Abstract
Despite growing advocacy of interdisciplinary approaches to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), there are persistent concerns about the practical and principled epistemic bases on which this can be justified as a mainstream curricular practice. A major issue concerns the nature of interrelations between the STEM disciplines in interdisciplinary work. In the paper, we argue that the spatial metaphor prevalent in discussions of interdisciplinarity, and boundary crossing, while useful, has limitations in capturing the challenges and possibilities for interdisciplinary STEM in schools and in some respects misconstrues the cultural and historical nature of disciplinary epistemic practices. We argue, as a contribution to a theory of interdisciplinary curricular practice, that key issues for such practice can be productively seen through a temporal metaphor and that a temporal model can usefully inform schools and teachers in framing and supporting student learning in interdisciplinary settings. To illustrate this, we use indicative cases from two major Australian STEM initiatives to examine temporal relations between mathematics, science and technology, at the micro-, meso- and macro-levels, and the implications of this for disciplinary integrity. Finally, we argue that contemporary interdisciplinary advocacy amounts to a challenge to renew epistemic traditions in the STEM subjects.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311404435.
Beauchamp, M., & Beauchamp, C. (2012). Understanding the neuroscience and education connection: themes emerging from a review of the literature. In S. Della Salla, & M. Anderson (Eds.), Neuroscience in Education: The good, the bad, and the ugly (pp.13–30). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bruer, J. T. (1997). Education and the brain: a bridge too far. Educational Researcher, 26(8), 4–16.
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
Clarke, D. (2014). Disciplinary inclusivity in educational research design: permeability and affordances in STEM education. Keynote address presented to the conference: STEM Education and Our Planet, Vancouver, Canada, July 2014.
Cohen, E., & Lloyd, S. (2014). Disciplinary evolution and the rise of the transdiscipline. Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 17, 189–215.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Touchstone.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. New York: Pantheon Books.
Hobbs, L., Cripps Clark, J. & Plant, B. (2018a). Successful Students – STEM Program: Teacher Learning Through a Multifaceted Vision for STEM Education. In Jorgensen R., Larkin K. (eds), STEM education in the junior secondary: The state of play (pp. 133–168). Singapore: Springer.
Hobbs, L., Cripps Clark, J., & Plant, B. (2018b). Project completion report: Successful Students – STEM Professional Development Program. Prepared for Skilling the Bay, Geelong, January 2018.
Hobbs, L., Cripps Clark, J. C., & Plant, B. (2018c). Successful students–STEM program: Teacher learning through a multifaceted vision for stem education. In STEM education in the junior secondary (pp. 133–168). Springer, Singapore.
Hobbs, L., Doig, B., & Plant, B. (2019). The Successful Students STEM Project: A Medium Scale Case Study. In B. Doig, J. Williams, D. Swanson, R. Borromeo Ferri, P. Drake (Eds), Interdisciplinary Mathematics Education: The State of the Art and Beyond (pp. 209–227). Springer: Cham.
Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Klein, J. T. (1996). Crossing boundaries: knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Latour, B. (1989). Visualization and cognition: drawing things together. In E. Long, & H. Kuklick (Eds.), Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present. (Vol. 6, pp. 1-40). Greenwich, CT: Jai Press.
Lehrer, R. (2016). Perspectives on elementary STEM education. Keynote address at the forum: putting STEM education under the microscope. Melbourne: Deakin University. https://blogs.deakin.edu.au/steme/wp-content/uploads/sites/39/2017/04/Lehrer-Deakin_STEM_2_reduced.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2019.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2012). Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations. Science Education, 96(4), 701–724.
Office of the Chief Scientist (2014). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Australia’s future. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/STEM_AustraliasFuture_Sept2014_Web.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2019.
Samuels, B. (2009). Can the differences between education and neuroscience be overcome by mind, brain, and education? Mind, Brain, and Education, 3(1), 45–55.
Tytler, R., Williams, G., Hobbs, L., & Anderson, J. (2019). Challenges and opportunities for a STEM interdisciplinary agenda. In B. Doig, J. Williams, D. Swanson, R. Borromeo Ferri, P. Drake (Eds), Interdisciplinary Mathematics Education: The State of the Art and Beyond (pp. 51–81). Springer: Cham.
Vasquez, J. (2015). STEM-beyond the acronym. Educational Leadership, 72(4), 10–15.
Wainer, H. (1992). Understanding graphs and tables. Educational Researcher, 21(1), 14–23.
Watson, F. G. (1983). Science education: a discipline. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(3), 263–264.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tytler, R., Prain, V. & Hobbs, L. Rethinking Disciplinary Links in Interdisciplinary STEM Learning: a Temporal Model. Res Sci Educ 51 (Suppl 1), 269–287 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09872-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09872-2