Abstract
Explaining is a vital spontaneous process for human beings, as through explanations we make sense of the surrounding phenomena. While the role and structure of explanations have been explored in each science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) area, little is still known regarding what counts as a good explanation for a STEM problem. This study seeks to address this void by examining the nature of 82 explanations of a STEM challenge produced by 9th grade students (years 14–16) who participated in a learning sequence designed with an integrated STEM education perspective (I-STEM). We aim to find out which types of explanations are produced by 9th grade students when engaged in an I-STEM learning sequence, as a strategy to establish/identify the core features of a good I-STEM explanation. As a subsidiary aim, we intend to propose an analytical framework that enables the characterization and understanding of the students’ explanations to an integrated STEM problem, based on the combination of a theoretical view on I-STEM explanations and the qualitative analysis of explanations produced by students. Results show that a majority of the students produced STEM explanations, either descriptive or relational, that failed to demonstrate knowledge or procedures from the four STEM areas. About a quarter of the solutions entailed I-STEM explanations, thus recognizing the role of knowledge or procedures of each area, concurring to obtain the solution, from the creation of the artefact to the understanding of the underlying law. We further propose a conceptualization of a good I-STEM explanation as involving the mobilization of conceptual knowledge and processes from all STEM areas in an explicit and intentional way to present the solution devised to the STEM challenge.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andrade, V., Freire, S., & Baptista, M. (2019). Constructing scientific explanations: A system of analysis for students’ explanations. Research in Science Education, 49, 787–807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9648-9
Baker, A. (2005). Are there genuine mathematical explanations of physical phenomena? Mind, 114(454), 223–238.
Baker, A. (2012). Science-driven mathematical explanation. Mind, 121(482), 243–267.
Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95(4), 639–669. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20449
Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70, 30–35.
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. NSTA Press.
Carreira, S., & Baioa, A. M. (2018). Mathematical modelling with hands-on experimental tasks: On the student’s sense of credibility. ZDM, 50, 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0905-1
Federer, M. R., Nehm, R. H., Opfer, J. E., & Pearl, D. (2015). Using a constructed-response instrument to explore the effects of item position and item features on the assessment of students’ written scientific explanations. Research in Science Education, 45(4), 527–553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9435-9
Fung, C. H. (2020). How does flipping classroom foster the stem education: A case study of the FPD model. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25, 479–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09443-9
Grotzer, T. A. (2003). Learning to understand the forms of causality implicit in scientifically accepted explanations. Studies in Science Education, 39(1), 1–74.
Habig, B., Gupta, P., Levine, B., & Adams, J. (2020). An informal science education program’s impact on STEM major and STEM career outcomes. Research in Science Education, 50, 1051–1074. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9722-y
Herman, B. C., Owens, D. C., Oertli, R. T., Zangori, L. A., & Newton, M. H. (2019). Exploring the complexity of students’ scientific explanations and associated nature of science views within a place-based socioscientific issue context. Science and Education, 28(3–5), 329–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00034-4
Honey, M. A., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM Integration in K-12 Education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18612.
Ingram, J., Andrews, N., & Pitt, A. (2019). When students offer explanations without the teacher explicitly asking them to. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 101(1), 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-018-9873-9
Jacob, L., Lachner, A., & Scheiter, K. (2022). Do school students’ academic self-concept and prior knowledge constrain the effectiveness of generating technology-mediated explanations? Computers and Education, 182, 104469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104469
Kaplar, M., Lužanin, Z., & Verbić, S. (2021). Evidence of probability misconception in engineering students – why even an inaccurate explanation is better than no explanation. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00279-y
Kitcher, P. (1989). Explanatory unification and the causal structure of the world. In P. Kitchen & W. Salmon (Eds.), Scientific Explanation (pp. 410–505). University of Minnesota Press.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Lombrozo, T. (2006). The structure and function of explanations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(10), 464–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.004
Maass, K., Geiger, V., Ariza, M. R., & Goos, M. (2019). The role of mathematics in interdisciplinary STEM education. ZDM, 51, 869–884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01100-5
Mancosu, P. (2008). Mathematical explanation: Why it matters. In P. Mancosu (Ed.), The philosophy of mathematical practice (pp. 134–150). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199296453.003.0006.
Martín-Páez, T., Aguilera, D., Perales-Palacios, F. J., & Vílchez-González, J. M. (2019). What are we talking about when we talk about STEM education? A review of literature. Science Education, 103(4), 799–822. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21522
McComas, W. F., & Burgin, S. R. (2020). A critique of STEM education: Revolution-in-the-making, passing fad, or instructional imperative? Science and Education, 29(4), 805–829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00138-2
Meyer, M., & Schnell, S. (2020). What counts as a “good” argument in school? – how teachers grade students’ mathematical arguments. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 105(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-09974-z
National Research Council (NRC). (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education. Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. National Academies Press.
Norris, S. P., Gilbert, S. M., Smith, M. L., Hakimelahi, S., & Phillips, L. M. (2005). A theoretical framework for narrative explanation in science. Science Education, 89(4), 535–563. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20063
Ortiz-Revilla, J., Adúriz-Bravo, A., & Greca, I. M. (2020). A framework for epistemological discussion on integrated STEM education. Science and Education, 29(4), 857–880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00131-9
Ortiz-Revilla, J., Greca, I. M., & Arriassecq, I. (2022). A theoretical framework for integrated STEM education. Science and Education, 31(2), 383–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00242-x
Pitt, J. C. (2009). Technological explanation. In A. W. M. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, Volume 9) (pp. 861–879). North Holland.
Quinn, C. M., Reid, J. W., & Gardner, G. E. (2020). S + T + M = E as a convergent model for the nature of STEM. Science and Education, 29(4), 881–898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00130-w
Sanders, M. E. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–27.
Sanders, M. E. (2012). Integrative STEM education as best practice. In H. Middleton (Ed.), Explorations of best practice in technology, design, and engineering education (Vol. 2, pp. 103–117). Griffith Institute for Educational Research.
Schmidt, J. A., Beymer, P. N., Rosenberg, J. M., Naftzger, N. N., & Shumow, L. (2020). Experiences, activities, and personal characteristics as predictors of engagement in STEM-focused summer programs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(8), 1281–1309. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21630
Sgro, C.M., Bobowski, T., & Oliveira, A. W. (2020). Current praxis and conceptualization of STEM education: A call for greater clarity in integrated curriculum development. In V. Akerson & G. Buck (Eds.), Contemporary trends and issues in science education: Critical questions in STEM education (pp. 185–210). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57646-2_11.
Stefani, C., & Tsaparlis, G. (2009). Students’ levels of explanations, nodels, and misconceptions in basic quantum chemistry: A phenomenographic study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(5), 520–536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20279
Steiner, M. (1978). Mathematical explanation. Philosophical Studies, 34, 135–151.
Strevens, M. (2008). Depth: An account of scientific explanation. Harvard University Press.
Tang, K. S. (2020). The use of epistemic tools to facilitate epistemic cognition and metacognition in developing scientific explanation. Cognition and Instruction, 38(4), 474–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2020.1745803
Tang, K.-S., & Williams, P. J. (2019). STEM literacy or literacies? Examining the empirical basis of these constructs. Review of Education, 7(3), 675–697. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3162
Todd, B. L., & Zvoch, K. (2019). The effect of an informal science intervention on middle school girls’ science affinities. International Journal of Science Education, 41(1), 102–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1534022
Van Eck, D. (2015). Mechanistic explanation in engineering science. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 5(3), 349–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-015-0111-3
Wells, J. (2013). Integrative STEM education and Virginia Tech: Graduate preparation for tomorrow’s leaders. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 72(5), 28–36.
Zollman, A. (2012). Learning for STEM literacy: STEM literacy for learning. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00101.x
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by national funds through the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT), I.P., under the project number PTDC/CED-EDG/31480/2017, co-funded by the ERASMUS+ grant program of the EU under grant no. 2O2O I-DEO1.KA2O3.OO5671, and within the Stimulus of Scientific Employment Program (CEECIND/01584/2017).
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
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Baptista, M., Jacinto, H. & Martins, I. What is a good explanation in integrated STEM education?. ZDM Mathematics Education 55, 1255–1268 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01517-z
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01517-z