Tan, Aik-Ling

Learning experiences can affect students' interest in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) careers. Applying the social cognitive career theory, this study tested and compared the effect size and effect mechanism of formal learning experiences (FLE) and informal learning experiences (ILE) on 1133 tenth-grade students' interest in STEM careers (ISC) through a paper questionnaire survey. The results of structural equation model analysis showed that: 1) The total effect of ILE on students' ISC is much greater than that of FLE; 2) ILE, STEM self-efficacy (SSE) and STEM careers perceptions (SCP) can directly affect students' ISC; FLE and ILE can also indirectly affect students' ISC through the mediating role of SSE and SCP. The analyses suggest that in order to improve students' ISC, STEM education (especially informal STEM education) should be strengthened, both formal and informal education should pay attention to the cultivation of students' SSE and SCP.

This commentary is an extension to the integrated S-T-E-M Quartet Instructional Framework that has been used to guide the design, implementation and evaluation of integrated STEM curriculum. In our discussion of the S-T-E-M Quartet, we have argued for the centrality of complex, persistent and extended problems to reflect the authenticity of real-world issues and hence, the need for integrated, as opposed to monodisciplinary, STEM education. Building upon this earlier work, we propose two additional variationsjsolution-centric and user-centric approaches to the provision of integrated STEM curricular experiences to afford more opportunities that address the meta-knowledge and humanistic knowledge developments in 21st century learning. These variations to the S-T-E-M Quartet aims to expand the scope and utility of the framework in creating curriculum experiences for diverse profiles of learners, varied contextual conditions, and broad STEM education goals. Collectively, these three approaches problem-centric, solution-centric, and user-centricjcan afford more holistic outcomes of STEM education.

Classroom discourse is an indispensable process through which the teaching and learning of any discipline, including science, takes place. In classroom discourse studies, many researchers use a variety of approaches under the umbrella term of “discourse analysis” to understand the dynamic of interaction and sometimes how learning happens in the classroom. Discourse analysis is recognised and frequently discussed as a methodology in applied linguistics (Rex et al. 2010). Researchers in science education typically borrow several analytical tools from discourse analysis and apply them to study the teaching and learning process in the science classroom (broadly defined as a space of learning in and out of school). For many years, the adoption of methods from discourse analysis developed outside science education was not a major issue. However, in light of the increasing emphasis and contextualisation on the disciplinary nature of science, some unique features of science discourse become more evident: the first characteristic that is overwhelming in this issue is multi-modality. Science discourse in general, and science classroom discourse in particular, is multi-modal in the sense that it needs more than verbal language to make sense. Another feature which appears in several papers in this special issue is that science is related not only to its content but also to the epistemic process of creating scientific knowledge. Science is an inquiry-based enterprise, it values more questions than answers, and it has an empirical base. The language of science itself has some particular features, such as the use of nominalisations, which goes beyond technicality (Fang 2005). Accordingly, it is time to review the methods that were historically adopted from other disciplines and evaluate how they have evolved to take into consideration the unique multi-modal and empirical character of science. There has been little discussion thus far within the science education community on the overarching methodology of discourse analysis, such as its underpinning paradigm and the relative advantages and limitations of various approaches. This special issue dedicated to discourse analysis is therefore the first of its kind within science education. Compilations focusing on discourse analysis have appeared in applied linguistics and language education (e.g. Gee and Handford 2012; Zuengler and Mori 2002). What is different in this special issue is the attention to the conditions, settings and peculiarities of science classrooms. It is also written mainly by science education researchers who use discourse analysis to address issues that are more unique to science education. Through an open call, we initially received 59 abstracts for this special issue from 24 countries across 6 continents. We were encouraged by this overwhelming response, which affirms the central role analytical methods play in science classroom research. As our focus is on the methodology of discourse studies, we asked the authors to highlight the rationale, application, and affordances of their methods, rather than reporting the full results from their study. After an initial selection by the guest editors and double-blind peer review process by the reviewers of Research in Science Education, we are pleased to present 11 original articles and a commentary for this special issue. The 11 papers highlighted similar yet different interpretations and applications of discourse analysis in science classrooms. In this editorial, we offer our perspectives of discourse analysis distilled from the collective ideas in all the papers.

STEM education, when perceived as integrated learning that encompasses knowledge, skills and practices of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, points to a need to re-examine ways of classification of school subjects and learning. Consequently, dilemmas related to integrated STEM education arise. School leaders are faced with the task to organize teams to address issues such as the ownership of STEM, identity issues such as STEM teacher or teacher of STEM subjects, evaluation of STEM programs and resources to support STEM education. The unique characteristics of integrated disciplines demand leaders who understand the unique characteristics and demands of each discipline and to apply them to build a synergistic platform to magnify the similarities and harness the differences for learning. In this paper, we present an argument for STEM leadership to focus on building STEM teachers’ agency, identity and sense of belonging to a community. These three aspects are important for meaningful planning, enactment and sustainability of STEM programs since teachers’ beliefs, intentions, actions and empowerment are known to be instrumental in the success of many educational reforms.