Learning contexts and visions for STEM in schools

ABSTRACT

STEM education is viewed as being vital for economic prosperity and productivity; and can contribute productively to changing technological, economic, and social demands of the twenty-first Century. However, there is limited consensus on how STEM education is understood and taught, and inadequate discussion around its role in addressing global issues such as climate change, health, poverty, food security, and other STEM-related social concerns. In this paper, we identify the contexts adopted for STEM teaching and learning in 47 Australian schools, drawing data from semi-structured interviews with principals and teachers who participated in the Principals as STEM Leaders (PASL) project. These data were categorised according to four visions for STEM education that align with different levels of social justice and activist approaches to STEM teaching and learning. Findings indicate that STEM education in Australia is predominantly enacted through instrumental ‘products and processes’ approaches dominated by robotics and coding. Learning contexts had minimal ‘real-life’ applications and were devoid of social and ethical dimensions of STEM applications that would better equip students with the knowledge, skills, and agency to make informed, socially just decisions about their own and others’ futures, and that of our shared environment.

KEYWORDS:

• STEM education
• social justice
• activist education

Introduction

Over the past decade, there has been increasing discussion in education policy and research regarding the individual discipline areas of science (S), technology (T), and mathematics (M) with engineering (E) in schools in forming STEM curricular (Murphy et al., 2019). Despite broad agreement about the importance of STEM education by governments, educational policymakers, and curriculum developers, there is limited consensus on how STEM education is understood, and a variety of ways in which its teaching is approached. Dugger (2010) has identified four different approaches: (1) teaching each of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics discipline separately; (2) teaching each discipline with particular emphasis on one or two of the four; (3) integrating one of the disciplines into the other three; and (4) teaching the four disciplines as integrated subject matter. Hobbs et al. (2018) added a fifth approach, whereby each discipline is taught separately, but through a common theme (or learning context). Hobbs et al. (2018) further note that teachers tend to adopt approaches that reflect the culture or priorities of their schools.

Regardless of how it is understood, STEM education is widely embedded in school curricula in the world’s advanced industrial countries (Gough, 2015). This development has been justified as a response to workforce needs for knowledge and skills that can contribute to changing technological, economic, and social demands of the twenty-first Century (The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2018; Marginson et al., 2013; Ng, 2019; Tytler & Self, 2020; Maas, Geiger, et al., 2019). STEM is promoted as vital for national economic prosperity and productivity (House of Commons, 2018; Marginson et al., 2013; United States National Science and Technology Council [NSTC], 2018; Office of the Chief Scientist, 2016; Tytler & Self, 2020). Of less prominence in discussions around STEM education is its role in addressing global issues such as climate change, health, poverty, food security, and a range of concerns linked to the use of bio- and nanotechnologies (Bencze et al., 2020; Hodson, 2010; Ng, 2019; Simonneaux, 2014a).

Concerns have been raised internationally that STEM education policy is primarily focused on enhancing national competitiveness within an increasingly technological world driven by a free-market global economy (Murphy et al., 2019) within a neoliberal ideology (Bencze & Carter, 2019; Chesky & Wolfmeyer, 2015; Sjöström & Eilks, 2018). Aligned with this concern, Ng (2019) notes a preoccupation with STEM competencies that support applications of science and technology required to progress the industrial and technological revolutions of the past two centuries. These applications relate specifically to the discovery of oil and subsequent rise of industrial machinery; electricity and mass production; and computers and telecommunication. Ng highlights how each of these advances has increased the importance of STEM in the economy, and subsequently, in education. While the importance of STEM education in realising these outcomes is widely acknowledged, there are also concerns that current programs fail to recognise the impact of less desirable outcomes of scientific progress, such as pollution of the air, land, and waterways, and other human-caused environmental crises such as climate change, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and loss of biodiversity (Ripple et al., 2020). These issues, and others with ethical dimensions, such as how power over science and technology advancement is exercised, need to be addressed within STEM education to promote a socially just future for societies, individuals, and the environment (Bencze, 2017).

Arising from these concerns, in this paper, we explore to what extent approaches to STEM education in Australian schools reflect recent calls from researchers in science and technology education (e.g. Bencze, 2017; Hodson, 2003, 2010; Levinson, 2018; Simonneaux, 2014b), and critical mathematics education (e.g. Maass, Doorman, et al., 2019; Maass, Geiger, et al., 2019) to incorporate socially oriented themes, including activist approaches, to teaching and learning in STEM. These calls recognise the place of education in addressing the plethora of issues facing the modern world, and the moral and ethical dimensions of technological advances. As such, we seek to explore answers to the research questions:

1. What learning contexts are evident in STEM education in Australian schools?

2. To what extent do these learning contexts reflect a socially oriented and activist approach to teaching and learning?

This study is important for broadening thinking about the future of STEM education policy and curriculum internationally, in relation to moral and ethical applications of STEM in society. The following sections of the paper examine existing literature, particularly from science education, calling for a social-ethical informed approach to education, activism, and activist education, and three ‘Visions’ for socio-scientific education. We adapt these visions to have a STEM focus and present a new, fourth Vision for the future of STEM education. We outline the research methodology from which data informing this paper were drawn, and present findings depicting the ways in which principals and teachers across Australia are currently engaging in STEM education in schools.

Three visions of science education

Considerations around the purpose of STEM education (i.e. for economic prosperity vs ethical, value-based outcomes) have been debated for many years in science (e.g. Hodson, 2003, 2010) and mathematics education (e.g. Ernest, 2001). These debates have identified a need for an education that addresses the moral and ethical challenges essential for empowering young people to be informed and responsible citizens. In representing this discussion, we focus, for brevity, on science education. Science education has been viewed as teaching ‘a discipline concerned exclusively with reliability that can be attributed to factual (is) statements’ (Hall, 1999, p. 15) in a manner detached from subjectivities like values and politics, while others have insisted that it is the study of knowledge and skills that are inextricably tied to social values and wellbeing (Bencze et al., 2020; Hodson, 2010). These perspectives are represented by two visions for science education. Vision I encompasses a ‘general familiarity and fluency within the discipline, based on mastering a sample of the language, products, processes, and traditions of science itself’ (Roberts, 2007, p. 546), whereas Vision II provides the ‘relevant contexts in society and matters of students’ everyday life’ (Haglund & Hulten, 2017, p. 325). Critics of Vision I have argued that it tends to reify the status quo of curricula documentation, which has its own hidden agenda concerned primarily with social reproduction (Bencze & Carter, 2019; Ruitenberg, 2009). The priority for advocates of Vision II is the development of citizens equipped to make informed decisions about science and technology-related phenomena, particularly concerning their own and others’ health and the environment.

Advocating for Vision II, Hodson (2010) argues for socio-scientific issues to be addressed through ‘citizenship science’ – a form of scientific literacy that supports informed decision making on a raft of science-related matters in life, such as understanding policy agendas of different governments to do with health, energy, use of natural resources and the environment, and other ethically bound matters associated with the applications of technology. Roberts and Bybee (2014) also argue the importance of developing students’ capacity to make defensible decisions, based on values as well as evidence, especially when those decisions impact others. Such a view of science education has gained traction in research, and to a lesser extent, in school curricula in the form of, for example, Science, Technology, Society and Environment (STSE), Socio-Scientific Issues (SSI), Science-Technology-Society (STS), or more broadly, Science-in-Context (SinCs) (Bencze et al., 2020). Sjöström and Eilks (2018) articulated an additional vision within a framework of socio-political action with aspirations of emancipation and socio-ecojustice. They argue that learning in Vision III expands on Vision II by requiring a more action-oriented education: doing something about the issues, not just learning about them. Thus, Vision III orientation to education leads to considerations of activism and activist education.

Activist education and activism – a theoretical perspective for STEM education

We draw on the perspective of activism and activist education to provide insight into the goals of STEM programs in the schools explored in this study. From an activist perspective, education must do more than prepare young people for the world of work. Education must also support the skills young people require to become active, responsible, and engaged citizens (OECD, 2018, p. 4). Activism can be thought of as giving voice to, or enabling action about, an individual’s ethical, political, economic, and/or institutional concerns. The role of activism in society includes maintaining public debate about political issues (Clark, 2018) and providing a focus on social justice (Kirshner, 2007).

Activism can be an individual, non-confrontational act embodied in everyday actions, or ‘soft’ activism (Simonneaux, 2014b). Most people, while not considering themselves to be activists, engage in some form of soft activism throughout their lives arising from an ideological position (Neumayer & Svensson, 2016). Examples include buying organic foods, shopping locally, and engaging in recycling (Simonneaux, 2014b). More overt forms of activism, or ‘hot’ activism (Simonneaux, 2014b), occur through direct politicised action such as signing petitions, attending rallies, or speaking up against injustices through social media or other public forums. These forms of activism are more likely to occur through organised groups and are change-focused; they confront others’ behaviours and attitudes, and as such, often create controversy. Simonneaux (2014b) notes that in education, activist issues are characterised not just by the extent of controversy surrounding them, but also by the level to which teachers intentionally promote or constrain the discourse that supports a position of activism. She refers to these extremes as cold or hot approaches to teaching about socio-scientific issues relevant to today’s world.

A fourth vision for STEM education

Inspired by Simonneaux’s (2014b) hot approaches to teaching about socio-scientific issues, we argue that a socio-political oriented form of learning that is contextualised through an activist perspective is appropriate for contemporary approaches to STEM education. Consistent with Taines (2012), we see this positioning of STEM education as a vehicle for promoting the critical participation of young people in social and political aspects of STEM-related issues. In light of this goal, we reframe the three visions of science education discussed above for STEM education. We also suggest a fourth vision (Vision IV) that expands on Sjöström and Eilks (2018) emancipatory socio-political intent, where learning is embedded in activist practice, but with the distinguishing feature of engaging students in calling others to action alongside any personal action they might take. This places Vision IV at the boiling point of Simonneaux’s (2014a; 2014b) hot approach. It is unique in taking an overt political stance and adds a provocative element to learning, whereby students call on others to examine their values and consider how their decisions and actions impact others. The typology is characterised by increasing levels of socio-political focus and engagement. It is important to note that each Vision for STEM education is nested in the next; that is, to engage in Vision II STEM education, both Vision I and II types of learning are needed (i.e. the content knowledge and skills as well as the contexts that drive the learning). The four visions for STEM education are defined and described in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Visions for contextualising STEM education.

Research design and methods

Data analysed in this article are drawn from the Principals as STEM Leaders – Building the Evidence Base for Improved STEM Learning (PASL) project, funded by the Australian Department of Education, Skills, and Employment (DESE). The purpose of the PASL project was to enhance principals’ leadership of STEM education through engagement with professional learning (PL) modules designed and delivered by university educators with relevant expertise. Two PL sessions took place over a period of two school terms (six months) and data collection occurred at four timepoints: prior to the first PL session, between the first and second PL sessions, after the second PL session, and six-months after the second PL session (see Figure 2). Data collection instruments consisted of surveys and semi-structured interviews. For this article, we draw on the semi-structured interviews alone as these provided participants opportunity to discuss the learning contexts employed for STEM in their schools.

Figure 2. Timeline of PASL PL delivery and data collection.

Participants

Participants in PASL were recruited through an expression-of-interest process. Invitations were distributed by system officers to leaders of government and non-government Australian schools, to which 137 primary and secondary principals responded. By the end of the project in December 2020, a total of 88 principals and 119 teachers had participated in the program, yielding 449 semi-structured interviews (192 principal, 257 teachers). Participating schools/students were characterised by diverse demographics associated with location, socio-economic status, and ethnic/cultural backgrounds.

Data collection and sampling

During semi-structured interviews, participants responded to questions relating to content knowledge; pedagogy; assessment; curriculum; equity; school environment; reporting; systemic support; and school leadership in STEM (see Appendix). Interviews were typically 30 min in duration and were conducted in the mode most convenient for interviewees (in person, via telephone, or through online software platforms). Purposive sampling of interview transcripts was utilised, whereby members of the research team selected interviews from their state/territory in which STEM learning contexts were discussed. Purposive sampling was considered appropriate in this instance, as it was important data were of sufficient quality to support accurate reporting of STEM programs and practices. This led to the identification of interview data from 47 of the participant schools across the corpus of data. From these schools, 112 excerpts with references to STEM learning contexts were extracted.

Data analysis

Data were analysed thematically by three project researchers in successive iterations. Analysis was initiated through the development of initial definitions of each Vision (Figure 1), generated from a synthesis of research literature (e.g. Bencze et al., 2020; Hodson, 2010; Roberts, 2007; Simonneaux, 2014a; Sjöström & Eilks, 2018). Two researchers then independently used these definitions to categorise the STEM learning contexts described by participants. Minor differences in categorisations were discussed, supporting refinement and consensus on draft definitions. These were then independently applied to the data by a third researcher, leading to further discussion and refinement resulting in final, agreed-to definitions that were used to recode the full data set.

To illustrate the process of coding, we present the following examples. If the topic of water was studied, for example, where students learnt about the water cycle and other information about water, that is, learning about the topic and its applications but without any associated action, it would be coded as aligned with Vision 1. However, a more contextualised and action-oriented approach that highlights the issue of fresh water would lead to a Vision II coding. The following excerpt, for instance, was coded as Vision II because (1) students are learning about a topic (water, gardening, mathematics) that is an issue in society (scarcity of fresh water), and (2) could result in students taking action (installing rainwater tanks in appropriate locations in the school).

… from a Year 2 perspective, they know that, well look, water is its used at school. We can see from our water bills that there has been an increase with this because they’re analysing data as well. They’re looking at how they can make our environment here more sustainable, how they can be supporting the younger children with their focus as well. And then so I guess using water more effectively is how they’re defining this problem. Then their discovery, they looked at maps of the school looking at where are all these access points of water. … if we were to fill up containers with water from this rainwater tank, if we’ve got people carrying that it spills everywhere. So, by the time we get there, that’s more wasted water. So, the children are also thinking about that mathematics, the distance between things also the measurement of things, how big the containers should be? How will we measure it? How will we manage it? … So, then the children go into a dreaming process. Now their dream is to purchase some, a rainwater tank.

In line with Vision II, this excerpt shows a relatively non-controversial issue that is society wide. In line with Vision II, however, the focus of this example is directed at student action in response to the situation. That is, students are motivated to consider what they could do in the school to improve the water situation and plan to address it by lobbying for a rainwater tank.

If this example is compared with one coded as Vision III, a more outward focus becomes evident:

We then have a solar build where we work with Solar Buddy and we’re going to have a whole school build. … and we’ve linked with Origin Energy, their foundation, and they’re going to help us build these solar lights and then they get taken to children in rural Papua New Guinea and those lights are then given to individual children who don’t have any electricity in their homes.

Aligned with Vision III, the student action in this example incorporates the more controversial issue of inequitable living conditions in the world, raising students’ awareness of the living conditions of people – children with whom they can identify – in this case without electricity in their homes. Students are not just learning about solar energy, electricity (curriculum content), and people in need, but there is intent to engage in action aimed at alleviating the problem by building solar lights and sending them to the communities concerned. If an example like this were to be extended into Vision IV learning, there would be student-initiated action in which they call on other school and broader community members, to both raise awareness and to engage them in addressing the issue.

After each iteration of coding, Cohen’s (1960) Kappa inter-rater reliability score, a robust and widely accepted measure of inter-rater reliability (McHugh, 2012) was calculated (Table 1). After the third iteration of coding and discussion, 99% agreement between coders was reached, with the Kappa rating indicating almost perfect agreement (Landis & Koch, 1977).

Table 1. Cohen’s (1960) Kappa inter-rater reliability score for coding Vision Types.

Iteration	Coders	Kappa	Strength of Agreement*
1	1 and 2	0.90	Almost perfect
2	1 and 2	1.0	Perfect
3	1/2 combined and 3	0.74	Substantial
4	1/2 and 3	0.97	Almost perfect

*Strength of agreement according to Landis and Koch (1977)

Schools and participants have been assigned a code to protect confidentiality, with each school being given a unique number identifier, followed by a code for Principal or Teacher, and then a number to distinguish between individual teachers within a particular school (e.g. S1_P denotes School 1 Principal; S1_T1 denotes School 1 Teacher 1).

Findings

Findings are reported according to the four Vision-types, and the learning contexts identified within each Vision. Table 2a shows that 84.5% of the excerpts contained examples of Vision I, and 9.1% and 6.4% of Visions II and III, respectively. There were no instances of Vision IV.

Table 2. Summary of Vision Types by (a) Number of excerpts; and (b) Number of schools.

(a)			(b)
Vision	Number of excerpts		Vision	Number of Schools
I	95 (85%)		I only	34 (72.4%)
II	10 (9%)		II only	1 (2.1%)
III	7 (6%)		III only	3 (6.4%)
IV	0 (0%)		I & II	5 (10.6%)
	112 (100%)		I & III	3 (6.4%)
			II & III	0 (0%)
			I, II & III	1 (2.1%)
				47 (100%)

Table 2b presents the data by number of schools rather than number of excerpts, so that instances in which the same example was discussed by multiple participants from one school, were counted only once. Table 2b shows the number of excerpts coded under each Vision as well as incidences where more than one Vision type was identified.

The following sections explore the learning contexts identified under each Vision and provide examples from the data that illustrate each categorisation. Please note that total number of schools reported under each Vision may exceed the number of schools in the data set because some participants mentioned more than one example in relation to their school’s STEM program.

STEM education – vision I

Learning contexts identified and coded as Vision I examples constituted 85% of the data, making Vision I the predominant approach to STEM education. Four overarching themes were identified within Vision I examples, which in order of prevalence were: (1) Decontextualised – where teaching and learning appeared to be directly related to curriculum delivery devoid of any contextualisation or links to practical applications; (2) Curriculum driven contextualisation – where the contexts for teaching and learning directly aligned with topics from the Australian Curriculum; (3) Community/industry partnership contexts – where partnerships with community bodies or industry partners determined the contexts for learning; and (4) School-based contexts – where teaching and learning was contextualised to some form of application in the school grounds, such as the school playground. Themes are summarised in Table 3 and described further below.

Table 3. Vision I STEM education themes.

Vision I Learning Contexts	Number and (%) of Schools with Vision I examples
No context specified	44 (46.3%)
Coding/Programming/Robotics	24 (54.5%)
Skills focused	13 (29.5%)
ICT use	3 (6.8%)
Other	4 (9.1%)
Curriculum driven contexts	36 (38.9%)
Forces (Simple Machines/Friction/Bridges)	7 (19.4%)
Embedded use of ICT	6 (16.7%)
Energy (wind/heat/potential)	5 (13.9%)
Environment (Natural Disasters/Water/Climate Change)	5 (13.9%)
Measurement applications in mathematics	4 (11.1%)
Music/Sound	2 (5.6%)
Other	7 (19.4%)
Community/industry partnership contexts	8 (8.4%)
Industry links/partners	5 (62.5%)
Farming	3 (37.5%)
School-based contexts	7 (7.4%)
School/Community Garden	4 (57.1%)
School playground (playground/garden design)	3 (42.9%)
Total	95 (100%)

No context specified

Just under half (46.3%) of Vision I examples were devoid of any reference to a context for teaching and learning. Within these examples, over half (54.5%) referred to examples of coding and robotics and 29.5% referred to skills-based approaches. Participants referred to robotics/coding through examples of using Bee-Bots, Lego Robots and EV3, Audrinos, Makey Makey, and Spheros, where STEM activities were based on the programming of robotic devices. For example, one teacher commented:

… we have Ozobots and we have one for each student, so they’re now doing the coding and doing the progamming [to] race with their little bots … we had different parameters around their racetracks … this many of the different code types where it spun around, or it went backwards … (S7_P)

Some participants reported using multiple digital technologies. For example, one principal, stated that they had ‘Spheros, Ozobots, Lego robots, and a fully-functional radio room’ (S29_P). This principal also indicated that these resources were ‘not well used’. Other participants also observed that robotic resources were often under-utilised. One principal indicated that this was because staff lacked confidence in digital technologies and were consequently reluctant to use them. Outside providers were sometimes employed to conduct robotics workshops with students. This strategy was not seen as being cost-effective nor sustainable in the long term, as one principal explained:

… the school is funding a young engineers programme. So, a team are coming and they’re going to run each week a session of engineering lessons, STEM lessons with robotics … that’s all well and good, but that is not how I envisaged STEM happening here. I cannot fund $10,000 a term for 100 students to be taught and engage with technology. (S6_P)

There were 13 references made to STEM being taught through a skills/process-focused approach. In these examples, participants discussed their understanding of STEM as being skills or process-focused, rather than content driven. For example: ‘giving the children time to think and investigate, explore what they wanted’ (S20_T2); and being ‘enquiry based’ (S2_P; S28_T6).

Less prominent under this theme were three examples of STEM referencing iPads, computers, and digital devices for the presentation of student work. For example, using ‘Google slides or Google site to present their information’ (S25_T10) or that students ‘choose to do a poster, a PowerPoint, a stop-motion video, a green screen movie, whatever they want’ (S27_T18).

Curriculum driven contexts

Content-focussed STEM learning contexts that appeared to be driven solely by topics from Australian Curriculum documentation, formed 38.9% of the Vision I examples. These included sub-themes such as Forces, Energy, and Environment from the Science curriculum, and Measurement examples from Mathematics. For example, participants described teaching ‘why a fulcrum works … to create a catapult’ (S39_P), or testing ‘materials that allow for traction for the wheels [of a toy car]’ (S24_T4) to explore friction. One mentioned ‘using drones to measure height’ (S25_P) and ‘the use of technology in the form of robotics for teaching angles’ (S29_P), demonstrating how measurement topics in mathematics were approached using digital technologies. Other curriculum driven contexts included creating ‘workable musical instruments’ (S38_P) to explore the topic of sound, and environmental science topics like natural disasters, such as ‘volcanoes’ (S43_P), ‘earthquakes, cyclones, and floods’ (S40_P), and ‘the water cycle’ (S20_P). Energy topics also featured including ‘wind turbines’ (S12_P), potential energy in ‘rubber band motors’ (S22_P), and heat energy transfer through insulators and conductors of heat: ‘Last year at our STEM was the keep[ing] Mr [name’s] lunch cold’ (S20_P). There were also examples of embedded use of ICT in a range of learning areas including ‘spelling activities and drill and practice on iPads’ (S23_P) in English; ‘creat[ing] a Venn diagram on their iPad’ (S25_T10) in Mathematics; ‘augmented reality games … linked to Federation’ (S40_P) in History; ‘use of iPads for drawing’ (S10_P) in Art; and ‘digital microscopes [hooked] to iPads … [to obtain] microscopic camera pictures’ (S23_P) in Science.

Overall, this theme was characterised by explicit links to curriculum documentation as the driver of learning contexts.

Community/Industry partnership contexts

Some schools formed links with their broader community and used these as a basis for generating STEM learning contexts. Eight (8.4%) of these examples reflected community/partnership driven contexts, with five involving schools making direct links to meet their partner’s needs. For example, ‘making animal shelters for the zoo’ (S20_P) or working with an engineering company to design and construct ‘a model of the causeway and reasons why they would build a certain type of bridge’ (S26_P), which was a project the engineering company was working on in the local area. Two principals discussed linking their schools’ STEM curriculum to agricultural science because of their rural location – ‘tapping into … resources and situations that we use on the farm’ (S23_T2). Farming was viewed as a context that students would be familiar with:

… agriculture is what runs our community and so, looking at the dairy industry or beef industry or agriculture industry or whatever might be, you know – looking at real issues and looking at STEM through that sort of … real world and life contexts. (S26_P)

All community-based learning contexts were aimed at enabling the integration of different STEM disciplines and they all related to ‘real world examples’ in industry, work, and life. Most incorporated skills and processes associated with the Design Technology curriculum: investigating, planning/designing, constructing, and evaluating, and thus enabled both a skills and content-based approach to STEM education. None, however, reflected a socio-scientific approach.

School-based contexts

Seven (7.4%) of Vision I examples related to a school-based project which usually incorporated a Design Technology element. Learning contexts included some form of playground or garden design, such as a ‘designing a happy place’ (S4_P) for the playground or creating a ‘STEM garden’ (S14_T2). Garden projects involved the integration of curriculum content knowledge, such as: the science of soils and plant growth; the mathematics of measurement; financial costs for materials; and ICT skills utilised by students to present their work to various audiences (e.g. school assembly). Teachers noted the ‘real life problems’ (S15_T1), and ‘real world … authentic’ (S4_P) learning that school-based STEM projects enabled.

The nature of learning contexts in vision I

Many principals and teachers understood the importance of contextualising STEM learning opportunities, but these contexts were focused almost entirely on ‘safe’ topics such as local industry or students’ career aspirations. One principal commented on the avoidance of contexts where potential controversies might arise, stating ‘we haven’t gone with climate change. We’re staying away from that because that’s too hard a topic at the moment, and I don’t know if my community would be able to deal with that’ (S4_P).

Half of the participating schools delivered STEM with at least some level of integration of its individual disciplines, with several participants speaking of their desire to increase integration in the future through initiatives that would include links to industry. Four schools had already established external industry partnerships. One principal, frustrated by efforts to engage staff in an integrated and thematic approach, commented on the ‘fixed mindset’ of curriculum leaders in the school who were ‘content driven’ (S1_P). The notion of integration is important for advancing Vision II, III, and IV for STEM education, due to the inter-disciplinary nature of most socio-scientific issues (Levinson, 2018). This becomes further evident in data categorised under Vision II and III learning contexts, which are reported in the following sections.

STEM education – vision II

Eleven responses reflected approaches to STEM education aligned with Vision II, that is, where curriculum is delivered through real-world, socio-scientific, or critical mathematical issues, but in a non-controversial manner that does not engage students in change-oriented action. These examples are categorised under two overarching learning contexts – Sustainability and Social Justice (Table 4).

Table 4. Vision II STEM education learning contexts.

Vision II learning contexts	Number and (%) of Schools with Vision II examples
Sustainability	10 (91%)
School/Community garden	3 (30%)
Water	3 (30%)
Renewable energy	2 (20%)
Housing design	1 (10%)
Unspecified sustainability	1 (10%)
Social Justice	1 (9%)
Total	11 (100%)

Sustainability

Ten of the 11 Vision II learning contexts identified related to sustainability. Among these, a school or community garden and renewable energy were the topics most frequently raised. One-off challenges such as a ‘solar car challenge in 2017’ (S2_P) or each year level focussing on a particular theme related to sustainability, for example, ‘the Year 2’s focus has been water; … Year 1’s plant life’ (S19_T1) were also mentioned.

One participant described an activity that involved designing and creating a vegetable garden and selling the produce during a market day, reflecting an integrated approach to STEM. This example covered aspects of Technology Design, Mathematics (measurement and financial mathematics) and Science (biology of living things and soils). Some approaches incorporated other curriculum areas. For example, one of the water-focussed learning contexts integrated mathematics (measurement, statistics, financial maths), and science (water cycle) to develop a plan for purchasing a rainwater tank for the school to save on water bills. As the teacher explained:

We can see from our water bills that there has been an increase with this because they’re [children] analysing data as well. They’re looking at how they can make our environment here more sustainable … So, if we were to fill up containers with water from this [proposed] rainwater tank, if we’ve got people carrying that it spills everywhere. So, by the time we get there, that’s more wasted water. So, the children are also thinking about that mathematics, the distance between things, also the measurement of things, how big the containers should be? How will we measure it? How will we manage it? (S19_T1)

Social justice

One participant (S20_P), described a learning context where children designed a portable bed for a homeless person – an activity that arose from a local homelessness issue. The activity was embedded in a Design Technology unit of learning and required students to reflect on their creations. While this learning context had the potential to raise students’ awareness of social issues like homelessness, it did not require a practical solution as the beds were not actually created or tested. This is despite the principal’s hope that ‘one day maybe one of their designs will actually get manufactured and they give it to every homeless person’ (S20_P).

STEM education – vision III

STEM education underpinned by Vision III is inclusive of more controversial socio-scientific or critical mathematical issues and involves some level of personal action for change. This Vision was evident in responses from seven (6.8%) schools. These responses again featured the topic of Sustainability as well as Global Issues (Table 5).

Table 5. Vision III STEM education learning contexts.

Vision III learning contexts	Number of schools reporting Vision III learning contexts
Sustainability	4 (57%)
Landcare (including water)	2 (50%)
Renewable Energy	1 (25%)
Marine	1 (25%)
Global Issues	3 (43%)
Total	7 (100%)

Sustainability

Typical learning contexts in this category related to land care, renewable energy, and marine health. Unlike the sustainability category described in relation to Vision II, Vision III examples included students taking action. For example, a school that had developed a focus on renewable energy:

… linked with Origin Energy, and they’re going to help us build solar lights and then they get taken to children in rural Papua New Guinea. Those lights are then given to individual children who don’t have any electricity in their homes. (S9_T2)

A land care example focussed on the water cycle within a school’s catchment area and the students’ impact on water health. Another example focused on marine health where the impact of climate change on marine environments as a result of ocean warming, was discussed:

a marine study program, with our year fives and sixes … they built a basic remote [controlled] underwater vehicle … it measures temperature … they actually count the fish and identify the species. And then we relay all of that information to the Department of Fisheries. And it’s all about monitoring in life in the harbor. (S40_P)

The principal (S40_P) described the focus on ‘local problems, but also national problems’ that link to United Nation’s (2019) world sustainability goals.

Global issues

Learning contexts in this category included references to global issues that required urgent attention. One principal, for example, described how Year 9 students selected a global issue and created a video that suggested how their school could develop a response. Another example described an external programme where schools entered student-designed projects associated with making a difference to others or the environment. Activities of this type were often embedded in non-STEM learning areas such as History or Art and incorporated digital technologies, such as programming apps or creating video products.

Sitting outside the formal school curriculum, was an example of a student-led STEM club:

A young boy in Year 9 got up in assembly and announced a new club … he couldn’t really articulate what he wanted, but he was talking STEM, and called it ‘Innovate’. He had over 96 kids turn up to that space. … They were talking about project-based learning, about actually being able to put … [a]ll of their subjects that they’re learning, into designing solutions for world problems. (S1_P)

The principal who described this example noted that the school’s STEM programme involved ‘showcasing … Lego robotics or whatever … [things] that our kids were well-past’ (S1_P). This principal observed that ‘the kids are more ready than the teachers to actually take that journey and they’re agitating it more’ and noted that there were now conversations within the school about the value of project-based learning. This example illustrates how students’ concerns can lead schools to instigate action-oriented STEM education programs that do not readily align with the formal mandated curriculum.

Discussion

Data from 47 Australian schools revealed that Vision I approaches dominated STEM learning and teaching. Our analysis indicates that STEM learning contexts were generally discussed in ways separated from, or absent of links to authentic contexts, or related to curriculum topics that were often disassociated from any practical application of relevance to students’ lives. However, there were some instances of Vision I learning contexts embedded in broader school or community settings. For example, schools in farming regions tended to contextualise STEM teaching and learning opportunities in agriculture education. Those in highly urbanised areas tended to have a school garden or playground focus. These contexts are relevant to the lives of children in these localities but took a ‘safe’, acritical approach to contextualisation that minimised or ignored broader societal issues or concerns.

STEM education targeted at local rather than global citizenship may reinforce individualised perspectives rather than advance perspectives of collective social justice. Our findings demonstrate that little has changed in how schools select contexts for learning since an Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA, 2016) report which also indicated that schools select contexts of interest to their own areas and students, rather than broader societies and other people. Whilst this may potentially help students to connect STEM to their own lives and understand what is happening in their local environs, it can also inhibit them from understanding what is occurring further afield, and thus, promote a sense of disengagement from broader societal issues.

The findings of this study reflect a risk-averse tendency towards STEM education in Australian schooling. This manifests in misalignment between Australian school STEM education and its role in helping address critical societal issues such as climate change and access to healthcare, food production, genetics, and eugenics, that are faced by individuals and society at large. Results also indicate that STEM learning linked to real-world concerns appear to be largely ignored, strengthening claims that the prevailing ‘products and processes’ approach to science and technology education has carried over into STEM education (Bencze, 2017; Ng, 2019; Sjöström & Eilks, 2018). It suggests a ‘head in the sand’ approach to STEM-related global concerns and ignores calls for more ethically informed STEM education that is critical for addressing current world issues (e.g. Bencze & Carter, 2019; United Nations, 2019).

Of concern are the examples of principals actively avoiding critical societal issues, such as the principal who did not support teaching or learning related to climate change because it might be ‘too hard’ for the community, and another whose staff refused to work towards an integrated water-themed approach, saying ‘not interested, not going to do it’ (S1_P). The need for ‘safe’ positioning – where teachers can avoid controversial topics associated with socially oriented STEM and the potential criticism they might draw, has been cited as a deterrent for teachers (Jones, 2017; Levinson, 2018). Some teachers also believe that societal issues are too complex for classroom teaching (Levinson, 2018), a perspective paralleled in Mathematics Education, where teachers often view the subject as a ‘value-neutral discipline’ (Maass et al., 2019, p. 879), whose potential controversies are to be avoided because ethical and moral dilemmas are better addressed through other discipline areas or at home (Forgasz et al., 2015). However, as Forgasz et al. (2015) indicate, ‘there are very few situations in real life that are devoid of ethical and moral dilemmas and concerns’ (p. 148). Moreover, rejection of contemporary world issues as contexts for teaching and learning seems irresponsible in the current milieu and ignores multiple calls for education to address imminent global issues relevant to STEM (e.g. Ng, 2019; United Nations, 2019).

The few examples underpinned by Visions II and III were relevant to global issues and concerns. The most frequently cited of these concerned sustainability issues related to land, water, and oceans. There was evidence that in such contexts STEM teaching was more integrated and were often delivered through project/problem-based learning. Levinson (2018) and Ng (2019) both note the interdisciplinarity of STEM-related social issues, so it is unsurprising that project/problem-based learning aligns with Visions II and III and enables increased integration as is called for in STEM education literature (e.g. Marginson et al., 2013). Beyond these few examples, however, STEM education tended to be conflated by our participants within a single discipline or the integration of two disciplines (usually science and technology). These findings are consistent with the similar lack of integration of disciplines in STEM curricular observed worldwide (Bencze et al., 2020; Maass et al., 2019; Tytler & Self, 2020).

Gough (2021) notes that, in Australia, the curriculum is not written in a way that is conducive to making socio-scientific links, and Ng (2019) and Murphy et al. (2019) highlight that little guidance is provided to assist teachers in shaping how integrated STEM might be enacted in schools. We argue that Australian curriculum documents in science support a propensity for acritical Vision I approaches as the focus on content knowledge does little to exemplify how this might be integrated or applied to societal issues. Most examples provided in the curriculum documents provide superficial links to examples of applications, leaving the decision on how to present content to individual teachers and/or school departments (e.g. the Science faculty). We also found that principals were concerned about the lack of capacity and confidence of their teachers for meaningful STEM engagement. Schools with more established programs and/or more confident STEM leaders tended to have increasingly contextualised and integrated STEM programs, and their principals and teachers spoke of aspirations to be more issues-based in future.

Examples reflecting Visions II and III were distinguishable from Vision I by the extent of controversy present in the descriptions of teaching, and for Vision III, the level of personal action in which students were engaged. Vision III examples tended to involve industry partners, an approach gaining increasing support in position papers around the future of STEM education (e.g. Murphy et al., 2019; NSTC, 2018).

Conclusion

STEM education in Australia appears to be predominantly enacted through instrumental ‘products and processes’ (Vision I) approaches. Although some Vision I examples included real-world applications, there was a predominant classroom-based approach reflecting curriculum content-driven learning contexts that were often devoid of any real-life applications of relevance to students’ lives. These examples were dominated by robotics and coding and were reminiscent of much criticised decontextualised science teaching (e.g. Goodrum et al., 2001). Some schools appeared to have STEM programs that incorporated more socio-scientific issues (Vision II), but principals and/or teachers admitted to actively resisting contexts that might create controversy amongst the school community. STEM education learning contexts aligned with Vision III were rare but inspiring, characterised by integration of the STEM disciplines and often authentic engagement with government, education, and industry partners. These examples also reflected the potential for incorporating personal activist approaches.

Absent from the data were STEM learning contexts aligned with Vision IV, where students engage in activist learning – challenging themselves and others to take action on issues of concern in the world. In a world where awareness of the ethical dimensions of STEM is increasing, STEM education needs to embrace the tension between content knowledge and ethical dimensions, to create a holistic and useful form of STEM education that encompasses issues of social justice. Given the prominence of curriculum-driven contexts contained in Vision I examples in this study, curriculum documentation that makes student activism and STEM-related social justice more explicit could assist teachers to adopt a more balanced approach to STEM learning. We found some evidence that students might have more desire for activist and issues-based STEM learning than their teachers or principals, as exemplified by the student-instigated ‘Innovate’ club. Such activities suggest there could be interest and willingness among young people to activate their learning in authentic and meaningful ways to make a difference in the world. More formal curriculum delivery to embrace this desire could help to address declining enrolments in STEM-related subjects that is problematic worldwide (e.g. Jeffries et al., 2020). However, this is unlikely to be achieved while such ‘neutral’ curriculum (and assessment) persists in driving practices to the extent to which it currently does.

Our data revealed that integration of individual STEM disciplines and the use of meaningful learning contexts were more evident in Visions II and III of STEM education than in approaches aligned with Vision I. This is unsurprising given the interdisciplinary nature of STEM-related social issues (Levinson, 2018; Ng, 2019) and suggests that a socio-scientific, issues-based approach to STEM education aligns well with our concern for a socially oriented and activist approach to STEM learning. Furthermore, it aligns with international calls for STEM education to be undertaken through integrated, project – and problem-based pedagogies linked to real world applications, through which critical and creative thinking is promoted (e.g. ACARA, 2016; Education Council, 2015; National Science and Technology Council (US), 2018). Key to attaining a vision for STEM education that moves beyond Vision I and engages with ethical dimensions of STEM applications in the world, is an awareness of the concepts, skills, and practices inherent in STEM disciplines and a willingness to ‘risk’ engagement in the more controversial aspects of STEM-related issues in society.

We acknowledge that this study involved a relatively small number of schools and could not capture the efforts of inspired individuals whose work in classrooms may reflect a greater emphasis on Vision II, III, or IV STEM education. However, given the large number of principal and teacher participants in the broader PASL project (yielding 449 interview transcripts), the limited evidence of Vision II and III learning contexts is indicative that socio-scientific concerns do not drive or contribute strongly to decisions about STEM education in Australian schools. We present this as a significant concern and join others in the call for a vision for STEM education that engages teachers, students, and industry partners in learning that explores and acts on products, processes, and the ethics of STEM in the local and global community. Such an education has the potential to better equip students with the knowledge, skills, and agency to make informed, socially just decisions about their own and others’ futures, and that of our shared environment, and give them the STEM education experience they themselves seem to be calling for.

Ethical statement

This project obtained ethics clearance from University X Human Resource Ethics Committee (HREC#: H0017470)

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Department of Education, Skills and Employment, Australian Government [grant number PRN ED17/045432].

Appendix

Table A1. Principal and teacher interview protocol example questions.

Principal Example Questions
Classroom Practice	Questions
The school and STEM	Can you describe some of the key issues facing your school in STEM?
Pedagogy	Can you comment on what you believe to be important in terms of STEM pedagogy at your school? Does the school have a pedagogical framework? How is quality pedagogy understood and monitored at the school?
Assessment	How is mathematics/science/technology assessment approached at the school?
Curriculum	Do teachers have a good sense of what it is that they are expected to teach in each of the STEM disciplines separately and integrated STEM?
Equity	We are interested in how schools are able to help students who are not doing as well as they should be, particularly in relation to studying STEM subjects. Without identifying specific individuals, what is the situation regarding any such student groups in your school?
School Environment	Are there aspects of the school’s environment which enhance or limit the success of STEM teaching?
Reporting	How well do you think reporting procedures are working in your school? Do you think students understand what they are achieving in relation to what is expected of them (from report cards, other forms of reporting)?
Systemic Supports	What key reforms at the system level have positively and/or negatively impacted on the teaching of STEM subjects and/or integrated STEM in the school?
Leadership	We are interested in the role the school leaders (principal, discipline leaders) play in resourcing and supporting STEM teaching and learning, and in their importance to establishing a STEM culture throughout the school. What kinds of things have you initiated and/or maintained or enhanced in support of STEM?
COVID-19	Can you please comment upon how COVID-19 has impacted upon you as a principal, your school environment and your intentions for leading STEM in your school?
Principal Example Questions
Classroom Practice	Question
Pedagogy	Can you comment on how you go about your curriculum planning?
Curriculum	Do you have a good sense of what it is that you are expected to teach in mathematics/science/technology?
Assessment	What kinds of student work do you rely on most to assess learning?
Equity	Without identifying specific individuals, what is the situation regarding any such student groups in your school? What has been done in your class or in the school to deal with this issue?
Leadership	What is your experience of leadership in your school since your principal completed the [STEM Project Name]PL? What kinds of things have they initiated and/or maintained or enhanced in support of STEM? How helpful have they been in support of your STEM teaching and students’ learning?
COVID-1	So what are your plans for when schools get back to something like normal in regards to your teaching of STEM?