**4. The STEME integration framework**

The Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education (STEME) model in **Figure 1** was developed with full recognition that education is contextual,

**Figure 1.** *STEME model.*

so STEM education cannot be spared. My mission was to awaken nations into realizing the dire need for providing guidelines. The model was built through comparing and contrasting the four approaches to STEM education discussed in Section 3. Established connections among the four approaches were linked and ordered into a four-leveled STEME model. This framework elucidates on both paths and degree of integration.

Levelling of these approaches was based on their complexity and easiness to comprehend and implement. The lowest level 1 is the separatist approach, abbreviated S-T-E-M. The hyphens between the letters symbolize the side-by-side teachings of STEM subjects. Within this approach, integration is arrived by adding the STEM subject to the school curricula. Literature provides that this is one option for integrating technology into the school curricula [35]. In a simple understanding of STEM education as technology, engineering and mathematics, schools to include the missing discipline, usually technology and engineering to their curricula. This is a simple form of STEM education which is easy to implement [36]. All it requires is to train engineering and technology teachers. The traditional identity of the separatist approach brings not only its history and philosophy of subject specificity but also that of its separate disciplines. The current use of this approach can be inferred from policies that aim at increasing the number of STEM subjects or courses or academic programmes in educational institutions. Such policies also focus on addressing the dwindling enrolment problems and gender disparities in STEM fields. But STEM pedagogical integration can be effected in the teaching of specific STEM subjects. Many nations like Zimbabwe are advocating for shifts in pedagogical practices within the teachings of these disciplines. In Zimbabwe, 'new' STEM curriculum framework encourages teachers to adopt research, discovery and problem-based approaches in teaching specific STEM subjects. The adoption of these student-centred approaches in teaching subjects like chemistry should be able to develop creative and innovative minds in students. Classroom practices

**117**

goes for integrating technology.

*A Theoretical Framework for Implementing STEM Education*

emanating from pedagogical STEM integration should be able to meet the criteria for an effective STEM instruction. Students in a pedagogic STEM integration classroom should be able to: (1) solve problems, (2) innovate, (3) invent, (4) logical think, (5) self-rely and (6) technological literacy [22]. Research has shown that by and large pedagogical STEM-integrated classrooms address problems related to subject conceptual understanding, poor achievements and loss of interest and enrolment declines. Other research findings teach us that teachers' subject based trainings and teaching experience support traditional teacher centred approaches and make the pedagogically limited implement STEM education. The need to professionally develop teachers for STEM teaching therefore needs no emphasis. The STEME level 2–4 approaches allude to STEM integration that involves more

than one subject. Generally, this integration approach is more difficult to both understand and implement as compared to the separatist [36]. The ordering of the three approaches was based on the logic that establishing connections between and among STEM subjects positively correlates with the number of the subjects involved. The more the subject to be integrated, the more complex it is to conceptualize and implement STEM education. The more the complex and cognitively demanding the subject involved in the integration, the more difficult the integration is to achieve. The duet integration in level 2 focusses on the teaching science and mathematics and making connections between them. The argument is that science leads to the understanding of nature that holds resource for sustaining life. So it would be difficult to effectively use such natural resources without understanding what the world has in store for humankind. The compartmentalization of science disciplines into chemistry, physics and biology aligns with the discrete approach to their study. 'Mathematics is not just a primal language for knowledge disciplines, but also a network of practical and theoretical divisions that interact both with other subjects' [24, p. 18]. This makes not only its linking it to any of the scientific disciplines practical, but also it can be used to mediate connections among science subjects. In fact, the 'real-life' application of sciences and mathematics in engineering and technology is practically integrated [31]. However, this level remains discipline based and directs teachers of chemistry, physics and biology to integrate mathematic in their teaching. Those of mathematics are also required to make connection to one or more scientific subjects. Like in level 1, the effective implementation of this approach requires teacher knowledge and knowledge of teaching in mathematics and a science subject. The one into either three E/T S-E/T-M integration approach is in level 3. It describes the integration of either technology or engineering into one of the other three STEM disciplines. This approach suggests that engineering or technology reasoning, decision-making and practices can be integrated in science or mathematics or either engineering or technology classrooms depending on which subjects is being moved into the other. This type of integration is pedagogically based where engineering- or technology design-based pedagogy is adopted in science classrooms [30]. The US states, such as Texas, Oregon and Massachusetts, consented adding engineering to improve STEM education not as a stand-alone subject but rather pedagogically [5]. This curriculum movement lends the support of many researches that have shown that use of engineering designs in science classrooms effectively develops in students the much-desired twenty-first century skills [26, 37]. The same

The STEM education level 4 depicts interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary integration. Though some studies attempt to distinguish these two constructs [9, 24], in this model they are collated to mean the same. The phrase interdisciplinary is used to entail an approach where STEM teaching integrates all the four disciplines into one cohesive teaching and learning paradigm [28]. I use the term parading from its description as a set of interrelated beliefs about reality, knowledge, methodology, values and language

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

#### *A Theoretical Framework for Implementing STEM Education DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88304*

*Theorizing STEM Education in the 21st Century*

so STEM education cannot be spared. My mission was to awaken nations into realizing the dire need for providing guidelines. The model was built through comparing and contrasting the four approaches to STEM education discussed in Section 3. Established connections among the four approaches were linked and ordered into a four-leveled STEME model. This framework elucidates on both paths and degree

Levelling of these approaches was based on their complexity and easiness to comprehend and implement. The lowest level 1 is the separatist approach, abbreviated S-T-E-M. The hyphens between the letters symbolize the side-by-side teachings of STEM subjects. Within this approach, integration is arrived by adding the STEM subject to the school curricula. Literature provides that this is one option for integrating technology into the school curricula [35]. In a simple understanding of STEM education as technology, engineering and mathematics, schools to include the missing discipline, usually technology and engineering to their curricula. This is a simple form of STEM education which is easy to implement [36]. All it requires is to train engineering and technology teachers. The traditional identity of the separatist approach brings not only its history and philosophy of subject specificity but also that of its separate disciplines. The current use of this approach can be inferred from policies that aim at increasing the number of STEM subjects or courses or academic programmes in educational institutions. Such policies also focus on addressing the dwindling enrolment problems and gender disparities in STEM fields. But STEM pedagogical integration can be effected in the teaching of specific STEM subjects. Many nations like Zimbabwe are advocating for shifts in pedagogical practices within the teachings of these disciplines. In Zimbabwe, 'new' STEM curriculum framework encourages teachers to adopt research, discovery and problem-based approaches in teaching specific STEM subjects. The adoption of these student-centred approaches in teaching subjects like chemistry should be able to develop creative and innovative minds in students. Classroom practices

**116**

of integration.

**Figure 1.** *STEME model.* emanating from pedagogical STEM integration should be able to meet the criteria for an effective STEM instruction. Students in a pedagogic STEM integration classroom should be able to: (1) solve problems, (2) innovate, (3) invent, (4) logical think, (5) self-rely and (6) technological literacy [22]. Research has shown that by and large pedagogical STEM-integrated classrooms address problems related to subject conceptual understanding, poor achievements and loss of interest and enrolment declines. Other research findings teach us that teachers' subject based trainings and teaching experience support traditional teacher centred approaches and make the pedagogically limited implement STEM education. The need to professionally develop teachers for STEM teaching therefore needs no emphasis.

The STEME level 2–4 approaches allude to STEM integration that involves more than one subject. Generally, this integration approach is more difficult to both understand and implement as compared to the separatist [36]. The ordering of the three approaches was based on the logic that establishing connections between and among STEM subjects positively correlates with the number of the subjects involved. The more the subject to be integrated, the more complex it is to conceptualize and implement STEM education. The more the complex and cognitively demanding the subject involved in the integration, the more difficult the integration is to achieve. The duet integration in level 2 focusses on the teaching science and mathematics and making connections between them. The argument is that science leads to the understanding of nature that holds resource for sustaining life. So it would be difficult to effectively use such natural resources without understanding what the world has in store for humankind. The compartmentalization of science disciplines into chemistry, physics and biology aligns with the discrete approach to their study. 'Mathematics is not just a primal language for knowledge disciplines, but also a network of practical and theoretical divisions that interact both with other subjects' [24, p. 18]. This makes not only its linking it to any of the scientific disciplines practical, but also it can be used to mediate connections among science subjects. In fact, the 'real-life' application of sciences and mathematics in engineering and technology is practically integrated [31]. However, this level remains discipline based and directs teachers of chemistry, physics and biology to integrate mathematic in their teaching. Those of mathematics are also required to make connection to one or more scientific subjects. Like in level 1, the effective implementation of this approach requires teacher knowledge and knowledge of teaching in mathematics and a science subject.

The one into either three E/T S-E/T-M integration approach is in level 3. It describes the integration of either technology or engineering into one of the other three STEM disciplines. This approach suggests that engineering or technology reasoning, decision-making and practices can be integrated in science or mathematics or either engineering or technology classrooms depending on which subjects is being moved into the other. This type of integration is pedagogically based where engineering- or technology design-based pedagogy is adopted in science classrooms [30]. The US states, such as Texas, Oregon and Massachusetts, consented adding engineering to improve STEM education not as a stand-alone subject but rather pedagogically [5]. This curriculum movement lends the support of many researches that have shown that use of engineering designs in science classrooms effectively develops in students the much-desired twenty-first century skills [26, 37]. The same goes for integrating technology.

The STEM education level 4 depicts interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary integration. Though some studies attempt to distinguish these two constructs [9, 24], in this model they are collated to mean the same. The phrase interdisciplinary is used to entail an approach where STEM teaching integrates all the four disciplines into one cohesive teaching and learning paradigm [28]. I use the term parading from its description as a set of interrelated beliefs about reality, knowledge, methodology, values and language

(Mpofu et al. 2016) in relation to STEM teaching. The main aim of interdisciplinary integration is to shift traditional paradigmatic barriers existing among the four disciplines to STEM [38]. Within this interdisciplinary approach, teachers are expected to guide students to make connections between school, community, work and the global enterprise through coupling the learning academic science, technology, engineering and mathematics concepts with real-world lessons [28, 26]. Moreover, interdisciplinary learning impacts lifelong learning habits, academic skills, personal growth [39] and development of knowledge management skills [40].

The last level 5 approach described in this model as Mathematics, Science, Art, Technology and Engineering (MSATE) has been modified from the STEAM approach. STEAM education for students with disabilities can also be adapted to all students. In simple terms, STEAM education means an addition of the Arts to STEM (STEM + Arts). In a level 5 approach in SEME, it is abridged MSATE to depict its integration of all knowledge bodies into one holistic knowledge, values, skills and practice system. This letter arrangement taps arguments proffered by indigenous scholars that science is cultural and language is central to every culture and development of its knowledge. The art domain in this context embraces both languages and social sciences. It is positioned in the centre to depict that inherent in it are knowledge development, representation and communication. Mathematics and Science come before Arts to reflect the connecting role Mathematics plays across STEAM disciplines and the understanding of nature fundamental role Science plays. Thus, the language understanding of both sciences and mathematics enables their combined applications in technology and engineering. Thus, MSATE takes cognisance that language use is integral to activities (e.g. classroom teaching) that are placed within social contexts [37].
