Jessica Niewint-Gori, Francesca Pestellini
pp. 10 – 30, download
(https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-063-001)
Abstract
This study examines approaches of integrated STE(A)M education in Italy, where “A” stands for “Any other subject”, focusing on how single topics are integrated into classroom activities conducted by the Italian Scientix community. Data were gathered from thirty-four in-service teacher training sessions at the 2024 Didacta Fair in Florence, Italy. Using a qualitative approach, the study analyses classroom practices and pedagogical strategies employed in integrated STE(A)M approaches. The research examines key challenges, such as the adoption of holistic approaches and the inclusion of underrepresented disciplines in STE(A)M practices, as well as opportunities for promoting critical thinking and collaboration. This work provides valuable insights into classroom practices related to integrated STE(A)M education, highlighting the growing role of technology in classroom activities.
Keywords: Integrated STE(A)M, Interdisciplinary Learning, Educational Technology Integration, Classroom Practices.
References
1. Takeuchi, M. A., Sengupta, P., Shanahan, M. C., Adams, J. D., & Hachem, M. (2020). Transdisciplinarity in STEM education: a critical review. Studies in Science Education, 56(2), 213–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2020.1755802
2. Bybee, R. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70, 30–356.
3. Dare, E. A., Keratithamkul, K., Hiwatig, B. M., & Li, F. (2021). Beyond content: The role of STEM disciplines, real-world problems, 21st century skills, and STEM careers within science teachers’ conceptions of integrated STEM education. Education Sciences, 11, 737. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110737
4. Honey, M., Alberts, B., Bass, H., Castillo, C., Lee, O., Strutches, M. M., Vermillion, L., & Rodriguez, F. (2020). STEM education for the future: A visioning report. Washington, DC, USA: National Science Foundation.
5. Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594- 016-0046-z
6. Danielson, R. W., Grace, E., White, A. J., Kelton, M. L., Owen, J. P., Fisher, K. S., Martinez,A. D., Mozo, M. (2022). Facilitating systems thinking through arts-based STEM integration. Frontiers in Education, 7, https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.915333
7. Uştu, H., Saito, T., & Taş, A. M. (2022). Integration of Art into STEM education at primary schools: An Action Research Study with primary school teachers. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 35, 253–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-021-09570-z.
8. Tasiopoulou, E., Myrtsioti, E., Niewint Gori, J., Xenofontos, N., Hovardas, T., Cinganotto, L., Anichini, G., Garista, P., & Gras-Velazquez, A. (2020). STE(A)M IT Integrated STEM teaching State of Play. European Schoolnet, Brussels. https://steamit.eun.org/files/D2.1_STEAM_IT_State_of_play_final.pdf.
9. Tasiopoulou, E. and B. Schwarzenbacher (2011), “Good Practices Report”, Delivery D2.2.: Results, European Schoolnet, Brussels, retrieved from: https://unischoolabs.eun.org/home/c/document_library/D.2.2_UniSchooLabS_Good%20Practices%20Report5f24.pdf
10. Roehrig, G.H., Moore, T.J., Wang, H-H., & Park, M.S. (2012). Is adding the E enough? Investigating the impact of K-12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM integration, School Science and Mathematics, 119, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949- 8594.2011.00112.x
11. Niewint-Gori, J., & Gras-Velazquez, A. (2020) Why is an integrated STEM approach an important element in the teaching of the future? IUL Research – Open Journal of IUL University, p.1-5
12. Hinde, E. T. (2005). Revisiting curriculum integration: A fresh look at an old idea. The Social Studies, 96(3), 105-111. https://doi.org/10.3200/TSSS.96.3.105-111
13. Mustafa, N., Ismail, Z., Tasir, Z., Said, M. and Haruzuan, M. N. (2016). A meta-analysis on effective strategies for integrated STEM education. Advanced Science Letters, 22(12), 4225- 4228. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2016.8111
14. Furner, J. and Kumar, D. (2007). The mathematics and science integration argument: A stand for teacher education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology, 3(3), 185–189 https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75397.
15. Wang, H. H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H. and Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 1(2), 1- 13.
16. Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y. et al. (2022). Trends in Highly Cited Empirical Research in STEM Education: a Literature Review. Journal for STEM Educ Res https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979- 022-00081-7
17. Vasquez, J. (2014). STEM: beyond the acronym. Educational Leadership, Jan.,10-16.
18. English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3, 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594- 016- 0036-1
19. Yoder, S., Bodary, S. & Johnson, C.C.(2016). Effective program characteristics, start-up, and advocacy for stem. STEM Road Map: A Framework for Integrated STEM Education. 211-237. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315753157-11
20. Brown, R. E., & Bogiages, C. A. (2019). Professional development through STEM integration: How early career math and science teachers respond to experiencing integrated STEM tasks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17, 111-128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9863-x
21. Gale, J., Alemdar, M., Lingle, J., & Newton, S. (2020). Exploring critical components of an integrated STEM curriculum: An application of the innovation implementation framework. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-0204-1
22. Kelley, T.R., Knowles, J.G., Holland, J.D. et al. Increasing high school teachers self-efficacy for integrated STEM instruction through a collaborative community of practice. IJ STEM Ed 7, 14 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00211-w
23. Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perceptions of STEM education and integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 6, 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594- 018-0151-2.
24. Balgopal, M. (2020). STEM teacher agency: A case study of initiating and implementing curricular reform. Science Education, 104, 762-785. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21578.
25. Dong, Y., Wang, J., Yang, Y., & Kurup, P. M. (2020). Understanding intrinsic challenges to STEM instructional practices for Chinese teachers based on their beliefs and knowledge base.International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00245- 0.
26. Wang, H. H., Charoenmuang, M., Knobloch, N. A., & Tormoehlen, R. L. (2020). Defining interdisciplinary collaboration based on high school teachers’ beliefs and practices of STEM integration using a complex designed system. International Journal of STEM Education, 7,3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0201-4.
27. Nistor, A., Gras-Velazquez, A., Billon, N. & Mihai, G. (2018). Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education Practices in Europe. Scientix Observatory report. December 2018, European Schoolnet, Brussels.
28. Ryu, M., Mentzer, N., & Knobloch, N. (2019). Preservice teachers’ experiences of STEM integration: Challenges and implications for integrated STEM teacher preparation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29, 493–512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9440-9.
29. Daniëls, E., Hondeghem A., & Dochy, F. (2019). A review on leadership and leadership development in educational settings. Educational Research Review, 27, 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.02.003.
30. Leung, A. (2020). Boundary crossing pedagogy in STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00212-9
31. Johnson, Carla & Sondergeld, Toni. (2016). Effective STEM professional development. STEM Road Map: A Framework for Integrated STEM Education. 203-211 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315753157-10.
32. Nadelson, L. S., Seifert, A. L., & Sias, C. (2015). To change or not to change: indicators of K-12 teacher engagement in innovative educational practices. International Journal of Innovation in Education, 3, 45-61 https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIIE.2015.074704.
33. Niewint Gori et al. (2022). The European Integrated STE(A)M Framework: Guidelines to Overcome barriers to STE(A)M Integration, October 2022, European Schoolnet, Brussels
34. Tasiopoulou, E., Gori, J.N., Grand-Meyer, E., Myrtsioti, E., Xenofontos, N., Chovardas, A., Cinganotto, L., Garista, P., Jakic, I., Kralj, L., Dasovic, D., Katarina Grgec, K., Apa, M., Ljubek, A., Krikovic, N., Castro,S., Ramos, C., C^andido, E., Francone, A., Louro, A., Mandusic, B.,Cipollone, C., Cesio, C., We˛grzyn, E.,Ciurea, I.E., Gugic, I., Sesar, M., Pouliaou, M.C., Lunardi, L., Nikolaou, N., Bubica, N., Sophocleous, P.,Gahlawat, P., Olteanu, R., Ungureanu, S., Cerqueira, S.M.G., Michael, Z.K. and Gras-Velazquez, A (2022), The STE(A)M IT Framework: Executive Summary, European Schoolnet, Brussels
35. Eckman, E. W., Williams, M. A. and Silver-Thorn, M. B. (2016). An integrated model for STEM teacher preparation: The value of a teaching cooperative educational experience. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 51(1), 71-82 https://doi.org/10.30707/JSTE51.1Eckman
36. El-Deghaidy, H. and Mansour, N. (2015). Science teachers’ perceptions of STEM education: Possibilities and challenges. International Journal of Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 51-54 https://doi.org/10.18178/ijlt.1.1.51-54
37. Dweck, C. S. (2010). Even geniuses work hard. Educational Leadership, 68, 16–20.
38. Nadelson, L. S., Seifert, A. L., & Sias, C. (2015). To change or not to change: indicators of K-12 teacher engagement in innovative educational practices. International Journal of Innovation in Education, 3, 45-61 https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIIE.2015.074704
39. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum.
40. Trinchero, R. (2017). Costruire e certificare competenze nel secondo ciclo. Rizzoli.
41. Calvani, A & Vivanet, G. (2014). Tecnologie per apprendere: quale il ruolo dell’Evidence Based Education?. ECPS – Educational, Cultural and Psychological Studies https://doi.org/10.7358/ecps-2014-010-calv
42. Calvani, A., & Trinchero, R. (2019). Dieci falsi miti e dieci regole per insegnare bene, Carocci
43. Calvani, A. (Ed.). (2020). Tecnologie per l’inclusione: quando e come avvalersene. Carocci.
44. Kärkkäinen, K. and S. Vincent-Lancrin (2013), Sparking Innovation in STEM Education with Technology and Collaboration: A Case Study of the HP Catalyst Initiative, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 91, OECD Publishing.
45. Vincent-Lancrin, S. et al. (2019), Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom? Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264311671-en.
46. Mori.S, Niewint, J., Beni, C.(2018) Cognitive Enhancement And 3d Printer In Kindergarten: An Exploratory Study, ICERI2018 Proceedings, pp. 2388-2392 https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2018.1524.
47. Di Stasio, M., Guasti, L., Niewint-Gori, J., & Nulli, G. (2019). Primaria 3D. Gamification, riflessione e didattica curricolare in ottica making. Scuola democratica, 10(3), 593-608.
48. Aldrich, C. (2009). Learning online with games, simulations, and virtual worlds: Strategies for online instruction (Vol. 11). John Wiley & Sons.
49. Venter, M. (2020); Gamification in STEM programming courses: State of the art, 2020 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), pp. 859-866 https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON45650.2020.9125395
50. Raju, P, V. Ahmed and C. Anumba (2011), “Use of Gaming and Virtual World Technology in Architecture, Engineering and Construction”, Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITCON), Special Issue Vol. 16.
51. Asbell-Clarke, J., Rowe, E., Bardar, E., Edwards, T. (2020), The Importance of Teacher Bridging in Game-Based Learning Classrooms, in Global Perspectives on Gameful and Playful Teaching and Learning, IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-2015- 4.ch010
52. Constantinou, C. P., Tsivitanidou, O. E., & Rybska, E. (2018). What is inquiry-based science teaching and learning?. In Professional development for inquiry-based science teaching and learning (pp. 1-23). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91406-0_1.
53. Jona, K. and Vondracek, M. (2013), “A Remote Radioactivity Experiment”, The Physics Teacher, Vol. 51, No. 151 https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4772033.
54. Strauß, S. and N. Rummel (2020), Promoting interaction in online distance education: designing, implementing and supporting collaborative learning, Information and Learning Sciences, Vol. 121/5/6, pp. 251-260 https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-04-2020-0090.
55. Martinez Maldonado, R. et al. (2012), An Interactive Teacher’s Dashboard for Monitoring Groups in a Multi-tabletop Learning Environment, in Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Berlin Heidelberg https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642- 30950-2_62.
56. OECD (2021), OECD Digital Education Outlook 2021: Pushing the Frontiers with Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain and Robots, OECD Publishing, Paris
57. Rienties, B., Køhler Simonsen, H., & Herodotou, C. (2020). Defining the Boundaries Between Artificial Intelligence in Education, Computer-supported Collaborative Learning, Educational Data Mining, and Learning Analytics: A Need for Coherence. Frontiers in Education, 5(July), Article 128. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00128
58. Baker, R. (2021), Artificial intelligence in education: Bringing it all together, in OECD Digital Education Outlook 2021: Pushing the Frontiers with Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain and Robots, OECD Publishing, Paris https://doi.org/10.1787/f54ea644-en.
59. Molenaar, I. (2021), “Personalisation of learning: Towards hybrid human-AI learning technologies”, in OECD Digital Education Outlook 2021: Pushing the frontiers with AI, blockchain, and robots, OECD Publishing https://doi.org/10.1787/2cc25e37-en
60. Xu, W., Ouyang, F. The application of AI technologies in STEM education: a systematic review from 2011 to 2021. IJ STEM Ed 9, 59 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00377-5
61. European Commission: European Education and Culture Executive Agency, AI report – By the European Digital Education Hub’s Squad on artificial intelligence in education, Publications Office of the European Union, 2023, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/828281.
62. Yannier, N., Hudson, S.E. & Koedinger, K.R. Active Learning is About More Than Hands-On: A Mixed- Reality AI System to Support STEM Education. Int J Artif Intell Educ 30, 74–96 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-020-00194-3
63. Kuckartz, U. (2014). Qualitative text analysis: A guide to methods, practice & using software. Sage publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446288719
64. Pahl, N., & Richter, A. (2007). Swot Analysis—Idea, Methodology and a Practical Approach. Munich: GRIN Verlag
65. Trinchero, R., & Robasto, D. (2019). I mixed methods nella ricerca educativa. Mondadori Education spa.
66. Tytler, R. (2020). STEM Education for the Twenty-First Century. In: Anderson, J., Li, Y. (eds) Integrated Approaches to STEM Education. Advances in STEM Education. Springer, Cham https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52229-2_3.
67. Makrakis, V. (2022). From STEM to STEAM and to STREAM enabled through meaningful critical reflective learning. Innovating STEM Education: Increased Engagement and Best Practices; Koleza, E., Panagiotakopoulos, C., Skordoulis, C., Eds, 161-172.
68. Attard, C., Berger, N., & Mackenzie, E. (2021, August). The positive influence of inquiry- based learning teacher professional learning and industry partnerships on student engagement with STEM. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 6, p. 693221). Frontiers Media SA https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.693221
69. OECD (2023), Equity and Inclusion in Education: Finding Strength through Diversity (Abridged version), https://www.oecd.org/education/strength-through-diversity/Equity-and- Inclusion-in-Education-abridged-version.pdf.
70. Mohamad Hasim, S., Rosli, R., Halim, L., Capraro, M.M., & Capraro, R.M. (2022). STEM Professional Development Activities and Their Impact on Teacher Knowledge and Instructional Practices. Mathematics.