Transdisciplinarity in STEM education: a critical review

Abstract

Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education garnered significant attention in recent years and has emerged as a key field of research globally. The goal of this article is to offer a critical review of how STEM education and its transdisciplinarity were defined and/or positioned in empirical studies published during the early formulation of the field. In particular, we sought to identify how these studies conceptualize learners and learning and portray the underlying assumptions in light of the macrosystemic discourses that often serve as ideological forces in shaping research and practice of STEM education. We examined 154 peer-reviewed articles published between January 2007 and March 2018 and analysed them along several emergent dimensions: their geo-spatial focus, focal disciplinary areas, methodological and theoretical assumptions, and major findings. Grounded in a critical transdisciplinary perspective, we used critical discourse analysis to identify how macrosystemic and institutionalized forces-overtly and implicitly-shape what counts as STEM education research, including its goals and conceptualizations of learners and learning. Our analysis highlights the need for aesthetic expansion and diversification of STEM education research by challenging the disciplinary hegemonies and calls for reorienting the focus away from human capital discourse.

Physics education research’s implicit views of physics faculty

“…This suggests that the ways that researchers talk about faculty in their papers has not changed substantially in these ways over time; however, we note that our entire research period is between 2008 and 2018. Following broader trends in science education research during this period [9], it may be that this 10-year period is too short to look for substantial changes in how we conceptualize faculty resources.…”

Toys for children with the concept of STEM: study of the result from children’s playing activities

“…As a result, this should emphasize the development skills and thought creation from the real experiences of children by learning with their own senses until enabling them to stimulate this as memorizing knowledge at a sustainable level with high effectiveness; however, according to the research of the playing design as the concept of STEM at this time, it could be considered as a form of positive harmony with the learning goals as the concept of STEM at an excellent level (Takeuchi et al 2020).…”

Theories of learning as theories of society: A contrapuntal approach to expanding disciplinary authenticity in computing

“…Our purpose is to illustrate-similar to how theories of learning operated as theories of society in behaviorism, the cognitive revolution, or portrayals of Vygotsky-that these processes continue to exist in central contemporary constructs in the field. We acknowledge an important tradeoff: the focus on a single construct allows us to detail and nuance our argument without simply painting broad strokes about the political nature of learning and its relationship to empire; on the other hand, the deep dive does not leave space for close examinations of other constructs upon which our theories of learning hinge (see Philip, Gupta, Elby, & Turpen, 2018; The Politics of Writing Collective, 2017; Takeuchi et al, 2020;Sengupta 2020). We hope, however, that our analysis will be an invitation for further consideration of core constructs in our field through a contrapuntal lens.…”

“…But the lack of this contrapuntality in the K-16 classrooms and in our field of Learning Sciences research has a significantly more far reaching effect: perpetuating an inequitable and segregated professional practice. As Takeuchi et al (2020) illustrated, ideologies of workforce readiness and a "skilled technical workforce" that are nationally promoted and guide and fund a significant portion of Learning Sciences research on educational computing (see for example, https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=505006) exacerbate oppressive hierarchies by invoking national security and at least implicitly constructing endarkened people as a perpetual risk and threat.…”