Received: 4 September 2018 

|
  Revised: 22 January 2019 
|  Accepted: 5 February 2019

DOI: 10.1111/ssm.12339

R E S E A RC H PA P E R – I N T E G R AT E D S T E M E D U C AT I O N

Three modes of STEM integration for middle school mathematics

teachers

Micah Stohlmann

Department of Teaching and

Learning, University of Nevada, Las Vegas,
Nevada
Correspondence
Micah Stohlmann, Department of Teaching
and Learning, University of Nevada, Las
Vegas, NV.
Email: micah.stohlmann@unlv.edu
Abstract
Of the four subjects in an integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathemat-
ics (STEM) approach, mathematics has not received enough focus. This could be
in part because mathematics teachers may be apprehensive or unsure about how to
implement integrated STEM education in their classrooms. There are benefits to in-
tegrated STEM in a mathematics classroom though, including increased motivation,
interest, and achievement for students. This article discusses three methods that mid-
dle school mathematics teachers can utilize to integrate STEM subjects. By focus-
ing on open‐ended problems through engineering design challenges, mathematical
modeling, and mathematics integrated with technology middle school students are
more likely to see mathematics as relevant and valuable. Important considerations
are discussed as well as recent research with these approaches.

KEYWORDS
integrated STEM, mathematics education, middle school, STEM education

1  |   IN T RO D U C T ION STEM, it makes sense that mathematics teachers seek to im-

As society becomes more dependent on science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM), it becomes increas-
ingly important for students to receive an education that in-
cludes integrated STEM. Integration of STEM disciplines
has the potential to bring together overlapping concepts and
principles in meaningful ways. However, effective models
for integrated STEM education are still needed (Lesseig,
Nelson, Slavit, & Seidel, 2016). Researchers have noted that
mathematics is often not emphasized in the integration of
STEM subjects (English, 2017; Fitzallen, 2015; Gravemeijer,
Stephan, Julie, Lin, & Ohtani, 2017). This could be in part
due to the perception that mathematics achievement is diffi-
cult to promote through STEM integration as noted by Honey
et al.’s (2014) National Academies Press report. To change
this perception mathematics teachers and researchers can
take the lead to describe useful methods of STEM integra-
tion for mathematics teachers. Since content knowledge is an
important aspect of effective implementation of integrated
plement integrated steM. I use the acronym steM to mean
integrated STEM education that has an explicit focus on
mathematics (Stohlmann, 2018). The purpose of this paper
is to discuss considerations and implications of three modes
of integrated steM that middle school mathematics teachers
can implement.
School districts across the United States are looking at
ways to engage students in STEM education and are seek-
ing support in conceptualizing what this might look like in
the classroom. This is being done for several reasons that
include test scores, students’ interest in mathematics, and
the benefits of an integrated steM approach. Mathematics
test scores in the United States show room for improvement
and that not all students’ needs are being met. The National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) eighth‐grade
mathematics scores have shown improvement since 1990.
However, on the 2017 test, only 34% of eighth‐grade students
were at or above proficient on the mathematics test. Also,
the results of the NAEP tests indicate that there are certain

© 2019 School Science and Mathematics Association     287

School Science and Mathematics. 2019;119:287–296. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ssm |
 |
288      STOHLMANN
populations of students that are not being as well served as
others (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017). The
Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) test re-
sults show that U.S. students score below average compared
to other countries which implies that U.S. students are behind
other industrialized nations in STEM critical thinking skills
(Organisation for Economic Co‐operation & Development,
2015).
As students progress to college, the findings above have
an impact. Students in the United States interested in major-
ing in STEM fields are generally finishing high school un-
derprepared for success in first‐year college STEM courses.
Only 26% of students who indicated an interest in STEM ma-
jors or careers met or surpassed the ACT College Readiness
Benchmark in STEM (ACT, 2017). For students not inter-
ested in STEM field, there is still an impact as well. Too
many students who enter college education are not prepared
for college‐level mathematics courses and the number of stu-
dents in remedial mathematics courses has been increasing
(Lee, 2012). This can cause financial strain for students and
delay or even prevent them from completing their degrees.
Students’ interest in mathematics is one of the prob-
lems that contributes to students not doing well in middle
school mathematics that can lead into under‐preparation
for high school and college mathematics. Too often middle
school students perceive mathematics to be dull, irrelevant,
and too difficult (Grootenboer & Marshman, 2016). This is
seen as interest in mathematics declines particularly in the
middle school years (Franzel, Goetz, Pekrun, & Watt, 2010).
Integrated steM is a way to reverse this trend to increase stu-
dents’ interest in mathematics. Middle school students prefer
to learn mathematics through hands‐on, interactive activities
or technology‐based lessons to more traditional approaches
(Raytheon, 2012). This aligns well with an integrated steM
approach. Also, integrated steM involves open‐ended prob-
lems that have been found to cause more active participation
of students and encourage students to express their mathemat-
ical ideas more frequently (Sawada, 1997). In this approach,
students can develop their higher‐order thinking skills and
21st century competencies that will help them in life and any
career (Varygiannes, 2013).
Research supports the implementation of an integrated
steM approach. In New York, 20 eighth‐grade teachers im-
plement 6 integrated steM lessons over the course of the year.
Students of these teachers showed a significant increase in
mathematical content scores compared with a control group
of students (Burghardt, Kennedy, McHugh, Lauckhardt, &
Hecht, 2015). A study that involved 1,287 sixth‐ and ­seventh‐
grade students and 12 teachers supported by university fac-
ulty found that an integrated steM activity had a significant
impact on students’ confidence in science and mathemat-
ics as well as their effort toward science and mathematics
(Redmond et al., 2011). A study conducted with a 5‐day
STEM camp that included LEGO robotics and the mathe-
matics of data analysis and measurement found that fifth‐ to
eighth‐grade students increased in their motivation and in-
terest in STEM fields (Mohr‐Schroeder et al., 2014). This
research provides support for middle school mathematics
teachers to implement integrated steM to increase students’
mathematical understanding and interest in mathematics.
In general, there are different ways to teach integrated
STEM education. Roehrig, Moore, Wang, and Park (2012)
­detail four general structures. In the first structure, co‐teaching,
multiple teachers in the same classroom collaborate. This
could be a mathematics and science teacher working together
to teach an engineering or STEM class. Due to budget restric-
tions, this structure may not be feasible for many schools. The
second structure, team teaching, involves multiple teachers
collaborating on a unit or project but working within the wall
of their individual classrooms. In this approach, mathematics,
science, or technology teachers may have students working on
a themed project that integrates STEM subjects, but each indi-
vidual teacher is still teaching his or her own subject. This can
be difficult, though, if a team of teachers does not share the
same students or if the scope and sequence of courses do not
align (Lessig et al., 2016). Team planning is the next structure
where a group of teachers might plan a lesson or unit together
and then implement this in their own classroom. This team
planning would be more likely to occur within STEM subjects;
for example, a team of mathematics teachers meeting together
to plan, but could also involve seeking feedback from teachers
outside of a team’s subject area. The final structure, individual
planning and implementation, involves one teacher working by
him‐ or herself to implement integrated STEM. This paper will
focus on what middle school mathematics teachers can accom-
plish using the team planning or individual implementation
structure of STEM integration. This is done because these are
the structures that are most likely to be able to implemented by
middle school mathematics teachers due to time, planning, and
budget restrictions.
1.1  |  Definition of integrated STEM and
integrated steM
Integrated STEM is an effort to combine at least two of four
disciplines of science, technology, engineering, and math-
ematics into a class, unit, or lesson that is based on connec-
tions between the subjects and real‐world problems (Moore
et al., 2014). There are not specific combinations of STEM
subjects that are inherently better than others. The subjects
that are integrated should depend on the natural connec-
tions between the subjects that are aided by the real‐world
contexts. The goal of integrated STEM education is to be “a
holistic approach that links the disciplines so the learning be-
comes connected, focused, meaningful, and relevant to learn-
ers” (Smith & Karr‐Kidwell, 2000, p. 22). Further, integrated
STOHLMANN
STEM education is an approach that builds on natural con-
nections between STEM subjects for the purpose of (a) fur-
thering student understanding of each discipline by building
on students’ prior knowledge; (b) broadening student under-
standing of each discipline through exposure to socially rel-
evant STEM contexts; and (c) making STEM disciplines and
careers more accessible and intriguing for students (Wang,
Moore, Roehrig, & Park, 2011).
Integrated steM follows the same approach as integrated
STEM but integrates mathematics explicitly through con-
tent integration with at least one of three other disciplines of
STEM either through content or context integration. Content
integration focuses on the merging of content fields in order
to highlight “big ideas” from multiple content areas. For ex-
ample, students could be asked to build an adult‐sized card-
board chair that could hold 150–200 pounds. Science content
is emphasized through the importance of understanding
human body structure and anatomy. Mathematics content is
integrated through students working with a scale model and
proportional reasoning when students move from a prototype
to a full‐scale chair. Measurement is also incorporated in the
design of the chair (Roehrig et al., 2012). The other method
for integrated STEM education, context integration, primar-
ily focuses on the content of one discipline and uses contexts
from others to make the content more relevant. For example,
students could be given a footprint that might have belonged
to the legendary creature Bigfoot. They could be then asked
to come up with an estimate for the height of the person or
creature based on the footprint. While science concepts of
observation and inference are included in this activity, what
is being asked of students does not require the explicit use of
science content to develop a solution (Stohlmann, Roehrig,
& Moore, 2014).
For this article, integrated steM is being conceptualized
as a focus on mathematics through content integration while
being supported and enhanced by science, technology, and/
or engineering through context integration. If middle school
mathematics teachers use a team planning or individual
structure for integrated steM they can keep the focus on the
mathematics while at the same time engaging and motivat-
ing students through context integration and still exposing
students to different STEM careers. This is important be-
cause in the past mathematics teachers have noticed that in-
tegrated STEM lessons do not always align with grade‐level
mathematics content standards (Lesseig et al., 2016). There
are three main ways that middle school mathematics teach-
ers can implement integrated steM in their classroom. This
can be done by focusing on open‐ended problems through
engineering design challenges, mathematical modeling, and
mathematics integrated with technology. The knowledge
and comfort level of individual teachers with engineering,
science, and technology can affect what mathematics teach-
ers are able to accomplish with integrated steM. The three
|
     289
modes of integrated steM make implementation more likely
because each mode implements mathematics with a different
STE subject. Each of the three modes will be discussed with
important considerations for each method.
1.2  |  Integrated steM through
engineering design
Engineering is increasingly being included in schools’ cur-
riculum, which can help mathematics teachers implement
integrated steM through engineering. Depending on the
state students are in, middle school students may enter mid-
dle school mathematics classes with engineering design
experiences. There are eight states that include engineering
in their science standards (Carr, Bennett, & Strobel, 2012).
An additional 16 states have adopted the Next Generation
Science Standards (NGSS), which include engineering de-
sign standards (National Research Council, 2013). There
are benefits to engineering integration. Incorporating engi-
neering in K–12 schools improves the achievement in math-
ematics and science, and increases the technological literacy
(Katehi, Pearson, & Feder, 2009; Wendell & Rogers, 2013).
Engineering education also motivates the student learning in
mathematics and science (Wendell & Rogers, 2013). This can
be done through hands‐on learning and open‐ended problems
that develop effective teamwork skills (Carlson & Sullivan,
2004). Engineering integration can also lead students to
be interested in STEM careers (Carlson & Sullivan, 2004;
Yoon, Dyehouse, Lucietoo, Diefes‐Dux, & Capobianco,
2014). Since it is more likely that middle school students
will be familiar with engineering, it can make mathematics
teachers implementation run more smoothly. Even if middle
school students do not have prior engineering experience, the
type of activities that middle school teachers can use, Model‐
Eliciting Activities (MEAs), have a strong research and prac-
tice tradition in mathematics education.
MEAs are student‐centered, open‐ended, authentic real‐
life problems that enable students to solve complex problems
(Lesh & Doerr, 2003). MEAs are designed based upon the
principles outlined by Lesh and others (Lesh, Hoover, Hole,
Kelly, & Post, 2000). The principles require that students
construct models that are meaningful and relevant to their
lives and experiences and that their models can be modified
or adapted for other similar settings. The process of creating
the models allows students to critically assess the usefulness
of their solutions while documenting their thinking processes
along the way. MEAs include several characteristics of engi-
neering, including the engineering design process. The en-
gineering design process is incorporated in the activities as
students express, test, and revise their ideas (English, 2010).
MEAs enable students to see that most engineering problems
do not have a single, correct solution, and highlight how en-
gineering is a creative endeavor.
 |
290      STOHLMANN

T A B L E 1   Problem statement for the survivor MEA

Survivor returns to Costa Rica and Mark Burnett, the producer of Survivor, has decided to give survivors the materials to build a shelter as a re-
ward for a challenge. He wants to provide materials to make the shelter as realistic as possible to one that the survivors of a plane crash might
build. He will be providing a strip of metal supposedly from a plane, tarp from the rescue raft, rope that has washed ashore, and of course mud
from the island. To determine who will be the contestants on the show he wants to see who can design the best scale model of a shelter. The
shelter must fit three people and withstand both wind and rain. Design a quality shelter and your team could be on the next show of Survivor!
Your shelter must:
• Not move, tip or be damaged by three gusts of wind simulated by fanning a clipboard
• Remain dry when given three squirts of water to simulate rain
• Have enough room to fit three people with at least 1 cubic meter of space
Before building your scale model decide on a scale that you will use to determine how much of each material that you will use. For example, if
your scale was 1 meter, 2 cm, then you would have 20 craft sticks that are 6 cm long.
Actual materials that will be provided on the island Materials that you will be given
Logs (20 logs, 3 m long each) (Total of 60 m) Craft sticks: 20 sticks of length ___cm: Total of ______cm
Plane siding (2.5 m × 4 m) Aluminum foil: ___ cm × ___ cm
Tarp (1‐piece 3 m × 5 m) Wax paper: ___cm × ___ cm
Rope (6 m) String: ___ cm
3
Mud (1 bucket with 1 cubic meter (m ) (1 m × 1 m × 1 m) Playdough: __ cm × ___cm × ___cm
After designing and testing the shelter write Mark Burnett a letter describing why your shelter is the best. Include in the letter the design for the
shelter, the materials that you used, and general guidelines for how to make scale models for any purpose.

An example MEA that has been implemented with mid-
dle school students is the Survivor MEA in which students
work in teams to build a scale model of a shelter based on
three criteria (Maiorca & Stohlmann, 2016). The shelter must
have enough space to fit three people, as well as withstand
wind and rain. In the MEA, students build shelters as a de-
sign competition in order to be chosen to be a contestant on
the television show Survivor. Table 1 details the problem that
students work on.
In implementing this activity, middle school students made
connections to the first five Standards for Mathematical Practice
(SMP) in the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics
(National Governors Association Center & Council of Chief
State School Officers, 2010). In general, through the implemen-
tation of MEAs, this is likely to occur. Table 2 details the first
five SMP and how they occur in MEAs. This provides more
support and buy‐in for middle school mathematics teachers to
do integrated steM. Teachers can have students develop grade‐
level mathematics content standards, proficiencies aligned with
the SMP, team work skills, and communication skills.
1.3  |  Integrated steM through mathematical
modeling with science contexts
Mathematical modeling in the middle grade has received
more attention since it was included as SMP. Mathematical
modeling is often interdisciplinary and involves open‐ended
problems. In general, it is an iterative process that involves
real‐world, practical problems that students make sense of
with mathematics using assumptions and approximations. In
mathematical modeling, students work from key questions
or problem statements to keep their model development fo-
cused. Students should also ensure that the mathematics that
they use is accurate and makes sense in the realistic situation.
There is often no single correct model, and students should
work to improve their models (Stohlmann & Albarracin,
2016).
Mathematics and science integration has a long history,
and there have been a number of literature reviews on this
topic though not specifically on mathematical modeling
(Becker & Park, 2011; Berlin, 1989; Berlin & Lee, 2005;
Pang & Good, 2000). The past reviews have noted that the
dominant approach has been science content receiving the
main focus with studies being done with science teachers
(Berlin & Lee, 2005; Pang & Good, 2000). Since these re-
views were published, more research has been conducted
with mathematical modeling and science contexts with math-
ematics teachers. The studies demonstrate that there are a
number of science contexts that can fit with mathematical
modeling and middle school mathematics.
Studies have been conducted in different countries with
a variety of science contexts, including guppies population
(Jurow, 2004), weather (Doerr & English, 2003), solar‐
powered heating (MaaB, 2007), Mars’s crater exploration
(Grigoras, Garcia, & Halverscheid, 2011), designing an en-
vironmentally friendly building (Ng, 2011), fossil fuel con-
sumption (Mousoulides & English, 2011), animal tracking
(Stohlmann, 2017a), shadows (Harel & Lesh, 2003), Bluefin
tuna population (Yanagimoto & Yoshimura, 2013), and drug
absorption (Mousoulides, Christou, & Sriraman, 2008).
The studies found mainly positive results with
some difficulties that students had when engaged in
STOHLMANN      291
|
T A B L E 2   Possible SMP connections to MEAs

Standard for mathematical

practice
1. Make sense of problems and
persevere in solving them
2. Reason abstractly and
quantitatively
3. Construct viable arguments and
critique the reasoning of others
4. Model with mathematics
5. Use appropriate tools
strategically
Source: Stohlmann, Maiorca, and Olson (2015).
How it can occur in MEAs
As participants work through iterations of their models, they continue to gain new insights into ways
to use mathematics to develop their models. The structure of MEAs allows for participants to stay
engaged and to have sustained problem‐solving experiences.
MEAs allow participants to both contextualize, by focusing on the real‐world context of the situation,
and decontextualize, by representing a situation symbolically.
Careful reasoning and constructive critiquing are essential throughout MEAs while groups are working
and presenting their models.
This is the essential focus of MEAs; for participants to apply the mathematics that they know to solve
problems in everyday life, society, or the workplace. This is done through iterative cycles of model
construction, evaluation, and revision.
Materials are made available for groups as they work on MEAs including graph paper, graphing calcula-
tors, computers, applets, dynamic software, spreadsheets, and measuring devices.

mathematical modeling. In a study with 38 eighth‐grade stu-
dents in Singapore, the students did not apply all the expected
mathematical knowledge and skills in designing an environ-
mentally friendly building. The students lacked awareness of
the purpose of scale and had trouble using real‐world knowl-
edge for mathematical decision making. One of the draw-
backs of this project was that it lasted 15 class sessions, which
might have caused students to lose motivation and interest in
the project (Ng, 2011). In a study with 22‐year‐old students in
Cyprus, two of six groups failed to understand the concept of
average and effectively use it in their models (Mousoulides &
English, 2011). Other studies reported positive results, with
students being able to create generalizable and reusable mod-
els (Doerr & English, 2003; Harel & Lesh, 2003; Stohlmann,
2017a), develop modeling competencies and abilities (MaaB,
2007; Mousoulides et al., 2008), and realize that mathematics
is helpful in the real world (Yanagimoto & Yoshimura, 2013).
In order to ensure that students have positive experiences
with mathematical modeling, several steps can be taken.
First, well‐designed mathematical modeling activities can be
used. MEAs are designed based on research and have been
shown to help students have productive experiences with
mathematical modeling. They involve multiple entry points
for students, can be solved with a variety of mathematical
knowledge, and also contain enough information for students
to self‐assess their solution development. Another type of
problem that can involve mathematical modeling is three‐act
tasks (Ehlert, 2015). These tasks use videos or pictures to
pose a problem and follow a structure of launch, explore, and
summarize. There has been little research done on three‐act
tasks, but when implemented in a similar fashion as MEAs
they may help students develop mathematical knowledge and
enjoy mathematics. The implementation of MEAs involves
whole‐group discussion on readiness questions and the prob-
lem statement, then group work time, group presentations,
and time for revision. When teachers use this implemen-
tation and employ practices for productive mathematical
discussions, it is more likely students will be successful in
mathematical modeling. Supporting students with relevant
messages and questions at different points of the mathemat-
ical modeling process can also help students be successful.
This can include emphasizing that students make use of
multiple representations, teamwork skills, check for accurate
mathematics, and know that there are multiple solutions to
the problem (Stohlmann, 2017b).
A quality example of a mathematical modeling activity
with a science context is the Bigfoot activity. Different vari-
ations of this activity have been written about with positive
results (e.g., Imm & Lorber, 2013; Lesh & Doerr, 2003;
Stohlmann, 2017a). In this activity, students learn about how
scientists and professional trackers use footprints. Groups
are given a set of footprints that might have belonged to the
legendary creature Bigfoot. Groups then determine a method
for determining the height of the creature based on the foot-
prints. The mathematics that students use in this activity
aligns well with middle grades content as students may use
measurement, ratios, proportions, and line of best fit in their
solutions. By implementing mathematical modeling with sci-
ence contexts mathematics teachers can motivate students to
see mathematics all around them and engage them in relevant
open‐ended problems.
1.4  |  Integrated steM through mathematics
integrated with technology
Technology integration has often been suggested as impor-
tant for learning mathematics. For example, the Common
Core Standards for Mathematics (National Governors
Association Center & Council of Chief State School Officers,
2010) state that mathematically proficient students “are able
 |
292      STOHLMANN
to use technology to explore and deepen their understand-
ing of concepts” (p. 7). NCTM’s Principles to Actions states
that “an excellent mathematics program integrates the use of
mathematical tools and technology as essential resources to
help students learn and make sense of mathematical ideas,
reason mathematically, and communicate their mathematical
thinking” (NCTM, 2014, p. 78).
In this section, I refer to mathematics integrated with
technology in regard to open‐ended problems. Technology
integrated with mathematics has the potential to engage
students in discovery and exploration, promote higher‐level
thinking, improve students’ visualization, enable students to
engage in real‐life applications of mathematics, prepare stu-
dents for the demands of this century, and make mathematics
more engaging and fun (Soucie, Radovic, & Svedrec, 2010).
Technology can change the way mathematics is taught and
assessed to make it more student centered and aligned more
with effective mathematics teaching practices recommended
by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM,
2000, 2014). In general, technology should provide students
feedback, enable them to work with multiple representations
of mathematical concepts, and allow for different levels of
demand of questions.
There is a gap in the research with developing mathemat-
ical technologies with open‐ended, game‐based mathematics
that can engage students and deepen their understanding. This
suggests a need for studies focused on technologies or web-
sites like Desmos, GeoGebra, and Calculation Nation from
the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. There may
be reason to broaden the definition of integrated STEM to in-
clude game‐based learning as well as real‐world contexts. As
students learn mathematics through open‐ended game‐based
learning, it could spark a career interest. Computer, phone, or
video games are popular with students and could lead to future
jobs. The largest STEM occupation is applications software
developers (Noonan, 2017). Game‐based learning can be an-
other way to make learning “connected, focused, meaningful,
and relevant to learners” (Smith & Karr‐Kidwell, 2000, p. 22).
For example, Desmos has an activity called polygraph
lines. In this activity, 16 linear graphs are given. One stu-
dent selects one of the graphs, and the other student asks yes
or no questions to determine which graph has been selected.
After playing the game several times, students can discuss
what are the quality questions to ask and strategies for asking
the least amount of questions. In between the games, students
also can see questions that are being asked by other students
in the room. While not being a real‐world situation, students
are still interacting with each other through the technology to
develop their mathematical understanding (Desmos, 2017).
I implemented this activity with 19 middle school stu-
dents that voluntarily enrolled in a Saturday STEM program
and the students’ questions demonstrated that the activity
enabled them to develop their mathematical vocabulary and
understanding. After students had played the game several
times they worked with their group to write a list of quality
questions to ask during the game. Several questions appeared
in common in the five groups: “Is your slope positive?” “Is
the slope negative?” “Is your line horizontal?” “Is your line
vertical?” “Does your line go through the origin?” Groups
also came up with questions of what quadrants the line
crossed through, though not all groups used the term “quad-
rants.” One group wrote a question that was open to interpre-
tation with, “Is your slope steep?” Another group noted that
they could be more specific by asking if the slope of the line
was greater than a specific number.
Desmos has a number of online classroom activities with
the goal of helping teachers and students maximize mathe-
matics learning. The principles that guide their lesson devel-
opment work include the following:
• Use technology to provide students with feedback as they
work.
• Use the existing network to connect students, supporting
collaboration, and discourse.
• Provide information to teachers in real time during class
(Danielson & Meyer, 2016, p. 259).
The typical experience of doing mathematics online is to have
it marked right or wrong with hints given on how to solve it.
Iterative feedback is a feature of Desmos in that students can
see the results of their ideas and/or their classmates and then
revise their work as necessary. In the past, the Internet‐enabled
devices have been used to connect individual students to the
teacher, but Desmos connects students with one another. In the
lessons, students can share ideas and ask questions of one an-
other. There has been little research conducted on the impact of
implementing Desmos teacher activities with students, but the
results have been promising with students engaged and display-
ing robust mathematical knowledge (Ebert, 2014; King, 2017;
Stohlmann, 2017c). This is an area of research that deserves
more attention on how to best implement game‐based learning
to develop mathematical understandings.
2  |  CONCLUSIONS
Integrated steM education integrates mathematics explicitly
with at least one of three other disciplines of STEM so that
learning can become connected, focused, meaningful, and rel-
evant to learners. This approach involves open‐ended prob-
lems in an iterative process. There are three main modes that
middle school mathematics teachers can use to implement in-
tegrated steM: engineering design challenges, mathematical
modeling with science contexts, and mathematics integrated
with technology. Though mathematics has often been given
less attention than the other three STEM disciplines, there is
STOHLMANN
|
     293

T A B L E 3   Considerations for integrated steM

Implications for mathematics teachers for teaching integrated stem
• Use the five practices for orchestrating productive discussion (Smith & Stein, 2011).
• Integrated steM lessons can assist in implementing effective teaching practices described by NCTM (2014).
• Ensure that grade‐level mathematics is being developed that supports mathematical thinking and reasoning.
• Ensure that assessments are aligned with the real‐world authentic, open‐ended nature of integrated steM to reinforce the value of this type of
learning and to give students varied opportunities to demonstrate their mathematical knowledge.
• Select real‐world contexts based on students’ interest or popular culture.
• Emphasize that problems are open‐ended and can have multiple solutions.
• Emphasize that integrated steM involves an iterative process of revision of solutions.
• Emphasize the importance of multiple representations.
• Ensure that students receive feedback from other students, other groups, technology, and/or the teacher.
Modes of integrated steM and how to implement it
Engineering design Mathematical modeling with science contexts Mathematics integrated with technology
• MEAs • MEAs • Desmos
• Three‐act mathematics • Calculation Nation games
• Open‐ended games or problems with a
mathematics focus
Future research
• Further development of integrated steM curricula.
• Further research on the impact of integrated steM approaches on middle school students’ mathematical achievement, development of math-
ematical understanding, beliefs, motivation, and interest in STEM careers.
• Research on what support teachers need to implement more student‐centered learning through integrated steM.
• Research investigating the prevalence of integrated steM among middle school mathematics teachers.
• Research investigating with prevents middle school mathematics teachers from implementing integrated steM.

growing support for the benefits of an integrated steM ap-
proach (Mohr‐Schroeder et al., 2014; Ng, 2017; Stohlmann,
2018).
The three modes described in this paper with a team plan-
ning or individual planning and implementation structure are
the most feasible for middle school mathematics teachers to
implement integrated steM. This does not mean that effec-
tively teaching integrated steM with these ideas is an easy
task, but makes it more likely for mathematics teachers to
be successful and continue to work to best implement inte-
grated steM. Table 3 contains a summary of important con-
siderations for teaching integrated steM as well as areas for
future research.
In order to teach integrated steM effectively teachers need
to be more of a facilitator of learning. This type of teaching
can be difficult for teachers as noted by Stein, Engle, Smith,
and Hughes (2008):
Teachers who attempt to use inquiry‐based,
­student‐centered instructional tasks face chal-
lenges that go beyond identifying well‐designed
tasks and setting them up appropriately in the
classroom. Because solution paths are usually
not specified for these kind of tasks, students
tend to approach them in unique and sometimes
unanticipated ways. Teachers must not only
strive to understand how students are making
sense of the task but also begin to align students’
disparate ideas and approaches with canonical
understandings about the nature of mathemat-
ics. (p. 313)
The role of the teacher during whole class discussions is to
develop and then build on the ideas of students rather than
to simply label particular approaches as being correct. These
discussions can help support student learning of mathematics
in part by helping students learn mathematical discourse prac-
tices (Chapin, O’Connor, & Anderson, 2003), making students’
thinking public so it can be guided in mathematically sound di-
rections (Forman, Larreamendy‐Joerns, Stein, & Brown, 1998),
and encouraging students to construct and evaluate their own
and each other’s mathematical ideas (Forman, McCormick, &
Donato, 1998).
Further research on integrated steM curricula can help
teachers to anticipate possible students’ strategies and ideas.
This can also tie into determining the needed support, ex-
periences, and professional development that middle school
mathematics teachers need to implement integrated steM. At
the current time, the percentage of mathematics teachers who
incorporate integrated steM in the ways described in this arti-
cle is unknown. Research is needed to determine this as well
as any hindrances that prevent teachers from doing integrated
steM.
Teacher educators can draw on Rogers’s (1995) diffusion
of innovation theory in working with middle school teachers
who are new to integrated steM. According to the diffusion
 |
294      STOHLMANN
of innovation theory, there are five stages to adapt to a new
idea: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and
confirmation. In the knowledge stage, teacher educators can
incorporate information on integrated steM through profes-
sional development or university courses. The persuasion
stage can involve readings about integrated steM and partic-
ipating in example activities. After teachers participate in an
integrated steM activity, teacher educators can lead a discus-
sion of NCTM’s eight effective teaching practices from the
Principles to Action book (NCTM, 2014) and how they are ev-
ident in integrated steM. This would hopefully lead to accep-
tance in the third stage to implement integrated steM. Gradual
implementation can be done by selecting the integrated steM
mode that the teacher feels most comfortable with. In the im-
plementation stage, it is important that teachers are able to
receive feedback and advice from teacher educators or teach-
ers experienced with integrated steM. Administrators who are
supportive of STEM education and provide time for collabo-
ration are beneficial. When teachers have success and see the
benefits of integrated steM, it can then lead to confirmation
of this approach for continued implementation and improve-
ment. Teacher educators can encourage mathematics teachers
to use science teachers as a resource for assistance with en-
gineering design knowledge. Mathematical modeling is be-
coming more prevalent in mathematics education and there
are multiple websites with MEAs and three‐act mathematics
tasks that can be accessed. For mathematics integrated with
technology, Desmos continues to add to their collection of
activities. These resources can support middle school mathe-
matics teachers in their integrated steM implementation.
Focusing on an integrated steM approach warrants fur-
ther attention and research. Integrated steM is a dynamic and
vital topic to ensure that students are prepared with 21st cen-
tury competencies to be successful in their current and future
lives. With an increased emphasis on MEAs, mathematical
modeling, and mathematics and technology integration, I be-
lieve it will be more likely for middle school mathematics
teachers to implement integrated steM and see the benefits
of this approach.
R E F E R E NC E S
ACT. (2017). STEM education in the U.S.: Where we are and what we
can do. Retrieved from www.act.org/stemc​ondition
Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) sub-
jects on students’ learning: A preliminary meta‐analysis. Journal of
STEM Education, 12(5&6), 23–37.
Berlin, D. (1989). The integration of science and mathematics educa-
tion: Exploring the literature. School Science and Mathematics,
89(1), 73–80. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1989.tb118​92.x
Berlin, D., & Lee, H. (2005). Integrating science and mathematics
education: Historical analysis. School Science and Mathematics,
105(1), 15–24. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2005.tb180​32.x
Burghardt, M., Kennedy, M., McHugh, L., Lauckhardt, J., & Hecht,
D. (2015). The effects of a mathematics infusion curriculum on
middle school student mathematics achievement. School Science
and Mathematics, 115(5), 204–215. https​ ://doi.org/10.1111/
ssm.12123​
Carlson, L., & Sullivan, J. (2004). Exploiting design to inspire interest in
engineering across the K‐16 engineering curriculum. International
Journal of Engineering Education, 20(3), 372–380.
Carr, R., Bennett, L., & Strobel, J. (2012). Engineering in the K‐12
STEM standards of the 50 U.S. states: An Analysis of presence and
extent. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(3), 1–26.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council
of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state stan-
dards for mathematics. Washington, DC: NGA Center and CCSSO.
Chapin, S. H., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. C. (2003). Classroom
discussions: Using math talk to help students learn, grades 1–6.
Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions.
Danielson, C., & Meyer, D. (2016). Increased participation and conver-
sation using networked devices. The Mathematics Teacher, 110(4),
258–264. https​://doi.org/10.5951/matht​eacher.110.4.0258
Desmos. (2017). Polygraph lines. Retrieved from https​ ://teach​ er.
desmos.com/polyg​raph-lines​
Doerr, H., & English, L. D. (2003). A modeling perspective on
students’ mathematical reasoning about data. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 34(2), 110–136. https​://doi.
org/10.2307/30034902
Ebert, D. (2014). Graphing projects with desmos. Mathematics Teacher,
108(5), 1–5.
Ehlert, D. (2015). Promoting growth mindset with 3 act math.
Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 21(3). Retrieved
from https​://www.nctm.org/Publi​catio​ns/Mathe​matics-Teach​
i n g - i n - M i d d l e - S ch o o ​l / B l o g / P r o m o ​t i n g - G r ow t h - M i n d s​
et-with-3-Act-Math/
English, L. (2010). Modeling with complex data in the primary school.
In R. Lesh, P. Galbraith, C. Haines, & A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling
students’ mathematical modeling competencies (pp. 287–299). New
York, NY: Springer.
English, L. (2017). Advancing elementary and middle school STEM
education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 15(1), 5–24. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9802-x
Fitzallen, N. (2015). STEM education: What does mathematics have to
offer? In M. Marshman (Ed.), Mathematics education in the mar-
gins. Proceedings of the 38th annual conference of the Mathematics
Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 237–244). Sydney,
Australia: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia
(MERGA).
Forman, E. A., Larreamendy‐Joerns, J., Stein, M. K., & Brown,
C. A. (1998). “You’re going to want to find out which and prove
it”: Collective argumentation in a mathematics classroom.
Learning and Instruction, 8(6), 527–548. https​://doi.org/10.1016/
S0959-4752(98)00033-4
Forman, E. A., McCormick, D., & Donato, R. (1998). Learning what
counts as a mathematical explanation. Linguistics and Education,
9(4), 313–339. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(97)90004-8
Franzel, A., Goertz, T., Pekrun, R., & Watt, H. (2010). Development
of mathematics interest in adolescence: Influences of gender, fam-
ily, and school context. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(2),
507–537. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00645.x
Gravemeijer, K., Stephan, M., Julie, C., Lin, F., & Ohtani, M.
(2017). What mathematics education may prepare students for
STOHLMANN
the society of the future? International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 15(1), 105–123. https​://doi.org/10.1007/
s10763-017-9814-6
Grigoras, R., Garcia, F., & Halverscheid, S. (2011). Examining math-
ematising activities in modelling tasks with a hidden mathematical
character. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.),
Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling
(pp. 85–95). New York, NY: Springer.
Grootenboer, P., & Marshman, M. (2016). Mathematics, affect and
learning: Middle school students’ beliefs and attitudes about math-
ematics education. New York, NY: Springer.
Harel, G., & Lesh, R. (2003). Local conceptual development of proof
schemes in a cooperative learning setting. In R. Lesh & H. Doerr
(Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives
on mathematics problem solving, teaching, and learning (pp. 359–
382). New York, NY: Routledge.
Imm, K., & Lorber, M. (2013). The footprint problem: A pathway to
modeling. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 19(1), 46–
54. https​://doi.org/10.5951/matht​eacmi​ddscho.19.1.0046
Jurow, A. S. (2004). Generalizing in interaction: Middle school math-
ematics students making mathematical generalizations in a popula-
tion‐modeling project. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11(4), 279–300.
https​://doi.org/10.1207/s1532​7884m​ca1104_4
Katehi, L., G. Pearson, & M. Feder (Eds.). (2009). National Academy
of Engineering and National Research Council Engineering in K‐12
education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
King, A. (2017). Using Desmos to draw in mathematics. The Australian
Mathematics Teacher, 73(2), 33–37.
Lee, J. (2012). College for all: Gaps between desirable and actual P‐12 math
achievement trajectory for college readiness. Educational Researcher,
41(2), 43–55. https​://doi.org/10.3102/00131​89X11​432746
Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. (2003). Foundations of a model and modeling
perspective on mathematics teaching, learning and problem solv-
ing. In R. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models
and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learn-
ing and teaching (pp. 3–38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Lesh, R., Hoover, M., Hole, B., Kelly, A., & Post, T. (2000). Principles
for developing thought‐revealing activities for students and teach-
ers. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in
mathematics and science education (pp. 591–645). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Lesseig, K., Nelson, T., Slavit, D., & Seidel, R. (2016). Supporting mid-
dle school teachers’ implementation of STEM design challenges.
School Science and Mathematics, 116(4), 177–188. https​ ://doi.
org/10.1111/ssm.12172​
MaaB, K. (2007). Modelling in class: What do we want the students
to learn? In C. Haines, P. Galbraith, W. Blum, & S. Khan (Eds.),
Mathematical modelling: Education, engineering and economics
(pp. 63–78). Chichester, England: Horwood Publishing.
Maiorca, C., & Stohlmann, M. (2016). Inspiring students in integrated
STEM education through modeling activities. In C. Hirsch & A.
R. McDuffie (Eds.), Annual perspectives in mathematics educa-
tion 2016: Mathematical modeling and modeling mathematics
(pp. 153–161). Reston, VA: NCTM.
Mohr‐Schroeder, M., Miller, M., Little, D., Schooler, W., Jackson, C.,
Walcott, B., … Schroeder, D. (2014). Developing middle school stu-
dents’ interest in STEM via summer learning experiences: See blue
STEM camp. School Science and Mathematics, 114(6), 291–301.
|
     295
Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M., Wang, H.‐H., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A., &
Roehrig, G. H. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineer-
ing in K‐12 STEM education. In S. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. Cardella
(Eds.), Engineering in PreCollege Settings: Research into Practice
(pp. 35–60). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Press.
Mousoulides, N., Christou, C., & Sriraman, B. (2008). A modeling per-
spective on the teaching and learning of mathematical problem solv-
ing. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(3), 293–304. https​://
doi.org/10.1080/10986​06080​2218132
Mousoulides, N., & English, L. D. (2011). Engineering model eliciting
activities for elementary school students. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum,
R. Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of
mathematical modelling (pp. 221–230). New York, NY: Springer.
National Academies Press. (2014). STEM Integration in K‐12
Education: Status, prospects, and an Agenda for Research. M.
Honey, G. Pearson, & H. Schweingruber (Eds.). Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press. https​://doi.org/10.17226/​18612​
National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). NAEP mathematics
report card. Retrieved from https​://www.natio​nsrep​ortca​rd.gov/
math_2017/natio​n/achie​vemen​t?grade​=8
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and
standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to ac-
tions. Reston, VA: Author.
National Research Council, National Science Teachers Association,
American Association for the Advancement of Science & Achieve.
(2013). Next generation science standards. Retrieved from http://
www.nextg​ensci​ence.org
Ng, K. E. D. (2011). Mathematical knowledge application and student
difficulties in a design‐based interdisciplinary project. In G. Kaiser,
W. Blum, R. Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and
learning of mathematical modelling (pp. 107–116). New York, NY:
Springer.
Ng, O. (2017). Exploring the use of 3D computer‐aided design and 3D
printing for STEAM learning in mathematics. Digital Experiences
in Mathematics Education, 3(3), 257–263. https​://doi.org/10.1007/
s40751-017-0036-x
Noonan, R. (2017). STEM Jobs: 2017 update. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Commerce.
Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development. (2015).
PISA 2015 country overview. Retrieved from http://www.compa​
reyou​rcoun​try.org/pisa/count​ry/USA?lg=en
Pang, J., & Good, R. (2000). A review of the integration of sci-
ence and mathematics: Implications for further research.
School Science and Mathematics, 100(2), 73–82. https​ ://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb172​39.x
Raytheon. (2012). Math relevance to U.S. middle school students.
Waltham, MA: Raytheon.
Redmond, A., Thomas, J., High, K., Scott, M., Jordan, P., & Dockers,
J. (2011). Enriching science and math through engineering.
School Science and Mathematics, 111(8), 399–408. https​ ://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00105.x
Roehrig, G. H., Moore, T. J., Wang, H. H., & Park, M. S. (2012). Is
adding the E enough? Investigating the impact of K‐12 engi-
neering standards on the implementation of STEM integration.
School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 31–44. https​ ://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00112.x
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: The Free
Press.
 |
296      STOHLMANN
Sawada, T. (1997). Developing lesson plans. In J. Becker & S. Shimada
(Eds.), The open‐ended approach: A new proposal for teaching
mathematics (pp. 23–35). Reston, VA: NCTM.
Smith, J., & Karr‐Kidwell, P. (2000). The interdisciplinary curriculum:
A literary review and a manual for administrators and teachers.
Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED443172
Smith, M., & Stein, M. (2011). 5 practices for orchestrating productive
mathematics discussions. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Soucie, T., Radovic, N., & Svedrec, R. (2010). Making technology
work. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 15(8), 466–471.
Stein, M., Engle, R., Smith, M., & Hughes, E. (2008). Orchestrating pro-
ductive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers
move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning,
10(4), 313–340. https​://doi.org/10.1080/10986​06080​2229675
Stohlmann, M. (2017a). Middle school students first experience with
mathematical modeling. International Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 7(1), 56–71.
Stohlmann, M. (2017b). Elementary mathematical modeling: Get in the
GAIMME. Banneker Banner Journal, 30(2), 4–11.
Stohlmann, M. (2017c). Desmos battleship. The Australian Mathematics
Teacher, 73(2), 7–11.
Stohlmann, M. (2018). A vision for future work to focus on the “m” in
integrated STEM. School Science and Mathematics, 118(7), 310–
319. https​://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12301​
Stohlmann, M., & Albarracin, L. (2016). What is known about
­elementary grades mathematical modelling. Education Research
International, 2016, 1–9. https​://doi.org/10.1155/2016/5240683
Stohlmann, M., Maiorca, C., & Olson, T. (2015). Preservice secondary
teachers’ conceptions from a mathematical modeling activity and
connections to the Common Core State Standards. The Mathematics
Educator Journal, 24(1), 21–43.
Stohlmann, M., Roehrig, G. H., & Moore, T. J. (2014). The need for
STEM teacher education development. In S. Green (Ed.), STEM
education: Training 21st century teachers (pp. 17–32). Hauppauge,
NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Varygiannes, D. (2013). The impact of open‐ended tasks. Teaching
Children Mathematics, 20(5), 277–280.
Wang, H., Moore, T., Roehrig, G., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM inte-
gration: Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre‐College
Engineering Education Research, 1(2), 1–13.
Wendell, K. B., & Rogers, C. B. (2013). Engineering design‐based sci-
ence, science content performance, and science attitudes in elemen-
tary school. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 513–540.
https​://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20026​
Yanagimoto, A., & Yoshimura, N. (2013). Mathematical Modelling
of a real‐world problem: The decreasing number of Bluefin tuna.
In G. Stillman, G. Kaiser, W. Blum, & J. Brown (Eds.), Teaching
mathematical modelling: Connecting to research and practice
(pp. 229–239). New York, NY: Springer.
Yoon, S., Dyehouse, M., Lucietto, A., Diefes‐Dux, H., & Capobianco,
B. (2014). The effects of integrated science, technology, and engi-
neering education on elementary students’ knowledge and identity
development. School Science and Mathematics, 114(8), 380–391.
https​://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12090​
How to cite this article: Stohlmann M. Three modes
of STEM integration for middle school mathematics
teachers. School Science and Mathematics.
2019;119:287–296. https​://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12339​