Science education, STEM and STEAM: questioning the issues of terminological interaction

Yulia Aleksandrova

Urgency of the research. There are reasons to consider the concept of science education debatable and uncertain today. Even the age history of this phenomenon in education does not provide sufficient grounds for an unambiguous and comprehensive definition. It is undeniable that science education is a recognized world leader in innovation and a locomotive of reforming the education system following the challenges and requirements of the time. Science education is increasingly interpreted as STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) or STEAM (science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics in the educational discourse).

Target setting. The practice of science education has become widespread in schools in the United States, Canada, Great Britain, and others. On the one hand, there is a high public demand for scientific education, and on the other hand - a barge of communication and coordination of efforts. The interdisciplinary nature of science education is based on familiar concepts for scientific knowledge: cause and effect, quantity and quality, system and structure, etc. That is, those philosophical categories characterize universal knowledge that has a powerful potential for explanation and understanding in various fields of science and technology, social relations, or individual life. Dissemination of scientific education practices requires attention to theoretical issues, among which the issue of terminological interaction is essential.

Actual scientific researches and issues analysis. The works of S. Babiichuk, who studies the theoretical problems of the development of scientific education in the conditions of the domestic educational environment, proved to be fruitful for us. Historical reconstruction of views on scientific education in foreign experience is presented in the works of J. Bernard, F. Finley, R. Yager, and others. The works of M. Veenman, D. Davis, G. Evans, A. Zohar, L. Hetherington, and others are devoted to the cognitive dimension of change and the link of educational change to socio-cultural transformations that actualize the concept of scientific education. Such authors have studied terminological issues of STEM and STEAM education dissemination as K. Gross, S. Belbase, J. Rolling, and others.

The research objective. The study aims to clarify the features of terminological interaction that takes place in modern educational (in particular, philosophical and educational) discourse around the concepts of science education, STEM, and STEAM, analyzing the integration of science, education, and art.

The statement of basic material. Since science is an integral part of a culture, it is a natural requirement that science be an essential component of the educational process. And not only in higher education, because it is appropriate to implement the principles of scientific education in school and kindergarten. In this way, it is possible to ensure the implementation of a set of goals of social, philosophical, psychological, and other varieties. STEAM is a comprehensive response to the complex problem of the anthropocene, which includes the ecological context of human impact on nature and a more complex and large-scale phenomenon, as a set of political, economic, social, and technological factors that shape the context of daily practices. The complex and interdisciplinary nature of STEAM develops skills to change the focus of perception of objects and processes of the world, focus on macro and micro levels, critically and reflectively analyze experience, perceive objects not in isolation but in close relationships and interaction. Artistic practices allow to overcome stereotypes and algorithmic perception and thinking, focus on the subject, and see its new sides and aspects.

Conclusions. Science education is an educational concept that captures and legitimizes significant transformations in the development and direct content of the educational process at all levels. There is currently no single and invariant definition of the term “science education”. This socio-cultural phenomenon’s insignificant period of existence already contains a significant internal transformation – the transition from STEM to STEAM, as a fruitful synthesis of various scientific approaches without art and creativity is an artificial, contradictory, and devoid of humanistic dimension. However, this phenomenon is difficult to call completely innovative; it would be more appropriate to understand scientific education as a bold embodiment of the intentions and strategies that were laid down in the pre-scholastic education format, but taking into account the current level of civilization.

Keywords: science education, STEM, STEAM, terminological interaction, philosophy of education.

References:

  1. Babiichuk, S 2020, ‘Naukova osvita yak pedahohichnyi kontsept (Science education as a pedagogical concept)’, Problemy pidhotovky suchasnoho vchytelia. Zbirnyk naukovykh prats, Vyp. 2(22), s. 6-11.
  2. Babiichuk, S 2020, ‘Pedahohichna kontseptsiia “naukova osvita” (Pedagogical concept “Science education”)’, Osvitnii dyskurs: zbirnyk naukovykh prats, Vyp. 23(5), s. 14-21.
  3. Zakon Ukrainy “Pro osvitu” (Ukrainian Law “On Education”) 2017, Dokument № 2145-VIII, Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady (VVR), № 38-39, st. 380.  Dostupno: <http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2145-19>. [12 Veresen 2021].
  4. Einshtein y sovremennaia fyzyka: Sbornyk pamiaty Alberta Einshteina (Einstein and Modern Physics: A Collection in Memory of Albert Einstein) 1956, Moskva: Hostekhyzdat, 458 c.
  5. Astor, T, McСallie, E & Balcerzak, P 2007, ‘Academic and Informal Science. Education Practitioner Views’, About Professional Development in Science Education, рр. 605-628. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20205>. [20 October 2021].
  6. Barnard, DJ 1968, ‘Pre-1960 contributions to science education’, Science education, Vol. 52, No. 3, рр. 239-244.
  7. Barton, AC & Tan, E 2010, ‘We be burnin’! Agency, identity, and science learning’, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, Vol. 19 (2), рр. 187–229.
  8. Belbase, S, Mainali, BR, Kasemsukpipat, W, Tairab, H, Gochoo, M & Jarrah, A 2021, ‘At the dawn of science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEAM) education: prospects, priorities, processes, and problems’, International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2021.1922943>. [12 October 2021].
  9. Clarke, SN, Howley, I, Resnick, L & Rosé, CP 2016, ‘Student agency to participate in dialogic science discussions’, Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, Vol. 10, pp. 27–3.
  10. Davies, D & McGregor, D 2017, Teaching Science Creatively, 2nd ed. New York, NY; Abingdon: Routledge.
  11. Evans, HJ & Achiam, M 2021, ‘Sustainability in out-of-school science education: identifying the unique potentials’, Environmental Education Research, 27:8, pp. 1192-1213. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2021.1893662>. [20 October 2021].
  12. Finley, F, Lawrenz, F & Heller, P 1992, ‘A Summary of Research in Science Education – 1990’, Science Education, Vol. 76 (3), pp. 239-254.
  13. Fu, G & Clarke, A 2020, ‘Moving beyond the agency-structure dialectic in pre-collegiate science education: positionality, engagement, and emergence’, Studies in Science Education, Vol. 55 (2), pp. 215-256. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2020.1735756>. [08 October 2021].
  14. Gross, K & Gross, S 2016, ‘Transformation: Constructivism, Design Thinking, and Elementary STEAM’, Art Education, Vol. 69 (6), pp. 36-43. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2016.1224869>. [08 October 2021].
  15. Guyotte, KW 2020, ‘Toward a Philosophy of STEAM in the Anthropocene’, Educational Philosophy and Theory, Vol. 52 (7), pp. 769-779. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2019.1690989>. [20 October 2021].
  16. Hetherington, L, Chappell, K, Keene, HR, Wren, H, Cukurova, M, Hathaway, Ch, Sotiriou, S & Bogner, F 2019, ‘International educators’ perspectives on the purpose of science education and the relationship between school science and creativity’, Research in Science & Technological Education, Vol. 38 (1), pp. 19-41. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2019.1575803>. [08 October 2021].
  17. Rocard, M, Cesrmley, P, Jorde, D, Lenzen, D, Walberg-Henriksson, H & Hemd, V 2021, ‘Science Education NOW: A Renewed Pedagogy for the Future of Europe’, Brussels, Belgium: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Available from: <http://ec/europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/report-rocard-on-science-education_en.pdf>. [10 September 2021].
  18. Rolling, JrJH 2016, ‘Reinventing the STEAM Engine for Art + design Education’, Art Education, Vol. 69:4, pp. 4-7. Available from: <http://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2016.1176848>. [12 October 2021].
  19. Veenman, MVJ 2012, ‘Metacognition in science education: Definitions, constituents, and their intricate relation with cognition’, In A. Zohar & Y. J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research, contemporary trends and issues in science education, New York: Springer, pp. 21–36.
  20. Yager, RE & Zehr, E 1985, ‘Science Education in US, Graduate Institutions during, Two Decades, 1960-1980’, Science Education, Vol. 69 (2), pp.163-169.
  21. Zohar, A & Barzilai, S 2013, ‘A review of research on metacognition in science education: current and future directions’, Studies in Science Education, Vol. 49:2, pp. 121-169. Available from: <http://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2013.847261>. [12 October 2021].