**1. Introduction**

Today, it is indisputable that Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) are strong drivers of competitive national economies. Thus, throughout the world, nations are busy investing in STEM with the hope of grooming innovative minds to spearhead the development and sustainable growth of their economies. In education, strong STEM programmes are regarded as critical in developing students with twenty-first century competences (knowledge, skills and values) [1]. Twenty-first century competences including creativity, problem-solving and entrepreneurial are prerequisite students' further studies in STEM areas, their taking up of related careers and ventures into entrepreneurship and inventions [2]. In this regard, STEM classrooms require teachers who hold knowledge and pedagogies associated with different STEM disciplines and who would be able to construct new identities within their nation and school contexts [3, 4]. The economic development foundation-laying goals for STEM education are quite clear in literature. With all of the possible benefits of STEM education, it becomes imperative to ascertain that teachers teach STEM effectively [5]. Yet, quite often nations introduced STEM education void from context-specific theoretical frameworks and standard operating procedures (SOPs) to guide its understandings and implementations [6, 4, 7]. Logically, the success of STEM education endeavours is largely underpinned by well-defined national conceptions, theoretical underpinnings and SOPs of STEM education. Yet, in many nations, STEM teaching has been left to individual teachers

to figure out what it entails and how to do it. The need for nations to clearly define theoretical framework for STEM integration remains [8] and cannot be overemphasized (Lederman & Niess, 1998).

Despite the increasing attention to STEM education worldwide, its stakeholders in particular educational institution managers and classroom practitioners are still grappling to come into terms with what constitutes STEM education and how it can move to classroom settings [9]. No clear-cut answer to these issues can be discerned in the literature and discourses among STEM-related communities of practice. Research findings that STEM education is failing in many nations can be explained from the non-available answer to this question. This problem is aggravated by a variety of STEM education frameworks (Berlin & White, 2010) which often lack consensus of what STEM and STEM education entail. For example, in Zimbabwe, the Primary and Secondary Education Ministry fails to agree with that of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology on the meanings of STEM education and their implications to its implementations [10]. Currently, Zimbabwe still does not have a clear and accessible national STEM education framework. An obvious and immense need for stakeholders to agree on what STEM education is and how it is to be introduced in educational settings can also be drawn from studies conducted in Turkey, Egypt, and the United States of America [11].

The main argument of this chapter is that in order to break the vicious circle of STEM education reform failures, academics need to examine and consequently collate different theoretical frameworks into easy-to-understand and easy-to-implement practical approaches. Different nations then can adjust such frameworks to their contextual needs. The chapter first discusses the Qualitative-Philosophical methodology adopted to develop the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education (STEME) theoretical framework. Second, four approaches selected from literature and from which STEME was constructed are examined in turn. Third, how the theoretical framework was constructed and how it describes STEM education are presented and discussed. Fourth, the chapter discusses the practical applications of STEME model to translate STEM education into a living reality. The chapter ends with a final word after conclusions and recommendations.

## **2. Qualitative-philosophical methodology**

STEM education literatures were Qualitative-Philosophical (QualPhil) studied to develop a STEME model this chapter proposes. QualPhil is a pragmatism-grounded approach that blends qualitative and philosophical research approaches. Pragmatic perspectives untangle epistemological boundaries in knowledge production through the mixing of approaches that are deemed relevant and fitting to the purposes of the study. The knowledge on STEM education was drawn from different sources and perspectives in literatures, and ongoing research works with students under my supervision in STEM education. The philosophical angle guided the synthesis of multiperspectives on STEM education done through the deductive and inductive interrogation of literature grounded in qualitative approaches [12]. The chapter rigor was enhanced by not only broad literature scope drawn across STEM disciplines but also frequent peer debriefs with academics and students doing postgraduate researches in STEM disciplines and STEM education. Procedurally, three phases were iterated. First, the study was informed by three years of student project work in STEM Education. The critical supervision of works in six students to completion phase in Zimbabwe provided insights into the theoretical origins of the conception and implementation of STEM education problems. In the second phase, 10 articles

**111**

*A Theoretical Framework for Implementing STEM Education*

from conceptual and empirical credible sources were selected and analysed. Finally,

Different STEM approaches have been adopted in different education contexts

The four pathways to STEM education suggested by this framework are isolated and independent (S-T-E-M), duet (e.g. SteM), one into three (e.g. E S-T-M) and all

The separatist or silo approach is also discerned in the literature as a traditional approach that holds the isolated instruction of each individual STEM subject [18]. Some symbolize this way of teaching as S-T-E-M to draw attention to its independent subject nature with no to minimal or integration. In schools, this approach manifests as traditional disciplinary list of school subjects like science (chemistry, physics, biology, etc.), mathematics, technology and engineering. It becomes a curriculum movement in that it emphasizes that subjects like technology and engineering which were largely excluded in the school curricula be included. The approach's established history and philosophy of classroom practices currently ground the STEM educators' (teachers in high schools and universities' lecturers) discipline-based training. Teachers informed by this approach tend to teach for subject matter understanding and enhancement of student achievements [19]. They value and conserve their specific knowledge domains [19]. Furthermore, S-T-E-M encourage teachers to adopt lecture-based classroom practices that not only restrict students' academic development and growth [20] but also make students lose interest in STEM subjects [21]. Moreover, the approach supports teachings which are decontextualized from the real world and fail to create opportunities for student to learn through doing, applying and solving problems in real-life situations [22]. This encourages students to maintain separated and parallel views of subject content [6]. In turn, the products of silo teaching-based approaches find it difficult to understand the integration between and among STEM subjects and the real world. This fragmented acquisition of knowledge, values and skills is not in sync with the competences demanded by twenty-first century economies. It is also not aligned to the STEM education form that endeavours to make students realize the integrated or holistic sense of their world living. Conclusively, this approach is limited in capacitating students with the dearly need twenty-first century competences. The second STEM education path is the integration of two of the four STEM disciplines. This is described in this chapter as the duet STEM education approach. As an example, in schools this duet approach can concentrate on science and mathematics (SteM). Integrating science and mathematics (SteM) seems to be the preferred approach to STEM education in most schools among nations [17, 23]. This duet approach can be thought of as discipline based. The discipline-specific level of

the STEME model was developed through linking main categories (themes).

even within the same nation [4, 13–15]. Research reveals that this is the main source of confusions and misconceptions/misunderstandings of STEM education among teachers [14]. These confusions and misconceptions are ripple effected by Many other barriers to STEM education [16]. Four approaches that premised the development of the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education (STEME) theoretical framework are described. These are pathed, integrated, continuum and STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Art and Mathematics)

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88304*

**3. STEM education**

**3.1 Pathed STEM education**

four infused (STEM) approaches [17].

education.

from conceptual and empirical credible sources were selected and analysed. Finally, the STEME model was developed through linking main categories (themes).
