others. It offers a place of value in the school society
for all members and teaches all levels of learners that they have a part in the world. Integrative learning
empowers students with fewer capabilities to explore a particular area of a field and/or find a niche in
the field which they can excel at. It also creates an understanding for students with more capabilities
that teamwork is needed for things to function properly. In relation to various types of learners, it
directly supports theories that since different people learn better from different methods (P. L Gardner,
1997), by learning from one another, as a collective team and through multiple disciplines, it is more
likely that the cross-connections with result in deeper levels of meaning for all types of learners .
School Buildings
I have also thought about the physical structure for a school to support integrated learning. I have
been perpetually working on combining a lifelong interest in architecture and spending a lot of time in
local K-16 schools/universities to continually refine ideas for tangible spaces to support a structure
designed for integrated learning. I have also worked on ideas to support the transitions for traditionally
structured schools become integrated learning centers. However, all of these thoughts are mute points
until the structure of K-12 education is adaptable enough to start to move towards a structure of
integrative leaning.
School Day Structure
The nature of integrated learning has led has led me to have more realistic thoughts on how to
solve some current issues with school day scheduling structures. Many teachers dislike trying to fit
their subject into individual time slots, as it doesn’t afford enough time to get into depths of topics.
Others have a dislike for the four-block system, as it allows students to go a whole semester, and
sometimes a year, without taking a subject (sometimes math and science, the subjects that this
country’s students are least able to grasp.) Integrated learning centers would allow for students to have
a more uniform exposure to all of the disciplines (Chirichello, Eckel, & Pagliaro, 2005; Miller, 1992;
Pedersen & Digby, ; L. Rogers & Newton, 2001; Ruggiero, 1988). It is through this argument that I
feel integration has the most viable chance of acceptance. The best way to make an argument for
inclusion is to address the current problems that the exclusion of certain subjects are currently creating.
Conclusion
If hundreds of collective years of research in epistemology and educational psychology keep
reinforcing that integrative education helps with transference as well as the depth and breadth of
knowledge acquisition and retention, then why isn’t it being used everywhere? Admittedly, it takes
more time to plan and implement and well as costs more money than the traditional structure in place
in K-12 education today. However, ‘the idea that it is impossible to teach people to think, is an
assumption that if thinking has not been taught, it therefore could not be taught. (Ruggiero, p. 3) That
is an assumption that is not conducive to the needs of society. If society needs more advanced thinkers
to fulfill the needs of the S-T-E-M industries, then it is up to society to find a way to create citizens
who are capable of advanced thinking.
‘Experience that is integrated – that which attains the fullest possible meaning – is a primary goal
of human activity… growth under the circumstances of life as an ongoing experiment involves risk and
the willingness to relinquish the authority of tradition but it should enable the person as well an entire
society to look critically at previously accepted believes in the light of new experience (Dewey,
1963).’ Although the development of this framework is far from over, enough educational giants have
spoken to warrant a conversation on whether the paradigm of modern education itself is ready for a
Kuhnian revolution. From all the information I have gathered thus far on the topic, it seems as though
the giants have spoken, continue to speak, and prove, through research and publication, enough
evidence that now could be the time for the theorists, researchers, practitioners and users of K-12
education to synthesize the collective works and evidence in order to cross-substantiate all fields of
education and market to administrators and government officials the need for an integrative structure
of education. From the information that I have gathered, the framework of STE@M has been
emerging, but the writing of this article is only done as a means to give a starting point by which to
find the naturally existing connections between the fields so that a structure by which to teach them
can arise. I am promoting that the field of TE not become EE, but remain the discipline where other
disciplines come together to be taught through reality-based application of problem posing and solving,
to do this, TE needs to promote a structure by which they can represent all the other fields. Thus far,
such a structure has developed here enough to show that there are definite inter-connections between
the various fields of education and the simplest way for me to convey them has boiled down to the
following definition.
ST∑@M Education: ' Science and Technology, interpreted through Engineering and the
Arts, all based in a language of Mathematics.’
.
References
AAAS, A. A. f. t. A. o. S. (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: AAAS.

G. Yakman 8/7/2010
AAAS, A. A. f. t. A. o. S. (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Washington, DC: AAAS.

AACTE, A. A. o. C. f. T. E. (2007). Preparing STEM Teachers: The Key to Global Competitiveness.
Washington D. C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
Act, I. I. C. I. A. (2006). Developing the STEM Education Pipeline: ACT, Inc.
Appel, M. P. (2006). Arts Integration across the Curriculum. Leadership, 36(2ov-Dec), 14.
ASEE, A. S. o. E. E. (2008). Engineering: Go for it! Make a difference, change the world.
Washington, DC: American Society of Engineering Education ASEE.
Ashby, C. M. (2006). Higher Education: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
Trends and the Role of Federal Programs. Testimony before the Committee on Education
and the Workforce, House of Representatives. (Testimony before the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives. No. GAO-06-702T). Washington
D. C.: Government Accountability Office: General Accounting Office.
AWSNA, T. A. o. W. S. o. N. A. (2008). Why Waldorf Works: Everything you need to know
about Waldorf education.
Barlex, D., & Pitt, J. (2000). Interaction: the relationship between science and design and
technology in the secondary school curriculum. London: Engineering Council.
Barwell, R. (2005). Integrating Language and Content: Issues from the Mathematics Classroom.
Linguistics and Education: An International Research Journal, 16(2), 205.
Berger, E. H., & Pollman, M. J. (1996). Multiple Intelligences: Enabling Diverse Learning. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 23(4), 249.
Bill, H. (2006). What Does It Mean to Be Globally Competent? Journal of Studies in International
Education, 10(3), 267-285.
Bloom, B. S. (1974). An introduction to mastery learning theory. In J. H. Block (Ed.), Schools,
society and mastery learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bonser, F. G., & Mossman, L. C. (1923). Chapter 1. In Industrial arts for elementary schools. New
York: Macmillan.
Bopegedera, A. M. R. P. (2005). The Art and Science of Light: An Interdisciplinary Teaching
and Learning Experience. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(1).
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. . (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Bransford, J. D., M.S. (Ed.). (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the
classroom. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.
Brown, J. E. S., E. C. (2005). A Handbook of Content Literacy Strategies. Norwood, MA:
Christopher-Gordon.
Bugliarello, G. (1988). The Science-Society Matrix: Science, Technology, and Society.
Bunge, M. (1966). Technology as applied science. Technology and Culture 7(3), 19.
Chedid, L. G. (2005). Energy, Society, and Education, with Emphasis on Educational Technology
Policy for K-12. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(1), 75.
Childress, V. (1996). Does Integrating Technology, Science, and Mathematics Improve
Technological Problem Solving? A Quasi-Experiment. Journal of Technology Education,
8(1), 11.
Chirichello, M., Eckel, J., & Pagliaro, G. (2005). Using Concepts and Connections to Reach
Students with Integrated Curriculum. Middle School Journal, 36(5), 37.
Clark, A. C., & Ernst, J. V. (2007). A Model for the Integration of Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics. Technology Teacher, 66(4), 24.
Clerk, D., & Rutherford, M. (2000). Language as a confounding variable in the diagnosis of
misconceptions (Vol. 22, pp. 703 - 717): Taylor & Francis.
CNAEA, C. o. N. A. E. A. (1994). The National Standards for Arts Education. Reston, VA:
National Association for Music Education.
STE@M Education Theory 22
G. Yakman 8/7/2010
Comenius. (1947). The Development of Modern Education. In R. Ulich (Ed.), Three thousand
years of educational wisdom: Selections from great documents (pp. 614). Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Coy, M. (2007). Finding Art in the Science Room. SchoolArts: The Art Education Magazine for
Teachers, 106(7).
Dakers, J. R. (2006). Towards a philosophy for technology education. Defining Technological
Lieteracy: Towards an epistemological framework. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Daniel, V. A. H., Stuhr, P. L., & Ballengee-Morris, C. (2006). Suggestions for Integrating the
Arts into Curriculum. Art Education, 59(1), 6.
Davis, P. J. (1994). Mathematics and art: Cold calipers against warm flesh? . In P. Ernest (Ed.),
Mathematics, education and philosophy: An international perspective. . Washington, D.C.:
Falmer Press.
de Vries, M. J. (1996). Science, technology and society: A methodological perspective. Paper
presented at the Second Jerusalem International Science and Technology Education
Conference.
de Vries, M. J. (1996). Technology education: Beyond the technology is applied science. Journal
of Technology Education, 8(1), 7-15.
DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A History of Ideas in Science Education: Implications for practice. New
York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Descartes. (1947). The New Method of Thinking. In R. Ulich (Ed.), Three thousand years of
educational wisdom: Selections from great documents. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
DeVore, P. (1976). Technology and the new liberal arts. (SO 009 637). Cedar Falls, IA: University
of Northern Iowa (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 133 260).
DeVore, P. D. (1964). Technology: An intellectual discipline. Bulletin Number 5. Washington, DC:
American Industrial Arts Association.
Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
DOE, U. S. D. o. E. (2006). Answering the challenge of a changing world strengthening education
for the 21st century: U.S. Department of Education.
Douglas, R., Worth, K., & Klentschy, M. (2006). Linking Science and Literacy in the K-8
Classroom (No. 9-781-9335-3101-4): National Science Teachers Association.
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Constructivism. In Psychology of learning for instruction. New York:
Pearson.
Driver, D., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific
knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 8.
Dugger, J., W. E. (2007). Technology Education at Virginia Tech. In V. T. s. T. E. G. Students
(Ed.). Blacksburg, VA.
Dugger, J., W. E. . (1993). The relationship between technology, science, engineering, and
mathematics. (ERIC No. ED 366 795).
Dunham, P., Wells, J., & White, K. (2002). Biotechnology education: A multiple instructional
strategies approach. Journal of Technology Education, 14(1), 17.
EAC, E. A. C. (2004). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs. Baltimore, MD: ABET, Inc.
Ebner, A. (2006). Making Connections through Visual Arts. Leadership, 36(2ov-Dec), 26.
Eisler, R. (2005). Tomorrow’s children: Education for a partnership world. In S. K. J. P. Miller,
D. Denton, D. Orr, & I. C. Kates (Ed.), Holistic learning and spirituality in education:
Breaking new ground. New York: State University of New York Press.
Ernest, P. (Ed.). (1994). Mathematics, Education and Philosophy: An international perspective.
Washington, D.C.: Falmer Press.

G. Yakman 8/7/2010
Featherstone, J. L. (1986). Forward. In B. Kimball (Ed.), Orators & philosophers: A history of the
idea of liberal education. New York: Teacher College Press.
Feldmann, D. (2007). Citizenship Education: Current Perspectives from Teachers in Three
States. Educational Research Quarterly, 30(4), 3.
Firlik, R. (1996). Can We Adapt the Philosophies and Practices of Reggio Emilia, Italy, for Use
in American Schools? Early Childhood Education Journal, 23(4), 217.
Foster, P. (1995). Industrial arts/technology education as a social study: The original intent? .
Journal of Technology Education, 6(2), 15.
Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum International Publishing
Group Inc.
Froebel. (1947). Froebel. In R. Ulich (Ed.), Three thousand years of educational wisdom:
Selections from great documents. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Furth, H. G. (1970). Piaget for teachers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Gagne, R., Wager, W., Golas, K. & Keller, J. (2005). Principles of Instructional Design (5th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Gardner, P. L. (1994). The relationship between technology and science: Some historical and
philosophical reflections. Part 1. International Journal of Technology and Design
Education 4(2), 33.
Gardner, P. L. (1995). The relationship between technology and science: Some historical and
philosophical reflections. Part 2. International Journal of Technology and Design
Education 5(1), 33.
Gardner, P. L. (1997). The Roots of Technology and Science: A Philosophical and Historical
View. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1-2).
Grasso, D., & Martinelli, D. (2007). Holistic Engineering. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(28).
Herbart. (1947). Herbart. In R. Ulich (Ed.), Three thousand years of educational wisdom:
Herman, W. E. (1995). Humanistic influences on a constructivist approach to teaching and learnin.
Potsdam, NY: State University of New York.
Hersh, R. (1994). Fresh Breezes in the Philosophy of Mathematics. In P. Ernest (Ed.),
Mathematics, education and philosophy: An international perspective Washington, D.C.:
Falmer Press.
Hickman, L. A. (1992). John Dewey's Pragmatic Technology (First Midland Book Edition ed.).
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Hodson, R. (1991). Philosophy of science and science education. . In M. M. R (Ed.), History,
philosophy, and science teaching: Selected readings. New York: OISE Press
Horton, R. M., Hedetniemi, T., Wiegert, E., & Wagner, J. R. (2006). Integrating Curriculum
through Themes. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 11(8), 408.
Horwedel, D. (2006). Operation STEM. Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, 23(20ov), 36.
Huber, M. T., & Hutchings, P. (2005). The advancement of learning: Building the teaching
commons. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Huber, M. T., & Morreale, S. P. (2002). Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and
learning: Exploring common ground. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher
Education and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
IRA-NCTE, I. R. A. a. N. C. o. T. o. E. (1996). Standards for the English Language Arts. Newark,
DE: International Reading Association and National Council of Teachers of English.
ITEA, I. T. E. A. (1996). Technology for all Americans: A rationale and structure for the study of
technology. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association
ITEA, I. T. E. A. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology.
Reston VA: International Technology Education Association
G. Yakman 8/7/2010
ITEA, I. T. E. A. (2006). Technology literacy for all: A rationale and structure for the study of
technology. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association
ITEA, I. T. E. A. (2008). Teaching TIDE with pride. Paper presented at the International
Technology Education Association, Salt Lake City.
Kalyn, B. (2006). Integration. Teaching Elementary Physical Education, 16(5), 32.
Kirkwood, J. J., Foster, P. N., & Bartow, S. M. (1994). Historical Leaders in Technology
Education Philosophy. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 32(1).
Kornfeld, J., & Leyden, G. (2005). Acting out: Literature, Drama, and Connecting with History.
Reading Teacher, 59(3ov), 230.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Laporte, J., & Sanders, M. (1993). The T/S/M integration project. The Technology Teacher,
52(6), 5.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lauda, D. P. (1980). Technology Education: A Concept in Transition. Paper presented at the
Technology Education Symposium 80
Lewis, T. (2005). Creativity—A Framework for the Design/Problem Solving Discourse in
Technology Education. Journal of Technology Education, 17(1).
Litowitz, L. S. (2008). Engineering/Technology Education - Re:Bylaws Question. In
[email protected] (Ed.): International Technology Education Association:
Council of Technology Teacher Educators.
Loepp, F. L. (1999). Models of Curriculum Integration. Journal of Technology Studies, 25(2), 21.
Lux, D., & Ray, W. (1971). Industrial arts curriculum project Bloomington, IL: McKnight &
McKnight Publishing
Macedo, S. (2004). Crafting Good Citizens. Education Next, 2004(2), 10.
Maley, D. (1973). The Maryland plan. New York: Benziger, Bruce and Glencoe.
Marshall, J. (2005). Connecting Art, Learning, and Creativity: A Case for Curriculum
Integration. Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research in Art Education,
46(3), 227.
Marshall, J. (2006). Substantive Art Integration = Exemplary Art Education. Art Education,
59(6ov), 17.
Marzano, R. (2007). The Art and Science of Teaching: A Comprehensive Framework for Effective
Instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Matthews, M. R. (1997). Introductory comments on philosophy and constructivism in science
education. Science & Education, ?(6), 10.
McDevitt, T. M. O., J. E. . (2004). Child Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice
Hall.
McKee, J., & Ogle, D. (2005). Integrating Instruction: Literacy and Science. Tools for Teaching
Literacy Series: Guilford Publications.
Mellado, V., Ruiz, C., Bermejo, M. L. & Jimenez, R. . (2006). Contributions from the philosophy
of science to the education of science teachers. Science & Education 15(5), 27.
Merrill, C. (2001). Integrated technology, mathematics and science education: A quasi-
experiment. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 38(3).
Merrill, C., & Comerford, M. (2004). Technology and Mathematics Standards: An Integrated
Approach. Technology Teacher, 64(2).
Miller, R. (1992). Introducing Holistic Education: The Historical and Pedagogical Context of the
1990 Chicago Statement. Teacher Education Quarterly, 19(1), 5.

G. Yakman 8/7/2010
Minnis, M., & John-Steiner, V. (2005). The Challenge of Integration in Interdisciplinary

Education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2005(102), 45.
Mishook, J. J., & Kornhaber, M. L. (2006). Arts Integration in an Era of Accountability. Arts
Education Policy Review, 107(4), 3.
Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology. The path between engineering and philosophy.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Montessori, M. (1914, 1975). Dr. Montessori's Own Handbook (14th, 1st Schocken Edition ed.).
New York: Schoecken.
Montessori, M. (1992). Education for human development: Understanding Montessori. Oxford,
UK: Clio.
NAE, N. A. o. E. (2004). Educating the engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new
century. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
NAE, N. A. o. E. (Ed.). (2002). Technically speaking. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.
NASPE, N. A. f. S. a. P. E. (2004). Moving into the Future: National Standards for Physical
Education (2nd ed.). Reston, VA: National Association for Sport and Physical Education.
National Governors Association. Center for Best, P. (2007). Innovation America: A Compact for
Postsecondary Education: National Governors Association.
NCSS, N. C. f. t. S. S. (1994). Expectations of Excellence: Curriculum Standards for Social Studies.
Silver Spring, MD: National Council for the Social Studies.
NCTM, N. C. o. T. o. M. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics.
Reston, VA: NCTM.
Olsen, D. W. (1963). Industrial Arts and Technology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Paterson, J. (2007). Teaching Literacy across the Curriculum. National Middle School
Association.
Paulos, J. A. (1995). A mathematician reads the newspaper. New York: Basic Books – Harper
Collins.
Pedersen, J. E., & Digby, A. D. Secondary schools and cooperative learning : theories, models, and
strategies. New York: Garland
Pestalozzi. (1947). Pestalozzi. In R. Ulich (Ed.), Three thousand years of educational wisdom:
Petrina, S. (1998a). Multidisciplinary technology education. International Journal of Technology
and Design Education, 8(2), 36.
Petrina, S. (1998b). The Politics of Research in Technology Education: A Critical Content and
Discourse Analysis Of the Journal of Technology Education, Volumes 1-8. Journal of
Technology Education, 10(1).
Petrina, S. (2007). Advancing Teaching Methods for the Technology Classroom. Hershey, PA:
Information Science Publishing.
Pinch, T., & Bijker, W. E. (1994). Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or How the
Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other. In W. E.
Bijker, Hughes, T. P. and Pinch, T. J. (Ed.), The Social Construction of Technological
Systems. New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Porter, R., Oliver, & Johnson. (2006). A Systems Model of Innovation Processes In University
STEM Education Journal of Engineering Education 2(2), 12.
Putnam, J. W., & Spiegel, A. N. (1995). Future directions in education and inclusion of students
with disabilities: A Delphi investigation. Exceptional Children, 61(6), 553.
Raizen, S. A., Sellwood, P., Todd, R. D., & Vickers, M. (1995). Technology education in the
Classroom.

G. Yakman 8/7/2010
Rogers, C. (1969). Freedom to Learn: A View of What Education Might Become (1st ed.).
Columbus, OH: Charles Merill.
Rogers, L., & Newton, L. (2001). Integrated Learning Systems - an open approach (Vol. 23, pp.
405 - 422): Taylor & Francis.
Rohrer, K. (2005). Leave No Arts Behind. SchoolArts: The Art Education Magazine for Teachers,
105(1).
Rousseau. (1947). The Development of Modern Education. . In R. Ulich. (Ed.), Three thousand
years of educational wisdom: Selections from great documents. (pp. 614). Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Ruggiero, V. R. (1988). Teaching thinking across the curriculum. New York: Harper & Row.
Salinger, G. L. (2003). Engineering in the K-12 curriculum. Initiatives in technology education:
Comparative perspectives. In G. a. M. Martin, H. (Ed.): Technology Foundation of America.
Salinger, G. L. (2005). The engineering of technology education. The Journal of Technology
Studies.
Sanders, M. (2006). A rationale for new approaches to STEM education and STEM education
graduate programs Paper presented at the 93rd Mississippi Valley Technology Teacher
Education Conference. Section IV: Issues in STEM Education.
Sanders, M. (2008). K-12 Sessions at ASEE 2008 in Pittsburgh. In [email protected],
[email protected] & [email protected] (Eds.):
International Technology Education Association.
Sarlemijn, A. (1993). Designs are cultural alloys, SteMPJE in design methodology. In M. J. de
Vries, Cross, N. & Grant, D. P. (Ed.), Design Methodology and relationships with science.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Savage, E., & Sterry, L. (Eds.). (1990). A conceptual framework for technology education. Reston,
VA: International Technology Education Association.
Shulman, L. S. (2005a). Pedagogies of Uncertainty. Liberal Education, 91(2), 8.
Shulman, L. S. (2005b). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus(Summer), 8.
Smith, F. (1998). The book of learning and forgetting. New York: Teacher's College, Columbia
University.
Snyder, J., & Hales, J. (1986). Jackson's Mill industrial arts curriculum theory. Charleston, WV:
West Virginia University of Education.
Strokrocki, M., & National Art Education Association, R. V. A. (2005). Interdisciplinary Art
Education: Building Bridges to Connect Disciplines and Cultures: National Art Education
Association.
Sutherland, D., & Dennick, R. (2002). Exploring culture, language and the perception of the
nature of science (Vol. 24, pp. 1 - 25): Taylor & Francis.
Tan, K. C., & Chua, B. L. (2006). The Sound of Music and Its Link with Mathematics. Teaching
Mathematics and Its Applications: An International Journal of the IMA, 25(4), 181.
Torres, H. N., & Zeidler, D. L. (2002). The Effects of English Language Proficiency and
Scientific Reasoning Skills on the Acquisition of Science Content Knowledge by Hispanic
English Language Learners and Native English Language Speaking Students. Electronic
Journal of Science Education, v6(n3).
Toulmin, C. N., Groome, M., & National Governors' Association, W. D. C. (2007). Building a
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Agenda: National Governors Association.
Truxal, J. G. (1984). Technology in Liberal Education. Paper presented at the Sloan Foundation
Conference.
Tymoczko, T. (Ed.). (1994). Structuralism and post-modernism in the philosophy of mathematics.
Washington, DC: Falmer Press.

G. Yakman 8/7/2010
Tyson, W., Lee, R., Borman, K. M., & Hanson, M. A. (2007). Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics (STEM) Pathways: High School Science and Math Coursework and
Postsecondary Degree Attainment. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk
(JESPAR), 12(3), 243.
Ulich, R. (Ed.). (1947). Three thousand years of educational wisdom: Selections from great
documents. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vail, K. (2006). Is Physical Fitness Raising Grades? Education Digest: Essential Readings
Condensed for Quick Review, 71(8), 13.
VTSOE, V. T. S. o. E. I. E. (2007). ISTEM Education information page.
Walling, D. R. (2007). The Return of Civic Education. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(4), 285.
Wang, J. (2005). Relationship Between Mathematics and Science Achievement at the 8th Grade.
Online Submission.
Ward, R., & Muller, D. (2006). Algebra and Art. Mathematics Teaching Incorporating
Micromath(198), 22.
Wells, J., Pinder, C., & Smith, J. (1992a). Algae, electronics and ginger beer. Technology,
Innovation & Entrepreneurship for Students (TIES) Magazine(March-April), 6.
Wells, J., Pinder, C., & Smith, J. (1992b). Algae, electronics and ginger beer. Technology,
Innovation & Entrepreneurship for Students (TIES) Magazine, 6(March-April), 27-32.
Wells, J. G. (2006). VT STEM Curriculum Class. In M. o. Class (Ed.). Blacksburg, VA.
Wicklein, R. C. (2006). Five Good Reasons for Engineering Design as the Focus for Technology
Education. Technology Teacher, 65(7), 25.
Wicklein, R. C. S., John W. . (1995). Case Studies of Multidisciplinary Approaches to Integrating
Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. Journal of Technology Education, 6(2).
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Zammito, J. H. (2004). A Nice Derangement of Epistemes: Post-positivism in the study of science
from Quine to LaTour. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Zmach, C. C., Sanders, J., Patrick, J. D., Dedeoglu, H., Charbonnet, S., Henkel, M., et al. (2007).
Infusing Reading into Science Learning. Educational Leadership, 64(4), 62.
Zuga, K. (1991). The technology education experience and what it can contribute to STS. Theory
Into Practice, XXX(4).
Zuga, K. (1993). A role for alternative curriculum theories in technology education. Journal of
Industrial Teacher Education, 30(4), 19.

STEAM Education An Overview of Creating

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STEAM Education An Overview of Creating

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

STEAM Education An Overview of Creating

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STE@M Educational Model 1

Georgette ‘george’ Yakman

Intellectual Property of G. Yakman C. 8/7/2010

Intellectual Property of G. Yakman C. 8/7/2010

Intellectual Property of G. Yakman C. 8/7/2010

Middle and High School Programs

AAAS, A. A. f. t. A. o. S. (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: AAAS.

AAAS, A. A. f. t. A. o. S. (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Washington, DC: AAAS.

STE@M Education Theory 23

STE@M Education Theory 25

Minnis, M., & John-Steiner, V. (2005). The Challenge of Integration in Interdisciplinary

STE@M Education Theory 26

STE@M Education Theory 27

STE@M Education Theory 28

You might also like