12 What Is STEM?

3 A Discussion About Conceptions of STEM in Education and

4 Partnerships
5 Jonathan M. Breiner Carla C. Johnson
6 University of Cincinnati University of Cincinnati

87 Shelly Sheats Harkness Catherine M. Koehler

109 University of Cincinnati Illinois Institute of Technology

11 Educational reformation has proceeded slowly despite the many calls to improve science and mathematics for our
12 students. The acronym STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) has been adopted by numerous
13 programs as an important focus for renewed global competitiveness for the United States, but conceptions of what STEM
14 entails often vary among stakeholders. This paper examines the conceptions of STEM held by faculty members from a
15 public Research I institution in the middle of a regional “STEM movement.” Faculty members responded to two 11
16 open-ended questions: (1) What is STEM? and (2) How does STEM influence and/or impact your life? Although 72%
17 of these faculty members possessed a relevant conception of STEM, the results suggest that they do not share a common
18 conceptualization of STEM. Their conception is most likely based on their academic discipline or how STEM impacts
19 their daily lives. STEM faculty members were likely to have a neutral or positive conception where non-STEM faculty
20 members often had negative feelings about STEM.
21

22 In recent years, the use of the acronym STEM (science, ricula that more closely parallels the work of a real-life 49
23 technology, engineering, and mathematics) has become scientist or engineer. To others, STEM is the push for 50
24 the buzz word among the many U.S. stakeholders who graduating more students in the science, technology, engi- 51
25 have heeded the call for creating better prepared high neering, and mathematics fields so the United States can 52
26 school and college graduates to compete globally. But maintain its competitiveness and not fall behind emerging 53
27 what is STEM? Does this acronym say enough? It may countries. The ultimate question remains: What is STEM? 54
28 appear that STEM is a simple acronym, but do all of the This question exists because of the many different 55
29 various partners with vested interests understand it in the approaches of research and education initiatives that have 56
30 same way? Generally speaking, most stakeholders who recently been created to address the need for the United 57
31 hold interests in promoting STEM would claim to under- States to compete globally. As the federal government has 58
32 stand the meaning, yet the finer points of this construct made STEM a top priority in funding, multiple agencies 59
33 often cause confusion. Stakeholders may include govern- have been vying for these dollars. Programs have been 60
34 ment officials who are allocating billions of dollars into established as joint ventures between various agencies 61
35 this enterprise, teachers in the K-12 system who are within government, business, institutions of higher educa- 62
36 expected to teach STEM to their students, parents who tion (IHE), parents, and existing K-12 school systems. 63
37 may struggle to understand the need for different pedago- Many of these programs involve funding from a govern- 64
38 gies and curricula, businesses that need to invest in their mental agency with IHE’s playing a prominent role, and 65
39 future employment pipeline, and of course the students most often seemingly, a lead role. As the government has 66
40 who are ultimately the product of these efforts. Within focused efforts to reform science and mathematics educa- 67
41 such a varied group of stakeholders, “What does STEM tion, IHE’s, K-12 districts, and regional education agen- 68
42 look like?” can elicit multiple perspectives. From an edu- cies, share the forefront of this endeavor. To accomplish 69
43 cational perspective, the introduction to STEM can be a these collaborations, centers and programs with emphasis 70
44 variety of activities, but generally speaking, it usually on STEM have been formed to tackle this initiative of 71
45 includes the replacement of traditional lecture-based transforming the current educational paradigm toward a 72
46 teaching strategies with more inquiry and project-based STEM education perspective. This study evolved from our 73
47 approaches. To some, it only becomes STEM when inte- own path at an IHE in exploring how our colleagues con- 74
48 grating science, technology, engineering, and math cur- ceptualized the notion of STEM. In this manuscript, we 75

School Science and Mathematics 3

 What Is STEM?

1 will share our findings on how faculty members at our IHE nology, engineering, and mathematics curriculum 50
2 conceptualized STEM, and how they perceived the impact (Teaching Institute for Excellence in STEM, 2010). NSF 51
3 that STEM had on them personally by investigating the defines STEM fields broadly, including not only the 52
4 following two research questions: What is STEM? How common categories of mathematics, natural sciences, 53
5 does STEM influence and/or impact your life? To provide engineering, and computer and information sciences, but 54
6 greater context for their responses, we will first provide a also such social/behavioral sciences as psychology, eco- 55
7 brief summary of the STEM movement, its rationale, and nomics, sociology, and political science (Green, 2007). 56
8 various conceptualizations relating to STEM. The acronym STEM has since been adopted by numerous 57
programs at national, state, and local levels, and within 58
9 The Evolution of STEM Education Policy scientific communities as it is an important focus for edu- 59
10 Although the STEM movement has taken a momentum cational reform and renewed global competitiveness for 60
11 of urgency in recent years, the need to strengthen science the United States. 61
12 and mathematics education in the United States has been The term STEM has gained considerable momentum 62
13 emphasized in multiple education reports since the early since 2001. Some use the terms science, mathematics, and 63
14 2 1980s (e.g., National Commission on Excellence in Edu- technology interchangeably with STEM. For example, the 64
15 3
2 2 cation [NCEE], 1983; National Science Foundation [NSF] Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 65
16 3 and U.S. Department of Education, 1980). For example, 21st Century (2007) published Rising Above the Gathering 66
17 the American Association for the Advancement of Science Storm that used this acronym as the “charge to action” in 67
18 4 (AAAS) created Project 2061 in 1985 in response to the response to the poor performance of students in science 68
19 3 4 Nation’s Report Card (NCEE, 1983) and proclaimed to and mathematics. Many refer to this report as an indication 69
20 help all Americans become literate in science, mathemat- of the need for more focus on STEM skills and as recom- 70
21 ics, and technology. The publication of Science for All mendations set forth by the Committee to ensure the 71
22 Americans (AAAS, 1989) advocated the need for the U.S. “future prosperity of the United States.” The recommen- 72
23 citizenry to achieve scientific literacy. Throughout the dations include (1) increasing the talent pool through 73
24 1990s, reports from national commissions, professional improving K-12 science and mathematics education; (2) 74
25 organizations such as the National Science Teachers Asso- sustaining and increasing long-term basic research related 75
26 ciation (NSTA) and the National Council of Teachers of to the economy, security, and quality of life; (3) increasing 76
27 Mathematics along with researchers, employers, univer- the attractiveness of the United States to recruit and retain 77
28 sity faculty, and students consistently called for instruc- the best and brightest scientists and engineers in the world; 78
29 tional innovations in science, mathematics, engineering, and (4) increasing incentives for innovation (Committee 79
30 5 and technology (SMET) education (AAAS, 1989, 1993; on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century, 80
5
31 564 Boyer Commission, 1998; NRC, 1996; NSF, 1996). 2007). 81
32 Despite a long history of attempts to improve science and Since the 2007 Rising Above the Gathering Storm 82
33 mathematics education, desired changes in the educational report, STEM skills have been further touted by profes- 83
34 system have often failed to take place. Perhaps this lag in sional organizations as well as state and federal legislators 84
35 educational reform may be due, in part, to the lack of as the key to success for all students in the 21st century 85
36 coordination and common focus that seem to be pervasive and for many jobs that have yet to be conceptualized 86
37 in the current STEM education movement (Committee on (NSTA Reports, 2008; Sanders, 2009). Current data reveal 87
38 Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century, projections that the majority of the highest paying jobs in 88
39 2007; National Science Board, 2006). the future will require a mastery of science and mathemat- 89
40 A review of the literature over the past 10 years revealed ics skills. In fact, it is anticipated that one of every three 90
41 that STEM evolved out of government policy, specifically jobs by 2015 will be STEM-related (Government 77 91
42 from within the NSF. NSF first used the acronym SMET Accounting Office [GAO], 2000). Moreover, it is well 92
43 for science, mathematics, engineering, and technology in documented that mastery of science and mathematics is 93
44 the early 1990s, but determined that this acronym would correlated to college success and retention, economic 94
45 cause issues of vulgarity, and SMET was changed to growth and development, national security and innovation, 95
46 STEM (Sanders, 2009). The first use of the acronym and competitiveness in the global market (Business 96
47 STEM was introduced in 2001 when Judith A. Ramaley, a Roundtable, 2005; Committee on Science, Engineering, 88 97
48 former director of the NSF’s Education and Human- and Public Policy [CSEPP], 2007; Friedman, 2007; U.S. 98
49 Resources Division, used STEM to refer to science, tech- Commission on National Security/21st Century, 2001). 99

4 Volume 112 (1)

 What Is STEM?

1 At the federal level, the increased focus on STEM per- developed understanding of the various science disci- 50
2 formance and accountability has resulted in increased plines, math, and technology to support and provide 51
3 financial support and potential oversight. The 2011 federal context for their engineering designs and applications. A 52
4 budget for STEM includes $3.7 billion invested into chemist is likely to self-identify as a chemist but will often 53
5 STEM education. Additionally, $4.3 billion was ear- need an in-depth understanding of other science disci- 54
6 marked for the Race to the Top competition that includes plines, technology, and math to properly perform their 55
7 STEM as the sole competitive preference priority. The duties (Bennett & O’Neale, 1998). Although this “real- 56
8 U.S. STEM Coordination Act, which was passed by the life” application of STEM is naturally integrated, most 57
9 U.S. House in 2009 and currently under consideration with K-12 classroom teachers do not teach the content in this 58
10 the U.S. Senate, will establish a council to oversee and fashion. Teaching STEM concepts in an integrated manner 59
11 coordinate the federal government’s STEM education is not a new or novel approach. As Moore (1903) stated in 60
12 efforts. The growing focus on STEM has necessitated his presidential address to the American Mathematical 61
13 oversight and accountability for both expenditure of funds Society in 1902: 62
14 and academic progress and innovation (Uy, 2009). The
9
15 9 Obama–Biden Plan (2009) promised STEM policy and Engineers tell us that in the schools algebra is taught 63
16 resources for improvement in education as a response to in one water-tight component, geometry in another, 64
17 the poor performance of U.S. students in mathematics and and physics in another, and that the student to appre- 65
18 science. This Plan targets the failure of our educational ciate (if ever) only very late the absolutely close con- 66
19 system to prepare students for the current and future work- nection between these different subjects, and then, if 67
20 force and addresses the fact that the United States is he credits the fraternity of teachers with knowing the 68
21 lagging significantly behind other nations educationally. closeness of this relation, he blames them most heart- 69
22 President Obama has support from the National Confer- ily for their unaccountably stupid way of teaching him. 70
10
23 10 ence of State Legislatures (2010) whose website noted that (p. 415) 71
24 Legislators are beginning to focus on policies related
25 directly to STEM education and considering strategies that Political and Societal Conceptualization 72
26 will improve the overall quality of education to prepare Examination of the funding of STEM programs, such as 73
27 students for jobs in a 21st-century workforce. the recent U.S. stimulus package or as part of economic 74
reform initiatives through education–industry partner- 75
28 Conceptualizing Ideas About STEM ships, reveal that there have been two major considerations 76
29 Educational Conceptualization when attempting to implement a STEM curriculum into 77
30 Depending on where you go to seek an answer to the K-12 classrooms: (1) instruction strategies in the typical 78
31 question, “What is STEM?” responses may vary greatly. classroom have not changed (Hiebert & Stigler, 2009), and 79
32 From a policy perspective, such as the view of STEM from (2) students have not gained more interest in STEM sub- 80
33 the NSF and legislative organizations, or from an educa- jects (especially math; Wells, Sanchez, & Attridge, 2007). 81
34 tional perspective like most K-12 agencies/school dis- While each program may have enacted some type of posi- 82
35 tricts, STEM is often considered a traditional disciplinary tive change in the classroom (e.g., introducing more 83
36 coursework (science, mathematics, technology, and engi- inquiry-based lessons in science classrooms), these pro- 84
37 neering) lacking an integrated approach. Thus, the most grams typically involve teaching the traditional STEM 85
38 important modern conception of STEM education might disciplines in silos providing little integration with other 86
39 be the notion of integration—meaning that STEM is the disciplines and lacking a demonstration of how STEM is 87
40 purposeful integration of the various disciplines as used in conducted in the “real world.” Most importantly, this 88
41 solving real-world problems (Labov, Reid, & Yamamoto, instruction does not reveal how STEM is relevant to stu- 89
42 2010; Sanders, 2009). This STEM education perspective dents’ lives. Similarly to the issues encountered in science 90
43 involves viewing the separate disciplines of science, tech- education where the way science is taught is not the way 91
44 nology, engineering, and mathematics as one unit, thus science is done (Schwartz & Lederman, 2002), the way 92
45 teaching the integrated disciplines as one cohesive entity. STEM is taught is often much different than the way 93
46 STEM professionals naturally practice integrated STEM STEM is done. To make matters more complicated, there 94
47 and are less likely to compartmentalize disciplines as seen appears to be a great uncertainty as to the level of under- 95
48 in the typical school subjects of chemistry, physics, math, standing that many of our political leaders possess of 96
49 or English. For example, an engineer needs a well- STEM, and particularly integrated STEM education. For 97

School Science and Mathematics 5

 What Is STEM?

1 example, within the 111th Congress, only 74 members Light? (Johnson, Rochkind, & Ott, 2010), revealed that 51
2 (14%) held a degree in a traditional STEM area, and 19 slightly over half of the parents surveyed thought that the 52
3 members (3.5%) had a background in education (Science mathematics and science their kids received was fine as it 53
4 and Engineers for America, 2010), yet Congress is respon- is. 54
5 sible for the legislation providing all of the federal dollars So what about other stakeholders, such as university 55
6 that are spent on reform initiatives such as STEM. faculty, who are charged with training students for careers 56
7 Some proponents of STEM think that the problem is in STEM and STEM education? How do these participants 57
8 1111 overblown and not as dire as previously stated. Lowell and conceptualize STEM? Do they share an operational 58
9 Salzman (2007) concluded that the general call for more definition? 59
10 scientists and engineers is not supported by workforce and 60
11 educational data but rather needs to be more focused in
Context of Study 61
12 specific STEM areas of need or underrepresented student
This qualitative study was conceived through multiple 62
13 groups. In addition, they state that the current policy
discussions related to STEM education at a university- 63
14 approach is misguided based on current data, and thus it is
based STEM Research Center. At the Center, faculty 64
15 lowering the efficiencies of actions that would better target
members held a variety of conceptions related to the 65
16 and help the actual areas of crisis in education. Inciden-
notion of STEM; what is it, what it is not, and how can it 66
17 tally, other countries have been criticized for similar mis-
be fashioned into education at the K-16 level? A group of 67
18 givings as comparable reports have come out of the UK.
STEM education faculty in the College of Education, 68
19 Smith (2010) reviewed 90 years of data and suggested that
Criminal Justice and Human Services (CECH) at the Uni- 69
20 the STEM crisis has not changed since the introduction of
versity of Cincinnati (UC) designed this qualitative study 70
21 school science curricula, and he questioned the role of
by asking two questions of the university faculty members 71
22 policy in influencing educational change.
at UC: (1) “What is STEM?” and (2) “How does STEM 72
23 Personal Conceptualizations
influence and/or impact your life?” These questions were 73
24 Even though this disagreement exists, most stakeholders
emailed to faculty members from the various colleges 74
25 would agree regarding the need to increase STEM literacy
across UC to explore their conceptions of STEM. 75
26 for all people. Defining what it means to be STEM literate
The UC has a student body of more than 41,000 stu- 76
27 differs among these important groups. Surveys of the
dents. During the year of this study (2009), CECH 77
28 general public support the notion that a typical citizen is
embarked upon a STEM movement by engaging in 78
29 usually confused about the messages regarding STEM.
several initiatives: (1) leading a regional STEM partner- 79
30 The Entertainment Industries Council polled 5,000 par-
ship; (2) creating two STEM public schools, one elemen- 80
31 ticipants who were asked if they understood the term
tary (K-8), and one high school (9–12); and (3) starting 81
32 “STEM education.” Eighty-six percent did not understand
a STEM education center within the college. Therefore, 82
33 the reference, and many confused it with research related
the context for this study was literally in the middle of a 83
34 to STEM cells, flowers, and even broccoli stems (Angier,
STEM movement. 84
35 2010). Thus, a main concern with regard to STEM is that
85
36 there exists a knowledge and communication gap between
37 policy makers, universities, K-12 school districts, and the Methodology 86
38 general public, e.g., parents. It appears that people do not The two open-ended research questions were emailed to 87
39 have an interdisciplinary understanding of STEM. “Every- all full-time faculty members through the faculty email 88
40 body who knows what it means knows what it means, and listserv. The survey questions were intentionally ambigu- 89
41 everybody else doesn’t” (Angier, 2010). This is particu- ous to not lead participants and to determine if the STEM 90
42 larly true when it comes to the parents’ understanding of acronym was confusing among those perceived to under- 91
43 the need for STEM. A 2007 report by the Kaufman Foun- stand it. Participants were directed by a link to Survey- 92
44 dation titled Important, But Not For Me, revealed that only Monkey where they entered their open-ended responses to 93
45 25% of the parents surveyed in Kansas and Missouri that the two questions: (1) What is STEM? and (2) How does 94
46 thought their kids needed more science and math (Kadlec, STEM influence and/or impact your life? A total of 222 (n 95
47 Friedman, & Ott, 2007). This same report showed that = 222) responses were collected. The information regard- 96
48 64% of the parents surveyed do not think that science and ing the resident college of the faculty member was also 97
49 math education in their schools is a serious issue. A included with their responses. Two authors of this paper 98
50 national report in 2010, Are We Beginning to See the focused on an inductive analysis and immersed themselves 99

6 Volume 112 (1)

 What Is STEM?

1 in the details of the data to get a sense of the whole and to Table 1 49
Responses to Research Questions #1: What is STEM? 50
2 find the themes reported here (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2000;
3 Patton, 2002). Category Percent of Respondents 51
4 To begin the analysis, each researcher independently (n = 222) 52
5 reads the responses and coded them according to their own Knew what STEM stood for 72.5% (n = 161) 53
6 schematic. Discussions about the codes followed this inde-
7 pendent analysis. Constant comparative analysis was used Science, technology, 57% of 72.5% (n = 92) 54

8 to avoid research bias (Patton, 2002). The responses for engineering, mathematics 55

9 research question #1, What is STEM? were straightfor- Science, technology, 9% of 72.5% (n = 14) 56
10 ward and easy to code. Respondents either defined their engineering, medicine 57
11 notion of STEM, or this question was left blank.
12 For research question #2, How does STEM influence Science, technology, 4% of 72.5% (n = 7) 58
15
13 and/or impact your life? again, the two researchers inde- engineering, mathematics 59

14 pendently read the responses and looked for themes or and/or medicine 60

15 broadly defined categories that were woven throughout all Do not know/understand what 27.5% (n = 61) 61
16 of the responses. After initially coding the responses, they STEM is 62
17 met to discuss the themes that emerged from the data. 63

18 After lengthy discussions, consensus was reached, and 64

19 three broad themes were agreed upon: (1) null relationship
20 to STEM, (2) personal reasons, and (3) societal issues. All A group of disciplines that have been privileged over 65
21 authors then met as a group to discuss where the data all others here in [state], in the odd faith that only they 66
22 aligned within each category and where it did not. After can create jobs, Science-Technology-Engineering- 67
23 several meetings, consensus was reached for coding Math. Or was it Sociology-Theater-English-Music? 68
24 research question #2. It is important to note that some
25 responses were coded in more than one category, (e.g., fell Science Technology Engineering Medicine. Typically 69
26 into the personal and societal categories), and thus the viewed as hard science, I think that there are roles for 70
27 total responses did not align perfectly. These procedures the social sciences that have been ignored. 71
28 corresponded to a “grounded theory” approach to data
29 analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Patton, 2002). One informed participant inquired about the intent of the 72
research question: 73
30 Survey Results and Findings
31 In response to research question #1, What is STEM? Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics. 74
32 72.5% (161 of 222) of the respondents described STEM as This seems like an odd Question . . . what might you 75
33 it related to science, technology, engineering, or math- *really* be asking? What “content” we think belongs? 76
34 ematics, yet the remaining 27.5% responded that they did What “courses”? What “objectives”? Since I can’t 77
12
35 12 not know or understand what STEM was (Table 1). Within guess I just provided the “terms-for-each-letter.” If 78
36 the informed respondents, 57% (n = 92) used the acronym: you were looking for something else, I regret that I am 79
37 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; 9% unable to ferret that out of the question provided. 80
38 (n = 14) wrote a description about science, technology,
39 engineering, and medicine; and 4% (n = 7) noted that the In response to research question #2, How does STEM 81
40 acronym stood for science, technology, engineering, and influence and/or impact your life? themes emerged from 82
41 mathematics and/or medicine. Some were creative with the survey responses that were coded into three broadly 83
42 their definitions responding that the “E” stood for elec- defined categories: (1) null relationship to STEM, (2) per- 84
43 tronics (n = 1), and the “M” indicated management (n = 1). sonal reasons, and (3) societal issues. Some responses fit 85
44 Most of the respondents described the acronym with no into more than one category. Table 2 describes the break- 86
45 emotional stigma, but 7% (n = 11) responded with an down of data into these three broad categories. 87
46 emotional negativity as described below: Category #1: Null Relationship to STEM 14
1488
As noted in Table 2, 36% of the respondents (n = 84) 89
47 A push toward once again privileging the Science, indicated that they did not know “What is STEM?” or 90
13
48 13 Technology, Engineering and Math fields. indicated that STEM did not impact their lives when 91
School Science and Mathematics 7
 What Is STEM?

1 Table 2
2 Examples of Codes and Responses to Research Question #2
3 Emerging Codes % of Respondents* Responses to Research Question #2: How Does STEM
4 Influence and/or Impact Your Life??
5 Null relationship to STEM 36% (n = 84) None that I am aware of Unknown
6 N/A 16

7 Personal reasons 50% (n = 113) It further marginalizes my field since I am in the Humanities. It
8 makes my field seem irrelevant, which STEM programs do
9 already. It furthers narrow-minded thinking.
10 I teach mathematics.
11 I teach it in everyday courses
12 I work with students who have expertise at the intersection of
13 TEM.
14 I use a bit of technology and I truly enjoy reading about science.
15 The math in my daily life and even in my career is so elementary
16 that I wonder why I had to study the math I was forced to.
17 Societal issues 21% (n = 45) Develops competencies about basic skills used in life.
18 It is life.
19
20 * Total responses are greater than 222 because of coding of some responses in multiple categories.
21

22 asked, “How does STEM influence and/or impact your Category #2: Personal Reasons 40
23 life?” Interestingly, 23% (n = 19) felt that STEM did not Of the respondents who described personal reasons as 41
24 impact their life, yet they were able to articulate a relevant the way STEM impacted their lives, many described their 42
25 conceptualization of it. Some typical responses in this own careers or discussed their children. 43
26 category included the following:
Not much, though the department I’m in (Quantitative 44
27 Unknown. Analysis and Operations Management, in the College 45
of Business) and all of our programs, faculty, and 46
28 Not at all. students *SHOULD* be under the STEM umbrella, 47
but my understanding was that there is some question 48
29 Right now I have no direct contact with STEM, but about that. Our area is definitely applied math, and 49
30 would like to learn more about it. many of our faculty and students have degrees in math 50
or engineering (rather than business), so just because 51
31 I haven’t thought about it much. I’m in the social we’re organizationally located in a business college 52
32 sciences. should not keep us out of STEM. 53

33 Other responses included those who were confused about My son is a high school senior and a probable math 54
34 STEM or indicated that it involved STEM cell research: major. Some of the state universities we have been 55
looking at are offering STEM-funded scholarships. 56
35 It could be extremely pivotal [sic] in addressing ter-
36 minal illness. AIDS/HIV, certain strains of the flu, & Since I teach Computer Science and Math, two of the 57
37 cancer. four disciplines are areas I teach. 58

38 The stem cell part keeps me interested in the develop- It further marginalizes my field since I am in the 59
39 ment for curing diseases’ Humanities. It makes my field seem irrelevant, which 60
8 Volume 112 (1)
 What Is STEM?

1 STEM programs do already. It furthers narrow- Personal Reasons and Societal Issues 43
2 minded thinking. Some responses touched on ideas that could fit into both 44
personal reasons and societal issues categories and were 45
3 Makes my work unimportant in the eyes of the coded into both categories. Typical multi-category 46
4 university. responses include the following: 47

5 Category #3: Societal Issues As an instructor in a technical field, I know that stu- 48
6 Responses in this category fit into loosely framed, broad dents who have a strong background in STEM will be 49
7 descriptions that included (1) the university community, successful. Many students struggle with math because 50
8 (2) the state in which the university is located, (3) the U.S. they have a poor understanding of basic principles. 51
9 government, and (4) the global issues. Exemplars from This deficiency causes them to struggle with the 52
10 these themes include statement like: science and technical courses they are required to take 53
here at Clermont. 54
11 The initiative insures educating American youth in an
12 attempt to offset the need for persons in this field to Indirectly, probably improves quality of life through 55
13 run American science enterprises brighter minds in these areas. Directly, it may divert 56
bright people who would have chosen my profession. 57
14 If we do not get some math-oriented US citizens in the
15 pipeline, we might as well give up. My position is partly in a technology program, and I 58
suppose the emphasis is such that one’s personal life 59
16 Any time there is a partnership between [the univer- could be improved through discoveries made through 60
17 sity] and [local public school district], the city and these emphases. 61
18 region are strengthened.
Conclusions and Implications 62
19 As a member of the university? As a person? These are The survey results from faculty members in both STEM 63
20 increasingly important fields of study, in my opinion, and non-STEM disciplines at UC suggest that even within 64
21 and certainly have many real-world applications. an IHE where faculty members are extensively involved in 65
multiple STEM projects and centers, there is no common 66
22 All citizens need to be informed on these subject in operational definition or conceptualization of STEM. 67
23 this complex global world. While much larger percentages of faculty members 68
seemed to possess a relevant conception of STEM when 69
24 Disaggregating the data by college at UC, interesting compared with average citizens’ conception (Angier, 70
25 trends emerged. Of the faculty members in the College of 2010), faculty members tended to view the notion of 71
26 Engineering, who responded to the survey, 96% (22 of 23) STEM from their perception of how it impacted them in 72
27 had some relevant conceptualization of STEM, whereas their daily lives. In our findings, most of the faculty 73
28 over half of the respondents, 53% (20 of 38) from the members who articulated a conceptualization related 74
29 Colleges of Medicine, Nursing, and Pharmacy indicated STEM to individual STEM disciplines, thus following the 75
30 that they either did not know what STEM was or did not notion that there are silos in the disciplines. Some dis- 76
31 think it impacted their lives. cussed the integrated nature of STEM, while many others 77
32 Among the faculty who had a relevant conceptualization failed to demonstrate an understanding in either of these 78
33 of STEM, 70% (113 of 161) viewed it from a personal areas, sometimes even if they held academic appointments 79
34 perspective. While this is perhaps not surprising, it dem- in STEM colleges and/or programs. 80
35 onstrates that faculty members are likely to identify STEM Given the nature of this survey, it was not surprising 81
36 and STEM initiatives based on their line of work and how that there appeared to be a challenge in changing the 82
37 it directly affects them. Similar trends are also seen among paradigm from compartmentalizing academic disciplines 83
38 non-STEM faculty members who had negative percep- to the integration of these disciplines as advocated by 84
39 tions of STEM. These faculty members, often resided in many through the STEM movement. Because Congress, 85
40 arts and humanities departments, perceived that STEM IHE’s, and other stakeholders all have varying concep- 86
41 was encroaching on their financial support and importance tions of STEM, can we address education and work force 87
42 within the university community. issues in STEM without operationally defining it? 88
School Science and Mathematics 9
 What Is STEM?

1 Operationally, defining a common conceptualization of Angier, N. (2010, October 4). STEM education has little to do with flowers.
17
51
The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/ 52
2 STEM for all stakeholders may provide language that 25
science/05angier.html 53
3 fosters a clearer understanding, but the results of this Bennett, S. W., & O’Neale, K. (1998). Skills development and practical work 54
4 study suggest that an operational definition would be at in chemistry. University Chemistry Education, 2, 58–62. 55
5 best difficult to achieve. Comparably, operationally, Business Roundtable. (2005). Tapping America’s Potential: Education for 56
Innovative Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.businessroundtable.org/ 57
6 defining STEM for a large number of initiatives could
pdf/20050727002TAPStatement.pdf 58
7 result in compartmentalization, further adding to the Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century. (2007). 59
8 exclusion of some groups that could add to and enhance Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and empowering America for 60
9 the current trends in STEM. Therefore, it is probably best brighter economic future. ••: National Academies Press. Retrieved from 18 61
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html 62
10 to focus on shared outcomes of STEM as most stake- Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2000). How to design and evaluate research 63
11 holders seem to agree that STEM is about creating better in education. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. 64
12 teachers, students, and workforce in order for the United Friedman, T. L. (2007). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first 65
13 States to better compete globally. This would enhance the century. New York: Picador. 66
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: 67
14 notion among stakeholders that STEM education can be Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine. 68
15 successful in K-16 education and thus prepare students at Green, M. (2007). Science and engineering degrees: 1966-2004. (NSF 69
16 all levels with the skills necessary to compete in our 07–307). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. 70
17 rapidly advancing technical society. However, while it is Hiebert, J., & Stigler, J. W. (2009). Reading 2.3—A world of difference: 71
Classrooms abroad provide lessons in teaching math and science. In C. M. 72
18 probably necessary for stakeholders within a certain Grant, V. L. Mills, M. Bouch & E. Davidson. (Eds.), Secondary lenses on 73
19 STEM initiative to have a common conceptualization, learning: Team leadership for mathematics in middle and high schools (pp. 19 74
20 caution should be paid as the many initiatives across the 77–••). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. 75
Kadlec, A., Friedman, W., & Ott, A. (2007). Important, But Not For Me. 76
21 nation are probably too varied to be placed into too
Parents and Students in Kansas and Missouri talk About Math, Science and 77
22 narrow a framework. It is important for best practices to Technology Education. Retrieved from http://www.publicagenda.org/ 78
23 be shared, but a one-size-fits-all approach is not likely to reports/important-not-me 79
24 work with each STEM initiative’s strengths. Labov, J. B., Reid, A. H., & Yamamoto, K. R. (2010). Integrated biology and 80
undergraduate science education: a new biology education for the twenty- 81
25 Whatever the solution is to this dilemma, time is rapidly
first century? CBE Life Science Education, 9, 10–16. 82
26 progressing, and we, as a nation, are falling behind our Johnson, J., Rochkind, J., & Ott, A. (2010). Are We Beginning to See the Light? 83
27 global counterparts so all discussions among stakeholders Public Agenda. Retrieved from http://www.publicagenda.org/pages/math- 84
28 related to STEM are worthwhile. As Moore (1903) and-science-ed-2010 85
Moore, E. H. (1903). On the foundations of mathematics. Science, 17, 401– 86
29 implied over 100 years ago, students need to see the con- 416. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 9, 455. Reprinted in 87
30 nections between “different subjects,” thus teachers at all Math Teacher, 60, (1967) 360–374. 88
31 levels need to be intimately familiar with the interrelation- National Conference of State Legislatures. (2010). ••. Retrieved December 15, 20 89
32 ships within the STEM disciplines. Legislators need to 2010, from http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=12935 90
National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education stan- 91
33 understand the necessity of STEM independent of the next dards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 92
34 election. Parents need to understand how society has National Science Board. (2006). America’s Pressing Challenge—Building a 93
35 changed creating different academic needs for their chil- Stronger Foundation. Retrieved April 6, 2010, from http://www.nsf.gov/ 94
36 dren. When groups come together within a STEM initia- statistics/nsb0602/nsb0602.pdf 95
National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) Reports. (2008). STEM edu- 21 96
37 tive, it is best to work around common outcomes and then cation for student. Corporate Success, 20(3), 23. 97
38 to develop a conceptualization of STEM that will move the Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). 98
39 stakeholders more quickly toward these shared outcomes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 99
40 There has not been a time in the past 50+ years since Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEM mania. Technology 100
Teacher, 68(4), 20–26. 101
41 Sputnik where there appears to be a greater willingness Science and Engineers for America. (2010). ••. Retrieved from http:// 22 102
42 and support to achieve these recommended changes, but sharp.sefora.org/issues/111th-congress-degrees-by-type/#toc 103
43 each effort should clearly outline the objectives, and that Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). “It’s the nature of the beast”: 104
The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching 105
44 starts with “What is STEM?”
nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 205– 106
45 236. 107
Smith, E. (2010). The name assigned to the document by the author. This field 108
46 References may also contain sub-titles, series names, and report numbers. Is there a 109
47 American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Project 2061: crisis in school science education in the UK? Educational Review, 62(2), 110
48 Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press. 189–202. 111
49 American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks Teaching Institute for Excellence in STEM. (2010). ••. Retrieved from http:// 23 112
50 for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press. www.tiesteach.org/stem-education.aspx 113

10 Volume 112 (1)

 What Is STEM?

1 Wells, B., Sanchez, A., & Attridge, J. (2007, November). Modeling student
2 interest in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Paper pre-
3 sented at the IEEE Summit. Meeting the Growing Demand for Engineers
4 and their Educators (Munich Germany).
5 U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century. (2001). Road map for
6 national security: Imperative for change. The Phase III report of the U.S.
7 Commission on National Security/21st Century, Washington, DC.
8 24
Uy, E. (2009). Subcommittee advances STEM coordination bill. Education
9 Daily, 42(62), 3.

School Science and Mathematics 11

 Toppan Best-set Premedia Limited
Journal Code: SSM Proofreader: Emily
Article No: 109 Delivery date: 28 October 2011
Page Extent: 9

AUTHOR QUERY FORM

Dear Author,
During the preparation of your manuscript for publication, the questions listed below have arisen. Please attend
to these matters and return this form with your proof.
Many thanks for your assistance.

Query Query Remark

References
q1 AUTHOR: Please confirm if Research I is correct.
q2 AUTHOR: National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983 has not
been included in the Reference List. Please supply full publication details.
q3 AUTHOR: National Science Foundation and U.S. Department of Education,
1980 has not been included in the Reference List. Please supply full
publication details.
q4 AUTHOR: Please confirm if Nation’s Report Card is correct.
q5 AUTHOR: Boyer Commission, 1998 has not been included in the Reference
List. Please supply full publication details.
q6 AUTHOR: NSF, 1996 has not been included in the Reference List, please
supply full publication details.
q7 AUTHOR: Government Accounting Office [GAO], 2000 has not been included
in the Reference List. Please supply full publication details.
q8 AUTHOR: Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy [CSEPP],
2007 has not been included in the Reference List. Please supply full
publication details.
q9 AUTHOR: Obama–Biden Plan (2009) has not been included in the Reference
List. Please supply full publication details.
q10 AUTHOR: National Conference of State Legislators (2010) has been changed
to National Conference of State Legislatures (2010) so that this citation
matches the Reference List. Please confirm if this is correct.
q11 AUTHOR: Lowell and Salzman (2007) has not been included in the Reference
List. Please supply full publication details.
q12 AUTHOR: Table 1 was not cited in the text. An attempt has been made to
insert the table into a relevant point in the text – please check that this is OK.
If not, please provide clear guidance on where it should be cited in the text.
q13 AUTHOR: Please confirm if all displayed quotes are set correctly.
q14 AUTHOR: Please confirm if all headings have been set correctly.
q15 AUTHOR: Please confirm if Mathematics and/or Medicine is correct.
q16 AUTHOR: Please provide the full form of N/A.
q17 AUTHOR: For all online entries in the reference list, please provide the date of
access, if there is any.
q18 AUTHOR: Please provide the location of publisher for Committee on
Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century 2007, if there is any.
q19 AUTHOR: Please provide the last page for Hiebert and Stigler 2009.
q20 AUTHOR: Please provide the document title for National Conference of State
Legislatures. (2010).
q21 AUTHOR: Please confirm if National Science Teachers Association (NSTA)
Reports. (2008) is a one-page article.
q22 AUTHOR: Please provide thedocument title for Science and Engineers
forAmerica. (2010).
q23 AUTHOR: Please provide the article title for Teaching Institute for Excellence
in STEM. (2010).
q24 AUTHOR: Please confirm if Uy 2009 is a one-page article.
q25 AUTHOR: Please check thewebsite addresses/URLs and confirm that they
arecorrect. (Please note that it is the responsibility of theauthor(s) to ensure that
all URLs given in this articleare correct and usable.)
 Proof
MARKED Correction PROOF Marks
Please correct and return this set
Please correct and return your proofs using the proof correction marks below. For a more
detailed look at using these marks please reference the most recent edition of The Chicago
Manual of the
Please use Style and correction
proof visit them marks
on theshown
Web at: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/home.
below for all alterations and corrections. If you
html
wish to return your proof by fax you should ensure that all amendments are written clearly
Instruction
Instructiontotoprinter
typesetter Textual mark Marginal mark
Leave unchanged under matter to remain
Insert in text the matter Newfollowed by new by
matterbyfollowed
followed new
indicated in the margin or
matter
Delete through
through
through single
single character,
character,
single character, rule
rule oror
rule underline
underline
or underline
or or
through
through all characters
allthrough
characters to to
bebe deleted
deleted
all characters to be deleted
Substitute character or
through letter or new character or
substitute part of one or
more word(s) through characters new characters
Change to italics under matter to be changed
Change to capitals under matter to be changed
Change to small capitals under matter to be changed
Change to bold type under matter to be changed
Change to bold italic under matter to be changed
Change to lower case B
Encircle matter to be changed
or
‘superior’ character
Insert superscript through character or under character
under character
where required e.g.
Insert subscript e.g.overorcharacter
Insert ‘inferior’ character (As above) e.g.
over character
Insert full stop (As above)
Insert comma (As above)
Insert single quotation marks (As above)
or and/or
Insert double quotation marks (As above)
or
Insert hyphen (As above)
Start new paragraph
Transpose
Close up linking characters

Insert or substitute space through character or

between characters or words where required
Reduce space between between characters or
characters or words words affected