Investigation and analysis the status of the trans-disciplinary approach STEM in the school curriculum

Authors
mahdieh sadat mirrahimi
parvin ahmadi
Alzahra University
Abstract
This study aim was Investigation and analysis the status of the trans-disciplinary approach STEM in the school curriculum The research method is "conceptual analysis" which aims to provide a clear explanation of the meaning of a concept by carefully explaining its relationship to other concepts. STEM's trans-disciplinary Approach is a strategic learning curriculum that removes traditional barriers between the four disciplines and integrates them with real-time, real-world scrutiny. According to the findings of the present study, it can be argued that the outlook and program of the STEM trans-disciplinary approach show how the STEM framework is set, how it will improve performance and training, and how teachers are expected to work together. To plan their curriculum, how teachers are supported to learn so they can cover their curricula with communication, community, and industry. The results of this study showed that a comprehensive approach to STEM education can, with the support and coverage of the elements involved, govern continuous and effective teaching of STEM in schools, but achieving it requires careful planning and assistance from educators. In this regard, the promotion of collective micro-culture in the preparation of educational programs for teachers and attention to the mentality of teachers and external variables in teaching should be given special attention.
Keywords
Education STEM
Integration
Skills
trans-disciplinary approach
Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169.

Asunda, Paul A. (2014) "A Conceptual Framework for STEM Integration into Curriculum Through Career and Technical Education, “Journal of STEM Teacher Education: Vol. 49: Iss. 1, Article 4.
Australian Government. (2015b). National innovation and science agenda: elcome to the ideas boom. Retrieved from Canberra.

Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York, NY: Springer.
Becker, K. H., & Park, K. (2011). Integrative approaches among Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 12(5-6), 23-37. (EJ943196)
Bikbulatovaa, V; Orlovaa, I; Rabadanovaa, R; Shishova, S and Yulina, G. (2016). On Anticipatory Development of Dual Education Based on the SySTEMic Approach international journal of environmental and science education. 11(15): 8599-8605.
Bybee, R. W. (2013). Case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA, USA: National Science Teachers Association.

Bybee, R. W. (2015). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Creating teachable moments. Arlington, Virginia: NSTA press

Coates, H., Kelly, P. and Naylor, R. (2016). New Perspectives on the StudentExperience.Viewedhttp://melbournecshe.unimelb.

Congressional Research Services. (2011). Selected STEM Education Legislative Activity in the 112thCongress. Retrieved on Dec.
D’Avanzo, C. (2013). Post-vision and change: do we know how to change? CBE Life. SciencesEducation,12(3): 373-382.
Dancy, M, and Henderson, C (2010). Pedagogical practices and instructional changen of physics faculty. American Journal of Physics, 78(10): 1056.
Dewey, J. (1902/1966). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Doll, W. E. (2008). Complexity and the culture of curriculum. In M. Mason (Ed.), Complexity theory and the philosophy of education (pp. 181-203). New York: Wiley & Blackwell.

Eddy, SL. and Hogan, KA (2014). Getting under the hood: how and for whom does increasing course structure work? Cell Biology Education, 13(3): 453-468.
Education Council. (2015). National STEM school education strategy: A comprehensive plan for science, technology, engineering and mathematics education in Australia. Canberra, Australia: Education Council.
Fairweather, J. (2010). Linking evidence and promising practices in STEM undergraduate education. Research in Higher Education 26: 227-298.
Freeman, S, Eddy, SL, McDonough, M, Smith, MK, Okoroafor, N, Jordt, H, Wenderoth, MP. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23), 8410–5.
Greener, S. L. and Wakefield, C. (2015). Developing confidence in the use of digital tools in teaching. Electronic Journal of e-Learning.Vol. 13. No.4, pp.206-267
Handelsman,J,Ebertmay,D,Beichner,R,Bruns,P,Chang,A,Dehaan,R,Wood,WB.(2004). Scientific teaching. Science.304, 521–522
Havice, W. (2009). The power and promise of a STEM education: Thriving in a complex technological world. In International Technology Education Association. (Ed.), The overlooked STEM imperatives: Technology and engineering (pp. 10–18). Reston, VA: Author.
Hurley, M. M. (2001). Reviewing integrated science and mathematics: The search for evidence and definitions from new perspectives. School Science and Mathematics,10(5), 259–268. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594. 2001.tb18028.x
Jorgensen, R & Larkin, K. (2018). STEM Education in the Junior Secondary. pringer .

Judson, E., & Sawada, D. (2000). Examining the effects of a reformed junior high school science class on students’ math achievement. School Science and Mathematics,100(8),419–425.

Pang, J. S., & Good, R. (2000). A review of the integration of science and mathematics: Implications for further research. School Science and Mathematics, 100(2),73–82.
Karaman, Mehmet and Kuzu, Abdullah. (2016). E-MENTORING FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS: A CASE STUDY. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE July 2016 ISSN 1302-6488 Volume: 17 Number: 3Article 6. Pp 76-89
Khine, M. S., Areepattamannil, S. (Eds.). (2019). STEAM education: Theory and practice. Cham, Switzerland: Springer

Kober, N. (2015). Reaching Students: What Research Says About EffectiveInstruction inUndergraduate Science and Engineering.National Academies Press
Laboy-Rush, D. (2011). Integrated STEM education through project-based learning. Portland, OR: Learning.com.
Lederman, G. N., & Niess, L. M. (1998). 5 apples+4 oranges=? School Science and Mathematics, 98(6),281–284.
Merchant, S., & Khanbilvardi, R. (2011). A national framework to integrate remote sensing sciences in STEM education and training. Proceedings of the 1st Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC), Ewing, NJ, 6B-1–6B-4.
Morin, O., Simoneaux, L., & Tytler, R. (2015). Engaging with socially acute questions: Development and validation of an interactional reasoning framework. Paper presented to the meeting of European Science Education Research Assoication, September 31 August to 4 September 2015, Helsinki
National Research Council (NRC). (2011). Successful K-12 education: Identifying effective approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Office of the Chief Scientist. (2014). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Australia’s future. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government.
Office of the Chief Scientist. (2016). Australia’s STEM workforce: Science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government.
Pelch, Michael A and McConnell, David A. (2016). Challenging instructors to change: a mixed methods investigation on the effects of material development on the pedagogical beliefs of geoscience instructors. International Journal of STEM Education. Vol3. N05.Pp1-18.

Penuel, WR, Fishman, BJ, Yamaguchi, R, and Gallagher, LP (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal.44(4), 921–958.
Ragupathi, K.&Hubball, H. (2015). Scholarly approaches to learningtechnology integration in a research-intensiveuniversity context: Impact of a new faculty initiative. TransformativeDialogues: Teaching and Learning Journal, Vol.8, No.1.pp1-16.
Richter, D, Kunter, M, Klusmann, U, Lüdtke, O, and Baumert, J. (2011). Professional development across the teaching career: teachers’ uptake of formal and informal learning opportunities. Teaching and Teacher Education,27, 116-126.

Rodríguez, D. (2017). The Drive to Influence. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 5(1), 59-84. Doi: 10.17583/ijelm.2017.2231
Scheurich, J. J., & Huggins, K. (2009). Preface. In R. M. Capraro & S. W. Slough (Eds.), Project based learning: An integrated science technology engineering and mathematics approach (pp. vii–x). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense.
Siekmann, G. and Korbel, P. (2016). Defining ‘STEM’ skills: review and synthesis of the literature — support document 2, NCVER, Adelaide. ©Commonwealth of Australia.

Singer, S. and Smith, KA (2013). Discipline-based education research: understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4): 468-471.

Sithole, Alec, Chiyak, Edward T; McCarthy, Peter; Mupinga, Davison M; Bucklein, Brian and Kibirige, Joachim. (2017). Student Attraction, Persistence and Retention in STEM Programs: Successes and Continuing Challenges.HigherEducation Studies; Vol. 7, No.1
Travis, T and Stains, M. (2015). The importance of context: an exploration of factors influencing the adoption of student-centered teaching among chemistry, biology, and physics faculty. Lund and Stains International Journal of STEM Education 2:13. Pp1-21.
Vasquez, J. (2015). Beyond the acronym. Educational Leadership, 11–15
Venville, G., Wallace, J., Rennie, L., & Malone, J. (2000). Bridging the boundaries of compartmentalized knowledge: Student learning in an integrated environment. Research in Science & Technological Education, 18(1), 23–25.
Wang, H.-H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM Integration: Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education, 1:2, 1–13.
Wieman, C, Perkins, K, and Gilbert, S. (2010). Transforming science education at large researchuniversities: a case study in progress. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning.42(2),6–14.
Zanj K. (2013). Developing Effective STEM Professional Development Programs.Journal of Technology Education. 25 No. 1. Pp55-69