Is it STEM or "S & M" that We Truly Love?

Journal of Science Teacher Education

Volumn 24, Issue 8, 2013, Pages 1237-1240

  Lederman, Norman G ^a   Lederman, Judith S ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84890431693     PISSN: 1046560X     EISSN: 15731847     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10972-013-9370-z     Document Type: Editorial

References (9)

1. Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: Achieve, Inc. on behalf of the twenty-six states and partners that collaborated on the NGSS. Retrieved from http://www. nextgenscience. org/.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Washington, DC: Author.
3. Beane, J. A. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 616-622.
4. Czerniak, C. M., Weber, W. B., Sandmann, A., & Ahern, J. (1999). A literature review of science and mathematics integration. School Science and Mathematics, 99(8), 421-430.
5. Johnson, H., & Cotterman, M. (2013). Collaborative efforts to put the "e" back in STEM. NSTA Reports, 25(4), 3.
6. National Science Teachers Association. (1982). Science-technology-society: Science education for the 1980s (An NSTA Position Statement). Washington, DC: Author.
7. Roth, K. J. (1994). Second thoughts about interdisciplinary studies. American Educator, 18(1), 44-48.
8. School Science and Mathematics (1995). In: N. G. Lederman & M. L. Niess (Eds.), vol. 98 (6), pp 281-352.
9. Shanker, A. (1995, February 5). Where we stand: Disciplinary learning. New York Times. Retrieved October 30, 2013. http://source. nysut. org/weblink7/DocView. aspx?id=902.