Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ucjs20

Download by: [Don Krug] Date: 27 July 2016, At: 12:57

Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics andTechnology Education

ISSN: 1492-6156 (Print) 1942-4051 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucjs20

Reconceptualizing ST®E(A)M(S) Education forTeacher Education

Don Krug & Ashley Shaw

To cite this article: Don Krug & Ashley Shaw (2016) Reconceptualizing ST®E(A)M(S) Educationfor Teacher Education, Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education,16:2, 183-200, DOI: 10.1080/14926156.2016.1166295

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2016.1166295

Published online: 03 Jun 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 35

View related articles

View Crossmark data

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION, VOL. , NO. , –http://dx.doi.org/./..

Reconceptualizing ST®E(A)M(S) Education for Teacher Education

Don Krug and Ashley Shaw

Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

ABSTRACTThis article examines science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) edu-cation as represented in North American educational contexts. In this articlewe will argue that the dominant view of STEM education as currently circu-lated and practiced in the United States and Canada is not muchmore than anacronym of discrete disciplinary areas. We offer a critical review of popular lit-erature about STEM education and argue that too much emphasis in popularculture is currently on a quick fix of recent global economic conditions. Criticalinquiry is proposed as a method for teacher candidates to reflexively deliberateon why curriculum integration (i.e., ®), the arts and humanities (i.e., (A)) andsustainability education (i.e., (S)) are important areas of STEM education. Wediscuss why an integrated view of ST®E(A)M(S) education that honors disci-plinary content but does not succumb to disciplinary isolation is needed.

RÉSUMÉCet article se penche sur l’enseignement des sciences, des technologies, del’ingénierie et des mathématiques (STEM) tel que représenté dans les con-textes d’éducation en Amérique du nord. Nous sommes d’avis que la visiondominante de l’enseignement des STEM tel que diffusé et pratiqué aux États-Unis et au Canada n’est guère plus qu’un acronyme regroupant des disci-plines discrètes. Nous présentons une revue critique de la littérature popu-laire sur l’enseignement des disciplines STEM et nous soutenons qu’une tropgrande insistance sur la culture populaire est le reflet d’une volonté courantede remédier aux récentes conditions économiques globales. La recherche cri-tique est proposée commeméthode aux futurs enseignants afin qu’ils puissentréfléchir et se questionner de façon délibérée sur les raisons pour lesquellesl’intégration des curriculums, les arts et les sciences humaines, et le développe-ment durable constituent des secteurs importants de l’enseignement desSTEM. Nous expliquons pourquoi une vision intégrée de l’enseignement desSTEM qui valorise les contenus disciplinaires sans pour autant succomber àl’isolement disciplinaire est nécessaire.

Introduction

In this exploratory research, we began by asking a very broad question: “What is/are the purpose(s) ofthe science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education initiative?”What we learned was thatsince 2006, at least in the United States and Canada, STEM education initiatives have been driven pri-marily by business and government institutions over concerns regarding the global economic downturn.Based on these concerns, higher education and public and private K–12 education have slowly instituted

CONTACT Don Krug don.krug@ubc.ca Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy, University of British Columbia, -MainMall, Neville Scarfe Building, Vancouver, BC VT Z, Canada.Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ucjs.

© Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Don

Kru

g] a

t 12:

57 2

7 Ju

ly 2

016

184 D. KRUG AND A. SHAW

a broad range of STEMprograms. Inwhat followswe examine emerging STEMeducation discourses thatindicate that educators should consider reconceptualizing STEM education to STREAMS education.

STREAMS education stands for Science (S), Technology (T), Knowledge IntegRation (R), Engineer-ing (E), Arts andHumanities (A),Math (M), and Sustainability Education (S). Our purpose is to examineand draw attention to an urgent call for uncovering the kind of beginning groundwork still needed tounderstand how knowledge, curricula, and teacher education can orient teaching and learning in ways toinclude knowledge integration and creativity and innovation, with a sustainability mindset. STREAMSeducation is an integrated curriculummethodology that includes the arts and humanities, sustainabilityeducation, and knowledge integration.

Below, we provide a brief summary of STEM’s emergence through business and government dis-courses in Canada and the United States. We identified three economic concepts—progress, innovation,and global competitiveness—that were woven through the vast majority of the business and governmentdocuments we studied. Next, we present a short critique of STEM by analyzing dominant, residual, andemergent discourses, which are presented in several key documents. We focused on only a few of thesekey documents that have impacted the shaping of social and political discourses connected with STEMeducation. Thinking about how critical inquiry into STEMeducation could be included in teacher educa-tion, specifically with new teacher candidates, is woven throughout our analysis. We have been cautiousto not overgeneralize from such a small sample of literature. On the other hand, our literature reviewdoes provide a place to begin conducting critical inquiry about STEM education issues and can providematerial with which to engage teacher candidates. In conclusion, we discuss characteristics of sustain-ability education, the arts and humanities, and knowledge integration as three emerging educationaldiscourses to broaden STEM education to STREAMS education within teacher education programs.Webelieve that educators should refocus STEM initiatives from disciplinary and multidisciplinary cooper-ation to critical inquiry about real-life problem-based integrated knowledge.

A brief summary of STEM’s emergence in Canada and the United States

At the beginning of the 21st century, and during a recent period of economic uncertainty, developedcountries began placing greater pressure on global markets to grow and innovate production. The STEMsubjects, and promotion of STEM education, were seen as a means of achieving such innovation andproductivity. The Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a BrighterEconomic Future report (Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century, 2007), isone key United States document that stirred employers to becomemore aware of the mounting concernsfor educating enough scientists, engineers, andmathematicians to keep the United States in the forefrontof research, innovation, and technological advancement (Committee on Prospering in the Global Econ-omy of the 21st Century, 2007). The RAGS report (Committee on Prospering in the Global Economyof the 21st Century, 2007) indicated that in a world where advanced knowledge is widespread and low-cost labor is readily available, the advantages of the United States in the marketplace and in science andtechnology had begun to erode. A comprehensive and coordinated federal effort was urgently neededto bolster competitiveness of the United States in these areas (Committee on Prospering in the GlobalEconomy of the 21st Century, 2007). The comparative decline of the United States in this field attractedthe attention of policymakers, leading then-President GeorgeW. Bush to address the shortfalls in federalsupport of STEM educational development by passing the American Competitiveness Initiative.1 Thisinitiative called for a significant increase in federal funding with the goal of increasing the number of col-lege graduates with STEMdegrees. It sought to double federal spending for advanced research in physicalsciences and to improve science and mathematics education in public schools. It also aimed to provideadditional training for teachers in science, math, and technology. In 2010, the goals of this initiative werereaffirmed, and it was reworked into the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act (Gonzalez, Sargent,& Moloney Figliola, 2010). Additional efforts to bolster STEM learning came through the National Sci-ence Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, although the general pop-ulation often cites the comparative decline of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as areason for the decline in popularity of STEM.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Don

Kru

g] a

t 12:

57 2

7 Ju

ly 2

016

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION 185

In Canada, the 2007 report, Science and Technology Strategy: Mobilizing Science and Technology toCanada’s Advantage (Science and Technology Strategy, 2007) was a key comprehensive STEM-relatedCanadian federal government document. In the STS report, STEM is referred to but not specificallynamed. It states:

Science and technology comes into almost every aspect of our lives, helping us to solve problems and create oppor-tunities. … Scientific and technological innovations enable modern economies to improve competitiveness andproductivity, giving us the means to achieve an even higher standard of living and better quality of life. (Science andTechnology Strategy, 2007, p. 7)

Thoughnot immediately adopting the STEMacronym,Canadian government and business embracedthe idea and offered financial support, seeing STEM education as a crucial step toward creating new jobsin the future and providing a means of staying economically competitive in an increasingly knowledge-based global market place.

In 2014, the Council of Canadian Academies (ACA) was asked by Employment and Social Develop-ment Canada to examine the latest evidence about STEM education and future preparedness, employ-ment, and skill development in Canada. The Council of Canadian Academies Expert Panel on STEMSkills for the Future published Some Assembly Required: STEM Skills and Canada’s Economic Produc-tivity Report (Council of Canadian Academies, 2015), on their website, where Janet Bax, the InterimPresident of the Council of Canadian Academies, stated

the report covers a broad area of issues such as: the relationships among STEM skills and innovation, productivity,and growth; whether Canada has a shortage or surplus of STEM graduates; what future demand for STEM skills inCanada could be; considerations for developing a STEM-literate society; the role of post-secondary education, andimmigration and the global market. (para. 3)

David Dodge (2015), the Chair of the Expert Panel on STEM Skills for the Future, writes in the SARExecutive Summary,

After 18 months of study, we are convinced that high-quality investments in STEM skills—in both early educationand in more advanced training—are critical to Canada’s prosperity. Beyond preparing students and the labour forcefor a range of future possibilities, these investments appear to be one of several components required to improveCanada’s poor innovation and productivity record. (p. vii)

The ACA report cautions that change is continual and that many new challenges are to be expectedassociated with an aging population, the rapid development of technologies, and the growing concern ofenvironmental issues in society.

Progress, innovation, and global competitiveness

From our review of these government and business initiatives and our inquiry into these documents,we found three concepts repeatedly set as goals: progress, innovation, and global competitiveness. For thisresearch, we recognize progress as the act of moving forward toward something, a goal or endpoint(i.e., innovation, happiness, community, wealth, health, the good life). Innovation refers to an invention,which can either be a new product or service. It is also a process in which knowledge is absorbed, assim-ilated, shared, and used with the aim of creating new knowledge (Harkema & Browaeys, 2002). Globalcompetitiveness is defined as a set of factors that measure the level of productivity of a country. Thislevel of productivity, in turn, determines the level of prosperity that can be earned by an economy, aswell as the rates of return obtained by investments in that economy, which in turn are the fundamentaldrivers of its growth. In other words, amore competitive economy is one that is likely tomaintain growth(Schwab, 2012). There is a close and reciprocal relation between these goals and STEM education: STEMeducation is seen as providing a necessary component of achieving these goals, and achieving these goalsis seen to provide validation for increasing focus on (and funding for) STEM education.

Canadian and U.S. businesses have produced elaborate systems to measure progress, innovation,and economic competitiveness. StrategicOne conducted a survey of 22 markets with more than 100respondents per market and 2800 Senior Business Executives between October and November 2011

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Don

Kru

g] a

t 12:

57 2

7 Ju

ly 2

016

186 D. KRUG AND A. SHAW

Figure . Innovation and competitiveness. Adapted from GE Global Innovation Barometer (StrategyOne, ).

and published the findings in the GE Global Innovation Barometer Report2 (GEGIB; StrategyOne, 2012).The GEGIB report posits business professionals believe innovation is the key indicator to create acompetitive and greener economy (see Figure 1).

According to this metric, Canada and the United States are both considered leaders in innovation inmany areas (Figure 2).

In regards to STEM education, Canada’s strong programs place it in the top tier, but it still trails theworld’s most innovation-driven countries in technology exports. Slightly over 20% of Canadian studentsgraduated with degrees in these fields, a number that has shown continued improvement over the last

Figure . Innovation scoreboard. Adapted fromMilken Institute ().

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Don

Kru

g] a

t 12:

57 2

7 Ju

ly 2

016

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION 187

few years. Further, 16- to 18-year-olds demonstrate increasing interest in STEM education, with 37%planning on taking science courses at the postsecondary level, 82% recognizing that studying scienceopens many different career options, and 84% believing that fewer students pursuing science will havea long-term impact on our society (Amgen Canada, 2013). If this trend continues, Canada will be wellpositioned to make use of its innovation advantage.

TheGlobal Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 (Schwab, 2012) discussed the results of a Global Com-petitiveness Index, covering 144 economies from all regions of the world. The World Economic Forumorganization developed this Global Competitiveness Index to represent the complexity of national com-petitiveness and to identify different areas that affect the longer-term productivity of a country. Schwab(2012) states, “As in previous years, the two countries fromNorth America feature among themost com-petitive economies worldwide, with the United States occupying the 7th position and Canada the 14th”(p. 22).

With regards to economic competitiveness and innovation, Canada exhibits strong performancesacross the board on many innovation indicators including venture capital, research and development,technology exports, patents, and STEM education. As indicated in Figures 3 and 4, Canada and theUnited States are both near the top in almost all metrics of Basic requirements, Efficiency enhancers,and Innovation and sophistication factors and they are widely considered to be principal global leadersin global competitiveness, whether from an educational or government, business, or individual perspec-tive.

The United States has a strong innovation reputation but does not lead in the global rankings for sci-ence, technology, engineering, and math education. It boasts the world’s largest economy but the U.S.research future is uncertain with growing national and state deficits. This is a dramatic departure for a

Figure . Global Competitiveness Report –, Canada (Schwab, , p. ).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Don

Kru

g] a

t 12:

57 2

7 Ju

ly 2

016

188 D. KRUG AND A. SHAW

Figure . Global Competitiveness Report –, United States, p. .

nation that was for decades regarded as the world’s education leader (Milken Institute, 2012). A signifi-cant number (51%) of U.S. respondents in the GE survey felt that the government has not been successfulin improving education. Despite the United States’ competitive edge in STEM industries, the nation hasbeen experiencing a decline in STEMprofessionals (Zinth, 2006). In theUnited States, demand for STEMpostsecondary graduates is outpacing supply (Rothwell, 2013). In addition, too few university studentsare graduating in STEM fields, high school students do not have the math proficiency or interest, andmore STEM graduates are needed as teachers to inspire and educate students (National Science Board,2015). School curricula have been lacking in their math and science components, and in response tothis decrease in STEM education, several initiatives have been started to reclaim the lead and produceliterate, savvy, and young innovators who will contribute to STEM industries.

The STEM education initiative in the United States has also been severely criticized by Dr. Carl Wie-man, an American Nobel physicist and the former associate director for science within the U.S. WhiteHouse Office of Science and Technology Policy. At the U.S. Senate Commerce and Science Committeehearing in September on the State of Science and Math Education, Wieman (Mervis, 2012) testified,“There has been very little change in the level of interest in STEM or the mastery of STEM subjects byU.S. students in the past few decades” (para. 4). He admonished the Congress, saying that “the dollarsbeing spent by the federal government to improve STEMeducation are beingwasted” (para. 8).Wieman’stestimony called into question the purpose of STEM education and why the intended outcome has failedto raise career awareness and increase college and graduate level enrollment in science and engineeringdisciplines (Wieman, 2012).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Don

Kru

g] a

t 12:

57 2

7 Ju

ly 2

016

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION 189

On the one hand, STEM education in Canada and the United States is making positive strides towardprogress as measured by innovation and economic competitiveness. On the other hand, the time andmoney invested inCanadian STEMeducation has yet to be transferred into raising technological exports,and in the United States, STEM education has not sufficiently raised career awareness and increasedcollege and graduate level enrollment (see Figure 2). Billions of dollars in the United States have beenspent by at least 13 federal and civilian departments on over 200 different programs. Most funding camefrom the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health (United States GovernmentAccountability Office, 2005). Private foundations also contributed hundreds of millions of dollars forinitiatives to improve undergraduate STEM education. For example, for more than 20 years the HowardHughes Medical Institute has distributed over $1.5 billion in grants to improve science education at theprecollege and college levels. With this massive financial commitment from the public and private sec-tors, it is disappointing that more effective practices for teaching, learning, assessment, and institutionalorganization of undergraduate STEM education have not been developed over the years. If very little haschanged regarding STEM education over the past decade (National Science and Technology Council,2006), as Wieman (2012) contends, and some research confirms, then perhaps our earlier question alsoneeds to be modified to “What should be the purpose of education?” and “How does STEM educationneed to change to contribute to peoples’ meaningful and relevant education?”

Our review of literature and related discourses suggest the need for STEM education to be reconcep-tualized in a number of ways. In our review of online scholarly literature of STEM education, govern-ment documents, and business reports, we found that there is an overemphasis on a taken-for-grantedmindset that champions progress, innovation, and global economic competitiveness. Emerging socialdiscourses also call for the integration of knowledge across the STEM disciplines and push for the tar-geted inclusion of arts, humanities, and sustainability education. We argue for the need to develop amore holistic conceptualization of STEM education and for a mindset that values ecological sustainabil-ity. We also posit that the current dominant conception of STEM education is too narrowly conceivedaround (a) raising career awareness and (b) increasing college- and graduate-level enrollment in sci-ence and engineering disciplines. Young people also want to know why careers in these disciplinaryareas are of value. Teachers can play an integral role in encouraging young people to develop a criticalunderstanding of the purpose and value of STEM disciplines. Our review of social discourses indicatethat STEM education should be reconceptualized in K–12 education, as well as teacher education, toinclude opportunities to conduct critical inquiry (reflexive deliberation) about the purpose(s) of STEMeducation.

Critical inquiry, discourses, and positions

There are at least three prominent ways in which teachers can teach students in order to reconceptualizeSTEM education. Below we discuss critical inquiry, discourses, and positions as concepts and practicesthat can be used in education to help deliberate on the integration of knowledge across strict disciplinarydomains such as science, technology, engineering, and math.

Critical inquiry

Critical inquiry is a set of processes or methods through which human communication can be conno-tatively and intertextually analyzed alongside social, cultural, political, and other contextual conditionsand discourses. For example, in this article we looked at progress, global economic competitiveness, anddiscourses of innovation to inquire about STEM education. Our version of critical inquiry is a form ofreflexive deliberation nested in experiential learning theory. Teacher candidates can be encouraged touse critical inquiry to build their own intersubjective understanding of curricular and pedagogical expe-riences. STEM education provides an excellent area for teacher candidates to practice and learn criticalinquiry methods.

To critique STEMdiscourses we organized our inquiry about STEMeducation relationally using threepositions (dominant, residual, and emergent points of view). We chose this critical approach because we

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Don

Kru

g] a

t 12:

57 2

7 Ju

ly 2

016

190 D. KRUG AND A. SHAW

have used it successfully with teacher candidates as a way to discuss the constantly changing array ofsocial viewpoints. Critical inquiry provides teacher candidates with a way to examine how and why posi-tions are not static or fixed points of view but are only fixedmoments of arbitrary closure. Suchmomentsare purposefully selected by the researcher/teacher candidate to allow more careful examination of thecomplexity of details, relationships, issues, and problems of particular contextual conditions.

Discourses

STEM discourses circulate through media and communication practices (i.e., political speeches, scien-tific and industry reports and educational recommendations, requirements, and mandates). Particularlanguage is selected and used to shape these discourses and, at times, to hide or reveal the philosophicaland ideological positions of the individuals, groups, or organizations. Discourses can be thought of asthe words, texts, rules and regulations, structures, frameworks, or mechanisms that place ideas, com-munication, power, and knowledge into effect and that exercise them through the social, economic, andpolitical forces at play across societal practices and modes of communication.

Discourses are relational and political; forming, disappearing, adapting, and re-forming in responseto human interests over meaning and surrounding contextual conditions. Discourses are always chang-ing, surviving, assimilating, and/or resisting processes of homogenization and heterogeneity. Meaningsand values circulate among individuals and collective groups of people andmove back and forth in mul-tiple directions. There are correlations that occur from this movement that can be identified, articulated,analyzed, and interpreted. However, because it is only possible, as researchers, to slow momentarily themovement of certain meanings and values on semiotic and material dimensions, we must continuallystrive to rearticulate howparticular complex systems produce and circulate selectedmeanings and valuesin relationship to individual and social interests. Our approach to critical inquiry is based on analyzingthese discourses by examining the relationships of points of view and particular contextual conditions.Reflexive deliberation involves a view of selected and changing contextual conditions over time.

Positionality: Teaching about points of view

Positionality

Positionality refers to the social and political contexts that someone experiences day to day and whenconducting inquiry. The political context is how people struggle over the meaning and value of ideasand things. For example, how value is ascribed to the importance of progress, innovation, and globalcompetitiveness through discourses of career awareness, future employment, academic preparedness,etc.

When teacher candidates conduct critical inquiry, it is important for them to examine their ownchanging positions and analyze their own developing philosophies alongside other viewpoints. Draw-ing on the criteria used by identified groups of people or institutions to establish particular limits andpossibilities can help teacher candidates identify the connotative and intertextual meanings among theserelational connections. RaymondWilliams (1961) used dominant, residual, and emergent points of viewas a way to identify and analyze how information and knowledge is fluid (multidirectional), dynamic(constantly changing), and arbitrary (socially constructed).

For example, typically in the stream of social discourses, at any one time, one particular set of view-points is the strongest, most recognized, or most dominant position. As we articulated previously, cur-rently the most dominant position about STEM education is circulated by government agencies andbusinesses concerned with reversing global economic uncertainty and market competitiveness by stim-ulating progress through innovations. From themany viewpoints that different people hold, no one pointof view ever quite disappears and its residual effects occasionally reappear. With regards to STEM edu-cation this can be seen in the call from the Canadian government and the U.S. government for a returnto a technocratic rationality3 within elementary, secondary, and postsecondary educational institutions.Some of the public and private STEM reports relied on a rhetorical return to cold war competitiveness

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Don

Kru

g] a

t 12:

57 2

7 Ju

ly 2

016

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION 191

slogans that position one country (United States) against another (Soviet Union). When conditions aresuitable, a weaker or less powerful point of view might emerge and assume more force and prominenceonly to decline when conditions particularly conducive to its newfound strength no longer prevail. Someemergent perspectives of STEM education are calling for resisting a technocratic rationality and includ-ing the arts and humanities, sustainability education, and knowledge integration.

Information circulates through social discourses affecting what we experience and how changingpoints of view influence the formation of ideas and issues. As government agency and business organi-zational points of view change, so do educational institutions conceptions, assumptions, and discoursesof how people learn, what they should learn, and how this learning should take place. Government, busi-ness, and educational institutional points of view contribute to our personal perspectives about whoseknowledge and what knowledge is of most worth. These points of view have both direct and indirecteffects on teacher education curriculum and pedagogy (Boyer Commission on Educating Undergradu-ates in the Research University, 1998).

Dominant discourses of STEM education

STEM education is not new. Under various names, STEM education has a long North American edu-cational history. STEM can be traced back to a National Education Association (1894) report by theCommittee of Ten that mentioned its absence in the agrarian school system of the time. The Committeeof Ten recommended an education system that champions pursuing knowledge and exercising judgmentbut through specific fields of study like chemistry, physics, biology, and so forth (Morrison, 2005). TheCommittee’s version of STEM education advocated for attributes of an industrial school system aimedat raising the standards of excellence for modern students (Kliebard, 1986).

Labov, Singer, George, Schweingruber, and Hilton (2009) examined STEM education developmentsover the past 20 years in the United States. The National Science Foundation (NSF, 2005), the NationalResearch Council (NRC, 1996), and the 1998 Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in theResearch University published several reports in the late 1990s espousing the importance of improv-ing undergraduate STEM education. For STEM education to be beneficial in improving the economiccompetitiveness of a country, K–12 education must translate into a strong undergraduate and graduateeducation.

In 2007, the Jobs for the Future: Education for Economic Opportunity organization prepared TheSTEM Workforce Challenge Report (SWC): The Role of the Public Workforce System in a National Solu-tion for a Competitive Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Workforce report forthe U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (U.S. Department of Labor,Employment and Training Administration, 2007). The opening paragraph of the SWC report affirms,

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields have become increasingly central to U.S. eco-nomic competitiveness and growth. Long-term strategies to maintain and increase living standards and promoteopportunity will require coordinated efforts among public, private, and not-for-profit entities to promote innova-tion and to prepare an adequate supply of qualified workers for employment in STEM fields. (p. 1)

This report adhered to a philosophy premised on societal changes driven by progress, innovation, andcompetitive economic growth. The STEM challenge, as outlined in the SWC report, also championed the“STEMfields and those whowork in them [as] are critical engines of innovation and growth. …” (Babco,2004, p. 2). STEM fields according to one recent estimate, employ about only 5% of the U.S. workforcebut account for more than 50% of the nation’s continual economic growth. However, what is criticallymissing from the SWC report in particular is any mention of how the engines of innovation and growthhave impacted or will impact the fragile ecology of the earth as it is constantly ravaged by the overuse andmisuse of naturalmaterials and the growingneed for progress. Sustainability issues associatedwith STEMeducation and with innovation and economic growth are unfortunately omitted from many dominantsocial discourses.

Most of the reports pushed for advancing economic growth, so it is not surprising that there waslittle to nothing about ecological sustainability in these documents because that was not the goal of theseorganizations. This is precisely the point. Back in the 1940s, T. S. Eliot (1939) wrote,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Don

Kru

g] a

t 12:

57 2

7 Ju

ly 2

016

192 D. KRUG AND A. SHAW

We are being made aware that the organization of society on the principle of private profit, as well as public destruc-tion, is leading both to the deformation of humanity by unregulated industrialism, and to the exhaustion of naturalresources, and that a good deal of our material progress is a progress for which succeeding generations may have topay dearly. (p. 53)

Harvard socio-biologist E. O. Wilson also echoed this position, saying, “Destroying rainforest foreconomic gain is like burning a Renaissance painting to cook ameal” (Wilson, 1984, pp. 25–26). A taken-for-granted approach to progress and economic growth, without a view of the short- and long-termglobal environmental consequences, continues to be problematic.

Residual discourses of STEM education

Residual discourses are recurrent ideas that reappear from time to time. The cyclic injection of techno-cratic rationality into educational discourses is one example. In 1957, the Soviet Union launched its firstintercontinental ballistic missile. OnOctober 4 of the same year they launched Sputnik I, the world’s firstartificial satellite, setting off a technological and engineering race for space fueled by expertise in scienceand mathematics. A year later the U.S. Congress adopted the National Defense Education Act (1958),which increased funding for education with a focus on scientific and technical education.

The competitive effects of the U.S./Soviet cold war found their way into the residual discourses ofSTEM education with President Obama in his 2011 State of the Union address (TheWhite House Officeof the Press Secretary, 2011a). He attempted to rally Americans by comparing the challenge of competingagainst emerging economic giants like China and India to the U.S. space race against the Soviet Unionin the 1950s and 1960s. In his February 2013 State of the Union Address (TheWhite House Office of thePress Secretary, 2013), a reelected President Obama once again touted that his administration wantedto “reward schools that develop new partnerships with colleges and employers, and create classes thatfocus on science, technology, engineering, and math—the skills today’s employers are looking for to filljobs right now and in the future” (para. 45). What was not mentioned in such technocratic discourseswas the research conducted by educational historians after the cold war, which demonstrated that therewas no direct causal relationship between superior general education systems and the Soviet success inthe quest for space (Kaestle & Smith, 1982).

Emerging discourses of STREAMS education

It is our contention that the emerging social discourses about STEM education are expanding to includethree additional knowledge domains, practices, and areas of study: sustainability education (S), arts andhumanities (A), and knowledge integration (R). We added these three letters to the STEM acronym tocreate a new acronym, STREAMS.

In addition to subject area knowledge, curriculum integration and concepts associated with 21st-century learning are being discussed as possible pedagogical methods to reflexively deliberate on andreconceptualize progress, innovation, and global competitiveness. New economic models regarding aglobal market system and elaborate forms of capitalism are obviously needed, but these issues are beyondthe scope of this research.

Sustainability education

In the 2013 State of theUnion address, PresidentObama also discussed the urgency of combating climatechange. He stated,

But for the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change. Now, it’s true that nosingle event makes a trend. But the fact is the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves,droughts, wildfires, floods—all are nowmore frequent and more intense. We can choose to believe that SuperstormSandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just afreak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science—and act before it’s toolate. (The White House Office of the Press Secretary, 2013, para. 30)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Don

Kru

g] a

t 12:

57 2

7 Ju

ly 2

016

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION 193

The need for sustainable development that recognizes the impact of human actions on the planet isalso noted in economic policy documents like the Global Competitiveness Report (Schwab, 2012). Sus-tainable economic development is used to refer to longer-term productivity, known to be a key factoraffecting the growth performance of economies. Klaus Schwab (2012), executive chairman of the WorldEconomic Forum, emphasizes that

the complexity of today’s global economic environment has made it more important than ever to recognize andencourage the qualitative as well as the quantitative aspects of growth, integrating such concepts as social and envi-ronmental sustainability to provide a fuller picture of what is needed and what works. (p. xiii)

Schwab (2012) concluded by citing a need to better place competitiveness discussions in a societal andenvironmental context and suggested that theWorld Economic Forumorganization explore the complexrelationship between competitiveness and sustainability as measured by its social and environmentaldimensions.

Sustainability mindsets and skills will be needed to integrate concepts of social, political, economic,and environmental sustainability and to explore the complexity of progress, innovation, and global com-petitiveness (United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). The needfor this type of environmental literacy has been recognized as one of the essential components of 21st-century learning, with an emphasis placed on understanding the impact of human society on the naturalworld, generating solutions, and taking action toward addressing environmental challenges (Partnershipfor 21st Century Skills, 2009).

In 2009, a research group from the University of Wisconsin–Madison formed the Mobilizing STEMinitiative. They were concerned with sustainability’s omission from decades of research on teaching andlearning of undergraduate STEM education in the United States and that current practices did not edu-cate a next generation of researchers motivated and prepared to address the urgent problems that wenow face on our planet. In this day and age of rising global weather temperatures, increasing naturaldisasters, and melting polar icecaps, climate change is being publicly discussed as an indisputable threatto the existence of all species.

Funded by the National Science Foundation, Mobilizing STEM for a Sustainable Future is housedwithin the Wisconsin Center for Education Research in the School of Education at the University ofWisconsin–Madison. The goals of the Mobilizing STEM initiative include (a) using the growing inter-est in urgent sustainability challenges expressed by STEM education faculty and students at large andusing evidence that student learning benefits from engagement with real-world problems to motivateand improve student learning of STEM concepts, and (b) infusing sustainability education with bothrigorous science and proven teaching approaches that reflect what has been learned about how peoplelearn the STEM disciplines.

In 1990, the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Canada became one of 300 universities to signthe Talloires Declaration (University Leaders for a Sustainable Future, 2006), which is an action planfor incorporating sustainability into higher education. In 2012, UBC received Canada’s first Gold rat-ing in the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS), a new comprehensive univer-sity sustainability-rating framework recognizing institutional sustainability leadership in post-secondaryinstitutions across North America. In UBC’s 2011/2012 Report: Place and Promise: The UBC Plan, theuniversity lists four broad sustainability goals:

1. Ensure UBC’s economic sustainability by aligning resources with the university vision and strate-gic plan and deploying them in a sustainable and effective manner.

2. Make UBC a living laboratory in environmental sustainability by combining its sustainabilityleadership in teaching, research, and operations.

3. Foster social sustainability through teaching, research, and community engagement that promotevibrant human interaction and community cohesion.

4. Create a vibrant and sustainable community supported by exemplary governance.In November 2011, the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability opened on the Vancou-

ver campus. Built to exceed Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Platinum and LivingBuilding Challenge standards, this $37 million interdisciplinary living laboratory was built to help

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Don

Kru

g] a

t 12:

57 2

7 Ju

ly 2

016

194 D. KRUG AND A. SHAW

regenerate environmental and advance research and innovation on global sustainable challenges (Placeand Promise, 2011). Goal 2 above provides explicit university support for integrating environmentalsustainability in courses of study.

In May 2012 Stephen Toope, the president of the University of British Columbia and chairman of theboard of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, along with Arvind Gupta, a professor atUBC, a professor of computer science, and scientific director forMitacs, a national research and trainingnetwork, led a partnership excursion to Brazil. Toope and Gupta (2012) state,

Brazil is set to become one of the world’s top five economies. It is pursuing a bold future, and a key part of its strategyis a commitment to invest significant resources in higher education and research, particularly in so-called STEMdisciplines: science, technology, engineering and mathematics. (para. 3)

Though STEM education has been implemented at UBC in undergraduate and graduate courses, andthrough research since the 1990s, this was the first public endorsement of STEM from the President’soffice (UBC Sustainability Office, 2007).

Most STEM initiatives at universities in Canada use a disciplinary, multidisciplinary, or interdisci-plinary approach. For example, the Centre for Aboriginal Health Research collaborates with the Uni-versity of Victoria’s STEM Project to introduce a health component to the Songhees Nation after-schooloutreach activities while promoting interest in Aboriginal health research careers. This STEM projectencourages Aboriginal learners to explore possible career paths and mentorship opportunities. Thereare seven participating community partners: Tsawout, Songhees, LÁU, WELNEW Tribal School, Victo-ria Native Friendship Centre, Tseycum, T’Sou-ke, and theMétis Nation. There are many other examplesin Canada and the United States. As STEM education is embraced as a way to prepare young people withthe technological and scientific skills required to meet the needs of a rapidly changing future, and as thescience, engineering, and mathematics disciplines are likely to play a major part in creating and imple-menting solutions to global environmental crises, it seems fitting that a sustainability mindset becomeintegrated with teaching and learning as an inseparable component of any serious revision of educationalcurricula.

It is clear that some emerging discourses are calling for STEM education to include sustainabilityeducation, adding an (S) to the acronym STEM(S) education. But sustainability education is not the onlyknowledge domain missing from a STEM education.

Arts and humanities

Science, technology, engineering, and math are being heralded as the disciplines of the future. Thoughcertainly these disciplines are important, these discipline specific researchers are not the only ones withcontributions to make. At the 2011 National Medals of Arts and Humanities Ceremony, Obama said,“Throughout our history, America has advanced not only because of the will of our citizens, not onlybecause of the vision of our leaders or the might of our military. America has also advanced because ofpaintings and poems, stories and songs; the dramas and the dances that provide us comfort and instilledin us confidence; inspired in us a sense of mutual understanding, and a calling to always strive for a moreperfect union” (TheWhite House Office of the Press Secretary, 2011b, para. 5). He referenced both EmilyDickinson and Walt Whitman, saying, “The arts and the humanities do not just reflect America. Theyshape America” (The White House Office of the Press Secretary, 2011b, para. 14).

In Canada, David Dodge, the chair of the Expert Panel on STEM Skills for the Future, in his ExecutiveSummary for the Some Assembly Required report (Council of Canadian Academies, 2015) wrote,

An array of skills and assets are important, including those related to the arts and humanities, mathematics, socialsciences, and natural and life sciences. … STEM skills have been advanced as central to innovation and productivitygrowth, which are in turn necessary for improving standards of living. While the general reasons behind this logicare clear, the Panel had difficulty finding direct and robust evidence that STEM skills are unique in this regard. (pp.vi–vii)

The arts and humanities have the ability to help influence a country’s philosophy and action. Thisconcept has been embraced in the emerging discourse calling for STEM to be expanded to include the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Don

Kru

g] a

t 12:

57 2

7 Ju

ly 2

016

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION 195

arts under the acronym STEAM. On the STEAM website, the arts and humanities are recognized asessential for innovation. Their mission statement notes that STEM is based on skills that are logic-drivenand misses out on creativity, which is essential to innovation. They suggest that “clearly the combinationof superior STEM education combined with Arts education (STEAM) should provide us with theeducation system that offers us the best chance for regaining the innovation leadership essential to thenew economy” (STEAM, 2013, para. 2).

Some advocates for STEAM have turned to neuro-education research to substantiate the inclusionof the arts and humanities. The Dana Foundation sponsored the Neuroeducation: Learning, Arts, andthe Brain Findings and Challenges for Educators and Researchers Report based on a Johns Hopkins Uni-versity Summit (Hardiman, Magsamen, McKhann, & Eilber, 2009). Summit presenters expanded onearlier research based on multiple 3-year studies from seven universities that found specific correla-tions between arts education and improvements in cognition, attention, and learning. Research indi-cates that early arts education changes the brain and can enhance other aspects of cognition. Anotherargument that emerged was the role of the arts in expanding empathy, developing life skills, encour-aging critical thinking, questioning authority, and promoting creativity, problem solving, curiosity, andflexibility.

The social discourse being used to support the inclusion of arts in STEM builds on this position, link-ing economic competitiveness to a strengthening of creative innovation. Indeed, creativity, innovation,and inventive thinking appear in some form in nearly all popular frameworks of 21st-century learning(Dede, 2010). It is also noted in policy documents, such as the NRC’s Rising Above the Gathering StormReport, which states the need for engineers who can think creatively (NRC, 2010). Still, a creativity-basedapproach is often lacking in STEM education, as well as in classrooms in general and in teacher profes-sional development (Dede, 2010). By encouraging teacher candidates to think critically about the role ofarts and creativity in their teaching and to offer guidance and opportunity to approach STEM subjectsthrough focusing on creating solutions to real world problems, this deficiency can be addressed.

Knowledge integration (R)

STEM education has been called a metadiscipline, or the development of a new discipline based on thecombination of other disciplinary forms of knowledge (Morrison, 2006). This interdisciplinary bridgingof academic disciplines is distinct from K–12 education subject area specializations. Typically in teachereducation programs, elementary teacher educators are taught to be generalists and secondary teachersbecome specialists within specific subject areas. This is for the most part how Canadian and U.S. edu-cation is organized in the K–12 public and private school sectors. In higher education, elementary andsecondary school teacher candidates are instructed about a particular discipline area of knowledge (sci-ence, math, reading) through subject matter–orientedmethodology courses. This cycle of school subjectisolation has a long history in educational institutions in the United States and Canada.

For the most part, K–12 education systems in North America do not have the necessary educa-tional structure or curriculum organization in place to teach using an interdisciplinary or an integratedapproach to pedagogy. Further, interdisciplinary and integrated pedagogical approaches are rarely taughtin teacher education programs. Teacher education faculty are usually not adept at implementing curricu-lum organization based on an interdisciplinary or an integrated curricular framework, and professionaldevelopment has not been widely introduced in the U.S. or in Canadian teacher education as a way tohelp alleviate this problem.

STEM education combines four distinct disciplines but is still typically implemented through singledisciplinary courses of study. Lantz (2009) noted that “most implementations of STEM education inK–12 schools have centered on the ‘S and M’ of STEM, and not the ‘S, T, E, and M’” (p. 8). In Figure 5,disciplines are represented as squares and are isolated from each other by arbitrary borders (Krug, 2012).

Knowledge integration has emerged through social discourses that champion the importance of col-laboration, communication, and lab-school experiences that support the development of personalizedpedagogicalmodels. Recently, Rennie, Venville, andWallace (2012) coauthored Integrating Science, Tech-nology, Engineering, andMathematics: Issues, Reflections, andWays Forward, but this edited volume offers

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Don

Kru

g] a

t 12:

57 2

7 Ju

ly 2

016

196 D. KRUG AND A. SHAW

Figure . Simplified graphic depiction of subject areas and curriculum integration—STREAMS (above) and disciplinary, multidisci-plinary, interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and integrated knowledge domains (below). The knowledge domains are arranged alongan arbitrary continuumwith independent subject areas represented to the left and full knowledge integration represented to the right(Krug, ).

very few examples of knowledge integration and instead highlightsmostly individual or combined formsof disciplinary curricular approaches to STEM.Drake (1993) contends that amultidisciplinary approachencourages links between disciplines while the disciplines retain their own autonomy. Examples ofmulti-disciplinary curriculum resources related to STEM education have been producedwith support from theNational Science Foundation (see, for example, Engineering by Design, a K–12 engineering curriculumfrom the Center for the Advancement of Teaching Technology and Science, Engineering Is Elementaryfrom the National Center for Technological Literacy, and the Invention, Innovation, and Inquirymateri-als from the International Technology Education Association)(International Technology and Engineer-ing Educators Association, 1995; Miaoulis, 2004; The National Center for Quality Afterschool, 2005).Interdisciplinarity upholds that though different disciplinary areas are united around a central theme,each discipline maintains its own unique expertise and knowledge when attempting to pose and solveproblems. Interdisciplinarity is represented in Figure 5 graphically by multiple lighter squares, whichconnotatively depict the sharing of knowledge across strict disciplinary knowledge domains.

An interdisciplinary curriculum is one that “consciously applies methodology and language frommore than one discipline to examine a central theme, issue, problem, topic, or experience” (Jacobs, 1989,p. 8). On the other hand, Boston (1996) pointed out that integrated learning “seeks to develop and buildstudent competence by consciously applying and utilizing the knowledge, skills, and methods of morethan one discipline or subject matter to inquire about and explore an object, central theme, concept,topic, problem, issue, or experience” (p. xi).

It is important to understand the dynamic construction of knowledge. Knowledge is not just infor-mation, text or content. Piaget (1964) contends that

Knowledge is not a copy of reality. To know an object, to know an event, is not simply to look at it andmake amentalcopy or image of it. To know an object is to act on it. To know is tomodify, to transform the object, and to understandthe process of this transformation, and as a consequence to understand the way the object is constructed. (p. 176)

We are inclined to believe that the study of STEM could benefit by organizing curricular knowledgein a less technorationalistic and more democratic way to create meaningful experiences for students.According to Beane (1997), knowledge integration should be “concerned with enhancing the possibili-ties for personal and social integration through the organization of curriculum around significant prob-lems and issues, collaboratively identified by educators and young people, without regard for subject-area boundaries” (p. x). Personal and social integration is crucial so that students learn how to develop,mediate and interact using soft skills (i.e., personality traits, social etiquette, communication, language,personal habits, interpersonal skills, managing people, leadership, etc.) or intercultural relationships incollaborative groups (Vishal, 2012).

This type of real-world, project-based learning is championed by 21st-century learning frameworksbecause it promotes skills such as creativity, collaboration, and problem solving through group inquiry.How can an integrated curriculum structure provide the flexibility for students to articulate and study

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Don

Kru

g] a

t 12:

57 2

7 Ju

ly 2

016

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION 197

soft skill relationships and complexities between various forms of knowledge identified as relevant inSTREAMS education? This is our challenge if we choose to accept that this should be the purpose ofSTREAMS education.

A sustainability mindset

As the dominant discourse around progress, innovation, and global competitiveness suggests, the mostprominent North American mindset has been characterized by beliefs that (a) humans are both separatefrom, and the dominant species of, nature; (b) resources are free and inexhaustible; (c) technologicalfixes are available to solve most problems; (d) nature has an infinite capacity to assimilate human waste;(e) progress, innovation, and consumerism must drive global markets and economic systems; and (f)material acquisition and accumulation is the most important determinant of success. Bowers (1997)suggested, in the Culture of Denial, that “this is a classic double bind situation where the promotionof our highest values and prestigious forms of knowledge serve to increase the prospects of ecologicalcollapse” (p. 2). In Earth in Mind, Orr (1994) reminds us that the environmental crisis continues to be“not so much a problem in education but a problem of education” (p. 5). This illustrates that the presentenvironmental crisis is connected to inadequate and misdirected education that distances and alienatespeople from everyday issues for the sake of lifestyle, progress, competitiveness, innovation, and humandominion over nature (Eagan & Orr, 1992).

We believe that it is a problem of education when young people learn that theymust work to stoke theengines of innovation and market economies in order to live their lives. Through lifestyles that overem-phasize progress and competitiveness, people begin to separate feeling from intellect and the practicalfrom the theoretical, deadening a sense of wonder for the world (Young, 1999).We agree withOrr (1992)that one of the problems of education is not questioning the development of our own mindset.

One purpose of teacher education should be to help teacher candidates conduct critical inquiry abouthowone’smindset is fluid (multidirectional), dynamic (constantly changing), and arbitrary (socially con-structed). We believe that STREAMS education can provide an important and practical model throughwhich to conduct critical inquiry. We also believe that it is important for teacher candidates to learn that(a) humans are interdependent with other species; (b) the earth is not a free and inexhaustible resource;(c) creativity, not simply technological fixes, is needed to solve problems; (d) nature does not have aninfinite capacity to assimilate human waste; (e) progress, innovation, and competitiveness should not bethe only drivers of global markets and economic systems; and (f) material acquisition and accumulationare not the most important determinants of success. Teacher candidates should critically study issues ofsustainability integrated with STEM education and continue to conduct inquiry as they develop theirprofessional and sustainability mindsets during their professional development (Young, 1990).

Some concluding thoughts

We have articulated that STEM education should be reconceptualized as STREAMS education. Knowl-edge integration (R) is an important addition because it has the potential to create newways of identifyingrelationships among knowledge domains (disciplines) that can be examined and analyzed for learningand creating innovations. We have also argued that the arts and humanities are additional knowledgedomains that should be added to STEM education. The arts and humanities (A) provide transforma-tive methods and practices to stir the imagination and skills of students. The third addition to STEMeducation, we have put forward, is the integration of sustainability education (S) and the nurturing of asustainability mindset. Emerging discourses support these additions as well as students learning a formof critical inquiry to help them in their studies and guiding them in positioning their knowledge andpractices within related social, political, and economic contexts. Finally, we have suggested that teachereducation candidates can learn to teach using STREAMS education if they are provided with the oppor-tunity to critically inquire about STREAMS education knowledge and practices as part of their teachereducation program.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Don

Kru

g] a

t 12:

57 2

7 Ju

ly 2

016

198 D. KRUG AND A. SHAW

Further research is also needed on how and why STEM education should involve more than learn-ing about isolated fragments of knowledge from the separate fields of science, technology, engineering,and math. We conclude with a set of questions for complementary study: How can STREAMS be devel-oped within curricula that integrate rigorous content within the contexts of designing solutions to real-world problems? How can it involve authentic experiences, such as industry mentorships, field trips, andguest speakers, to further enhance project-based curriculum and curriculum relevance? In the process ofproblem solving, how can students engage in the application of science, sustainability, and mathematicsthrough the arts, technology, and engineering design processes? How can they learn to conduct scien-tific experiments, gather and analyze data, draw and communicate conclusions, develop and evaluateprototypes, and think critically about the integration of knowledge? It is easy to ask questions, but thereis much work that still needs to be done. We need to continue to understand how knowledge, curricula,and teacher education can orient teaching and learning in ways to include knowledge integration andcreativity and innovation, with a sustainability mindset as a new form of STREAMS education.

Notes

1. The ACI was announced in President George W. Bush’s State of the Union Address given on January 31, 2006 (TheWhite House Office of the Press Secretary, 2006). The Initiative commits US$5.9 billion ($1.3 billion in new federalfunding and an additional $4.6 billion in research and development [R&D] tax incentives) in Fiscal Year 2007 toincrease investments in R&D, strengthen education, and encourage entrepreneurship. Over 10 years, the Initiativeplans to commit $50 billion to increase funding for research and $86 billion for R&D tax incentives (U.S. EconomicDevelopment Administration, 2006).

2. The research was commissioned by GE and conducted by Strategy One between October 15, 2011, and November15, 2011. Interviews with the 2,800 senior business executives were conducted by telephone across 22 countries. Allrespondents are directly involved in their company’s innovation processes and are a vice president or above, with 30%of those surveyed at the C-suite level. The countries included in the research are Algeria, Australia, Brazil, Canada,China, France, Germany, India, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Russia, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, South Africa, SouthKorea, Singapore, Sweden, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, and United States.

3. According to Aronowitz andGiroux (1985),“…the logic of technocratic rationality serves to remove teachers [teachereducators] from participating in a critical way in the production and evaluation of school curricula” (p. 27). Undertechnocratic rationality, decontextualized, reified, and technocratized knowledge is regulated and distributed in waysthat conceal issues of power and control that underlie all forms of knowledge (Bentley, 2003; Hussein, 2007).

Acknowledgments

We thank the University of British Columbia, University Sustainability Initiative, Faculty of Education, and Department ofCurriculum and Pedagogy for their support with regards to conducting this research.

References

Amgen Canada. (2013). Let’s talk science. Retrieved from http://www.letstalkscience.ca/spotlight.htmlAronowitz, S., & Giroux, H. (1985). Education under seige. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey Publishers.Babco, E. (2004). Skills for the innovation economy:What the 21st century workforce needs and how to provide it.Washington,

DC: Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology.Beane, J. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Bentley, M. (2003). Critical consciousness through a critical constructivist pedagogy. Paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the American Educational Studies Association 2003, Mexico City, Mexico. Retrieved fromweb.utk.edu/∼mbentle1/Crit_Constrc_AESA_03.pdf

Boston, B. (1996). Connections: The arts and the integration of the high school curriculum. New York, NY: College EntranceExamination Board & Getty Center for Education in the Arts.

Bowers, C. A. (1997). The culture of denial. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University, S. S. Kenney (chair). (1998). Reinventing

undergraduate education: A blueprint for America’s research universities. Stony Brook: State University of New York.Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century: An Agenda for American Science and Technology,

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine. (2007). Rising above the gath-ering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National AcademiesPress.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Don

Kru

g] a

t 12:

57 2

7 Ju

ly 2

016

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION 199

Council of Canadian Academies. (2015). Seizing Canada’s moment: Moving forward in science, technology and innovation2014. Ottawa, Canada: The Expert Panel on STEM Skills for the Future, Council of Canadian Academies. Retrievedfrom http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/icgc.nsf/eng/h_07472.html

Council of Canadian Academies Expert Panel on STEM Skills for the Future. (2015). Some assembly required: STEMskills and Canada’s economic productivity report. Ottawa, Canada: Council of Canadian Academies. Retrieved fromhttp://www.scienceadvice.ca/en/assessments/completed/stem-skills.aspx

Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. In J. Bellanca&R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethink-ing how students learn (pp. 51–76). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Dodge, D. (2015). Executive summary: Some assembly required: STEM skills and Canada’s economic productivity. Ottawa,ON, Canada: The Expert Panel on STEM Skills for the Future, Council of Canadian Academies. Retrieved fromhttp://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads/ENG/AssessmentsPublicationsNewsReleases/STEM/STEMExecSummEn.pdf

Drake, S. (1993). Planning integrated curriculum: The call to adventure. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development.

Eagan, D., & Orr, D. (Eds.). (1992). New directions for higher education: The campus and environmental responsibility. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Eliot, T. S. (1939). The idea of a Christian society. London, England: Faber and Faber.Hardiman,M., Magsamen, S., McKhann, G., & Eilber, J. (2009).Neuroeducation: Learning, arts, and the brain: Findings and

challenges for educators and researchers from the 2009 Johns Hopkins University Summit. New York, NY/Washington,DC: Dana Press.

Harkema, S. J. M., & Browaeys, M. J. (2002). Managing innovation successfully: A complex process. In European Academyof Management Annual Conference Proceedings, EURAM.

Gonzalez, H., Sargent, J., & Moloney Figliola, P. (2010, July). America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (H.R.5116) and the America COMPETESAct (P.L. 110-69): Selected Policy Issue.Washington, DC: Congressional ResearchService.

Holdren, J., & Lander, E. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science,technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technol-ogy.

Hussein, J. (2007, June). Developing teacher educators: A technocratic rationality versus critical practical inquiry: TheEthiopian experience. Journal of In-service Education, 33(2), 209–235.

International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (1995). Engineering by design, a K–12 engineering cur-riculum. Retrieved from http://www.iteea.org/STEMCenter/EbD.aspx

Jacobs, H. (1989). The growing need for interdisciplinary curriculum content. In H. H. Jacobs (Ed.), Interdisciplinary cur-riculum: Design and implementation (pp. 1–11). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Devel-opment.

Kaestle, C., & Smith, M. (1982, December). The historical context of the federal role in education. Harvard EducationalReview, 52(4), 383.

Kliebard, H. (1986). The struggle for the American curriculum: 1893–1958. Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Krug, D. (2012). Knowledge integration and education. Unpublished manuscript.Labov, J., Singer, S., George, M., Schweingruber, H. & Hilton, M. (2009). Feature from the National Academies effective

practices in undergraduate STEM education part 1: Examining the evidence. Life Science Education, 8(1), 157–161.Lantz, H. B. (2009). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: What form? What function?

What is STEM education? Retrieved from https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/1/docs/jep/STEMEducationMervis, J. (2012, September). Wieman tells senators what doesn’t work in STEM education. Science. Retrieved from

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/09/wieman-tells-senators-what-doesnt-work-stem-educationMiaoulis, L. (2004). Engineering is elementary from the National Center for Technological Literacy. Boston, MA:Museum

of Science.Milken Institute. (2012, January). Innovation scorecard: Country innovation profiles. Fairfield, CT: General Electric.Morrison, J. (2005).Workforce and school. Briefing book. Washington, DC: National Academy of Engineering.Morrison, J. (2006). TIES STEM education monograph series, attributes of STEM education. Baltimore, MD: Teaching Insti-

tute for Excellence in STEM.National Defense Education Act of 1958, H.R.13247. §§ 85-864 (1958).National Education Association. (1894). Report of the Committee of Ten on secondary school studies with the reports of the

conferences arranged by the committee. New York, NY: American Book Company.National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.National Research Council. (2010). Rising above the gathering storm, revisited: Rapidly approaching category 5. Washington,

DC: National Academies Press.National Science Board. (2015). Revisiting the STEM workforce, a companion to science and engineering indicators 2014.

Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.National Science and Technology Council. (2006). Review and appraisal of the federal investment in STEM education

research. Washington, DC: Author.National Science Foundation. (2005). Science and engineering indicators: 2004. Retrieved from

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c1/c1h.htm

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Don

Kru

g] a

t 12:

57 2

7 Ju

ly 2

016

200 D. KRUG AND A. SHAW

Orr, D. W. (1992). Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern world. Albany: State University of NewYork.

Orr, D. (1994). Earth in mind: On education, environment, and the human prospect. Washington, DC: Island Press.Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). P21 framework definitions. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/overviewPiaget, J. (1964). Part 1: Cognitive development in children: Development and learning. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 2(3), 176–186.Place and Promise: The UBC Plan. Annual Report 2011/2012. (2011). Retrieved from

http://strategicplan.ubc.ca/files/2009/08/2011-12-Place-and-Promise-Annual-Report-Final-June-2012.pdfRennie, L., Venville, G., &Wallace, J. (2012). Integrating science with technology, engineering, andmathematics (Vol. 6). New

York, NY: Routledge.Rothwell, J. (2013). The hidden STEM economy. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.eduSchwab, K. (Ed.). (2012). Insight report: Global competitiveness report 2012–2013. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic

Forum.Science and technology strategy:Mobilizing science and technology to Canada’s advantage. (2007). Ottawa, Canada: Indus-

try Canada, Government of Canada. Retrieved from http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ic1.nsf/eng/h_00856.htmlSTEAM. (2013). Mission statement. Retrieved from http://steam-notstem.com/about/mission-statement/StrategyOne. (2012). GE global innovation barometer: Global research report. Fairfield, CT: General Electric.The National Center for Quality Afterschool. (2005). Invention, innovation, and inquiry materials from the International

Technology Education Association. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association and California Uni-versity of Pennsylvania. Retrieved from http://www.iteaconnect.org/i3/ index.htm

The White House Office of the Press Secretary. (2006). Remarks by President George W. Bush’s Stateof the Union Address given on January 31, 2006. Retrieved from http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_presidential_documents&docid=pd06fe06_txt- 11.pdf

The White House Office of the Press Secretary. (2011a, January 25). Remarks by the President in State of Union Address.Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address

TheWhite House Office of the Press Secretary. (2011b, February. Remarks by the President at the 2011 National Medals ofArts and Humanities Ceremony. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/13/remarks-president-2011-national-medals-arts-and-humanities-ceremony

The White House Office of the Press Secretary. (2013, February 12). Remarks by the President in State of Union Address.Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/remarks-president-state-union-address

Toope, S., & Gupta, A. (2012, May 1). Building bridges from B.C. to Brazil: Special to the Sun. Vancouver Sun. Retrievedfrom http://www.nationalpost.com/m/building+bridges+from+brazil/6550010/story.html

UBC Sustainability Office. (2007). UBC sustainability strategy. Retrieved from http://www.sustain.ubc.ca/United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future, Brundtland report.

Published as Annex to General Assembly document A/42/427. Geneva, Switzerland: UN Department of Public Infor-mation.

United States Government Accountability Office. (2005, October). Report to the Chairman, Committee on Rules, House ofRepresentatives: Higher education, federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics programs and relatedtrend. Retrieved from www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-114

University Leaders for a Sustainable Future. (2006). Talloires Declaration Institutional Signatory List. Washington, DC:Author. Retrieved from www.uslf.org/pdf/td_signatories.pdf

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. (2007). The STEM workforce challenge: The role ofthe public workforce system in a national solution for a competitive science, technology, engineering, and mathematics(STEM) workforce. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STEM_fields

U.S. Economic Development Administration. (2006). American Competitiveness Initiative. Retrieved fromhttp://www.eda.gov/PDF/EDAUpdate_0206.html

Vishal, J. (2012). Importance of soft skills development in education. Retrieved from http://schoolofeducators.com/2009/02/importance-of-soft-skills-development-in-education/

Wieman, C. (2012, September). Five years of the America COMPETES Act: Progress, challenges, and nextsteps. U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Hearings. Retrieved fromhttp://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2012/9/five-years-of-the-america-competes-act-progress-challenges-and-next-steps

Williams, R. (1961). The long revolution: An analysis of the democratic, industrial, and cultural changes transforming oursociety. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Wilson, E.O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Young, I. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Young, M. (1999): Knowledge, learning and the curriculum of the future. British Educational Research Journal, 25(4), 463–

477.Zinth, K. (2006). Recent state STEM initiatives. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Don

Kru

g] a

t 12:

57 2

7 Ju

ly 2

016