Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".