Presentation from the 2nd Scientix Conference, 24-26 October 2014, Brussels, Belgium

1. Michela Insenga
Research assistant
The University of Liverpool
SCIENTIX 2nd conference,
Brussels
25th October 2014

2. INSTEM is a project in the frame of the Lifelong
Learning program, called Comenius Network (2012-
2015) which brings together the experience and
learning of a wide range of projects in STEM
education throughout Europe.
The INSTEM project was developed from the idea
that projects in STEM education should talk to each
other and share their ideas - It grew out of the
informal group ProCoNet (Project Coordinators‘
Network).
INSTEM also acts as an integrated provider of STEM
education materials and techniques, based on the
work of previous projects. After having identified the
need of a stronger link between policy makers and
practitioners, one of the INSTEM’s aims is to
enhance the link between policy and practice.

3. Gather and collate the knowledge developed by
previous projects in science education from 2007
to 2013 (EC FP7 program), not to lose track of
project outcomes once a project funding are over.
Make science education more attractive, based on
our conviction that responding to global challenges
such as climate change needs citizens to participate
actively in the research and innovation process, to
support sustainable development and to act
responsibly.
Provide effective dissemination strategies for
innovative ways of teaching STEM across Europe.
Promote educational innovation and best practice
in science education and a better European
co‐operation.
Help the growth and establishment of a network of
science educators in Europe.

4. The SoA report provides a previously unavailable picture of inquiry
based science education within eight different EU countries
(including two regions within one country) and establishes
recommendations for achieving future progress. The goals of our
report are to:
Identify the long-term impact and sustainability of project
outcomes;
Investigate the current situation on educational innovation
(including inquiry-based teaching, gender issues and science career
information);
Explore how and to what extent project knowledge is used
(analysis based on text reviews, interviews, questionnaires);
Identify the relevant key actors to address during the project to
ensure that the results are used and acted on.

5. This report highlights eight specific
areas for reflection, and identifies,
as far as possible, the affiliation of
these areas across all the project
findings. Four of the areas
highlighted, are the aspects that
have most commonality between all
the projects.
The remaining four identify features,
which with hindsight can now be
seen to be missing from most
previous project design, delivery and
dissemination (at a pan European
level).

6. Area 5: The voices of teachers, as the
main actors in the delivery of inquiry-based
learning in the classroom, were not
very audible within the reports.
Area 6: Children are the beneficiaries of
inquiry-based learning classroom
provision, however their voices and
perspectives were not reflected in the
project reports.

7. Recommendation 1:
There is a need to identify a travel plan for the
European learning journey in relation to education
until 2050 (or at the least 2020) This should be based
on the engagement of all societal actors (children,
teachers, parents, educational services,
governments, business, media, third sector
organisations etc.)
Recommendation 2:
Genuine participation by societal actors requires
supportive structures (e.g. communities of practice)
which enable individuals to gain confidence in their
own voice, to know their opinion is valued,
respected, and is being listened to. This is
particularly true for children and teachers.

8. Recommendation 3:
In order to engage the range of societal actors
involved, there is a need for greater
synchronisation between policies and actions in
primary, post primary and the tertiary sector,
and across funding programmes.

9. Citizen & Civil society engagement
Gender in research content and careers (all actors are
on board)
Open access to research (free online access to the
results of publicly-funded research)
Science Education
Ethics
Governance frameworks (policymakers have the
responsibility to prevent unethical or harmful research)
RRI
Research Practices

10. This report is based on a review of documents supplied by 20+ of
the STEM education projects funded in FP7 and the LLP. The full
report is as comprehensive as possible but cannot be exhaustive,
due to the continual proliferation of projects and documents. Its
conclusions are set out below as recommendations.
The key message of this report is that there should be a coherent
approach to STEM education in Europe during the period of the
Horizon 2020 programme and beyond (2014-2025). The funding of
STEM education projects by the EC is an important contribution
to revitalising teaching and learning in these subjects, and all the
projects reviewed here are fully committed to a pan-European
movement towards innovative policies in STEM education.
The INSTEM synthesis reflects the consensus view of project
coordinators, who have had experience of STEM projects over
many years and who are committed to improving the state of
STEM education in Europe and elsewhere.
Enhance coordination and dialogue between
projects and project coordinators and the link
between policy and practice.

11. In the frame of INSTEM, each of the partners (9
between countries/regions) organised a national
workshop involving key stakeholders in the local
area/community, to engage with the results of
the state of the art report and the synthesis
report.
The outcome was the initial steps to establish a
national working group in each country, to
continue cooperating beyond the duration of the
project.
The national working groups have the
opportunity to meet and follow up their work
together during the 2nd and 3rd INSTEM
Conferences (Halle and Brussels).

12. The INSTEM partners are in charge of writing a national
case study based on their country/institution,
showing:
How previous projects have produced an impact
(short term and long term impact) on the local
community;
How this previous project has related them to INSTEM
and contributed to make them part of this project;
If there are elements of replicability present in this
project of successful stories of long term impact on
the local context and/or institutional change
To what extent this model could be replicable -
regional, national or broader level
If there are regional or national changes made as a
consequence of this project
We are looking for replicable models of short/long
term impact

13. The last INSTEM conference will be held in
Brussels, dates (tbc) 15th to 19th of June 2015
presenting the outcomes and findings
developed out of the three years of the
projects.

15. For further information:
http://instem.tibs.at/
michela.insenga@gmail.com