MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206644039 · doi:10.46328/ijte.119

STEM, iSTEM, and STEAM: What is next?

2022· article· en· W4206644039 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Technology in Education · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Research and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumPoliticsAmbiguityEngineering ethicsPolitical sciencePublic relationsPedagogySociologyEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The historical and political emergence of STEM has changed the educational paradigm. Researchers, educators, and frontline professionals consider STEM as their savior. However, the ambiguity surrounding STEM and its successors, Integrated STEM education, and STEAM has created confusion for educators and frontline workers about which framework and concept they have to adapt to support their nation in the global financial crisis. Unfortunately, limited research offers insight into the historical, political, and educational development of STEM, iSTEM, and STEAM. This literature review fills this gap by addressing the historical, political, and educational development and uncertainty surrounding STEM, iSTEM, and STEAM. Also, the study explores the purpose, significance, and limitations of STEM, iSTEM, and STEAM individually and current pedagogical practices in this domain. Moreover, this literature review exposes the historical and current Canadian perspective of STEM, iSTEM and STEAM, and Canada's position and response to current global needs. Finding from the study reveal that there is a need for curriculum reform that involves adding STEM, iSTEM, STEAM domain and pedagogical practices in national/provincial curricula; professional development for teachers; support for the teachers and post-secondary institutions to increase STEM, iSTEM, STEAM- proficiency and their career interest among students to survive in the global economic race. Furthermore, the study highlights a need for further research and discussion about the STEM, iSTEM, STEAM domain and consensus among scholars on one platform. Moving forward, after STEM →iSTEM→ STEAM, What's next?

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it