The value of science partly lies on the development of useful products for humanity’s needs, but basic sciences cannot be said the “protagonists” of their obtention. Human history shows that these processes occur as a result of interactions between science and technology, mathematics, and engineering, as well as ethics and aesthetics. This network of disciplinary relationships facilitating the impact of scientific knowledge on human lives is at the center of discussions in the field of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education, and will be the focus of this article. Since the problems encountered in people’s everyday activities cannot be solved with the knowledge and skill of a single discipline, there emerges an aim for general education to attain more holistic understandings required by human needs. Our conceptualization of STEM education, based on classical Greek philosophy, addresses this issue. We acknowledge that the traditional paradigm of monodisciplinary education, formed as a result of the separation of sciences over history, has been challenged in the last two decades with the rise of integrating approaches in science and technology education. STEM is consistently mentioned as a way for gaining the integrated knowledge and skills deemed important for the near future, but theoretical searches towards solving its basic problems are still ongoing and we take this as our general research problem. In this argumentative study, the philosophical approach proposed to shed light on STEM education practices is structured along two conceptual axes: integration of disciplines and inclusion of humanistic goals. Suitable foundations for our proposal are sought in Aristotelian philosophy: We use Aristotle’s conception of a particular kind of human activity—poiesis, that aims to create “useful” and “aesthetic” products in order to propose an engineering “center” or “core” in the design of STEM school practices. Our model, labeled as “poietic” STEM, incorporates key elements of the nature of engineering; under the light of such a model, some aspects of what is called the “nature of STEM” are discussed. We conclude that, in an education envisaging more holistic approaches towards citizen literacy, it is necessary to connect the performance of STEM with responsible human interaction. In accordance with this requirement, our approximation to STEM centered on an epistemologically sophisticated conception of engineering makes room for fostering shared awareness in students.

1. Oeser E. The evolution of scientific method. In: Wuketits FM, ed. Concepts and approaches in evolutionary epistemology. Springer; 1984: 149–184. .    DOI: 10.1007/978–94–009–7127–1_6

2. Boyd R. Materialism without reductionism: What physicalism does not entail. In: Block N, ed. Readings in the philosophy of psychology. Harvard University Press; 1980: 76–106. .    DOI: 10.4159/harvard.9780674594623.c8

3. Hanfling O. Logical positivism. In: Shankar SG, ed. Philosophy of science, logic and mathematics in the twentieth century. Routledge; 2023: 193–214.

4. Uebel TE. Education, enlightenment and positivism: The Vienna circle’s scientific world-conception revisited. Sci Educ. 2004;13:41–66.    DOI: 10.1023/B:SCED.0000018469.45137.30

5. Cat J. The unity of science. In: Zalta EN, ed. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. SEP; 2017.

6. Alatlı A. [“Holistic” thought evolution]. Alev Alatlı Theme. Accessed August 1, 2023. https://www.alevalatli.com.tr/butuncul-dusunce-devrimi-darwinsel-evrime-karsi-birlikte-evrilme/ (in Turkish)

7. Morin E. Seven complex lessons in education for the future. Early Years Educ. 2018;20(6):38–44.    DOI: 10.12968/eyed.2018.20.6.38

8. Ortiz-Revilla J, Greca IM, Adúriz-Bravo A. The philosophy in/of integrated STEM education. In: Seroglou F, Koulountzos V, eds. Re-introducing science: Sculpting the image of science for education and media in its historical and philosophical background. Grafima Publications; 2019: 509–517.

9. Shen BSP. Science literacy and the public understanding of science. In: Communication of Scientific Information. Karger; 2015: 44–52. .    DOI: 10.1159/000398072

10. Wang HH, Moore TJ, Roehrig GH, Park MS. STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice. J Pre-College Eng Educ Res. 2011;1(2):2.    DOI: 10.5703/1288284314636

11. Meyer A. The development of education in the twentieth century. J Educ Sociol. 1939;13(4):255.    DOI: 10.2307/2263026

12. Dewey J. The way out of educational confusion. Harvard University Press; 1931.    DOI: 10.4159/harvard.9780674284678

13. Yager RE. The science/technology/society movement in the United States: Its origins, evolution, and rationale. Soc Educ. 1990;54(4):198–201.

14. Binkley M, Erstad O, Herman J, et al. Defining twenty-first century skills. In: Griffin P, McGaw B, Care E, eds. Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills. Springer; 2012: 17–66. .    DOI: 10.1007/978–94–007–2324–5_2

15. Trilling B, Fadel C. 21st century skill: Learning for life in our times. Wiley; 2009.

16. McComas WF, Burgin SR. A critique of “STEM” education. Sci Educ. 2020;29(4):805–829.    DOI: 10.1007/s11191–020–00138–2

17. Sungur Gul K, Saylan Kirmizigul AS, Ates H, Garzon J. Advantages and challenges of STEM education in K-12: Systematic review and research synthesis. Int J Res Educ Sci. 2023;9(2):283–307.    DOI: 10.46328/ijres.3127

18. Roehrig GH, Dare EA, Ring-Whalen E, Wieselmann JR. Understanding coherence and integration in integrated STEM curriculum. Int J STEM Educ. 2021;8(1):1–21.

19. Bybee R. Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technol Eng Teach. 2010;70:30–35.

20. Zollman A. Learning for STEM literacy: stem literacy for learning. Sch Sci Math. 2012;112(1):12–19.    DOI: 10.1111/j.1949–8594.2012.00101.x

21. Gonzalez HB, Kuenzi JJ. Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: A primer. Congressional Research Service; 2012.

22. Kang M, Kim J, Kim Y. [Learning outcomes of the teacher training program for STEAM education]. Korean J Learn Sci. 2013;7(2):18–28. (in Korean)

23. Yıldırım B, Sevi M. Examination of the effects of STEM education integrated as a part of science, technology, society and environment courses. Hum Sci. 2016;13(3):3684–3695.    DOI: 10.14687/jhs.v13i3.3876

24. Kanadlı S. A meta-summary of qualitative findings about STEM education. Int J Instr. 2019;12(1):959–976.    DOI: 10.29333/iji.2019.12162a

25. LaPorte JE, Sanders ME. Technology science mathematics integration project. In: Martin GE, eds. Foundations of technology education. 44th ed. McGraw-Hill; 1995.

26. Sanders M. STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. Technol Teach. 2009;68(4):20–26.

27. Sanders ME. Integrative STEM education as best practice. In: Middleton H, ed. Explorations of best practice in technology, design, and engineering education. Griffith Institute for Educational Research; 2012: 102–117.

28. Breiner JM, Harkness SS, Johnson CC, Koehler CM. What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. Sch Sci Math. 2012;112(1):3–11.    DOI: 10.1111/j.1949–8594.2011.00109.x

29. Bybee RW. The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. NSTA Press; 2013.

30. White DW. What is STEM education and why is it important? Fla Assoc Teach Educ J. 2014;1(14):1–9.

31. Zeidler DL. STEM education: a deficit framework for the twenty first century? A sociocultural socioscientific response. Cult Stud Sci Educ. 2016;11(1):11–26.    DOI: 10.1007/s11422–014–9578-z

32. Blackley S, Howell J. A STEM narrative: 15 years in the making. Aust J Teach Educ. 2015;40(7):8.    DOI: 10.14221/ajte.2015v40n7.8

33. Next Generation Science Standards. National Academies Press; 2013.

34. Honey M, Pearson G, Schweingruber H. STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press; 2014.

35. Gencer AS, Dogan H, Bilen K, Can B. [Integrated STEM education models]. Pamukkale Unıv J Fac Educ. 2019;45:38–55.    DOI: 10.9779/PUJE.2018.221

36. Yang DZ, Baldwin SJ. Using technology to support student learning in an integrated STEM learning environment. Int J Technol Educ Sci. 2020;4(1):1–11.    DOI: 10.46328/ijtes.v4i1.22

37. Resnick M, Rosenbaum E. Designing for tinkerability. In: Kanter MHDE, ed. Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators. Routledge; 2013: 164–181.

38. Erduran S. Nature of “STEM”? Sci Educ. 2020;29(4):781–784.    DOI: 10.1007/s11191–020–00150–6    PMID: 32836878

39. A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press; 2012. .    DOI: 10.17226/13165

40. Navy SL, Kaya F. PBL as a pedagogical approach for integrated STEM: Evidence from prospective teachers. Sch Sci Math. 2020;120(5):285–296.    DOI: 10.1111/ssm.12408

41. Morrison J. TIES STEM education monograph series: Attributes of STEM education. TIES; 2006.

42. Ring EA. Teacher conceptions of integrated STEM education and how they are reflected in integrated STEM curriculum writing and classroom implementation. Minnesota: University of Minnesota. 2017. (Thesis)

43. Pitt J. Blurring the boundaries—STEM education and education for sustainable development. Des Technol Educ Int J. 2009;14:37–48.

44. Bryan LA, Moore TJ, Johnson CC, Roehrig GH. Integrated STEM education. In: Johnson CC, Peters-Burton EE, Moore TJ, eds. STEM road map: A framework for integrated STEM education. Routledge; 2016.

45. Drake SM. Creating standards-based integrated curriculum: The common core state standards edition. 3rd. Corwin Press; 2012.

46. Wong V, Dillon J, King H. STEM in England: Meanings and motivations in the policy arena. Int J Sci Educ. 2016;38(15):2346–2366.

47. Williams JP. STEM education: proceed with caution. Des Technol Educ Int J. 2011;16(1):26–35.

48. European Education and Culture Executive Agency-Eurydice, Forsthuber B, Horvath A, Almeida Coutinho AS. Science education in Europe: National policies, practices and research. Eurydice Publication; 2012.

49. Chesky NZ, Wolfmeyer MR. STEM’s what, why, and how? Ontology, axiology, and epistemology. In: Philosophy of STEM education: A critical investigation. Palgrave Macmillan; 2015:17–43. .    DOI: 10.1057/9781137535467.0007

50. Gil Cantero F, Reyero D. [The priority of the philosophy of education on the empirical disciplines in educational research]. Revista Española de Pedagogía. 2014;72(258):263–280. (in Spanish)

51. Lederman NG, Abd-El-Khalick F. Avoiding de-natured science: activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In: McComas WF, ed. The Nature of Science in Science Education. Springer; 1998: 83–126.

52. Adúriz-Bravo A, Salazar I, Mena N, Badillo E. La epistemología en la formación del profesorado de ciencias naturales: aportaciones del positivismo lógico. Rev Electrónica De Investig En Educ En Cienc. 2015;1(1):6–23.

53. Matthews MR. Science teaching: the contribution of history and philosophy of science, 20th anniversary revised and expanded edition. 2nd. Routledge; 2014.

54. Moore T, Smith KA. Advancing the state of the art of STEM integration. J STEM Educ. 2014;15(1):5–10.

55. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). How is the global talent pool changing (2013, 2030)? In: Education Indicators in Focus. OECD; 2015: 31. .    DOI: 10.1787/22267077

56. Bayraktutan Y, Bıdırı H. [Technology and Competitiveness: An Assessment in Terms of Main Concepts and Indexes]. J Acad Res Stud. 2016;8(14):1–24.    DOI: 10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.264342

57. International Technology Education Association (ITEA). The overlooked STEM imperatives: Technology and engineering K-12 education. ITEA; 2009.

58. National Academy of Engineering, National Research Council. Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. The National Academies Press; 2009.    DOI: 10.17226/12635

59. Martin R, Euchner J. (2012). Design thinking: An interview with Martin Roger. Res-Technol Manage. 2012;55(3):10–14.

60. Moore TJ, Miller RL, Lesh RA, Stohlmann MS, Kim YR. Modeling in engineering: the role of representational fluency in students’ conceptual understanding. J Eng Educ. 2013;102(1):141–178.

61. Henriksen D. Creating STEAM with design thinking: beyond STEM and arts integration. STEAM. 2017;3(1):1–11.    DOI: 10.5642/steam.20170301.11

62. Wells JG. PIRPOSAL Model of Integrative STEM Education: Conceptual and Pedagogical Framework for Classroom Implementation. Technol Eng Teach. 2016;75(6):12–19.

63. Martin R. The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Harvard Business School Press; 2009.

64. Moore TJ, Stohlmann MS, Wang HH, Tank KM, Glancy AW, Roehrig GH. Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. In: Purzer S, Strobel J, Cardella M, eds. Engineering in Pre-College Settings: Synthesizing Research, Policy, and Practices. Purdue University Press; 2014:35–60.

65. Guzey SS, Tank K, Wang HH, Roehrig G, Moore T. A high-quality professional development for teachers of grades 3–6 for implementing engineering into classrooms. Sch Sci Math. 2014;114(3):139–149.    DOI: 10.1111/ssm.12061

66. Marulcu İ, Sungur K. [Examination of pre-service science teachers’ perceptions of engineers and engineering and their perspectives on engineering-design as a method]. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi. 2012;12(1):13–23. (in Turkish)

67. Sheppard S, Colby A, Macatangay K, Sullivan W. What is engineering practice? Int J Engng Ed. 2006;22(3):429–438.

68. Şen Z. Mühendislikte Felsefe, Mantık, Bilim ve Etik. Tübitak Publications; 2016.

69. Kanavouras A, Coutelieris FA, Theologou K, Stelios S. Scientific research—perspective, awareness and criticism. In: Experimentation Methodology for Engineers. Springer; 2018:31–79.

70. Dunne D, Martin R. Design thinking and how it will change management education: an interview and discussion. Acad Manag Learn Educ. 2006;5(4):512–523.    DOI: 10.5465/amle.2006.23473212

71. Brown T, Wyatt J. Design thinking for social innovation. In: Stanford Social Innovation Review. Stanford University; 2010: 31–35.

72. Herschbach DR. Technology as knowledge: Implications for instruction. J Technol Educ. 1995;7(1):31–42.

73. Bunge M. Technology as applied science. Technol Cult. 1966;7(3):329–347.    DOI: 10.2307/3101932

74. National Assessment Governing Board. Technology and engineering literacy assessment and item specifications for the 2014 National Assessment of Educational Progress. WestEd; 2010.

75. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs. ABET; 2010.

76. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The PISA 2003 Assessment Framework: Mathematics, Reading, Science and Problem Solving Knowledge and Skills. OECD; 2003.

77. Downey GL. What is engineering studies for? Dominant practices and scalable scholarship. Eng Stud. 2009;1(1):55–76.    DOI: 10.1080/19378620902786499

78. Trevelyan J. Reconstructing engineering from practice. Eng Stud. 2010;2(3):175–195.    DOI: 10.1080/19378629.2010.520135

79. Balaban O. Praxis and Poesis in Aristotle’s practical philosophy. J Value Inq. 1990;24(3):185–198.

80. Ross D. Aristotle. 6th ed. Routledge; 1995.    DOI: 10.4324/9780203379530

81. Guariglia O. La ética en Aristóteles o la moral de la virtud. Eudeba; 1997.

82. Arslan A. [History of Ancient Philosophy 3/Aristotle], Istanbul Bilgi University Publications; 2007.

83. Heidegger M. Vorträge und Aufsätze. Günther Neske Verlag; 1954.

84. Gadamer HG. Wahrheit und Methode: Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. Mohr Siebeck; 1960.

85. Svenaeus F. Hermeneutics of medicine in the wake of Gadamer: the issue of phronesis. Theor Med Bioeth. 2003;24(5):407–431.    DOI: 10.1023/b:    PMID: 14760869

86. Southerland SA, Settlage J. Humanistic science education: updating our collective consciousness and offering fresh consideration. Sci Educ. 2022;106(3):479–481.    DOI: 10.1002/sce.21715

87. Components of WSCC. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed August 1, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/wscc/components.htm

88. Greenberg NA. The use of poiema and poiesis. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. 1961;65:263–289.    DOI: 10.2307/310839

89. Schunk DH. Social cognitive theory. In: Harris KR, Graham S, Urdan T, McCormick CB, Sinatra GM, Sweller J, eds. APA educational psychology handbook, vol. 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues. American Psychological Association; 2012: 101–123. .    DOI: 10.1037/13273–005

90. Adúriz-Bravo A. Innovative strategies for science teaching. In: Leite L, Oldham E, Afonso AS, Viseu F, Dourado L, Martinho MH, eds. Science and mathematics education for 21st century citizens: Challenges and ways forward. Nova Science Publishers; 2020: 107–131.

91. Sutaphan S, Yuenyong C. STEM education teaching approach: Inquiry from the context based. J Phys-Conf Ser. 2019;1340:012003.    DOI: 10.1088/1742–6596/1340/1/012003

92. Çelik A, Özdemir S. Tinkering learning in classroom: An instructional rubric for evaluating 3D printed prototype performance. Int J Technol Des Educ. 2020;30(3):459–478.    DOI: 10.1007/s10798–019–09512-w

93. Yakman G. STEAM Education: an overview of creating a model of integrative education. STEAM Educ Model. 2008.

94. Trinidad O, Adúriz-Bravo A, Furci V, Peretti L. Enseñanza basada en contexto: Análisis de una propuesta para andamiar el diseño de secuencias didácticas en la formación inicial del profesorado de ciencias naturales. Bio-grafía. 2021.

95. Revel Chion A, Adúriz-Bravo A. Narrativas para abordar temáticas de salud y enfermedad con profesores de ciencias. Tecné, Episteme y Didaxis. 2021:465–469.