Abstract

The integration of the STEM disciplines (Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Mathematics) has been a subject of debate in educational settings, with proponents

arguing for the benefits of teaching these subjects as an interdisciplinary entity and others

advocating for their continued separation. In recent years, there has been increasing

recognition of the importance of STEM education in preparing students for success in a

rapidly changing world driven by technological advancements and scientific innovation.

However, the optimal approach to delivering STEM education remains a topic of

contention among educators.

The importance behind this study lies in the growing significance of STEM education

and the need to explore effective pedagogical approaches to teaching these subjects. By

understanding the perspectives of educators regarding the integration of STEM

disciplines, this study seeks to contribute to informed decision-making in curriculum

design and instructional practices.

Problem statement:

The problem addressed in this study is whether it is better to merge the four disciplines of

STEM and teach them as an interdisciplinary entity or continue teaching science,

technology, engineering, and mathematics as separate subjects. This issue is complex and

multifaceted, involving considerations related to curriculum coherence, pedagogical

effectiveness, and student learning outcomes.

Approach:

To investigate this issue, a survey was conducted among teachers at the elementary,

middle, and high school levels. The survey gathered data on educators' preferences

1
regarding the integration of STEM disciplines, with participants indicating whether they

favored teaching STEM as an interdisciplinary entity or maintaining separate subject

areas.

Results:

The survey results revealed varying degrees of support for merging STEM disciplines

into a cohesive entity versus maintaining them as distinct subjects across different

educational stages. In the elementary stage, three out of four teachers favored teaching

STEM as an entity, while one teacher preferred separate subjects. In the middle school

stage, five out of eight teachers supported merging STEM disciplines, while three

preferred separate subjects. At the high school level, six out of ten teachers voted for

merging STEM as one entity, with four advocating for separate subjects.

Conclusions: The findings of this study underscore the importance of considering

educators' perspectives in shaping STEM education policies and practices. While there is

no one-size-fits-all approach, the survey results suggest a trend towards favoring the

integration of STEM disciplines, particularly at the higher educational levels. However,

further research is needed to explore the effectiveness of interdisciplinary approaches in

enhancing student learning outcomes and preparing them for future challenges in STEM

fields. Ultimately, informed decision-making in curriculum design should take into

account the diverse needs and preferences of educators, as well as the overarching goal of

fostering STEM literacy and competency among students.

2
Title: Exploring the Debate: Merging STEM Disciplines as an Interdisciplinary

Entity vs. Teaching Them Separately

Introduction:

The debate surrounding the integration of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering,

and Mathematics) disciplines as an interdisciplinary entity versus teaching them

separately has garnered significant attention in educational discourse. Proponents of

merging STEM disciplines argue that an interdisciplinary approach fosters holistic

understanding and prepares students for real-world problem-solving (National Research

Council, 2012). On the other hand, advocates for separate subject instruction emphasize

the depth of knowledge and specialized skills gained through focused study.This essay

examines both perspectives to provide insights into the ongoing debate.

Benefits of Merging STEM Disciplines:

Merging STEM disciplines as an interdisciplinary entity offers several advantages.

Firstly, it promotes connections between various fields, mirroring the interconnected

nature of real-world problems. For instance, integrating mathematics into science

experiments or incorporating engineering principles into technology projects enhances

students' understanding of how disciplines intersect (Moore et al., 2014). This

interdisciplinary approach fosters critical thinking, creativity, and collaboration skills

essential for addressing complex challenges in today's society (National Research

Council, 2014).

3
 Furthermore, merging STEM disciplines facilitates contextual learning, allowing

students to apply theoretical concepts to practical scenarios (Dori & Belcher, 2005). For

example, integrating mathematics into environmental science lessons enables students to

analyze data and make informed decisions about sustainability issues (Wilson, 2013).

Additionally, an interdisciplinary approach encourages students to see the relevance of

STEM subjects in everyday life, fostering greater engagement and motivation (Quigley et

al., 2018).

Moreover, interdisciplinary instruction better prepares students for future careers,

which increasingly demand multidisciplinary skills (Bybee, 2013). By integrating STEM

disciplines, students develop a comprehensive skill set that aligns with the demands of a

rapidly evolving workforce (National Science Board, 2015). This approach also reflects

the interdisciplinary nature of many STEM professions, where professionals collaborate

across disciplines to innovate and solve complex problems (Honey et al., 2014).

Benefits of Teaching STEM Subjects Separately:

Despite the benefits of merging STEM disciplines, proponents of teaching them

separately argue for the importance of depth and specialization (National Research

Council, 2012). Teaching STEM subjects separately allows for a more in-depth

exploration of each discipline, ensuring that students acquire a strong foundational

knowledge base (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011). This

4
depth of understanding is crucial for students pursuing advanced studies or careers in

specialized fields (National Research Council, 2012).

Furthermore, separate subject instruction allows for tailored learning experiences that

cater to students' individual interests and aptitudes. For example, students passionate

about mathematics can delve deeper into advanced topics without being constrained by

the integration of other disciplines (Wilson, 2013). Similarly, those interested in

engineering can focus on specialized projects and problem-solving techniques.

Additionally, teaching STEM subjects separately enables educators to adhere to

established standards and curriculum guidelines specific to each discipline (Bybee, 2013).

This ensures that essential concepts and skills are adequately covered, laying a solid

foundation for further academic and professional pursuits (National Research Council,

2014). Moreover, separate subject instruction facilitates the mastery of discipline-specific

terminology, methodologies, and techniques, which are essential for academic success

and career readiness (Bell, 2005).

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the debate over merging STEM disciplines as an interdisciplinary entity

versus teaching them separately encompasses various perspectives and considerations.

While merging disciplines offers benefits such as fostering interdisciplinary connections,

contextual learning, and preparation for future careers, teaching STEM subjects

separately allows for depth, specialization, and tailored learning experiences. Ultimately,

5
the optimal approach may vary depending on educational contexts, student needs, and

learning objectives. Therefore, educators and policymakers must carefully weigh the

advantages and challenges of each approach to make informed decisions that best serve

the interests of students and society as a whole.

6
References

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change in

undergraduate biology education: A call to action. Retrieved from

https://visionandchange.org/

Bell, T. (2005). The impact of contextualized curriculum reform on student attitudes

towards science learning. Research in Science & Technological Education, 23(3),

283-301. doi:10.1080/02635140500142800

Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities.

Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.

Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect

undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts? The

Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 243-279.

doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1402_3

Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K-12

education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC:

National Academies Press.

Moore, T. J., Glancy, A. W., Tank, K. M., Kersten, J. A., Smith, K. A., & Stohlmann, M.

S. (2014). A framework for quality K-12 engineering education: Research and

development. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER),

4(1), 1-13. doi:10.7771/2157-9288.1099

7
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2014). STEM integration

in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington,

DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices,

crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies

Press.

National Research Council. (2014). STEM learning is everywhere: Summary of a

convocation on building learning systems. 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.

Quigley, C., Herro, D., & Jamil, F. M. (2018). Connecting STEM curriculum and

instruction to learners’ futures: 8 essential elements. New York, NY: Routledge.

Wilson, S. (2013). Educational reform: The role of teachers and teacher educators. In J.

Hattie & E. M. Anderman (Eds.), International guide to student achievement (pp.

489-491). New York, NY: Routledge.