Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Trends, Issues and Possibilities for an Interdisciplinary STEM Curriculum

  • SI: Nature of STEM
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the last decade, the term STEM has been increasingly picked up internationally and come to represent a solution to a range of issues. Within education, STEM is being translated as a curriculum organiser that has the possibility of engaging and retaining students and is interdisciplinary and skills focussed. This paper takes the STEM curriculum as its focus and investigates the influences that have resulted in the current interpretation of STEM as well as the epistemological questions, tensions and issues that this curriculum raises. The paper does this through a consideration of previous and current curriculum movements and debates and in doing so raises questions about the underlying assumptions, form and focus that STEM curriculum take before considering some possible future directions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbott, A. (2001). Chaos of disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Apple, M. (2004). Ideology and curriculum (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Apple, M. W. (2013). Can education change society? New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competencies for new millennium learners in OECD countries (Vol. 41). OECD Education working papers. Paris: Organisation for economic cooperation and development (OECD).

  • Australian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (n.d.) Australian curriculum. Retrieved from www.australiancurriculum.edu.au

  • Australian Industry Group. (2013). Lifting our science, technology engineering and mathematics (STEM) skills. Melbourne: Australian Industry Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. J. (1994). Culture, crisis and morality: the struggle over the National Curriculum. In P. Atkinson, A. Davies, & S. Delamonte (Eds.), Discourse and reproduction: essays for Basil Bernstein (pp. 85–102). New York, NY: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. J. (2008). The education debate. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S.J., Maguire, M., Braun, A., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Policy subjects and policy actors in schools: some necessary but insufficient analyses, discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, 32(4), 611–624,

  • Barnes, J. (2015). Cross- curricular learning, 3–14, London: Sage.

  • Beane, J. (1997). Curriculum integration: designing the core of a democratic school. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, J. (2002). The sacred and the profane in recent struggles to promote official pedagogic identities. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(4), 617–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, B. (1971). On the classification and framing of educational knowledge. In M. Young (Ed.), Knowledge and control: new directions for the sociology of education (pp. 47–69). London: Collier Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, B. (1990). Class, codes and control, volume IV: the structuring of pedagogic discourse. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symobolic control and identity. Theory, research and critique. London: Taylor and Francis.

  • Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity (Revised ed.). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability (formerly: Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education), 21(1), 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackmore, J. (1990). The text and context of vocationalism: issues in post-compulsory curriculum in Australia since 1970. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22, 177–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boix Mansilla, V., Miller, W. C., & Gardner, H. (2000). On disciplinary lenses and interdisciplinary work. Interdisciplinary curriculum: Challenges to implementation, 17–38.

  • Braun, A., Ball, S. J., & Maguire, M. (2011). Policy enactments in schools introduction: towards a toolbox for theory and research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 581–583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70 (6), 30-35.

  • Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). Ubiquitous learning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Czerniak, C. M., & Johnson, C. C. (2014). Interdisciplinary science teaching. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 395–411). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. (2015). 2010 to 2015 government policy: public understanding of science and engineering. UK Government. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-public-understanding-of-science-and-engineering

  • Department of Education. (2009). Report of the STEM Review. UK Government. Retrieved from https://www.education-ni.gov.uk/publications/report-stem-review

  • Department of Education and Training. (2016). STEM in the education state. Victorian Government. Retrieved from www.education.vic.gov.au/vicstem

  • Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (2015). National Innovation and Science Agenda. Canberra: Australian Government.

  • Dewey, J. (1956). The child and the curriculum and the school and society (combined Ed.) University of Chicago Press.

  • Doherty, C. (2015). The constraints of relevance on prevocational curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(5), 705–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowden, T. (2014). Challenging, integrated, negotiated and exploratory curriculum in the middle years of schooling: designing and implementing high quality curriculum integration, Australian Journal of Middle Schooling, 14(1), 16–27.

  • Drake, S. (1998). Creating integrated curriculum: proven ways to increase student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edqvist, O. (2003). Layered science and science policies. Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning, and policy, 41(3), 207–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Education Council. (2015). National STEM school education strategy. Retrieved from www.educationcouncil.edu.au

  • Engineers Australia. (2017). Engineers make things happen. InThe need for an engineering pipeline strategy. Engineers Australia: ACT.

    Google Scholar 

  • English, L. (2016). STEM education K-12: perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(3), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fensham, P. (2009). Real world contexts in PISA science: implications for context-based science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 884–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fensham, P. (2013). The science curriculum: the decline of expertise and the rise of bureaucratise. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(2), 152–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fensham, P. (2016). The future curriculum for school science: what can be learnt from the past? Research in Science Education, 46, 165–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenwick, L. (2011). Curriculum reform and reproducing inequality in upper – secondary education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43, 697–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. (1993). Against method. London: Verso Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freire, P. (1974). Pedagogy of the oppressed. (M. Ramos, Trans.). New York, NY: Seabury Press.

  • Frodeman, R. (2014). Sustainable knowledge: a theory of interdisciplinarity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gaff, J. G. and Wilson, R. C. (1971). Faculty cultures and interdisciplinary studies. The Journal of Higher Education, 186–201.

  • Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, P., Care, E., & McGaw, B. (2012). The changing role of education and schools. In P. Griffin, E. Care and B McGaw (Eds.) Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 1-15). Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Beers, S. (2000). Introduction: When theory meets practice in the world of school. In Eds. S. Wineburg and P. Grossman. Interdisciplinary Curriculum: Challenges to implementation (pp. 1–6). New York: Teachers College Press.

  • Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM integration in K – 12 education: status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J. A., & Frickel, S. (2009). Interdisciplinarity: a critical assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 43–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karseth, B. (2006). Curriculum restructuring in Higher Education after the Bologna Process: a new pedagogic regime? Revista española de educación comparada, 12, 255–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keating, J., & Klatt, M. (2013). The Australian concurrent federalism and its implications for the Gonski Review. Journal of Education Policy, 28(14), 411–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(11), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, T. J., & Odell, M. R. L. (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science Education International, 25(3), 246-258.

  • Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: history, theory, and practice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. T. (1996). Crossing boundaries: knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. T. (2000). A conceptual vocabulary of interdisciplinary science. In P. Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practising Interdisciplinarity (pp. 3–24). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., & Niess, M. L. (1997). Editorial. School Science and Mathematics, 97(7), 341–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leggett, B., & White, R. (2011). Waves of change: the critical role of assessment, reporting and accreditation in senior secondary curriculum reform in WA, 1975–2005. In L. Yates, C, Collins, & K. O’Connor (Eds.), Australia’s curriculum dilemmas: State cultures and the big issues (pp. 240–257). Carlton, VIC: Melbourne University Press.

  • Lingard, B. (2010). Policy borrowing, policy learning: testing times in Australian schooling. Critical Studies in Education, 51(2), 129–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, T., & Quinn, F. (2010). Choosing science: understanding the declines in senior high school science enrolments. Armidale, NSW: University of New England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madsen, D. (2018). Epistemological or political? Unpacking ambiguities in the field of interdisciplinary studies. Minerva, 56, 453–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: country comparisons: international comparisons of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Final report. Melbourne, Vic: Australian Council of Learned Academies.

  • Maton, K., & Muller, J. (2007). A sociology for the transmission of knowledges. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Language, knowledge & pedagogy. Functional linguistic and sociological perspectives (pp. 14–33). London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, C. V. (2016). STEM Education: a review of the contribution of the disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Science Education International, 27(4), 530–569.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, V. (2016). Interdisciplinary curriculum reform in the changing university. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(4), 471–483.

  • Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: science education for the future. London: King’s College School of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education (2009). The move to an integrated curriculum and inquiry learning. Retrieved from nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/Curriculum-stories/Case-studies/Curriculum-implentation/Theme-six.

  • Moore, R., & Young, M. (2001). Knowledge and the curriculum in the sociology of education: towards a reconceptualisation. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22(4), 445–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, J. (2006). TIES STEM education monograph series, attributes of STEM education. Baltimore, MD: TIES.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller, J. (2009). Forms of knowledge and curriculum coherence. Journal of Education and Work, 22(3), 205–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller, J. (2014). The future of knowledge and skills in science and technology higher education. Higher Education, 70(3), 409–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller, J., & Young, M. (2014). Disciplines, skills and the university. Higher Education, 67(2), 127–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murgatroyd, S. (2010). ‘Wicked problem’ and the work of the school. European Journal of Education, 45(2), 259–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Science and Technology Council, Committee on STEM Education. (2013). Federal Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: 5-year strategic plan. Washington DC, United States of America: Executive Office of the President, US Government.

  • Newell, W. H. (1994). Designing interdisciplinary courses. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1994(58), 35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). Introduction: ‘Mode 2’ revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning, and Policy, 41(3), 179–194.

  • Office of the Chief Scientist. (2012). Health of Australian science. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government. Retrieved from http:www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/HASRReportWebUpdat200912.pdf

  • Office of the Chief Scientist. (2014). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Australia’s future. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2005) Definition and selection of competencies executive summary. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/35070367.pdf

  • Osborne, J. (2006). Towards a science education for all: The role of ideas, evidence and argument. ACER.

  • Petrie, H.G. (1992). Interdisciplinary Education: are we faced with insurmountable opportunities? In G. Grant (Ed.) Review of Research in Education, vol. 18, pp. 299–333. Washington D.C.: American Educational Research Association.

  • PWC. (2015). Future-proofing Australia’s workforce by growing skills in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM). Melbourne: PWC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, A., & Price, D. (Eds.). (2018). The Australian curriculum: promises, problems and possibilities. ACT: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizvi, F. (2011). Theorising student mobility in an era of globalisation. Teachers and Teaching, 17(6), 693–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, S., Sriprakash, A., & Gerrard, J. (2018). Knowledge and racial violence: the shine and shadow of ‘powerful knowledge’. Ethics and Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2018.1428719.

  • Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2013). The OECD and global governance in education. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), 710–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, B. R. (2004). Strategies of non-formal education. New Delhi: Sarup & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, P., Thomas, S., & Harris, J. (2013). Recontextualising policy discourses: a Bernsteinian perspective on policy interpretation, translation, enactment. Journal of Education Policy, 28(4), 465–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sokal, R. R. (1974). Classification: purposes, principles, progress, prospects. Science, 185(4157), 1115–1123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stichweh, R. (1992). The sociology of scientific disciplines: on the genesis and stability of the disciplinary structure of modern science. Science in Context, 5, 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teese, R., & Polesel, J. (2003). Undemocratic schooling: equity and quality in mass secondary education in Australia. Carlton: Melbourne University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Royal Society Science Policy Centre. (June, 2014). Vision for science and mathematics education. London: The Royal Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R., Osborne, J., Williams, G., Tytler, K., & Cripps Clark, J. (2008). Opening up pathways: engagement in STEM across the primary-secondary school transition. Canberra: Australian Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, L. (1999). Courses and instruction affecting critical thinking. Research in Higher Education, 40(2), 185–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & De Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venville, G. J., Wallace, J., Rennie, L. J., & Malone. (2002). Curriculum integration: eroding the high ground of science as a school subject? Studies in Science Education, 37(1), 43–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wahlstrom, N. (2018). Where is ‘the political’ in curriculum research. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 50(6), 711–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, P. (1997). From ‘finalization’ to ‘mode 2’: old wine in new bottles? Social Science Information, 36(4), 591–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, P., & Stehr, N. (Eds.). (2000). Practising interdisciplinarity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitty, G. (2010). Revisiting school knowledge: some sociological perspectives on new school curricula. European Journal of Education, 45(1), 28–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winch, C. (2013). Curriculum design and epistemic ascent. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 47(1), 128–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wineburg, S., & Grossman, P. (2000). Interdisciplinary curriculum: challenges to implementation. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, T., Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (2012). Reflections on learning and teaching mathematics in elementary school. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 419–440). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, V., Dillon, J., & King, H. (2016). STEM in England: meanings and motivations in the policy arena. International Journal of Science Education, 38(15), 2346–2366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, V., & Dillon, J. (2019). ‘Voodoo maths’, asymmetric dependency and maths blame: why collaboration between school science and mathematics teachers is so rare. International Journal of Science Education, 41(6), 782–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wrigley, T. (2018). ‘Knowledge’, curriculum and social justice. The Curriculum Journal, 29(1), 4–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yates, L., Collins, C. W., & O'Connor, K. (2011). Australia's curriculum dilemmas: state cultures and the big issues. Carlton: Melbourne University Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yates, L., & Grumet, M. (2011). Curriculum in today’s world: configuring knowledge identities, work and politics. In L. Yates & M. Grumet (Eds.), World yearbook of education 2011: Configuring knowledge, identities, work and politics (pp. 3–14). London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yates, L., Woelert, P., Millar, V., & O’Connor, K. (2016). Knowledge at the Crossroads?: Physics and History in the Changing World of Schools and Universities. Singapore: Springer

  • Young, M. (Ed.). (1971). Knowledge and control: new directions for the sociology of education. London: Collier-Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, M. (2008). Bringing knowledge back in: from social constructivism to social realism in the sociology of education. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, M. (2010). Alternative educational futures for a knowledge society. European Education Research Journal, 9(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zipin, L. (2013). Starting from pedagogical zero in ‘developing’ contexts? Let’s re-imagine!: a response to Hugo and Wedekind. Southern African Review of Education, 19(1), 158–166.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Professor Jan van Driel for his constructive feedback on this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, 3010, Australia

    Victoria Millar

Authors
  1. Victoria Millar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Victoria Millar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Millar, V. Trends, Issues and Possibilities for an Interdisciplinary STEM Curriculum. Sci & Educ 29, 929–948 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00144-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00144-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation