Investigating the Epistemic Nature of STEM: Analysis of Science Curriculum Documents from the USA Using the Family Resemblance Approach

Abstract

STEM disciplines might strive to achieve objectivity in their respective fields, but not all STEM disciplines share the same characterisations of what counts as a theory. What an engineer mean by a theory may not necessarily correspond to what a biologist might mean by the same term.In this chapter, we use the framework of the Family Resemblance Approach (Erduran & Dagher, 2014a; Irzik & Nola, 2011) as a basis for highlighting the epistemic similarities and differences between the constituent STEM disciplines as represented in key science curriculum documents. FRA presents the possibility to consider STEM as a cognitive, epistemic and social-institutional system whereby each constituent discipline is contrasted relative to aims, values, practices, norms, knowledge, methods and social context. Drawing on Wittgenstein's linguistic philosophy, FRA allows for comparing and contrasting constituent disciplines of STEM as members of a "family" that share particular features but also highlights domain specificity where particular knowledge and practices are specific to the respective discipline. We focus on the epistemic components of each disciplinary system, highlighting the theoretical framework on the aims and values, practices, methods and knowledge with respect to science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The aim is to help curriculum-makers and teachers to recognise epistemic underpinnings of STEM disciplines and their importance in integrating STEM in both curriculum and pedagogy.After laying out the background and main ideas of FRA, we present an analysis of two curriculum policy documents, Science for All Americans (SfAA) (AAAS, 1989) and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) (NGSS Lead States, 2013), to examine their respective coverage of epistemic aspects of STEM. As a vision document, SfAA identifies what is important for the next generation to be scientifically literate and highlights the connections among the natural and social sciences, mathematics and technology. On the contrary, NGSS is a standards document and comprises performance expectations which incorporate all three dimensions from the science and engineering practices, core disciplinary ideas and crosscutting concepts. We selected these two documents to illustrate from the standpoint of science education how the epistemic aspects of STEM in different formats of curriculum documents could be analysed and to draw implications for curriculum policy with regard to integrated STEM education. Although we focus on the science curriculum documents in this chapter, similar analyses can be made to the curriculum documents in the other disciplines to draw implications for improving the representation of epistemic aspects of STEM in the respective subjects. The analysis was guided by our research question: What epistemic natures of STEM disciplines are addressed in the two key science curriculum reform documents? W. Park et al.

Research Trends in Science and Mathematics Education in South Korea 2014–2018: A Cross-Disciplinary Analysis of Publications in Selected Local Journals

“…A comparative study of SER and MER would provide initial information on the similarities and differences in the researchers' interests and approaches, which will enrich our understanding of each discipline's research trends in recent years. Moreover, considering that there has been a growing interest in the interdisciplinary collaboration between SER and MER in line with integrated STEM and Science Technology Engineering Arts and Mathematics (STEAM) initiatives (English, 2016;Park, Wu & Erduran, 2020), a comparative meta-analysis of research will also be useful in navigating the future direction in cross-subject integrations and collaborations.…”