challenges in stem education

• MISSION / VISION
• DIVERSITY STATEMENT
• CAREER OPPORTUNITIES
• Kide Science
• STEMscopes Science
• Collaborate Science
• STEMscopes Math
• Math Nation
• STEMscopes Coding
• Mastery Coding
• DIVE-in Engineering
• STEMscopes Streaming
• Tuva Data Literacy
• NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STEM EDUCATION
• STEMSCOPES PROFESSIONAL LEARNING
• RESEARCH & EFFICACY STUDIES
• STEM EDUCATION WEBINARS
• LEARNING EQUITY
• DISTANCE LEARNING
• PRODUCT UPDATES
• LMS INTEGRATIONS
• STEMSCOPES BLOG
• FREE RESOURCES
• TESTIMONIALS

The Challenges of STEM Education: Barriers to Participation

ALI Research Staff | Published  January 10, 2023

Incorporating new instructional strategies into your teaching practices is always challenging at first, but it gets easier with time. If you’ve tried to integrate STEM into your classroom, you’ve probably encountered barriers, but here are some ways to find a path forward to success.

The Promises and Challenges of STEM

There are many ways to implement STEM education . You might have a dedicated STEM classroom; you might teach one of the four disciplines of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics) and are trying to integrate the others; maybe you teach another subject, such as language arts or social studies, and want to integrate the concepts and skills of STEM.

No matter your context or motivation, you’ve joined a community of educators bringing about an exciting revolution in learning!

If you haven’t yet, you’ll soon notice a couple of things. The first is that good STEM teaching is, at its heart, just good teaching. The best strategies to use in a STEM classroom are the best strategies for any classroom.

The second thing you’ll notice is that a few obstacles present challenges to the full and effective integration of STEM. Although not all of these obstacles are easily overcome, there are ways to address many of them and find a path forward to success.

Understanding the Barriers to STEM

One way to think about barriers to STEM education is in terms of two different classifications. The first classification to look at is things we can do something about and things that are out of our direct control. The second classification is the distinction between barriers to teachers trying to teach STEM, and barriers to students trying to learn STEM.

Let’s begin by acknowledging that there are barriers to STEM education that are real, significant, and beyond our direct control. For example, among the six key aspects identified in one study (Dong, Wang, & Yang et al, 2020) were lack of time, school organization and structure, and the impact of exams. To this list, another study (Ejiwale, 2013) added lack of support for the school system and poor conditions of laboratory facilities. As citizens, voters, and STEM advocates we might be able to have an impact on funding or the use of assessments, but teachers can’t do much about realities like the amount of time we have.

How Teachers Can Help Themselves

Now let’s focus on the barriers to teachers, challenges that make it difficult to fully and effectively implement STEM in their classrooms. A common concern, seen in both of the studies mentioned above, is lack of teacher training. This lack refers not only to situations in which those assigned to teach subjects such as science or math have taken few college credits in these areas, but also to a lack of professional development in how specifically on STEM concepts and pedagogy. Teachers usually can’t control PD, but they can take classes in STEM subjects and avail themselves of online learning resources designed specifically for STEM teachers. You might even consider getting STEM certified .

In addition to curriculum resources, a STEM classroom relies heavily on physical materials– tools, technology, and, well, stuff. Many teachers already spend a lot of their own money on classroom materials, and a STEM classroom can be an even greater burden. Luckily, there are a number of grants available to teachers specifically for STEM classrooms. You can find one such list on the Snomish STEM website .

How Teachers Can Help Students

Teachers aren’t the only ones who face barriers in STEM education. Students also struggle with STEM learning. Particularly, students between the ages of 12 and 13, research (Lindahl, 2003) says, lose interest in topics related to STEM, a matter not just of failing to see the relevance of the content but also beginning to lose confidence in their own abilities in these domains.

Centering an integrated STEM program around relevant and real-world problems is essential to effective STEM teaching and learning and an effective way to address the common student complaint that school work has nothing to do with “real life”. Among the other obstacles noted by the research are a lack of inspiration on the part of students and lack of hands-on training. Here, teachers can definitely have an impact, by choosing curriculum resources and activities that inspire students ( real-world problem-solving , interactive multi-media) and that have opportunities to do hands-on work with the phenomenon under investigation.

The Way Forward

Teaching is hard and has gotten significantly harder over the past couple of years. This is not news to anyone in the classroom. Teachers who have remained in the job deserve kudos. Extra kudos, perhaps, are merited for any teacher taking on the extra effort of trying something new, especially STEM integration. Fortunately, for those who are taking on the challenge, there is a support community ready to offer guidance and support. Additionally, the rewards are worth the struggle for those who can meet the challenge. The key is to find and connect with the STEM education community, to collect and share resources, and to keep your eye on the ultimate prize, engaged and motivated students who become creative problem-solvers and lifelong learners.

Davis, E. A., Palincsar, A. S., Smith, P. S., Arias, A. M., & Kademian, S. M. (2017). Educative curriculum materials: Uptake, impact, and implications for research and design. Educational Researcher , 46 (6), 293-304.

Dong, Y., Wang, J., Yang, Y. et al. Understanding intrinsic challenges to STEM instructional practices for Chinese teachers based on their beliefs and knowledge base. IJ STEM Ed 7, 47 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00245-0

Ejiwale, J. (2013). Barriers to successful implementation of STEM education. Journal of Education and Learning . Vol.7 (2) 63–74.

Lindahl, B. (2003). Pupils’ responses to school science and technology? A longitudinal study of pathways to upper secondary school. Göteborg Studies in Educational Sciences , pp. 196 , 1–18.

Schneider, R. M., & Krajcik, J. (2002). Supporting science teacher learning: The role of educative curriculum materials. Journal of science teacher education , 13 (3), 221-245.

Share this post!

Related articles.

STEMscopes Texas Math Meets TEKS and ELP Standards!

There is quite a bit of uncertainty out there about the newly established Instructional Materials Review and Approval...

10 Quick, Fun Math Warm-Up Activities

Creating an environment that allows students to engage with fun math activities, versus rote memorization, helps...

Overview of Instructional Materials Review and Approval (IMRA) and House Bill 1605

In May 2023, Texas approved a transformative bill (House Bill 1605) that significantly impacts educational funding for...

STAY INFORMED ON THE LATEST IN STEM. SUBSCRIBE TODAY!

Which stem subjects are of interest to you.

STEMscopes Tech Specifications      STEMscopes Security Information & Compliance      Privacy Policy      Terms and Conditions

© 2024 Accelerate Learning

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

EVs fight warming but are costly. Why aren’t we driving $10,000 Chinese imports?

Toll of QAnon on families of followers

The urgent message coming from boys

Employment in STEM occupations has grown 79 percent in the past three decades, according to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

iStock by Getty Images

Growing gap in STEM supply and demand

Brigid O’Rourke

Harvard Correspondent

Experts cite online learning, digital tools as ways to build inclusive and equitable STEM workforce

The evolution and impact of STEM education and its accompanying career opportunities reflect a positive in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. But as the need grows for a specialized STEM-focused workforce, it’s becoming clear that not everyone has an equal opportunity.

During the Harvard-sponsored talk, “New Pathways to STEM,” panelists cited a large subset of students who are not being fully prepared for STEM careers. They then discussed ways the gap could be closed, pointing to online learning and the rapid advancement of new digital tools as ways to make STEM education more readily available. These new ways of learning, they said, can ultimately expand access to STEM education and create a more inclusive and equitable STEM workforce.

The need for a vast, talented workforce in STEM-related fields has never been more necessary, said Bridget Long, dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Long cited the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which shows employment in STEM occupations has grown 79 percent in the past three decades. In addition, STEM jobs are projected to grow an additional 11 percent from 2020 to 2030. In Massachusetts alone, “40 percent of all employment revolves around innovation industries, such as clean energy, information technology, defense and advanced manufacturing,” said Long.

But, she added, “the importance of STEM education is about so much more than just jobs. STEM fields demand curious individuals eager to solve the world’s most pressing problems.”

“We need to have a new vision of how we prepare students to think critically about the world … as well as educating a society such that it has scientific literacy,” said Joseph L. Graves Jr., (upper left). Joining Graves were Brigid Long, Mike Edmonson, Amanda Dillingham, and Martin West.

The study of STEM subjects, she continued, teaches critical-thinking skills, and instills a mindset that will help students find success across numerous areas and disciplines. However, Long said, “too often the opportunity to learn and to be inspired by STEM is not available.

“Only 20 percent of high school graduates are prepared for college-level coursework in STEM majors,” she cited, adding, “fewer than half of high schools in the United States even offer computer science classes. So that begs the question — are kids going to be ready to meet the evolving and growing landscape of STEM professions?”

While STEM education opportunities are often scarce for high school students across the board, it’s even more pervasive when you consider how inequitably access is distributed by income, race, ethnicity, or gender. For example, Long said, “Native American, Black and Latinx students are the least likely to attend schools that teach computer science, as are students from rural areas, and [those with] economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

“It’s not surprising that these differences in educational opportunities lead to very large differences in what we see in the labor force. We are shutting students out of opportunity,” she said.

So what can be done to ensure more students from all backgrounds are exposed to a wide variety of opportunities? According to Graduate School of Education Academic Dean Martin West, who is also a member of the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, a concerted effort is being made at the state level to work with — and through — teachers to convey to students the breadth of STEM opportunities and to assure them that “it’s not all sitting in front of a computer, or being in a science lab, but showing them that there are STEM opportunities in a wide range of fields.”

The relatively recent emergence of digital platforms, such as LabXchange, are helping to bridge the gap. LabXchange is a free online learning tool for science education that allows students, educators, scientists, and researchers to collaborate in a virtual community. The initiative was developed by  Harvard University’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences and the  Amgen Foundation . It offers a library of diverse content, includes a  biotechnology learning resource available in 13 languages, and applies science to real-world issues. Teachers and students from across the country and around the world can access the free content and learn from wherever they are.

Many of the panelists also pointed to the need for steady funding in helping to address the inequities.

“Bottom line, if this nation wants to be a competitive leader in STEM, it has to revitalize its vision of what it needs to do, particularly in the public schools where most Black and brown people are, with regard to producing the human and physical infrastructure to teach STEM,” said Joseph L. Graves Jr., professor of biological sciences, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University. Graves is also a member of the Faculty Steering Committee, LabXchange’s Racial Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Science Education Initiative.

The panel noted how LabXchange is partnering  with scholars from several historically Black colleges and universities to develop new digital learning resources on antiracism in education, science, and public health. The content, which will be freely available and translated into Spanish, is being funded by a $1.2 million grant from the Amgen Foundation. Aside from the highly successful LabXchange program, Mike Edmondson, vice president, Global Field Excellence and Commercial, Diversity Inclusion & Belonging at Amgen, noted the Amgen Biotech Experience and the Amgen Scholars program — both of which help to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to engage in science and to see themselves in a STEM career.

We also have to do a better job at helping people understand that that we cannot afford to fall behind in STEM education, Graves argued. “That means it’s going to cost us some money. So, America needs to be willing to pay … to build out STEM education infrastructure, so that we can produce the number of STEM professionals we need going forward,” he said. “We need to have a new vision of how we prepare students to think critically about the world … as well as educating a society such that it has scientific literacy.”

Amanda Dillingham, the program director of science and biology at East Boston High School, is on the front lines of this challenge, and says she believes that supporting teachers is one of the most critical steps that can be taken to address the issue in the immediate future.

When more funding is brought to the table, teachers “are able to coordinate networks … and build biotech labs in our classrooms and build robotics labs in our classrooms …. and are actually able to introduce students to [these fields and these careers] at a very early age,” said Dillingham.

Long and the panel also paid tribute to Rob Lue, the brainchild behind LabXchange, who passed away a year ago.

“Rob challenged science learners, scientists and educators to commit to ending racial inequity,” Long said. “Access was at the core of all of Rob’s many contributions to education at Harvard and beyond. He envisioned a world without barriers and where opportunity was available to anyone, especially in science. In everything that he did, he created an environment in which learners of all ages of diverse backgrounds could come together to imagine, learn, and achieve live exchange. Rob’s free online learning platform for science was his most expansive vision, and one that continues to inspire educators and learners around the world.”

Share this article

You might like.

Experts say tension between trade, green-tech policies hampers climate change advances; more targeted response needed

New book by Nieman Fellow explores pain, frustration in efforts to help loved ones break free of hold of conspiracy theorists

When we don’t listen, we all suffer, says psychologist whose new book is ‘Rebels with a Cause’

Billions worldwide deficient in essential micronutrients

Inadequate levels carry risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, blindness

You want to be boss. You probably won’t be good at it.

Study pinpoints two measures that predict effective managers

Weight-loss drug linked to fewer COVID deaths

Large-scale study finds Wegovy reduces risk of heart attack, stroke

Rising to the challenge of providing all students with high-quality STEM education

Subscribe to the brown center on education policy newsletter, lessons from 100kin10, talia milgrom-elcott talia milgrom-elcott founder and executive director - 100kin10.

March 23, 2022

Whether it’s the pandemic, climate change, food shortages, or economic inequality, almost all of the world’s most pressing problems would benefit from STEM-based solutions. Fourteen of the 16 fastest-growing “industries of the future” are STEM industries, and all of the top 25 degrees by pay and demand  are in the STEM subjects. By 2025, there will be 3.5 million STEM jobs open in the United States alone.

We could fill those jobs with top talent, but right now, only a tiny fraction of our nation’s population has the necessary STEM skills, knowledge, and agency. STEM inequities disproportionately affect young people of color, rural kids, kids in poverty, and girls—and they are magnified for young people who carry more than one of those identities. From our own experience and from reams of data coming out of labs like Raj Chetty’s at Harvard , we know that we are missing out on breakthrough innovations from young people who are missing out on the chance to do the kind of STEM that makes those breakthroughs possible.

When schools are the engines of social mobility, it is—more than anything else—because of what teachers do in the classroom. Yet even before the pandemic, schools were struggling to recruit and retain STEM teachers , a challenge that will only magnify if the Great Resignation reaches the schoolhouse.

A moonshot call to rise to the challenge

Inspired by President Obama and his call to action in the 2011 State of the Union for 100,000 new and excellent STEM teachers, 100Kin10 —a nonprofit organization that I founded and continue to lead—was born. Twenty-eight pioneering organizations from myriad sectors stepped up to make commitments to action that first year.

Ten years later, 100Kin10 is now a nationwide network coordinating the efforts of more than 300 outstanding organizations, and together we surpassed the original goal, preparing more than 108,000 STEM teachers over the last decade. According to an independent evaluation by Bellwether Education Partners, “Ten years after 100Kin10 first set out to answer President Obama’s call, education leaders describe a STEM education field that has progressed in significant ways.”

How? Our vast network co-created a map of the challenge space so that we could collectively see all the impediments to getting and keeping great STEM teachers in our schools. This process elevated bright spots and unearthed who was working on what—making collaboration easier and identifying areas of strength and deserts in need of greater investment. Finally, we developed tools that allowed those pioneers to learn from each other, adopt strong approaches to their contexts, and mutually develop solutions to shared problems, narrowing in on our role as mobilizers and removers of barriers to collaboration.

Harnessing collective efforts to solve the most challenging problems

Two key innovations drawn out in the Bellwether report bear mentioning. First, 100Kin10 preparation programs improved how they recruited highly qualified STEM teacher candidates. In 2011-12, each organization preparing STEM teachers prepared an average of 172 teachers. By 2020-21, the average had grown to 294. In the final two years of the effort, both of them in the pandemic, 100Kin10 partners prepared more teachers than they had in any other two-year period. And this came against a backdrop of the historic decline in total enrollment nationwide in teacher preparation programs since 2010.

As an example of how this was accomplished, a 100Kin10 project team developed an initiative to recruit more university STEM majors into teaching. The resulting Get the Facts Out (GFO) recruitment campaign provided informational materials to professors and undergraduates in STEM majors designed to dispel common negative myths about teaching. In 2021 alone, GFO reported reaching over 5,000 faculty and students at roughly 1,000 institutions across the country. Preliminary data indicate that the GFO approach has had a positive impact on university students who were more likely to report an interest in teaching and that their professors value and encourage teaching, compared against the period preceding GFO.

Second, 100Kin10 partners increased their emphasis on preparing and supporting elementary teachers with STEM skills, particularly in foundational math. Data are clear that the “spark” in math and science tends to come early, and that after grade 5, it is very difficult to recoup losses in math and science learning. Joyful and authentic early math was one of the high-leverage catalysts that we identified early in our strategy mapping; in 2019, we mobilized the network to address it. In just the two years since, 55% of partners reported that they increased their focus on this catalytic area. For example, the Intrepid Sea, Air, and Space Museum in New York City developed Code Together, a program where teachers and students learn basic coding together and explore ways to integrate computer science concepts into other subject areas. This shared learning model is intentionally designed to boost the confidence of teachers who feel unprepared or anxious about teaching STEM subjects—a common mindset among elementary teachers.

Since we launched, nearly 3,000 leaders have contributed to the work of the 100Kin10 network. All this led to Bellwether’s conclusion: “100Kin10’s success in simplifying a vastly complex problem and galvanizing action across the country accelerated positive shifts in the STEM education field” led to “more teachers and students hav[ing] access to meaningful, authentic, and rigorous STEM learning via 100Kin10 partners.”

Looking forward: Prioritizing inclusion and students’ experiences

We are at an inflection point, celebrating the end of our first 10-year run and looking ahead to what must come next. Much work is still to be done. Decades of racism and exclusion have left too many of our children—especially our Black, Latino, and Native American young people—from fully participating in the STEM fields.

In the fall of 2021, knowing we were near to reaching our first 100Kin10 goal, we launched the unCommission , a massive experience of storytelling and listening in which 600 young people—80% of whom were people of color—shared stories about experiences in STEM while in K-12. We heard about great hands-on science experiments (mummifying a chicken that the kids dubbed “KFC”) and curricula that didn’t feel at all relevant. But a deep vein that ran through the stories was the instrumental role that teachers played in creating—or failing to create—environments in which students believed they belonged and could succeed.

One student shared: “And then, the only science class I’ve ever taken that I really enjoyed would be chemistry in high school, which I took my sophomore year. And the difference in that class was 100%, the teacher, he was just amazing. Teachers that are passionate about what they do, they truly and clearly care. You know, that makes all the difference. And that makes me want to learn.”

Another told us: “Having a teacher who finally took the time to sit me down and make me address my gaps and knowledge has set me up for life. I am so lucky to have had someone who cared enough to intervene instead of letting me slowly drown and fall behind.”

As an artist working on the unCommission summed it up: “In an ecosystem of belonging, teachers are the keystone species. The keystone species is the species that keep an entire ecosystem in balance. Amidst the turmoil and uncertainty that is growing up, teachers are uniquely positioned to create that sense of belonging and connection for their students.”

And so, building on the success of the first 10 years, 100Kin10 is preparing to follow the voices of young people toward a new mountaintop. Our goal is not only preparing and retaining STEM teachers, but it is supporting them to create classrooms of belonging for their students—particularly for students of color. When our teachers are supported to create vibrant STEM classrooms of learning and belonging, the sky’s the limit on what challenges our young people will solve.

Related Content

Li Feng, Michael Hansen, David Devraj Kumar

July 16, 2021

Michael Hansen, Grace Breazeale, Mary Blankenship

June 17, 2019

K-12 Education

Governance Studies

Brown Center on Education Policy

Julien Lafortune, Barbara Biasi, David Schönholzer

September 6, 2024

Jenny Anderson, Rebecca Winthrop

January 7, 2025

Jonathan Rauch

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Challenges in implementing stem education: insights from novice stem teachers in developing countries.

1. Introduction

1.1. difficulties and challenges, 1.2. theoretical underpinnings.

• What are STEM teachers’ unique challenges in their classroom experiences?
• How do these factors influence their instructional practices and students’ learning outcomes?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. participant and procedure, 2.2. demographics of participants, 2.3. data collection and analysis, 2.4. coding of data, teachers’ classroom experiences.

Our class does not have effective classroom control, even though the teacher tries to design more exciting lessons. If you do not have effective classroom control, it will not work. (T3)

Discipline is difficult when the teacher is away from the classroom. It is a challenge to keep the students quiet. (T6)

As a teacher, it is not easy to control the order of the class during an experiment and keep the class on track while taking the test. (T1)

Some group members do not participate in the group, but more guidance, communication, and taking care of each child would be beneficial. (T2)

Incentives can be used for children with robust, rebellious personalities. For instance, praise his creativity and ask him to show his work. (T3)

Drawing pictures and sharing their most creative work through group discussion is a great way to unleash student creativity. (T6)

In class today, a student did not like to speak. After class, we discussed it with her, and she did not respond. With the right encouragement, she became active and raised her hand to speak; motivation is critical. (T2)

Making students think and answer more can motivate them. It is necessary for children who do not raise their hands often or lack a sense of presence to talk to them alone. In addition, it is essential to select simple questions for them to answer; this will increase his confidence and participation. (T4)

Other STEM teachers’ advice and experience are crucial, and novice organization teaching is enlightening. (T1)

When I taught, some students lacked discipline and self-management. A student’s reasoning ability affects the entire class and other students. So, I picked up the disciplined group and quietly talked to the poor self-management student during the break, praising him first, the smart and positive, then explaining why he did not praise him, finally advising the teacher he could manage himself and wait to see how he would perform. (T6)

The timing was still a little off. The students didn’t design after the final group bird feeder sketch; we can only take it back to design. (T3)

When you have a clear idea of the content, you can arrange your class time flexibly. (T2)

The course content should be explicit, according to the other teachers. In conclusion, arrange the course content moderately and prepare sufficient materials for the occasion. It is important to simplify the review and guide for the last lecture, and the course time can be reasonably arranged. (T5)

The amount of work must be controlled. Please remember to ask the group leader to come when you take the materials. This will improve the children’s ability to cooperate and control the class Sequence. (T4)

Define roles for the children and let them do their work. Many children feel plugged in and actively participate in group discussions. (T7)

All tasks must be clear and understandable. (T6)

The experimental requirements should be precise in advance for the trial production, speak how to use dough (binder), mix material treatment (Need an extra cup and stir bar), and how much water to add, And so on. (T6)

Making tasks specific, both after and in class, lets Children have something to do so they don’t talk out of boredom. (T5)

Designing and printing school plans as early as possible in the school year is very important; children have school plans and follow the rhythm better. (T7)

The learning to-do list should be closely linked to the curriculum through. The to-do list assists teaching and makes classroom activities more orderly. (T4)

The first half hour of the first session was very disciplined, and the course went well, but the problem was severe in a group discussion: first, the voice was booming, and discipline was Poor. Second, there is violence in the competition to be the group leader. (T1)

In this class, disharmony within the group was highly prominent, even when There was no consensus on the product launch stage. Future teaching Activities should emphasize teamwork. (T5)

Today, the order of the group discussion was poor because there was no emphasis on the leader. The group leader could not control the group members, and some children did not have two classes. Participating in the classroom. (T1)

Select speakers and note-takers for a three-minute group discussion. It’s important, but there’s still the phenomenon that people are not involved in the group. (T3)

The group leader assigned tasks during group discussions, but the group members did not listen. Group leaders also do everything from start to finish by themselves and don’t let Others intervene. (T1)

The course has many complicated knowledge points, and the logic is not strong, so the explanation of When part of the knowledge point can be adjusted to the absolute position and the time arrangement. (T2)

Various teachers give different classes, so the students are right. STEM courses also have uneven perceptions, thinking development, and outcomes. (T4)

I asked them to reflect on the reasons in the group discussion, and the summary was an excellent position. In the other group discussions, I felt the kids had something to think about. It’s a messy class, but most kids can handle it. It’s difficult for a second grader to make a reflective summary. (T2)

4. Discussion

5. conclusions, 6. limitation & implication.

• STEM teachers’ dispositions, interests, and motivations.
• For results to be transferable to other ages, many subjects must be piloted to ensure they are not limited to a small group of STEM teachers.

Author Contributions

Institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• United Nations. THE 17 GOALS|Sustainable Development. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed on 13 September 2023).
• Hallinger, P.; Chatpinyakoop, C. A Bibliometric Review of Research on Higher Education for Sustainable Development, 1998–2018. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 2401. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aleixo, A.M.; Leal, S.; Azeiteiro, U.M. Higher Education Students’ Perceptions of Sustainable Development in Portugal. J. Clean. Prod. 2021 , 327 , 129429. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nousheen, A.; Zai, S.A.Y.; Waseem, M.; Khan, S.A. Education for Sustainable Development (ESD): Effects of Sustainability Education on Pre-Service Teachers’ Attitude towards Sustainable Development (SD). J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 250 , 119537. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mirza, M.S. Institutionalizing ESD Standards in Teacher Education Programs: Case of National Accreditation Council for Teacher Education, Pakistan. Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun. 2015 , 14 , 97–104. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kalsoom, Q.; Khanam, A.; Quraishi, U. Sustainability Consciousness of Pre-Service Teachers in Pakistan. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2017 , 18 , 1090–1107. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Department of Education Australia. What Is STEM? Available online: https://www.education.wa.edu.au/what-is-stem (accessed on 15 September 2023).
• Dierking, L.D.; Falk, J.H. 2020 Vision: Envisioning a New Generation of STEM Learning Research. Cult. Stud. Sci. Educ. 2016 , 11 , 1–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guo, J.; Woulfin, S. Twenty-First Century Creativity: An Investigation of How the Partnership for 21st Century Instructional Framework Reflects the Principles of Creativity. Roeper Rev. 2016 , 38 , 153–161. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stains, M.; Harshman, J.; Barker, M.K.; Chasteen, S.V.; Cole, R.; DeChenne-Peters, S.E.; Eagan Jr, M.K.; Esson, J.M.; Knight, J.K.; Laski, F.A. Anatomy of STEM Teaching in North American Universities. Science 2018 , 359 , 1468–1470. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• El-Sabagh, H.A. Adaptive E-Learning Environment Based on Learning Styles and Its Impact on Development Students’ Engagement. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2021 , 18 , 53. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Krell, M.; Koska, J.; Penning, F.; Krüger, D. Fostering Pre-Service Teachers’ Views about Nature of Science: Evaluation of a New STEM Curriculum. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2015 , 33 , 344–365. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aslam, S.; Saleem, A.; Kennedy, T.J.; Kumar, T.; Parveen, K.; Akram, H.; Zhang, B. Identifying the Research and Trends in STEM Education in Pakistan: A Systematic Literature Review. SAGE Open 2022 , 12 , 21582440221118545. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lam, T.; Toan, T.; Ngoc, H. Challenges to STEM Education in Vietnamese High School Contexts. Heliyon 2021 , 7 , E08649. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pearson, G. National Academies Piece on Integrated STEM. J. Educ. Res. 2017 , 110 , 224–226. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ferrari, P. Trends in Learning|STEAM, STREAM, STEM Acronym ; cApStAn: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, Y. Journal for STEM Education Research–Promoting the Development of Interdisciplinary Research in STEM Education. J. STEM Educ. Res. 2018 , 1 , 1–6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hali, A.U.; Aslam, S.; Zhang, B.; Saleem, A. An Overview on STEM Education in Pakistan: Situation and Challenges. Int. Trans. J. Eng. Manag. Appl. Sci. Technol. 2021 , 12 , 9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Humna STEM Education in Pakistan—An Introduction to STEM System of Education—NIOQLAX. Available online: https://nioqlax.com/stem-education-in-pakistan (accessed on 8 October 2022).
• Awan, R.-N.; Sarwar, M.; Mehdi, M.; Noureen, G.; Anwar, N. Interests and Recruitment in Science: Factors Influencing Recruitment and Retention in STEM Education at University Level in Pakistan. Bull. Educ. Res. 2017 , 39 , 19–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thibaut, L.; Ceuppens, S.; De Loof, H.; De Meester, J.; Goovaerts, L.; Struyf, A.; Boeve-de Pauw, J.; Dehaene, W.; Deprez, J.; De Cock, M. Integrated STEM Education: A Systematic Review of Instructional Practices in Secondary Education. Eur. J. STEM Educ. 2018 , 3 , 2. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rinke, C.R.; Gladstone-Brown, W.; Kinlaw, C.R.; Cappiello, J. Characterizing STEM Teacher Education: Affordances and Constraints of Explicit STEM Preparation for Elementary Teachers. Sch. Sci. Math. 2016 , 116 , 300–309. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Leung, A. Boundary Crossing Pedagogy in STEM Education. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2020 , 7 , 15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hallström, J.; Schönborn, K.J. Models and Modelling for Authentic STEM Education: Reinforcing the Argument. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2019 , 6 , 22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vasquez, J.A.; Sneider, C.I.; Comer, M.W. STEM Lesson Essentials, Grades 3–8: Integrating Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics ; Heinemann: Portsmouth, NH, USA, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Almossa, S.Y.; Alzahrani, S.M. Assessment Practices in Saudi Higher Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2022 , 9 , 5. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tan, A.-L.; Leong, W.F. Mapping Curriculum Innovation in STEM Schools to Assessment Requirements: Tensions and Dilemmas. Theory Into Pract. 2014 , 53 , 11–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Estonanto, A.J.J. Acceptability and Difficulty of the STEM Track Implementation in Senior High School. Asia Pac. J. Multidiscip. Res. 2017 , 5 , 43–50. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fauth, B.; Decristan, J.; Decker, A.-T.; Büttner, G.; Hardy, I.; Klieme, E.; Kunter, M. The Effects of Teacher Competence on Student Outcomes in Elementary Science Education: The Mediating Role of Teaching Quality. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2019 , 86 , 102882. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Becker, K.H.; Park, K. Integrative Approaches among Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Subjects on Students’ Learning: A Meta-Analysis. J. STEM Educ. Innov. Res. 2011 , 12 , 23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zubrowski, B. Integrating Science into Design Technology Projects: Using a Standard Model in the Design Process. J. Technol. Educ. 2002 , 13 , 47–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sahin, I. Detailed Review of Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations Theory and Educational Technology-Related Studies Based on Rogers’ Theory. Turk. Online J. Educ. Technol. TOJET 2006 , 5 , 14–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson, C.C. Effective Professional Development and Change in Practice: Barriers Science Teachers Encounter and Implications for Reform. Sch. Sci. Math. 2006 , 106 , 150–161. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Margot, K.C.; Kettler, T. Teachers’ Perception of STEM Integration and Education: A Systematic Literature Review. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2019 , 6 , 2. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ball, D.L.; Hill, H.C.; Bass, H. Knowing Mathematics for Teaching: Who Knows Mathematics Well Enough to Teach Third Grade, and How Can We Decide? Am. Educ. 2005 , 29 , 14–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van den Kieboom, L.A. Examining the Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching Involved in Pre-Service Teachers’ Reflections. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2013 , 35 , 146–156. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Draissi, Z.; BaoHui, Z.; ZhanYong, Q. Reflective Journals: Enhancing Doctoral Students’ Engagement. Reflective Pract. 2021 , 22 , 381–399. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hwang, B.; Choi, H.; Kim, S.; Kim, S.; Ko, H.; Kim, J. Facilitating Student Learning with Critical Reflective Journaling in Psychiatric Mental Health Nursing Clinical Education: A Qualitative Study. Nurse Educ. Today 2018 , 69 , 159–164. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Mahlanze, H.T.; Sibiya, M.N. Perceptions of Student Nurses on the Writing of Reflective Journals as a Means for Personal, Professional and Clinical Learning Development. Health SA Gesondheid 2017 , 22 , 79–86. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ruiz-López, M.; Rodriguez-García, M.; Villanueva, P.-G.; Márquez-Cava, M.; García-Mateos, M.; Ruiz-Ruiz, B.; Herrera-Sánchez, E. The Use of Reflective Journaling as a Learning Strategy during the Clinical Rotations of Students from the Faculty of Health Sciences: An Action-Research Study. Nurse Educ. Today 2015 , 35 , e26–e31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aslam, S.; Parveen, K.; Alghamdi, A.A.; Abbas, S.; Shah, A.H.; Elumalai, K.V. Hopes for the Future: Capturing the Perspectives of Students on Higher Education and Sustainable Development in the Post-Pandemic Era. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12531. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• UNESCO. Framework for the Implementation of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) beyond 2019 ; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Griffiths, T.G. Education to Transform the World: Limits and Possibilities in and against the SDGs and ESD. Int. Stud. Sociol. Educ. 2021 , 30 , 73–92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zguir, M.F.; Dubis, S.; Koç, M. Embedding Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and SDGs Values in Curriculum: A Comparative Review on Qatar, Singapore and New Zealand. J. Clean. Prod. 2021 , 319 , 128534. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bruggeman, B.; Garone, A.; Struyven, K.; Pynoo, B.; Tondeur, J. Exploring University Teachers’ Online Education during COVID-19: Tensions between Enthusiasm and Stress. Comput. Educ. Open 2022 , 3 , 100095. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bybee, R.W. What Is STEM Education? American Association for the Advancement of Science: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Knowles, M.S. From Pedagogy to Andragogy ; Religious Education: Kendall Park, NJ, USA, 1980. [ Google Scholar ]
• Giannoukos, G.; Hioctour, V.; Stergiou, I.; Kallianta, S. Andragogy: Prerequisites for Adult Educators. World J. Educ. 2016 , 6 , 53–57. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Knowles, M.S.; Holton, E.F., III; Swanson, R.A. The Adult Learner: The Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human Resource Development ; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Houde, J. Andragogy and Motivation: An Examination of the Principles of Andragogy through Two Motivation Theories ; ERIC: Washington, DC, USA, 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chametzky, B. Andragogy and Engagement in Online Learning: Tenets and Solutions. Creat. Educ. 2014 , 5 , 47003. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tytler, R. STEM Education for the Twenty-First Century. Integr. Approaches STEM Educ. Int. Perspect. 2020 , 3 , 21–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dogar, S.R. The STEM Approach for Science Teacher Education in Pakistan: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• MacKinnon, G.; Greene, K.; Rawn, E.; Cressey, J.; He, W. Employing STEM Curriculum in an ESL Classroom: A Chinese Case Study. K-12 STEM Educ. 2017 , 3 , 143–155. [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton, M.Q. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods ; Sage: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton, M.Q. Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qual. Soc. Work. 2002 , 1 , 261–283. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Creswell, J.W.; Plano Clark, V.L. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research , 2nd ed.; Sage Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernard, H.R. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches ; Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham, MD, USA, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spradley, J.P. Ethnography and Culture. In The Ethnographic Interview ; Waveland Press: Long Grove, IL, USA, 1979; pp. 3–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lodhi, A. Model School Plan Remains a Non-Starter. Available online: https://tribune.com.pk/story/2354118/model-school-plan-remains-a-non-starter (accessed on 11 September 2023).
• Vollstedt, M.; Rezat, S. An Introduction to Grounded Theory with a Special Focus on Axial Coding and the Coding Paradigm. Compend. Early Career Res. Math. Educ. 2019 , 13 , 81–100. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwab, K. The Fourth Industrial Revolution: What It Means and How to Respond. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-how-to-respond/ (accessed on 30 July 2023).
• Shernoff, D.J.; Sinha, S.; Bressler, D.M.; Ginsburg, L. Assessing Teacher Education and Professional Development Needs for the Implementation of Integrated Approaches to STEM Education. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2017 , 4 , 13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• El-Deghaidy, H.; Mansour, N. Science Teachers’ Perceptions of STEM Education: Possibilities and Challenges. Int. J. Learn. Teach. 2015 , 1 , 51–54. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Turner, K.B. Northeast Tennessee Educators’ Perception of STEM Education Implementation. Ph.D. Thesis, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN, USA, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stohlmann, M.; Moore, T.J.; Roehrig, G.H. Considerations for Teaching Integrated STEM Education. J. Pre-Coll. Eng. Educ. Res. J-PEER 2012 , 2 , 4. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alshammary, A.; Alanzi, H. Organizational culture and its relationship to organizational behavior among female secondary school teachers in Hafr Al-Batin. J. Umm Al-Qura Univ. Educ. Psychol. Sci. 2022 , 14 , 179–203. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schmid, M.; Brianza, E.; Petko, D. Developing a Short Assessment Instrument for Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK.Xs) and Comparing the Factor Structure of an Integrative and a Transformative Model. Comput. Educ. 2020 , 157 , 103967. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Emmer, E.T.; Stough, L.M. Classroom Management: A Critical Part of Educational Psychology, with Implications for Teacher Education. Educ. Psychol. 2001 , 36 , 103–112. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Seufert, C.; Oberdörfer, S.; Roth, A.; Grafe, S.; Lugrin, J.-L.; Latoschik, M.E. Classroom Management Competency Enhancement for Student Teachers Using a Fully Immersive Virtual Classroom. Comput. Educ. 2022 , 179 , 104410. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shank, M.K.; Santiague, L. Classroom Management Needs of Novice Teachers. Clear. House A J. Educ. Strateg. Issues Ideas 2022 , 95 , 26–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Force, S.T. Innovate: A Blueprint for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics in California Public Education ; Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation: Dublin, CA, USA, 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sieberer-Nagler, K. Effective Classroom-Management & Positive Teaching. ELT 2015 , 9 , 163. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Aslam, S.; Alghamdi, A.A.; Abid, N.; Kumar, T. Challenges in Implementing STEM Education: Insights from Novice STEM Teachers in Developing Countries. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 14455. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914455

Aslam S, Alghamdi AA, Abid N, Kumar T. Challenges in Implementing STEM Education: Insights from Novice STEM Teachers in Developing Countries. Sustainability . 2023; 15(19):14455. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914455

Aslam, Sarfraz, Abdulelah A. Alghamdi, Nisar Abid, and Tribhuwan Kumar. 2023. "Challenges in Implementing STEM Education: Insights from Novice STEM Teachers in Developing Countries" Sustainability 15, no. 19: 14455. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914455

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Challenges in STEM education and how teachers can overcome them

Challenges in STEM Education and How Teachers Can Overcome Them

Teachers and educators can be instrumental in a student’s decision to pursue the academic disciplines they end up studying. Evidence from this the  ICM-S survey  shows that the decision taken by a student to study STEM in college can be directly influenced by classroom instruction and the advice given directly by a teacher. It can, however, be challenging for teachers to engage their students in certain subject areas. Here are some of our top tips to tackle the challenges that arise in encouraging students to pursue STEM.

Teach them Young

Student engagement can be a huge challenge for teachers. Between the pervasive use of smartphones and gadgets, common misconceptions about STEM subjects being hard and unaccessible, and boring learning materials, it can be incredibly hard to hold the attention of students for long.

A preventative method that tackles this issue is ensuring that a love for scientific exploration and discovery is instilled at an early age. Early educators can integrate STEM lessons into a daily curriculum, helping children to cultivate a foundational understanding and curiosity about the world around them.

Research  tells us that most students tend to lose interest in Science between the ages of 12 and 13—which is the same age where their perceived self-efficacy starts to change. Implementing robust science education from an early age would help to combat this change at this impressionable age where they begin to lose confidence and doubt their abilities.

In fact, young children often already engage with science without realising. For example, when children stack building blocks together, they are essentially learning fundamental laws in physics. Similarly, when they run off on nature walks to explore a fallen nest or flower, they are observing the biological world. Teachers can use this curiosity to direct their students in a more intentional manner, without making their play feel like work.

Innovative Teaching

Science can seem boring when it isn’t contextualized in the real world. Concepts, when they’re not illustrated effectively, can seem abstract and pointless. According to  a study undertaken by the Institute of Engineering and Technology : “Most students see the curriculum as boring and irrelevant to life outside school.” When concepts are explained in hands-on activities, students are more easily able to establish a link between their observations and theories. Practical project work also enables group discussions, teamwork, communication and peer-to-peer interaction, all of which are considered important 21st-century skills .

Topical Science

Most children struggle to understand the importance of science because they cannot see the connection between what they learn in the classroom and the happenings of the real world. Students also have a perception of science subjects being either too difficult or too boring. Introducing topical science in class can help students understand the relevance of science in everyday life. A typical STEM lessons usually involves four basic steps:

• 1. Identifying a real-world problem.
• 2. Asking questions to explore the problem (and hopefully solving it)
• 3. Developing potential solutions
• 4. Exploring a hands-on activity

Going Digital

Most teachers and educators have an unpredictable and heavy workload, which doesn’t always allow for much time to plan intricate and engaging STEM lessons. This is where technology comes in. The EPI found that teachers who make their pupils use technology for class projects in all or most lessons have four to five more hours free each week than those who only occasionally use educational films and  quizzes .

Educational films are a quick and fun way to capture students’ attention and can often be used to initiate teaching techniques like  flipping the classroom .

Erasing the Gender Divide

The ratio of men and women working in STEM remains largely disproportionate, with  men significantly outnumbering women . While things have improved significantly since the days of the male-breadwinner model, there are still greater barriers to entry for any young girls hoping to study in STEM. While we have more women in STEM than ever before—and thus a plethora of fantastic role-models—inequality still exists in the opportunities offered to those who do successfully break into STEM careers and academia.

For young girls and women in STEM, dominated classrooms and labs can lead to isolation, ostracisation, and even outright marginalisation. If you were the only girl in a science classroom full of boys, would you be intimidated? Do you think everyone would treat you the same as every other member of the class?

This is where groups like girlswhocode, blackgirlscode and the National Girls Collaborative Project come in. Offering education, promoting science education to girls and other under-represented groups, and a support network for those who might need it, these organisations are at the forefront of making STEM an equitable industry.

According to a  National Science Report , “The gap in educational attainment separating underrepresented minorities remains wide.” This, of course, is largely due to educational  and  resource inequalities, but we can still do more to engage under-represented demographics. An intersectional approach that targets all areas of under-representation and marginalisation is, of course, the best path forward for the sake of equality, inclusion, and the future of innovation.

So What Can Educators Do to Help?

Educators can’t fix systemic barriers and marginalisation overnight, but we know how vital they are in supporting students that might be at a disadvantage. We can always act as a liaison for our students, ensuring that they are aware of every single opportunity and outreach program that might be available to them. The Premier Nursing Academy, for example, has collated a  list of over 50 active scholarships for historically underrepresented groups , and there are countless more opportunities beyond these. NACME ,  APS,  and  many others can provide the resources students need to access higher education.

Educators play a vital role in shaping future generations and can have far reaching effects on a student’s life. Often it can be the difference between extinguishing a child’s dream of becoming a leading scientist, or  nurturing it .

Learn more about Real-World Phenomena with

Twig science next gen, get the latest news from twig science next gen., free webinars and professional learning straight to your inbox., cookies are disabled.

You have disabled first-party cookies in your browser. The site will still work, but you will not be able to see state-specific content unless you enable first-part cookies!

Looks like you're in !

Want to see Twig Science content designed specifically for ?

The Challenges and Opportunities of Implementing STEM Education in Schools

From finding the necessary resources to breaking down stereotypes, implementing STEM education can be a complex process. But the rewards are immense, as it helps students develop essential 21st-century skills. In this article, we’ll explore the challenges and opportunities schools face as they work to implement STEM education in their classrooms.

Challenges of Implementing STEM Education

While STEM education is important for the twenty-first-century student, there are several challenges educators face when it comes to implementing it. Let’s take a look at some of those barriers. 

Money Matters: Resources and Funding

One of the greatest challenges in implementing STEM education in schools is finding enough resources and funding. A well-rounded STEM program requires up-to-date technology and engaging materials that can inspire students. These tools help them grasp complex concepts. Unfortunately, not all schools have the budget to provide these resources, which can make it difficult for them to offer high-quality STEM lessons. 

Funding also affects the professional development of teachers. In order for them to effectively teach STEM subjects, educators need ongoing training and support. However, tight budgets often limit a school’s ability to invest in professional development programs. This can leave teachers feeling unprepared when trying to integrate STEM into their classrooms. 

The disparity in resources and funding between schools leads to an unequal playing field when some students have access to amazing STEM experiences while others miss out. To tackle this challenge, it’s essential for communities to work together to secure funding and support for STEM education. This will ensure that all students have the opportunity to develop the skills and knowledge they need for future success. 

Curriculum Conundrum: Integration and Alignment

Integrating STEM subjects within the school curriculum can be quite challenging. Teachers need to find ways to weave science, technology, engineering, and mathematics into existing lesson plans. Along with this, teachers need to create cross-curricular connections that make the learning relevant to their students. This is often quite difficult, especially when teachers have to balance the demands of standardized testing requirements and maintain a focus on their student’s academic progress. 

Another aspect of the curriculum conundrum is adapting STEM lessons to cater to diverse student needs. Teachers must consider different learning styles, abilities, and backgrounds when designing activities and presenting information, ensuring that all students have the opportunity to succeed and thrive in their STEM education.

Breaking Barriers: Misconceptions and Stereotypes

Another challenge to implementing STEM education is addressing the misconceptions and stereotypes that surround these subjects. Some people believe that STEM subjects are too difficult or only suitable for certain students. This can create barriers to participation and discourage students from pursuing their interests in these fields. 

A common stereotype is the gender gap, with the misconception that STEM subjects, particularly technology and engineering, are more suited to boys than girls. This can lead to a lack of representation and diversity within these fields. Sadly, this can ultimately limit innovation and progress. Schools must work to break down these barriers by promoting a more inclusive and encouraging environment for all students.

Another challenge is addressing the perception that STEM subjects are dull or uninteresting. To combat this, teachers must find ways to engage students through hands-on activities, real-world applications, and relatable examples. By demonstrating the relevance and excitement of STEM subjects, educators can ignite a passion for learning in their students.

Opportunities for Implementing STEM Education 

While there are barriers to successfully implementing STEM education, there are many opportunities for you to begin implementing it right away! Let’s take a look at some of those ways. 

Skill Booster: Developing 21st-Century Skills

Implementing STEM education offers an incredible opportunity to develop essential 21st-century skills in students. These skills include critical thinking, problem-solving, communication, and collaboration. They are in high demand in today’s workforce and are crucial for success in any career path.

STEM subjects naturally lend themselves to building these skills, as they often involve tackling real-world problems, experimenting, and finding creative solutions. For example, a project that challenges students to design an energy-efficient building integrates science, technology, engineering, and math concepts while promoting problem-solving and teamwork.

Moreover, STEM education helps students develop digital literacy and technological skills, which are increasingly important in our tech-driven world. Learning to navigate and utilize technology in various contexts prepares students for future careers and everyday life.

Discovery Zone: Fostering a Culture of Inquiry and Exploration

Creating a culture of exploration in a STEM classroom encourages students to ask questions, make discoveries, and learn through hands-on experiences. This approach keeps students engaged while helping them see the relevance of STEM concepts in their everyday lives. 

For example, a science teacher might organize a classroom activity where students investigate the impact of pollution on local ecosystems. Students might collect water samples, test for pollutants, and analyze the effects on plants and animals. This hands-on experience allows students to explore real-world issues while applying scientific concepts they’ve learned in class.

In another scenario, students could work together to design and build a small robot using engineering and programming principles. This collaborative project fosters teamwork and problem-solving as students work through challenges and share their ideas with their peers.

Future-Proof: Preparing Students for the Workforce

Integrating STEM education into schools plays a vital role in preparing students for the workforce of the future. As the demand for STEM-related careers continues to grow, it’s essential to equip students with the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in these fields and contribute to the ever-evolving world of technology and innovation.

By exposing students to STEM subjects, they gain valuable insights into various career paths they may not have considered otherwise. For instance, a student who excels in a computer programming class may discover a passion for software development or cybersecurity , leading to a fulfilling and in-demand career.

Community Connections: Enhancing Community Involvement 

Incorporating STEM education in schools offers the opportunity to enhance community involvement and foster partnerships that can enrich the learning experience for students. By connecting with local businesses, organizations, and professionals, schools can create a network of support that brings STEM concepts to life and provides real-world context to classroom learning.

For instance, local engineers could visit the school to share their experiences and discuss the role engineering plays in solving everyday problems. This interaction not only sparks students’ interest but also provides them with role models and inspiration for pursuing STEM careers.

Parents and community members can also contribute by volunteering their time, skills, or resources to support STEM initiatives. They might assist with organizing a science fair, sponsoring a robotics club, or providing materials for classroom projects.

Collaborations between schools and community partners can also lead to unique learning opportunities, such as field trips to local research facilities or workshops hosted by technology companies. These experiences expose students to cutting-edge advancements and reinforce the relevance of STEM education.

As we’ve explored, implementing STEM education in schools comes with its fair share of challenges, but the opportunities are too valuable to ignore. By investing in STEM education, we can empower our students with the knowledge, skills, and confidence to excel in the 21st-century workforce and become the innovators of tomorrow.

Now is the time to take action! Whether you’re a teacher, parent, community member, or business leader, you have a role to play in supporting STEM education. 

Together, we can overcome the challenges of implementing STEM education and create a brighter future for our students and communities. Let’s join forces to unlock the potential of the next generation of scientists, engineers, technologists, and mathematicians!

A STEM Education for All Students

As we move into the twenty-first century, STEM subjects are becoming essential for students to learn. Getting familiar with technology and learning to use and create it opens a wide field of jobs. Here at 21stCentEd , we are passionate about helping young people prepare for a bright future in which their STEM skills will help them find jobs that will be relevant in this digital age.

About 21st Century Ed

At 21st Century Ed, our mission is to provide all students access to a comprehensive STEM education early, often, and everywhere.

STEM Century: The Senior Perspective

Actions carry more weight than words in stem education, the convergence of project-based learning and stem: educational devices to positively impact societal ills, stem—the great equalizer, bringing dreams closer to students: an overview of an ambitious and rewarding plan, making of a stem town.

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

What do the data say about the current state of K-12 STEM education in the US?

A conversation with Julia Phillips of the National Science Board on the state of elementary and secondary STEM education in the nation.

The importance of a diverse STEM-educated workforce to the nation's prosperity, security and competitiveness grows every year. Preparing this future workforce must begin in the earliest grades, but the latest report from the National Science Board finds that the performance of U.S. students in STEM education continues to lag that of students from other countries.

Julia Phillips is a physicist and materials science researcher who chairs NSB's Committee on National Science and Engineering Policy, which oversees the congressionally mandated  Science and Engineering Indicators  report, also known as Indicators, in collaboration with NSF's National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics .

The latest Elementary and Secondary STEM Education report , the first of the 2022 Indicators reports, raises more concern about the state of STEM education in the nation and its potential impact on the economy and the U.S. standing in the world.   Phillips discusses the key trends and their implications for science and education policy in the U.S.

Note: some of the conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity.

What does the report tell us about K-12 STEM education?

What we see is that the performance of children in the U.S. has not kept pace with the performance of students from other countries in science and mathematics for a decade or more. We have pretty much stayed steady, and other countries have improved dramatically. When you look at the closest economic competitors to the U.S., our scores are in last place in mathematics and in the middle of the pack in science. Math scores have not improved for more than a decade, and they're not good when you compare them to other countries.

This is just not something that we can be comfortable about. Our economy depends on math and science literacy. This is not only a concern for those with careers in those topics but also for the public at large.

You've said before that performance is "lumpy," with some groups of students performing very well and improving over time and others remaining stagnant or falling back. Where are the trouble spots?

I think it ought to be extremely disturbing to everyone in the U.S. that science and math performance is not equally distributed across the country. You see huge differences in performance based on race and ethnicity, so that Asian and white students do much better on these standardized tests than students of color. And you also see that there is a huge difference based on the socioeconomic background of students – students that are from higher socioeconomic backgrounds do much better than students from low socioeconomic backgrounds.

Data also show that the situation has only been exacerbated by the pandemic. We have a multi-year gap to pull out of just from COVID, and we were already in a weak position to begin with.

Why are the educational results so unevenly distributed?

We don't know exactly. But we can notice that certain things tend to occur at the same time.

For example, students of lower socioeconomic status or those from certain demographic groups tend to be in schools where teachers have less experience in teaching. There's separate evidence that teachers tend to get better as they get more experience.

Students from low socioeconomic status and minority backgrounds also tend to have teachers who are not originally educated in the fields that they teach, and that's particularly true in science.

Why should people care about these numbers?

Every parent should care, because careers in science and engineering are some of the best careers that a young person can pursue in terms of opportunities for making a really good living, from a certificate or associate degree all the way up through a Ph.D. You don't have to have the highest degree to make a really good living in a science and engineering field.

The second thing is that science and engineering is increasingly important for driving the U.S. economy. Many of the industries that we depend upon – including the auto industry, construction, all the way up through vaccine development – depend to an increasing level on literacy in math and science. If the U.S. is going to continue to have the wealth and prosperity that it has come to enjoy, being in the lead in many of these industries is going to be very important.

Julia Phillips on U.S. leadership in science

What can be done to turn these statistics around and improve STEM scores?

There has to be an all-hands-on-deck approach to emphasizing the importance of high-quality math and science education, beginning in the elementary grades and continuing all the way through as much education as a student gets. Communication is needed to say why it is important to have good math and science education.

NSF has prioritized programs that address this issue as well, like  INCLUDES , which uses a collective approach to help broaden participation in STEM.  Perhaps we could also be encouraging individuals with math and science backgrounds to go into teaching if they are drawn to that. We also need to increase the level of respect for the teaching profession.

How do you think education changed in recent decades, or even from when you were a student yourself and became interested in science?

In my own personal experience growing up in a small town in the middle of a bunch of cornfields in Illinois, I don't think I knew any practicing research scientists. But having teachers who were able to make science come alive with the things around us – whether it was nature, the stars, the gadgets in our house, whatever – they were able to make it interesting, relevant and exciting, and we were able to get a little taste for what we might be able to do. Teacher education programs must incorporate more STEM education so that elementary school teachers have the skills and comfort level they need to nurture young children's natural curiosity. NSF has funded some great research on STEM education that could be applied in the classroom, including work on teaching critical thinking, problem-solving, creativity and digital literacy.

With the internet, it is now possible for students to talk to practicing scientists and engineers, even if they don't live close to where the student is. Perhaps one good thing that the pandemic has taught us is that – if done correctly – virtual connectivity can augment educational opportunities in a very dramatic way. 

I also think there needs to be communication between the various groups that are responsible for K-12 education. For the most part that happens at the local school district, and standards are often set by the state. There needs to be communication between the federal level – which is where much science and math policy is established – and the very local level where the education policy is set and the requirements for education are carried out. It is a big problem, and a big challenge. But also, a big opportunity.

When Sputnik was launched, the attention of the entire nation was riveted. We need to get a spirit of curiosity and drive to do something to change the world into every school district, both at the administration and teacher level but also on the part of the kids and their parents.

About the Author

Related stories.

From collecting cores, braving blizzards and measuring microbes, students do it all

NSF 101: EPSCoR Graduate Fellowship Program

Dive into research on world's ocean

2023 Trends Report: Trends and Predictions That Are Defining STEM in 2023

• January 25, 2023
• Announcements , Publications

​Every year we spend countless hours learning from and talking to our partners, leading thinkers, advocates, teachers, and activists in STEM education, to better understand what their biggest bets and greatest challenges are and how they’re approaching them. We coordinate forums and listening sessions and pore over news articles, research, and national and regional data to identify the most salient and actionable information to share back with you. We’re excited and honored to share the 2023 Trends Report, which shares everything we’ve learned and highlights the most important insights and new ideas in STEM.

Belonging Is at the Root In 2022, we refocused our efforts on addressing the deepest-rooted systemic challenges in STEM education. Guided by stories and insight from young people across the country, we heard that in order to help spark the brilliance of millions more young minds out there, we need to prioritize a focus on equity, representation, and especially belonging in STEM education. It’s a place where many of you have already centered your work, and we’re glad to be on the journey with you.

​In the field and across the country, progressive initiatives are taking shape that are converging around the importance of belonging in STEM. This increased emphasis on fostering belonging is not only helping us better understand systemic challenges in education, but is also emerging as a powerful antidote to students and teachers disengaging from STEM. Throughout this report you’ll find that cultivating and nurturing belonging for students and aspiring and current teachers is at the foundation of many of the innovative approaches and strategies taking flight. We hope you’ll find these trends insightful, that you’ll share them with your friends and colleagues, and that the report creates opportunities for even more collaboration and exchange in 2023. That’s how we’ll move the needle to end the STEM teacher shortage once and for all.

This year, we’re inspired by dozens of new initiatives that go upstream of the shortage we’re facing, with increasing focus on attracting potential STEM teachers earlier and finding ways to open doors to more potential teachers with nontraditional backgrounds. We’re seeing a wave of new programs that aim to reach potential teachers earlier , creating opportunities for high school students to gain experience and training , and helping to expand career horizons in STEM teaching for more young people.

Beyond100K partners are behind some of these new programs, like Young People’s Project work to grow a teacher cadet program that will certify over 500 high school and college students as math literacy workers, building their interest and capacity for STEM teaching careers. Another partner, Encorps, expanded teacher recruitment practices through leading the Unconventional STEM Career Pathways project to provide even more support for career changes into STEM teaching with resources like a new teacher toolkit, a summer institute, and curricula that connect the dots between social justice and STEM to help attract more diverse teachers.

In order to grow and diversify our STEM teacher workforce, there’s a recognition of the need to increase the number of applicants to and participants in teacher preparation programs, and we’re seeing a trend focused on expansiveness to achieve that goal. In particular, we’re seeing programs that provide alternatives to traditional higher-ed pathways gaining traction, while we’re also seeing the growth of new types of alternative programs, such as apprenticeships , residencies , and community college pathways expanding across the country , as are fast-track education programs that make the transition into teaching possible for more people. Together, these programs are developing more accessible pipelines to STEM teaching, helping to create a more robust and diverse pool of prospective teachers.

​Around the country and throughout the network, we’ve seen a variety of exciting new programs develop in this focus area. In Texas, UT Austin and Austin Community College are pairing up to lead a program called UTeach Access that will recruit students who applied to study biology, chemistry, math, or physics and offer them a spot in the UTeach STEM teaching preparation program. Reach University is offering job-embedded learning, where half a degree comes from on-the-job work and half comes from personalized online tutorials, creating greater access to teaching careers outside of traditional university-based programs. The National Center for Teacher Residencies’ (NCTR) is working to address this challenge at scale, providing technical assistance and support to develop and grow 14 teacher residency programs across the country, with a focus on supporting students from underserved districts to explore building a career in STEM education.​

We’re reassured to see that new approaches appear focused on making STEM teacher preparation more accessible, rather than simply reducing the credential requirements for teachers . We’re hopeful that this trend signals a shift away from short-term emergency responses, and instead is a predictor of growing focus on innovative programs aimed at sustainable long-term change to create greater access to STEM teaching careers.

Throughout 2022, we heard from numerous partners that there is needed and increased attention on addressing issues of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (DEIB) in STEM education, and a growing demand for frameworks, tools, and metrics that can help implement and assess their efforts. Teachers and administrators emphasized that greater clarity and understanding of DEIB issues across the field would not only help them launch new initiatives, but would also help leaders learn from each other, and develop common approaches and accountability systems to make progress on this crucial goal.

​We’ve seen partners and others in the field experimenting with new tools to bring energy and solutions to this issue. On issues of belonging, a University of Michigan researcher developed a framework to help teachers foster student belonging in math and a University of Texas chemistry professor developed a simple and intuitive way to foster belonging among his students. For metrics, longstanding leaders like Partnerships in Education and Resilience (PEAR) continue their decades of work supporting teachers to use assessment tools connected to equity and belonging. The Education Trust developed a state-by-state dashboard focused on teacher diversity and National Academies will be publishing a consensus study on equity in K-12 STEM education in the spring.

We’re also seeing efforts guided by listening to BIPOC young people to inform DEIB initiatives to address equity in STEM education. Equal Opportunity Schools made a commitment to surveying over 250,000 historically underrepresented students of color from over 500 schools to inform action-oriented plans and to support DEIB learning for both teachers and administrators.

There is a legacy of exclusion impacting who we see and don’t see today in teaching positions that we need to acknowledge. While Brown v. Board of Ed was a landmark decision for equality, the aftermath led to many teachers of color have being marginalized and discriminated against , further contributing to generational inequities for students and teachers of color. Recognition of our history matters, and so does committing to increasing our focus on recruiting, preparing, and retaining BIPOC STEM teachers.

​Our network is taking action, looking for new ways to increase and support teachers of color in their programs. The Diversifying the STEM Teacher Pipeline team began in 2019 to explore recruitment and pre-service support strategies for teachers of color, and has recently created a public website and hosted a virtual conference for organizations committed to the recruitment, preparation, and retention of teachers of color. Another project team created a toolkit focused on specific recommendations for administrators to improve work environments for teachers of color. We are also excited to see recent federal funding given to support HBCUs to scale up teacher residency programs , and we are encouraged to see that the U.S. Department of Education is giving $25 million to boost diverse teacher education across colleges and universities.

While we continue to work on persistent obstacles to retaining teachers of color that have disproportionate impacts on Black and Latinx teachers, we are also inspired by new learnings that help us understand how fostering belonging can address these systemic challenges. Through listening sessions, deep research , and conversations with experts, we heard that to truly have a more racially diverse teacher workforce, we need to recruit and retain more teachers of color , which we can only do if we promote positive work environments that center on belonging for teachers of color . We’re seeing belonging as a keystone for DEIB in STEM, and we expect to see even more activity around this in 2023.

We know that there is growing interest from educators across the country in fostering belonging to increase engagement and persistence in STEM for students and teachers alike. In December, the US Department of Education launched, YOU Belong in STEM , the first national STEM initiative in over 10 years grounded in the belief that creating the conditions for STEM excellence starts with students and teachers feeling a sense of belonging in the classroom.

​During our own reflection work as part of the Beyond100K unCommission , 94% of participants shared stories of belonging and/or non-belonging connected to STEM education, and we saw a positive correlation between feeling a sense of belonging and a desire to pursue a STEM career. Their stories shaped our new strategic vision, and around the country, we are seeing this reflected in how the field is providing support and professional development to foster belonging amongst STEM teachers, while also developing new curricular materials and resources to help teachers foster belonging for their students as well.

Beyond100K partners are leading this work. LabXchange is developing new curricula as part of the Racial Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Science Education project , which will support educators with evidence-based teaching practices to foster students’ sense of belonging, identity, self-efficacy, and confidence in science, and another partner, Reconstruction is providing culturally relevant curricular content to over 10,000 classrooms that will support teachers of color to feel a greater sense of belonging in STEM, and foster the same sense of belonging, particularly for Black students. We’re also seeing work that bridges the gap between fostering belonging among teachers and students. The American Federation of Teachers has committed to training 1500 educators from 20 local partnerships to develop skills and mindsets that foster a sense of belonging in STEM classrooms, and Techbridge Girls has committed to delivering STEM Equity training and curriculum that centers teacher and student belonging to at least 100 educators from marginalized communities annually.

​We believe we’re seeing an emerging trend as schools and districts increasingly acknowledge belonging as a critical component of STEM education that has the potential to impact recruitment, retention, diversity, and student learning. However, we know this is an uphill battle as we work to reverse the longstanding belief that STEM fields are only for the elite few who have what it takes to succeed. We’re hopeful that this culture shift will continue in 2023 and we’ll see belonging bloom across the STEM education world.

2021 Trends Report

2019 Trends Report

Recent News

Advancing Teacher Workforce Data: A Call for Innovative Solutions

• August 20, 2024

Looking For A Solve For 2024’s Craziness? Try Optimism.

• July 30, 2024

Many Americans Think K-12 STEM Ed Lags Behind Peer Nations. They’re Half-Right

• July 11, 2024

Beyond100K is fiscally sponsored by Tides Center, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Additional information regarding our fundraising disclosures can be found  here .

Beyond100K (The Starfish Institute) is fiscally sponsored by Tides Center, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Please visit tides.org for additional information.

Copyright © 2024 Beyond100K. All Rights Reserved.

STEM Education Is Facing Over 100 Challenges. Can $28 Million Solve Them?

• Share article

100Kin10, the national nonprofit seeking to recruit, prepare, and support 100,000 STEM teachers by 2021, has mapped out over 100 “grand challenges” facing STEM education . And today, the organization announced that Google, Chevron, and other funders have committed over $28 million to help.

The 100Kin10 coalition includes private foundations, states, federal agencies, corporations, school districts, and other nonprofit organizations. As in past rounds of funding , partners pledge to support one or more of the vetted organizations that are working to solve challenges identified by 100Kin10.

What are those challenges? The group clusters them into seven main themes.

• Elementary STEM. Many elementary teachers have not been well-prepared or supported to teach STEM subjects. There are few elementary teacher prep programs with a STEM focus, and many elementary teachers feel anxious about teaching STEM subjects, partially because there are not many instructional resources specifically for them.
• Instructional Materials . Teachers often don’t have sufficient access or funding to quality STEM curriculum, especially in engineering and technology. They also rarely have opportunities to collaborate with STEM experts in the classroom or integrate concepts within computer science and engineering into instruction.
• Prestige . Teaching is not held in high prestige in society, especially when compared to other STEM careers. STEM college majors rarely have an incentive—financially or societally—to pursue teaching.
• Professional Growth . Teachers often don’t receive high-quality professional development in STEM subjects, don’t have collaboration time with their peers available, and don’t have a say over the design of their PD.
• Teacher Leadership . Many STEM teachers lack the professional autonomy to experiment with new STEM teaching strategies. Also, few states and districts offer career ladders for STEM teachers.
• Preparation . Teachers do not always receive training to engage students from different backgrounds in STEM learning experiences. Many prospective STEM teachers don’t get to experience active instructional strategies modeled in their preservice programs.
• Value of S, T, and E . Schools prioritize teaching reading and math. Science, technology (computer science), and engineering are often not appreciated by school leaders in terms of funding, instructional resources, training, accountability, and electives. Families are also not as aware of how to support their children’s learning.

Talia Milgrom-Elcott, the nonprofit’s executive director and co-founder, said the group has worked with teachers, principals, and stakeholders in teacher preparation programs to identify the challenges plaguing STEM education and to narrow them down to just over 100. The goal, she said, was to “get as close to the bedrock as they could.”

Meanwhile, the network is on track to meet its original goal of adding 100,000 new STEM teachers by 2021.

But: “If we just focused on getting to this 100,000, we would find that we hadn’t solved the underlying challenges,” Milgrim-Elcott said. “As a result, we’d have to start that work all over again in 2021.”

Instead, the goal is to make a lasting difference in the system, so that “people want to teach science and engineering and math to kids,” she added. “If we did that, you won’t need something like 100Kin10.”

Milgrim-Elcott said the next step is to identify real measures that partners can use to see if they’re making progress on their committed work—and every year, take stock of the progress.

In an interview with Education Week Teacher in April, Blair Blackwell, the manager of education and corporate programs at Chevron, said the corporation has a vested interest in students learning STEM subjects, particularly engineering. It supports organizations like Project Lead the Way , which develops STEM curricula for schools, and teacher-training programs, like those at the California State University system.

“As we look at our investments around STEM education, we recognize you have to support the organizations that are solving the problem and supporting teachers today—but then to really move the needle, change the game, you also have to be looking at some of the overarching, systemic issues,” she said.

That’s why being a part of 100Kin10’s network aligns with Chevron’s mission, Blackwell said.

“We want to increase that prestige around being a STEM teacher, because at the end of the day, everything comes down to teachers as we look at what are going to be the innovations that help students and ourselves to tackle big challenges moving forward,” she said.

More on 100Kin10’s Work:

• With New Administration, 100Kin10 Renews Call to Support STEM Teachers
• ‘Do Not Underestimate’ the Power of High-Quality STEM Teachers, Bill Clinton Says
• Coalition Offers $2 Million Grant for ‘Moonshot’ STEM Early-Ed. Projects

A version of this news article first appeared in the Teaching Now blog.

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

• Open access
• Published: 05 September 2024

Exploring instructional design in K-12 STEM education: a systematic literature review

• Suarman Halawa 1 ,
• Tzu-Chiang Lin 2 , 3 &
• Ying-Shao Hsu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1635-8213 4  

International Journal of STEM Education volume  11 , Article number:  43 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

This study aimed to analyze articles published in the Web of Science database from 2012 to 2021 to examine the educational goals and instructional designs for STEM education. We selected articles based on the following criteria: (a) empirical research; (b) incorporating instructional design and strategies into STEM teaching; (c) including intervention; (d) focusing on K-12 education and on assessment of learning outcomes; and (e) excluding higher education and STEAM education. Based on the criteria, 229 articles were selected for coding educational goals and instructional designs for STEM education. The aspects of STEM educational goals were coded including engagement and career choice, STEM literacy, and twenty-first century competencies. The categories of instructional designs for STEM education were examined including design-based learning, inquiry-based learning, project-based learning, and problem-based learning. The results showed that engagement and career choices and STEM literacy were mainly emphasized in STEM education. Design-based learning was adopted more than inquiry-based, project-based, or problem-based learning, and this instructional design was mainly used to achieve STEM literacy. It is suggested that studies on twenty-first century competencies may require more research efforts in future STEM education research.

Introduction

Emphasizing STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) has been the main focus of policy makers in many countries (English, 2016 ; National Academy of Engineering & National Research Council, 2014 ; National Research Council, 2012 , 2013 ) to meet economic challenges (Kelley & Knowles, 2016 ). Educational systems are accordingly prioritizing STEM to prepare students’ capability for the workplace to face the sophisticated technologies and competitive economy (Kayan-Fadlelmula et al., 2022 ). Hence, students are expected to be interested in STEM so that they will engage in and pursue careers in STEM-related fields (Lie et al., 2019 ; Struyf et al., 2019 ). Besides, we need a new generation that has the abilities to develop proficient knowledge, to apply such knowledge to solve problems, and to face existing and upcoming issues of the twenty-first century (Bybee, 2010 ).

Although STEM education has been proved to benefit students, there is a lack of understanding of instructional design for STEM education, despite the fact that such understanding is critical to research and to classroom practices. Limited understanding of relevant instructional design may lead to problems in implementing STEM education in the classroom. There is hence a need to examine educational goals, specific designs, and features of the instructional designs consistently and specifically documented in the STEM education literature. Therefore, this current study conducted systematic analysis of the literature to understand the educational goals and instructional designs for STEM education. Based on the analysis, we present a thorough picture of how researchers have developed instructional designs for STEM education.

Despite the fact that many researchers have promoted STEM education, the definition of STEM education has not reached a consensus in the literature, and there is a certain degree of disagreement in the scientific community. Lamb et al. ( 2015 ) defined STEM as a broad area encompassing many disciplines and epistemological practices. Other researchers, such as Breiner et al. ( 2012 ), defined STEM as applying transdisciplinary knowledge and skills in solving real-world problems. A similar definition established by Shaughnessy ( 2013 ) regarding STEM education is problem solving based on science and mathematics concepts that incorporate engineering strategies and technology. Another study defined STEM education as teaching approaches based on technology and engineering design that integrate the concepts and practices of science and mathematics (Sanders & Wells, 2006 ). In this study, we clarify STEM education as an approach that utilizes integrations of knowledge and skills from science, technology, engineering, and/or mathematics to solve real-world problems that help students to succeed in school learning, future careers, and/or society.

The definition of STEM as an integrated approach involving science, technology, engineering, and mathematics raises several pertinent questions about its composition and expectations. First, the requirement for all four disciplines to be present in order to qualify an educational program or project as “STEM” is debatable. Conceptually, integrating any two or more fields helps foster the interdisciplinary learning that is the hallmark of STEM education. This flexibility allows educators to tailor their programs to match the available resources and specific learning outcomes without necessarily incorporating all four disciplines in every instance. Regarding the classification of “science” within STEM, it is more a conglomerate of disciplines—such as biology, chemistry, physics, and earth sciences—than a single field. This diversity within science enriches STEM education, providing a broader knowledge base and problem-solving skills. Each scientific discipline brings a unique perspective and set of tools to the interdisciplinary mix, enhancing the complexity and richness of STEM learning experiences.

Furthermore, previous studies have identified several challenges to the implementation of STEM education in the classroom including poor motivation of students, weak connection with individual learners, little support from the school system, poor content without integration across disciplines, lack of quality assessments, poor facilities, and lack of hands-on experience (Ejiwale, 2013 ; Hsu & Fang, 2019 ; Margot & Kettler, 2019 ). To help teachers face challenges in the advancement of STEM education, Hsu and Fang ( 2019 ) proposed a 5-step STEM curriculum designs framework and provided examples of how to apply it to a lesson plan to help teachers design their instruction. This previous study also suggested that researchers conduct more investigations related to instructional design to enrich our understanding of various aspects of STEM education. Teachers of STEM require more opportunities to construct their perspective and a vision of STEM education as well as to conduct appropriate instructional designs. Moreover, from review articles published from 2000 to 2016, Margot and Kettler ( 2019 ) found that in multiple studies concerning similar challenges and supports, teachers believed that the availability of a quality curriculum would enhance the success of STEM education. Teachers need to provide and use an appropriate instructional design for STEM education and understand the educational goals. Therefore, we see the need to conduct research related to STEM education, especially exploring the instructional design because identifying and using a quality instructional design could increase the effectivess of STEM education.

According to the previous literature review, educational goals for instructional design were highlighted in STEM education. First, engagement and career choice need to be emphasized in STEM learning to improve students’ interest and self-efficacy (Vongkulluksn et al., 2018 ). Students need to engage in STEM education to raise their interest and engagement in STEM and to increase and develop a STEM-capable workforce (Honey et al., 2014 ; Hsu & Fang, 2019 ; Schütte & Köller, 2015 ). Engaging students in STEM education could improve their attitudes (Vossen et al., 2018 ) and their interest in STEM fields, and encourage them to pursue STEM careers (Means et al., 2017 ).

Second, STEM literacy needs to be promoted in K-12 schools (Falloon et al., 2020 ; Jackson et al., 2021 ) to develop students’ ability to encounter global challenges (Bybee, 2010 ). Students need to have the ability to apply concepts from science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, and skills to solve problems related to social, personal, and global issues in society (Bybee, 2010 ; Jackson et al., 2021 ). Besides, improving students’ STEM literacy is needed for their decision-making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity (National Academy of Engineering & National Research Council, 2014 ; National Research Council, 2011 ).

Last, regarding the twenty-first century competencies, students are anticipated to have abilities of creativity and innovation, problem solving, critical thinking, collaboration and communication (Boon, 2019 ) as citizens, workers, and leaders in the twenty-first century (Bryan et al., 2015 ; National Academy of Engineering & National Research Council, 2014 ; Stehle & Peters-Burton, 2019 ). These abilities are critical for students to adapt and thrive in a changing world (National Research Council, 2013 ). Also, students need to have the abilities to adapt to the twenty-first century in order to succeed in the new workforce (Bybee, 2013 ).

Considering the achievement of students’ engagement, motivation, STEM literacy, as well as twenty-first century competencies, many countries have significantly enlarged the funding for research and education relevant to STEM (Sanders, 2009 ). One of the strands of the existing research is to help teachers know how to implement STEM education in schools (Aranda, 2020 ; Barak & Assal, 2018 ; English, 2017 ). Researchers have proposed instructional designs for STEM education including design-based learning (Kelley & Knowles, 2016 ; Yata et al., 2020 ), inquiry-based learning (Bybee, 2010 ), project-based learning (Capraro et al., 2013 ), and problem-based learning (Carpraro & Slough, 2013 ).

Design-based learning focuses on technological and engineering design. This instructional design engages students in learning about engineering design practices (Fan et al., 2021 ; Guzey et al., 2016 ; Hernandez et al., 2014 ) through the steps of designing, building, and testing (Yata et al., 2020 ). Design-based learning promotes problem solving, design, building, testing, and communication skills (Johnson et al., 2015 ) and improves students’ interest in STEM activities (Vongkulluksn et al., 2018 ). Also, design-based learning improves students’ engineering abilities and twenty-first century competencies (Wu et al., 2019 ) and attitudes (Vossen et al., 2018 ), and engages them in understanding core disciplinary ideas (Guzey et al., 2016 ).

Inquiry-based learning focuses on engaging students in hands-on activities to investigate scientific phenomena (Lederman & Lederman, 2012 ) and to construct their new knowledge (Bybee, 2010 ; Halawa et al., 2020 ). Students are encouraged to plan and design their experiments, analyze and interpret data, argue, and communicate their findings (Halawa et al., 2023 ; National Research Council, 2012 , 2013 ). Inquiry-based learning is also deemed to improve students’ knowledge, interest, engagement (Sinatra et al., 2017 ) and creativity (Smyrnaiou et al., 2020 ). Besides, researchers have noticed the importance of inquiry-based learning for improving students’ attitudes toward science-related careers (Kim, 2016 ). Although inquiry-based learning mainly focuses on science education to engage students in authentic learning (Halawa et al., 2024 ), it has been known to share common goals and characteristics with mathematics, technology, and engineering (Grangeat et al., 2021 ; Lin et al., 2020 ). Common elements in STEM education are engaging students in asking questions and testing their ideas in a systematic and interactive way (Grangeat et al., 2021 ).

Project-based learning and problem-based learning, both instructional designs, engage students in experiential and authentic learning with open-ended and real-world problems (English, 2017 ). Yet, project-based learning tends to be of longer duration and occurs over an extended period of time (Wilson, 2021 ), while problem-based learning is usually embedded in multiple problems (Carpraro & Slough, 2013 ). STEM project-based learning focuses on engaging students in an ill-defined task within a well-defined outcome situated with a contextually rich task, requiring them to solve certain problems (Capraro et al., 2013 ). Project-based learning and problem-based learning are both used to develop students’ problem solving, creativity, collaboration skills (Barak & Assal, 2018 ), and attitude (Preininger, 2017 ).

According to previous studies, researchers have adopted STEM instructional designs to achieve certain educational goals. For instance, in the aspects of engagement and career choice, Sullivan and Bers ( 2019 ) used design-based learning to improve students’ interest in engineering and students’ performance in elementary school. Kang et al. ( 2021 ) adopted inquiry-based learning for secondary school by embedding careers education to foster the students’ interest in science. Vallera and Bodzin ( 2020 ) adopted project-based learning at primary school in the northeastern United States to improve students’ STEM literacy and attitude. Preininger ( 2017 ) used problem-based learning to influence students’ attitudes toward mathematics and careers involving mathematics. In the aspect of STEM literacy, King and English ( 2016 ) adopted design-based learning to enable students to apply STEM concepts to the model of the construction of an optical instrument. Han et al. ( 2015 ) adopted STEM project-based learning to improve the performance of low-performing students in mathematics. Lastly, regarding the twenty-first century competencies, English et al. ( 2017 ) adopted design-based learning to improve students’ capabilities of handling the complexity of the task (English et al., 2017 ).

In conclusion, studies have grown to explore educational goals related to instructional designs for STEM education. However, consistent and systematic reviews related to instructional designs in K-12 STEM education are comparatively scarce. Although there are some reviews of the STEM education literature (Andrews et al., 2022 ; Gladstone & Cimpian, 2021 ; Kaya-Fadlelmula et al., 2022 ; López et al., 2022 ; Margot & Kettler, 2019 ; Martín-Páez et al., 2019 ; Nguyen et al., 2021 ), it is noteworthy that previous studies only explored undergraduate instruction in STEM education (Andrews et al., 2022 ; Henderson et al., 2011 ; Nguyen et al., 2021 ). Therefore, to fill the research gap, this current study conducted a systematic analysis of literature to understand the educational goals and instructional designs for K-12 STEM education from articles published between 2012 and 2021. The research questions of this study were formulated as follows:

What STEM education goals were more focused on in the reviewed articles? What was the trend of educational goals in the reviewed articles?

What instructional designs were more focused on in the reviewed articles? What was the trend of the instructional design in the review articles?

What instructional designs were more focused on to achieve certain educational goals in the reviewed articles?

What features of instructional designs were more focused on in the reviewed articles?

Data collection

To identify the target literature for further analysis, this study conducted several rounds of searching the Web of Science (WOS) database for articles (Gough et al., 2012 ; Møller & Myles, 2016 ). A systematic literature review using the PRISMA guidelines was used for article selection (Møller & Myles, 2016 ). First, we searched for articles using the keyword “STEM Education” along with “learning”, “teaching”, “curriculum”, and “professional development”, to refine the search results. The search identified a total of 1,531 articles published in the Web of Science from 2012 to 2021 (Fig.  1 ). We initially excluded duplicated articles; the search retrieved a total of 1,513 articles. We then screened the titles, abstract, and keywords of the articles based on the following criteria: (a) empirical research; (b) incorporating instructional design and strategies into STEM teaching; (c) including intervention; (d) focusing on K-12 education and on assessment of learning outcomes; and (e) excluding higher education and STEAM education. During this screening, we discussed which articles met the criteria through round-table discussions, and determined the preliminary target candidates composed of 394 articles. A full-text examination was then conducted. In this round of examination, we removed the articles without clear information about the educational goals and instructional designs related to STEM education. Finally, a corpus of literature comprising 229 articles was formed for further analysis.

PRISMA flow diagram of articles selection

Data analysis

According to the research questions, for this study, we developed a coding framework to conduct content analysis and to categorize the target literature. We first selected paradigmatic references of STEM education and instructional design from high quality publications. These articles provided sets of core concepts and terms to shape the provisional coding categories. We then constantly reviewed the paradigmatic references and discussed them to improve the coding scheme. The final analytic framework with coding categories was developed as follows. The first category, STEM educational goals, includes engagement and career choice (Honey et al., 2014 ; Hsu & Fang, 2019 ), STEM literacy (Falloon et al., 2020 ; Jackson et al., 2021 ), and twenty-first century competencies (Boon, 2019 ) (see Appendix 1). The second category, instructional design, includes design-based learning (Yata et al., 2020 ), inquiry-based learning (Bybee, 2010 ; Halawa et al., 2020 ), project-based learning (Capraro & Slough, 2013 ), and problem-based learning (Priemer et al., 2020 ). From the review articles, we found that 6E - oriented STEM (engage, explore, explain, engineer, enrich, and evaluate) and game-based learning were used for STEM education. These two instructional designs were added to our coding scheme. Articles that did not specify the instructional design were coded as “others”. We then analyzed the outcomes to see whether instructional design successfully improved STEM educational goals. We analyzed design-based, inquiry-based, and project-based learning to achieve engagement and career choice, STEM literacy, and a combination of engagement and career choice and STEM literacy because the selected articles mainly concentrated on them. We categorized the outcomes as positively improved, partially improved, and none (Amador et al., 2021 ). Instructional design that successfully increased STEM educational goals was categorized as positively improved. Instructional design that only increased a part of STEM educational goals was categorized as partially improved. If the instructional design did not increase STEM educational goals, we categorized it as none.

We then extended our coding scheme to identify the features of design-based, inquiry-based, and project-based learning. We focused on these three instructional designs because the selected articles mainly adopted them. Yata et al. ( 2020 ) proposed designing, building, and testing as the features of design-based learning. Other features of instructional designs including questioning or identifying problems, experimenting, analyzing, explaining, collaborating, communicating, and reflecting were proposed as features of inquiry-based learning (Bybee, 2010 ; Halawa et al., 2020 ) and project-based learning (Capraro et al., 2013 ). From the review articles, we found that redesigning was one of the features of instructional design and so added it to the coding scheme. These features of instructional designs were adopted for our coding scheme including questioning or identifying problems, designing, building, testing, experimenting, analyzing, collaborating, reflecting, communicating, and redesigning (Appendix 2). We then calculated the number of articles that adopted these features of instructional designs. We further summarized the features of instructional designs that were frequently used in the selected articles.

In order to make sure the coding process was reliable, we conducted a trial coding by randomly selecting 40 articles and individually categorizing the articles into the aforementioned categories: (a) STEM education goal, and (b) instructional design. Interrater reliability was calculated using a percent agreement metric reaching an acceptable level of 0.85 (McHugh, 2012 ). The discrepancies between authors were negotiated and solved through discussions. The NVivo 11 software was utilized to complete coding works on the remaining articles. We then calculated and reported descriptive statistics of the coded data as the analytic results.

Engagement and career choice as the main focused STEM educational goals

Table 1 shows that more articles focused on engagement and career choice (64 articles) and STEM literacy (61 articles) than twenty-first century competencies (16 articles). The articles also mainly focused on a combination of engagement and career choice and STEM literacy (47 articles) and a combination of engagement and career choice and twenty-first century competencies (18 articles). Nine articles were found that focused on the three learning goals of engagement and career choice, STEM literacy, and twenty-first century competencies.

Table 1 shows the numbers of articles regarding educational goals for STEM education for each 2 years in the review papers. The number of articles per 2 years increased from 2012 to 2021. The trend analysis indicated that engagement and career choice and STEM literacy increased greatly from 2014 to 2021. The numbers of articles focused on the combination of two educational goals (STEM literacy and twenty-first competencies) and three learning goals (engagement and career choice, STEM literacy, and twenty-first competencies) from 2016 to 2021 are also presented.

Design-based and inquiry-based learning as the main instructional designs for STEM

Table 2 reveals the numbers of articles that used instructional design for STEM education. The instructional designs of design-based, inquiry-based, project-based, and problem-based learning were mainly used and continued to be used over the study period. The trend analysis indicated a big jump in design-based, inquiry-based, and project-based learning from 2018 to 2021.

Table 2 also shows the instructional designs and educational goals for STEM from review papers. Most articles adopted design-based (80 articles), inquiry-based (46 articles), project-based (42 articles), and problem-based (27 articles) learning.

Design-based learning mainly used to achieve STEM literacy

The findings shown in Table  3 identified that STEM instructional designs were used differently to achieve engagement and career choice, STEM literacy, and the combination of engagement and career choice and STEM literacy. We found that design-based learning was mainly adopted to achieve STEM literacy (28 articles), while inquiry-based learning was mainly used to achieve engagement and career choice (14 articles) and the combination of engagement and career choice and STEM literacy (14 articles). Also, more articles (15 articles) adopted project-based learning to achieve engagement and career choice. Furthermore, more design-based learning (7 articles) and problem-based learning (4 articles) than inquiry-based learning (2 articles) and project-based learning (1) articles were adopted to achieve twenty-first century competencies.

As we identified that a major portion of the articles adopted design-based learning, inquiry-based learning, and project-based learning focused on engagement and career choice, STEM literacy, and a combination of engagement and career choice and STEM literacy (see Table  3 ), we focused further analysis on the outcomes of STEM educational goals in the articles. The total number of selected articles was 124, of which 54 adopted design-based learning, 37 adopted inquiry-based learning, and 33 adopted project-based learning (Table  4 ).

We categorized the outcomes of STEM education goals into three categories (positively improved, partially improved, and none) (Amador et al., 2021 ). Table 4 shows that the majority of selected articles adopted design-based, inquiry-based, and project-based learning, improving STEM educational goals positively. Most selected articles found that design-based learning positively improved engagement and career choice (10 articles), STEM literacy (26 articles), and a combination of engagement and career choice and STEM literacy (15 articles). Also, most of the selected articles indicated that inquiry learning has a positive impact on engagement and career choice (14 articles), STEM literacy (7 articles), and a combination of engagement and career choice and STEM literacy (13 articles). Project-based learning has demonstrated a beneficial impact on various outcomes, as reported across the selected literature. Specifically, 12 articles documented the enhancement of engagement and career decisions, nine indicated the advancement of STEM literacy, and six discussed a combined effect on engagement, career choice, and STEM literacy.

Frequently used features of STEM instructional designs

To identify the frequently used features of STEM instructional design, we further explored the activities in the selected articles. As previous results show that the major part of articles adopted design-based learning, inquiry-based learning, and project-based learning, we further analyzed the frequently used features of these STEM instructional designs that focused on engagement and career choice, STEM literacy, and combination of engagement and career choice and STEM literacy (see Table  3 ). We selected 54 articles that adopted design-based learning, 37 adopted inquiry-based learning, and 33 adopted project-based learning (Table  5 ).

Frequently used features of design-based learning

Based on the findings, a large portion of the selected articles adopted design-based learning for STEM education (54 articles). Table 5 shows the features that were adopted to implement instructional design for design-based learning. More than half of the selected articles adopted designing, building, testing, collaborating, experimenting, and reflecting. Building (88.9%), designing (87.0%), and testing (70.4%) were used to engage students in engineering (Yata et al., 2020 ). Besides, engaging students in these activities required students to use their knowledge and skills (Kelley & Knowles, 2016 ). For example, Aranda et al. ( 2020 ) and Lie et al. ( 2019 ) implemented design-based learning by asking students to design a process to both prevent and test for cross-pollination of non-GMO from GMO fields. In these selected articles, the curriculums were focused on helping students with designing, building, and testing.

Collaborating, which engages students in working with their classmates in the process of design-based learning, was also mainly emphasized in the selected articles (64.8%). For instance, English and King ( 2019 ) asked students to work with their groups to discuss the possible design of the bridge. Researchers also emphasized experimenting (53.7%) to engage students in design-based learning. English ( 2019 ) engaged students in investigating their feet and shoes. Students collected, represented, analyzed data, and drew conclusions from their findings. Lie et al. ( 2019 ) helped students conduct an investigation to prevent cross-contamination of non-GMO from GMO corn fields. The last critical feature of design-based learning is reflecting (51.9%). In this activity, students engaged in assessing their solutions against a set of criteria and constraints, generating, and evaluating solutions (Cunningham et al., 2019 ). By engaging students in reflecting, students have an opportunity to improve their design and choose their best strategy (Aranda et al., 2020 ; Lie et al., 2019 ).

Frequently used features of inquiry-based learning

As shown in Table  5 , the inquiry-based learning approach was frequently adopted by researchers for STEM education. The features of this approach applied to achieve specific STEM education goals (e.g., engagement and career choice, and STEM literacy) included experimenting (91.9%), collaborating (83.8%), reflecting (62.2%), and communicating (51.4%) (see Table  5 ). This finding indicated that the top three frequently used features of inquiry-based learning in STEM were experimenting, collaborating, and reflecting, which play an essential role when learners try out their ideas about a real-world problem related to STEM. For example, a four-phase inquiry (clarifying the situation, hands-on experiments, representing, analyzing the produced data, and reporting/whole-class discussions) for authentic modeling tasks guided students to develop their credibility of the tasks and to acquire STEM knowledge (Carreira & Baioa, 2018 ).

Frequently used features of project-based learning

As previously mentioned, project-based learning is one of the major approaches to support instructional design in the reviewed STEM education studies. The results shown in Table  5 further indicate the features that researchers tended to integrate into instructional design for project-based learning. More than half (51.5%) of the selected articles reported “reflecting” as a pivotal part of teaching that triggered students’ project-based learning. Reflecting is deemed to depict learners’ active perceptions and deliberation of what they encounter and what they are doing. This may contribute to their competence to retrieve appropriate information, to provide feedback, and to revise the project underlying their learning. For example, in Dasgupta et al.’s ( 2019 ) study, a design journal was utilized to help students’ reflection on what they knew, what is necessary to know, as well as their learning outcomes. Vallera and Bodzin ( 2020 ) also addressed the critical design features of their curriculum to help students achieve information obtaining, evaluating, and communicating in the learning project based on real-world contexts.

Besides, researchers focused on project-based learning regarding STEM have a tendency to foster students’ learning via “identifying problems” (48.5%). These studies can be differentiated into two types based on whether the researchers provided a driving question for the learning project. In Vallera and Bodzin’s ( 2020 ) study, the instructional design arranged a clear-cut driving question to guide students’ thinking about helping farmers to prepare products for sale in a farmers’ market. This led students to extend their thinking and identify further problems while solving the driving question. As for Barak and Assal’s ( 2018 ) study, their instructional design provided open-ended tasks and ill-defined problems. Such arrangements were deemed to afford students’ learning through problem defining and learning objective setting.

It is also noteworthy to mention that the percentages of “experimenting” and “collaborating” in studies involved with project-based learning design were lower than those of studies with design-based learning or inquiry-based learning. However, researchers who were interested in STEM project-based learning would still to some extent agree with instructional design that may provide opportunities to students to access authentic scientific activities and social communications.

This study focused on analyzing the STEM educational goals and instructional designs adopted in the 2012–2021 articles. The findings of this study present knowledge and understanding of the educational goals that need to be considered in STEM education, and how these goals could be achieved by adopting various STEM instructional designs.

Educational goals for STEM education

The majority of reviewed articles adopted instructional designs to achieve the goals of engagement, career choice and STEM literacy. In contrast, few articles focused on twenty-first century competencies. It is not surprising because many recent studies in nature emphasized economic viewpoints and workplace-readiness outcomes in the STEM education field (Cheng et al., 2021 ; Kelley & Knowles, 2016 ). The aspects of engagement and career choice were frequently considered in many previous studies on STEM education (Struyf et al., 2019 ; Vongkulluksn et al., 2018 ; Vossen et al., 2018 ). It indicated that engagement and career choice are important goals for STEM education (Honey et al., 2014 ; Hsu & Fang, 2019 ; Kelley & Knowles, 2016 ). Engaging and motivating students in STEM education are necessary to enhance their understanding of their future careers (Fleer, 2021 ) and to cultivate them to continue STEM learning (Maltese et al., 2014 ). Students who were motivated and interested in STEM education would pursue STEM careers (Maltese & Tai, 2011 ). Furthermore, the aspects of STEM literacy are also addressed in the reviewed articles. The aspects of STEM literacy (e.g., knowledge and capabilities) are deemed important for students’ productive engagement with STEM studies, issues, and practices (Falloon et al., 2020 ). The focus of STEM literacy encourages students to apply their knowledge to life situations and solve problems (Bybee, 2010 ). The importance of STEM literacy has been highlighted in several national documents (e.g., Committee on STEM Education of the National Science & Technology Council, 2018 ; National Research Council, 2011 ; U.S. Department of Education, 2016 ). These findings provide insights into what teaching goals have been focused on in STEM education. For instance, engagement and career choice have been mainly focused on in STEM education because the STEM teaching was designed to connect to the students’ real-world experiences or future professional situations (Strobel et al., 2013 ). The authentic and meaningful experience could engage and motivate students in the activity, and later they should pursue their future careers related to what they have learned.

However, there are few selected articles focused on twenty-first century competencies, although many previous studies considered the twenty-first century competencies as important goals for students. Some studies have advocated that students should be engaged in interdisciplinary sets of complex problems and encourage them to use critical thinking and develop their creativity and innovation as well as collaboration (Finegold & Notabartolo, 2010 ; Jang, 2016 ). Engaging students in STEM education focused on twenty-first century competencies could prepare them for the workplace and help them become successful in STEM-related fields (Jang, 2016 ). Future researchers should consider integrating twenty-first century competencies into STEM education to complement the existing focus on engagement, career choice, and STEM literacy, preparing students for a broader range of skills necessary for the modern workforce.

Instructional design for STEM education

Although the reviewed articles adopted various instructional designs for STEM education, the articles mostly adopted design-based rather than inquiry-based, project-based, or problem-based learning. The findings are in accordance with the existing literature on STEM education. Notably, these results corroborate the conclusions drawn from a comprehensive systematic review conducted by Mclure et al. ( 2022 ). Design-based learning was adopted to achieve the goals of STEM literacy, engagement and career choice, and this instructional design tended to be used more often according to the trend analysis. This indicated that design-based learning was considered as a main instructional design for STEM education. This instructional design has become an essential approach to engaging K-12 students in STEM education (Bybee, 2013 ; National Academy of Engineering & National Research Council, 2014 ; National Research Council, 2013 ). Some researchers claimed that students who participate in design-based learning could make meaningful connections between knowledge and skills by solving problems (English & King, 2019 ; Kelley et al., 2010 ). Design-based learning engages students in authentic problems and challenges that increase their level of engagement (Sadler et al., 2000 ), help students learn fundamental scientific principles (Mehalik et al., 2008 ), and build students’ natural and intuitive experience (Fortus et al., 2004 ). In the process of design, students learn the concepts of science, technology, and mathematics in the process of designing, building, or testing products (Yata et al., 2020 ). For instance, students have to learn the concept of energy to design a house that produces more renewable energy than it consumes over a period of 1 year (Zheng et al., 2020 ). It was also found that the majority of selected articles which adopted design-based learning successfully improved learners’ engagement, career choice, and STEM literacy (Table  4 ). The results align with the findings of a previous meta-analysis focusing on STEM education at the middle school level (Thomas & Larwin, 2023 ). K-12 students’ STEM learning successfully improved because the selected articles reported studies conducting design-based learning in K-12 education. For example, Cunningham et al. ( 2019 ) successfully implemented design-based learning to improve elementary students’ learning outcomes, while Fan et al. ( 2018 ) found that design-based learning positively improved secondary students’ conceptual knowledge and attitude.

However, the selected articles have not equally used the features of design-based learning such as collaborating, reflecting, and redesigning. We identified that the selected articles mainly used designing, building, and testing to engage students in engineering activities. One of the explanations for this finding is that researchers may face challenges in implementing a full cycle of design-based learning because of the time limit of instruction, so they only focus on the process of designing, building, and testing. Collaborating, reflecting, and redesigning should be emphasized while adopting effective design-based learning because students could solve complex problems by collaborating with others. With collaboration, the students can learn/solve problems through discussion within the group. This activity allows students to share new ideas and debate with others to generate solutions. Reflecting on the data and experience allows students to make improvements to their model and leads them to redesign it to produce a better model. This process could also grow students’ science knowledge (Fortus et al., 2004 ). This finding hence suggests future studies, and educators emphasize more collaborating, reflecting, and redesigning for design-based learning for STEM instruction.

Moreover, inquiry-based learning, project-based learning, and problem-based learning were adopted in some selected articles. Inquiry-based learning was considered to enable and to promote connections within and across curriculum disciplines and improve students’ engagement in STEM education (Attard et al., 2021 ). Project-based and problem-based learning can be used to engage students in authentic problems (Blumenfeld et al., 1991 ) and to improve their engagement in STEM education (Beckett et al., 2016 ). Furthermore, we identified that inquiry-based learning mainly engages students in experimenting, collaborating, and reflecting (Kim, 2016 ), and project-based learning (Han et al., 2015 ) mainly engages students in identifying problems and reflecting. This finding reveals the frequently used features of inquiry-based learning and project-based learning. Teachers could use these components of instructional design for preparing their instruction for teaching STEM. Given these findings, it is advisable to explore the integration of inquiry-based, project-based, and problem-based learning alongside design-based learning in STEM education. Such an approach may enhance the effectiveness of STEM education by providing a more comprehensive strategy to improve STEM literacy, engagement, and career choice among K-12 students.

However, we identified that some essentials of these instructional designs have not been included in selected articles. For instance, studies adopting inquiry-based learning rarely asked students to propose their questions, although questioning is one of the frequently used features of inquiry (National Research Council, 2012 , 2013 ). One of the possible explanations for this finding is that students may have a lack of experience with inquiry learning and not know how to formulate meaningful questions, and they may tend to propose low-level factual questions related to their personal interests (Krajcik et al., 1998 ). Besides, STEM education requires students to engage in complex real-world problems, which requires sufficient ability to propose meaningful questions. Yet, we expect that future studies and teachers should encourage students to propose their own questions because questioning improves students’ creativity, critical thinking, and problem solving skills (Hofstein et al., 2005 ). Teachers could start asking students to propose their own questions once they have experience and ability to propose good questions. Krajcik et al. ( 1998 ) suggested providing situations in which students can receive informative and critical feedback from teachers, classmates, and others so as to propose their own significant questions.

Conclusions

From an instructional design perspective, this study provides crucial insights into practical STEM education approaches. The findings underscore the importance of aligning instructional designs with specific STEM educational goals. The trend analysis revealed a significant increase in focus on engagement, career choice, and STEM literacy from 2014 to 2021, with a particularly sharp rise observed between 2018 and 2021. Each instructional design approach demonstrated unique strengths: design-based learning fosters STEM literacy. In contrast, inquiry-based and project-based learning effectively enhanced engagement and career choice. The study delineates specific features of these instructional designs that contribute to their success, such as building and testing in design-based learning, experimenting and collaborating in inquiry-based learning, and reflecting and problem identification in project-based learning.

Furthermore, this study advocates for a deliberate and systematic application of inquiry-based and project-based learning alongside design-based learning. Such integration is likely to cultivate a more dynamic and interactive learning environment that encourages critical thinking, problem-solving, and collaborative skills among students. The integration of twenty-first century competencies in the instructional design of STEM, though less presented, suggests a potential research space for further exploration of STEM teaching. This study recommends an expanded focus on incorporating these competencies to ensure a holistic educational approach that addresses immediate educational goals and equips students with essential skills for future challenges.

Teachers’ limited understanding of STEM instructional design also presents a significant challenge, necessitating targeted professional development initiatives. Educators must comprehend and implement a comprehensive approach that aligns educational goals with appropriate instructional designs to optimize STEM learning outcomes. This approach involves clearly defining learning objectives, such as STEM literacy, selecting suitable instructional designs, and effectively guiding students through the chosen learning process.

The findings in this study furnish instructional designers and educators with a clear framework for developing targeted STEM curricula. The research accentuates the importance of aligning instructional design features with specific educational goals, suggesting that a nuanced, goal-oriented approach to STEM instruction can significantly enhance student outcomes in literacy, engagement, and career readiness. These insights offer a robust foundation for refining and optimizing instructional design strategies in STEM education.

Availability of data and materials

No applicable.

Amador, J. M., Bragelman, J., & Superfine, A. C. (2021). Prospective teachers’ noticing: A literature review of methodological approaches to support and analyze noticing. Teaching and Teacher Education . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103256

Article   Google Scholar  

Andrews, T. C., Speer, N. M., & Shultz, G. V. (2022). Building bridges: A review and synthesis of research on teaching knowledge for undergraduate instruction in science, engineering, and mathematics. International Journal of STEM Education, 9 (1), 66. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00380-w

Aranda, M. L., Guzey, S. S., & Moore, T. J. (2020). Multidisciplinary discourses in an engineering design-based science curricular unit. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30 (3), 507–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09517-5

Attard, C., Berger, N., & Mackenzie, E. (2021). The positive influence of inquiry-based learning teacher professional learning and industry partnerships on student engagement with STEM. Frontiers in Education . https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.693221

Barak, M., & Assal, M. (2018). Robotics and STEM learning: Students’ achievements in assignments according to the P3 Task Taxonomy-practice, problem solving, and projects. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28 (1), 121–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9385-9

Beckett, G. H., Hemmings, A., Maltbie, C., Wright, K., Sherman, M., & Sersion, B. (2016). Urban high school student engagement through cincySTEM iTEST projects. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25 (6), 995–1007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9640-6

Berland, L., Steingut, R., & Ko, P. (2014). High school student perceptions of the utility of the engineering design process: Creating opportunities to engage in engineering practices and apply math and science content. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23 (6), 705–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9498-4

Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26 (3–4), 369–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139

Boon, N. S. (2019). Exploring STEM competences for the 21st century . Current and Critical Issues in Curriculum, Learning and Assessment 30. Geneva: IBEUNESCO. Retrieved June 19, 2022, from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000368485.locale=en

Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112 (1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x

Bryan, L. A., Moore, T. J., Johnson, C. C., & Roehrig, G. H. (2015). Integrated STEM education. In C. C. Johnson, E. E. Peters-Burton, & T. J. Moore (Eds.), STEM roadmap: A framework for integration (pp. 23–37). Taylor & Francis.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70 (1), 30–35.

Google Scholar  

Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education . NSTA press.

Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., & Morgan, J. (Eds.). (2013). Project-based learning: An integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach (2nd ed.). Sense.

Capraro, R. M., & Slough, S. W. (2013). Why PBL? Why STEM? Why now? an introduction to STEM project-based learning. In R. M. Capraro, M. M. Capraro, & J. R. Morgan (Eds.), STEM Project-based learning: An integrated Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) approach (pp. 1–5). Sense Publishers.

Carreira, S., & Baioa, A. M. (2018). Mathematical modelling with hands-on experimental tasks: On the student’s sense of credibility. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 50 (1–2), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0905-1

Chen, C. S., & Lin, J. W. (2019). A practical action research study of the impact of maker-centered STEM-PjBL on a rural middle school in Taiwan. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17 , S85–S108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09961-8

Cheng, L., Antonenko, P., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & MacFadden, B. (2021). Exploring the role of 3D printing and STEM integration levels in students’ STEM career interest. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52 (3), 1262–1278. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13077

Committee on STEM Education of the National Science & Technology Council. (2018). Charting a course for success: America’s strategy for STEM education . Executive Office of the President National Science and Technology Council.

Cunningham, C. M., Lachapelle, C. P., Brennan, R. T., Kelly, G. J., Tunis, C. S. A., & Gentry, C. A. (2019). The impact of engineering curriculum design principles on elementary students’ engineering and science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57 (3), 423–453. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21601

Dasgupta, C., Magana, A. J., & Vieira, C. (2019). Investigating the affordances of a CAD enabled learning environment for promoting integrated STEM learning. Computers & Education, 129 , 122–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.014

Ejiwale, J. (2013). Barriers to successful implementation of STEM education. Journal of Education and Learning, 7 (2), 63–74.

English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3 (1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1

English, L. D. (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

English, L. D. (2019). Learning while designing in a fourth-grade integrated STEM problem. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29 (5), 1011–1032. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9482-z

English, L. D., & King, D. (2019). STEM integration in sixth grade: Designing and constructing paper bridges. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17 (5), 863–884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9912-0

English, L. D., King, D., & Smeed, J. (2017). Advancing integrated STEM learning through engineering design: Sixth-grade students’ design and construction of earthquake resistant buildings. Journal of Educational Research, 110 (3), 255–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1264053

Falloon, G., Hatzigianni, M., Bower, M., Forbes, A., & Stevenson, M. (2020). Understanding K-12 STEM education: A framework for developing STEM literacy. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29 (3), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09823-x

Fan, S.-C., Yu, K.-C., & Lin, K.-Y. (2021). A framework for implementing an engineering-focused stem curriculum. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19 (8), 1523–1541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10129-y

Fan, S.-C., Yu, K.-C., & Lou, S.-J. (2018). Why do students present different design objectives in engineering design projects? International Journal of Technology and Design Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9420-5

Finegold, D., & Notabartolo, A. S. (2010). 21st century competencies and their impact: an interdisciplinary literature review. In D. Finegold, M. Gatta, H. Salzman, & S. J. Schurman (Eds.), Transforming the US workforce development system (pp. 19–56). Labor and Employment Relations Association.

Fleer, M. (2021). When preschool girls engineer: Future imaginings of being and becoming an engineer. Learning Culture and Social Interaction, 30 , 100372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100372

Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (10), 1081–1110. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.2004

Gladstone, J. R., & Cimpian, A. (2021). Which role models are effective for which students? A systematic review and four recommendations for maximizing the effectiveness of role models in STEM. International Journal of STEM Education, 8 (1), 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00315-x

Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2012). Introducing systematic reviews. In D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (pp. 1–16). Sage.

Grangeat, M., Harrison, C., & Dolin, J. (2021). Exploring assessment in STEM inquiry learning classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 43 (3), 345–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1903617

Guzey, S. S., Moore, T. J., Harwell, M., & Moreno, M. (2016). STEM integration in middle school life science: Student learning and attitudes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25 (4), 550–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9612-x

Halawa, S., Hsu, Y.-S., & Zhang, W.-X. (2023). Analysis of physics textbooks through the lens of inquiry practices. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 32 (4), 497–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-022-00671-4

Halawa, S., Hsu, Y.-S., & Zhang, W.-X. (2024). Inquiry activity design from Singaporean and indonesian physics textbooks. Science & Education, 33 (3), 581–607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00396-2

Halawa, S., Hsu, Y.-S., Zhang, W.-X., Kuo, Y.-R., & Wu, J.-Y. (2020). Features and trends of teaching strategies for scientific practices from a review of 2008–2017 articles. International Journal of Science Education, 42 (7), 1183–1206. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1752415

Han, S., Capraro, R., & Capraro, M. M. (2015). How science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (stem) project-based learning (pbl) affects high, middle, and low achievers differently: The impact of student factors on achievement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13 (5), 1089–1113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9526-0

Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48 (8), 952–984. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20439

Hernandez, P. R., Bodin, R., Elliott, J. W., Ibrahim, B., Rambo-Hernandez, K. E., Chen, T. W., & de Miranda, M. A. (2014). Connecting the STEM dots: Measuring the effect of an integrated engineering design intervention. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24 (1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-013-9241-0

Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis, M., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Developing students’ ability to ask more and better questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42 (7), 791–806. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20072

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

Hsu, Y.-S., & Fang, S.-C. (2019). Opportunities and challenges of STEM education. In Y.-S. Hsu & Y.-F. Yeh (Eds.), Asia-Pacific STEM teaching practices: From theoretical frameworks to practices (pp. 1–16). Springer Singapore.

Jackson, C., Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., Bush, S. B., Maiorca, C., Roberts, T., Yost, C., & Fowler, A. (2021). Equity-oriented conceptual framework for k-12 STEM literacy. International Journal of STEM Education, 8 (1), 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00294-z

Jang, H. (2016). Identifying 21st century STEM competencies using workplace data. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25 (2), 284–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9593-1

Johnson, C. C., Peters-Burton, E. E., & Moore, T. J. (2015). STEM road map: A framework for integrated STEM Education . Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Kang, J., Salonen, A., Tolppanen, S., Scheersoi, A., Hense, J., Rannikmae, M., & Keinonen, T. (2021). Effect of embedded careers education in science lessons on students’ interest, awareness, and aspirations. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10238-2

Kayan-Fadlelmula, F., Sellami, A., Abdelkader, N., & Umer, S. (2022). A systematic review of STEM education research in the GCC countries: Trends, gaps and barriers. International Journal of STEM Education, 9 (1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00319-7

Kelley, T. R., Brenner, D. C., & Pieper, J. T. (2010). Two approaches to engineering design: Observations in STEM education. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 47 (2), 5–40.

Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3 (1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z

Kim, H. (2016). Inquiry-based science and technology enrichment program for middle school-aged female students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25 (2), 174–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9584-2

Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7 (3–4), 313–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.1998.9672057

Lamb, R., Akmal, T., & Petrie, K. (2015). Development of a cognition-priming model describing learning in a STEM classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52 (3), 410–437. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21200

Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S., et al. (2012). Nature of scientific knowledge and scientific inquiry: Building instructional capacity through professional development. In B. J. Fraser (Ed.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 335–359). Springer.

Lie, R., Guzey, S. S., & Moore, T. J. (2019). Implementing engineering in diverse upper elementary and middle school science classrooms: Student learning and attitudes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28 (2), 104–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9751-3

Lin, K.-Y., Hsiao, H.-S., Williams, P. J., & Chen, Y.-H. (2020). Effects of 6E-oriented STEM practical activities in cultivating middle school students’ attitudes toward technology and technological inquiry ability. Research in Science & Technological Education, 38 (1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2018.1561432

López, N., Morgan, D. L., Hutchings, Q. R., & Davis, K. (2022). Revisiting critical STEM interventions: A literature review of STEM organizational learning. International Journal of STEM Education, 9 (1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00357-9

Maltese, A. V., Melki, C. S., & Wiebke, H. L. (2014). The nature of experiences responsible for the generation and maintenance of interest in STEM. Science Education, 98 (6), 937–962. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21132

Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among US students. Science Education, 95 (5), 877–907. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20441

Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6 (1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2

Martín-Páez, T., Aguilera, D., Perales-Palacios, F. J., & Vílchez-González, J. M. (2019). What are we talking about when we talk about STEM education? A Review of Literature. Science Education, 103 (4), 799–822. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21522

McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22 , 276–282.

McLure, F. I., Tang, K.-S., & Williams, P. J. (2022). What do integrated STEM projects look like in middle school and high school classrooms? A systematic literature review of empirical studies of iSTEM projects. International Journal of STEM Education, 9 (1), 73. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00390-8

Means, B., Wang, H., Wei, X., Lynch, S., Peters, V., Young, V., & Allen, C. (2017). Expanding STEM opportunities through inclusive STEM-focused high schools. Science Education, 101 (5), 681–715. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21281

Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schuun, C. D. (2008). Middle-school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97 (1), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00955.x

Møller, A. M., & Myles, P. S. (2016). What makes a good systematic review and meta-analysis? BJA British Journal of Anaesthesia, 117 (4), 428–430. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aew264

National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research . National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics . National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas . The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2013). Monitoring progress toward successful K-12 STEM education: A nation advancing? National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13509

Nguyen, K. A., Borrego, M., Finelli, C. J., DeMonbrun, M., Crockett, C., Tharayil, S., Shekhar, P., Waters, C., & Rosenberg, R. (2021). Instructor strategies to aid implementation of active learning: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 8 (1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00270-7

Preininger, A. M. (2017). Embedded mathematics in chemistry: A case study of students’ attitudes and mastery. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26 (1), 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9651-3

Priemer, B., Eilerts, K., Filler, A., Pinkwart, N., Rösken-Winter, B., Tiemann, R., & Zu Belzen, A. U. (2020). A framework to foster problem-solving in STEM and computing education. Research in Science & Technological Education, 38 (1), 105–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2019.1600490

Sadler, P. M., Coyle, H. P., & Schwartz, M. (2000). Engineering competitions in the middle school classroom: Key elements in developing effective design challenges. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9 (3), 299–327. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS0903_3

Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68 (4), 20–26.

Sanders, M. E., & Wells, J. (2006). Integrative STEM education course syllabi & instructional materials: STEM education foundations . In STEM Education Trends & Issues, STEM Education Seminar.

Schütte, K., & Köller, O. (2015). ‘Discover, understand, implement, and transfer’: Effectiveness of an intervention programme to motivate students for science. International Journal of Science Education, 37 (14), 2306–2325. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1077537

Shaughnessy, J. M. (2013). Mathematics in a STEM context. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 18 (6), 324. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacmiddscho.18.6.0324

Sinatra, G. M., Mukhopadhyay, A., Allbright, T. N., Marsh, J. A., & Polikoff, M. S. (2017). Speedometry: A vehicle for promoting interest and engagement through integrated STEM instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 110 (3), 308–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1273178

Smyrnaiou, Z., Georgakopoulou, E., & Sotiriou, S. (2020). Promoting a mixed-design model of scientific creativity through digital storytelling—the CCQ model for creativity. International Journal of STEM Education, 7 (1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00223-6

Stehle, S. M., & Peters-Burton, E. E. (2019). Developing student 21st Century skills in selected exemplary inclusive STEM high schools. International Journal of STEM Education, 6 (1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0192-1

Strobel, J., Wang, J., Weber, N. R., & Dyehouse, M. (2013). The role of authenticity in design-based learning environments: The case of engineering education. Computers & Education, 64 , 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.026

Struyf, A., De Loof, H., Boeve-de Pauw, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2019). Students’ engagement in different STEM learning environments: Integrated STEM education as promising practice? International Journal of Science Education, 41 (10), 1387–1407. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1607983

Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2019). Investigating the use of robotics to increase girls’ interest in engineering during early elementary school. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29 (5), 1033–1051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9483-y

Thomas, D. R., & Larwin, K. H. (2023). A meta-analytic investigation of the impact of middle school STEM education: Where are all the students of color? International Journal of STEM Education, 10 (1), 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00425-8

U.S. Department of Education. (2016). STEM 2026: A vision for innovation in STEM education . U.S. Department of Education.

Vallera, F. L., & Bodzin, A. M. (2020). Integrating STEM with AgLIT (Agricultural literacy through innovative technology): The efficacy of a project-based curriculum for upper-primary students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18 (3), 419–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09979-y

Vongkulluksn, V. W., Matewos, A. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Marsh, J. A. (2018). Motivational factors in makerspaces: A mixed methods study of elementary school students’ situational interest, self-efficacy, and achievement emotions. International Journal of STEM Education, 5 (1), 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0129-0

Vossen, T. E., Henze, I., Rippe, R. C. A., Van Driel, J. H., & De Vries, M. J. (2018). Attitudes of secondary school students towards doing research and design activities. International Journal of Science Education, 40 (13), 1629–1652. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1494395

Wilson, K. (2021). Exploring the challenges and enablers of implementing a STEM project-based learning programme in a diverse junior secondary context. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19 (5), 881–897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10103-8

Wu, Y., Guo, S., & Zhu, L. (2019). Design and implementation of data collection mechanism for 3D design course based on xAPI standard. Interactive Learning Environments, 28 (5), 602–619. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1696842

Yata, C., Ohtani, T., & Isobe, M. (2020). Conceptual framework of STEM based on Japanese subject principles. International Journal of STEM Education, 7 (1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00205-8

Zheng, J., Xing, W., Zhu, G., Chen, G., Zhao, H., & Xie, C. (2020). Profiling self-regulation behaviors in STEM learning of engineering design. Computers & Education . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103669

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors express their sincere gratitude to the editors and reviewers for their invaluable inputs and suggestions, which have significantly enhanced the quality of this work.

This work was financially supported by the Institute for Research Excellence in Learning Sciences of National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU) from The Featured Areas Research Center Program within the framework of the Higher Education Sprout Project by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Research Center for Education, National Research and Innovation Agency, Jakarta, Indonesia

Suarman Halawa

Center for Teacher Education, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

Tzu-Chiang Lin

Center for the Liberal Arts, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

Graduate Institute of Science Education, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan

Ying-Shao Hsu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

SH contributed to the conception of the study, research question, methods, analysis, and interpretation of the data. TC contributed to the data collection, analysis and interpretation of data, and editing of the manuscript. YS contributed to the conception of the study, data analysis and interpretation, and editing of the manuscript. All authors equally contributed to writing, reading, and approving the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ying-Shao Hsu .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The author declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Description of STEM education goals

Description of the elements of instructional design for STEM education

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Halawa, S., Lin, TC. & Hsu, YS. Exploring instructional design in K-12 STEM education: a systematic literature review. IJ STEM Ed 11 , 43 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00503-5

Download citation

Received : 15 April 2024

Accepted : 24 August 2024

Published : 05 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00503-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• STEM education
• Engagement and career choice
• STEM literacy

What Unique Challenges Do New Students Face in STEM Education?

The status of “most popular field of study” is being wrested away from business colleges everywhere as more and more students are enrolling in programs in STEM – Science , Technology , Engineering , and Math . The explosive growth, caused in no small part by businesses willing to pay a premium to secure technologically savvy talent, is associated with more than a few growing pains within the university system.

STEM education presents unique challenges to students and teachers alike. For instance, unlike history or even philosophy, the landscape is constantly changing. Many areas of expertise in high demand right now didn’t even exist 20 years ago. The volatility of the technology powering many STEM disciplines means students and teachers must stay diligent or else let their education become obsolete.

And that’s all on top of the technically complex material that students must master. Mastery (or non-mastery) of mathematical and scientific concepts becomes painfully clear when students must demonstrate working knowledge of the subject matter. To put it simply, this stuff is hard. To that end, we asked four universities what kind of challenges new STEM students are currently tackling as well as which of their programs is growing fastest.

Dr. James Spain, University of Missouri

Question #1: What unique challenges do new students face in STEM education?

“ The most frequent and significant challenge that our students face is their background in math and science. Students who have taken advance math, chemistry and physics courses in high school are much more likely to be successful in the gateway courses required by the STEM disciplines. “

Question #2: Which STEM programs are growing fastest at your institution? What makes these areas so attractive?

“ Our academic programs in engineering have been the fastest growing STEM majors. We continue to have strong enrollment in biology, chemistry, and biochemistry. First, students who select these majors generally enjoy math and science and consider themselves to be above average in these academic disciplines. The choice of majors aligns with post college interests – careers as engineers, graduate education, or professional school (the major meets requirements of Med School, Dental School and/or Vet School). “

About the expert

Dr. James Spain is assistant dean of academic programs for the MU College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources as well as an associate professor in University of Missouri’s Animal Science department, where he teaches courses in animal science and agriculture. He received his doctorate in animal science at Virginia Tech.

Dr. Mark Anderson, Kennesaw State University

“ STEM disciplines are rapidly evolving, but the way the disciplines are taught is not changing. Modern Science is most active at the interface between disciplines, and discovery has become a multidisciplinary activity, where individuals from multiple backgrounds with many different perspectives are required to solve complex problems. “

“ At Kennesaw State (and many other universities) the largest and fastest growing areas are biomedical sciences (biochemistry, molecular biology) and data science (statistics, analytics). The convergence of the traditional scientific disciplines is driving the activity in biomedical sciences because this field is historically interdisciplinary between biology, chemistry, physics, materials, mechanics and systems. Biological systems are so complex that no one approach can hope to solve the big problems. It is attractive because the stakes are so large – public health and the cost of health care are big societal issues, and that drives interest.  Public health problems – e.g. the Ebola situation – drive a lot of scientific work and discovery.

Analytics is huge at the moment. This is driven by the dramatically lowered cost of computing and data storage. Twenty-five years ago collecting data was the challenge because collecting data was very expensive – so the focus was on collecting a limited amount of data, but doing very well so the analysis was straightforward. Now, it is easy to collect large amounts of data, and the expense has shifted to the analysis of that data. With a lot of data, the challenge is how to make sense of it. “

Dr. Mark Anderson is dean of the Kennesaw State College of Science and Mathematics , a position he’s held since 2012, as well as a professor of chemistry at Kennesaw State University. He holds professional memberships in the American Chemical Society, Electrochemical Society and Society for Electroanalytical Chemistry. He obtained his Ph.D. at University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Related Links

• What’s the Difference Between Finance and Accounting?
• How Do Schools Deal with the Gender Gap in STEM?
• Finding NCATE-Accredited Programs
• Course-based vs. Thesis-based Master’s of Education Program
• Choosing a Degree: MFA vs. MA

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Disclosure: “What Determines Top/Best?”
• Do Not Sell My Personal Information (CA and NV)

Copyright © 2024 Worldwidelearn.com. All Rights Reserved.

The sources for school statistics and data is the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System unless otherwise noted.

Disclosure: EducationDynamics receives compensation for many of the featured schools on our websites (see “Sponsored School(s)” or “Sponsored Listings” or “Sponsored Results” or “Featured Graduate School(s)”. So what does this mean for you? Compensation may impact where the Sponsored Schools appear on our websites, including whether they appear as a match through our education matching services tool, the order in which they appear in a listing, and/or their ranking. Our websites do not provide, nor are they intended to provide, a comprehensive list of all schools (a) in the United States (b) located in a specific geographic area or (c) that offer a particular program of study. By providing information or agreeing to be contacted by a Sponsored School, you are in no way obligated to apply to or enroll with the school.

This site does not provide a comprehensive list of all schools that offer a particular program of study.

This is an offer for educational opportunities that may lead to employment and not an offer for nor a guarantee of employment. Students should consult with a representative from the school they select to learn more about career opportunities in that field. Program outcomes vary according to each institution’s specific program curriculum. Financial aid may be available to those who qualify. The information on this page is for informational and research purposes only and is not an assurance of financial aid.

Empowering Women in STEM: Addressing Challenges, Strategies, and the Gender Gap

• First Online: 03 September 2024
• pp 1103–1112

Cite this chapter

• Ardra Shaju 9 ,
• Catherine Rose Jomy 9 ,
• K. P. Jaheer Mukthar 9 &
• Reem Alhashimi 10 , 10  

Part of the book series: Studies in Systems, Decision and Control ((SSDC,volume 537))

STEM is majorly acknowledged as essential in providing society with the knowledge and intricate technologies required to prosper in an economy that is based on knowledge and fostering economic growth. STEM education is perceived as essential for cultivating a range of skills that students require to be equipped for prospective employment opportunities. The underrepresentation of women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) occupations is a worldwide phenomenon. The gender gap in education, which in turn drives gender imbalances in STEM occupations, is imperative for the economy. Gender disparities in STEM fields are evident through the uneven representation of women in areas such as publications, salary structures, senior positions, annual output, and the allocation of resources. In this paper, we discuss the importance of encouraging girls and women to pursue STEM education as well as the challenges faced by them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Bertocchi, G., Bozzano, M.: Gender Gaps in Education. CEPR Discussion Papers, 14082 (2019)

Google Scholar  

McDool, E., Morris, D.: Gender and socio-economic differences in STEM uptake and attainment. In: Centre for Vocational Education Research, LSE Discussion Paper, pp. 29 (2020)

Rezk, M.R.A., Shafai, B., Piccinetti, L., Salem, N., ElBanna, S., Radwan, A., Sakr, M.M.: Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Egyptian case study. Insights Reg. Develop. 4 (4), 52–62 (2022)

Article   Google Scholar  

Speer, J.D.: STEM Occupations and the Gender Gap: What can we Learn From Job Tasks? IZA Discussion Papers, 13734, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA) (2020)

Harsha, G., Shashirekha, K.R.: The Role of Women Education for a Sustainable Development of the Balanced Society (2015)

Kioupi, V., Voulvoulis, N.: Education for sustainable development: a systemic framework for connecting the SDGs to educational outcomes. Sustainability 11 (21), 6104 (2019)

Dockery, A.M., Bawa, S.: Labour market implications of promoting women’s participation in STEM in Australia. Australian J. Lab. Econ. 21 (2), 125–152 (2018)

Gupta, J., Vegelin, C.: Sustainable development goals and inclusive development. Int. Environ. Agreement. Polit. Law Econ. 16 (3), 433–448 (2016)

Delaney, J., Devereux, P.J.: It’s Not Just for Boys! Understanding Gender Differences in STEM. IZA Discussion Papers, 12176, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA) (2019)

Kahn, S., Ginther, D.: Women and STEM (No. w23525). National Bureau of Economic Research (2017)

Benavent, X., de Ves, E., Forte, A., Botella-Mascarell, C., López-Iñesta, E., Rueda, S., Roger, S., Perez, J., Portalés, C., Dura, E., Garcia-Costa, D.: Girls4STEM: gender diversity in STEM for a sustainable future. Sustainability 12 (15), 1–17 (2020)

Campbell, C., Hobbs, L., Xu, L., McKinnon, J., Speldewinde, C.: Girls in STEM: addressing SDG 4 in context. Sustainability 14 (9), 4897 (2022)

Alkhater, N.S., Alhalwachi, L.F., Naser, A.M.: The influence of leadership styles on organizational performance to small and medium telecom enterprises. In: Alareeni, B., Hamdan, A. (eds.) Technology and Business Model Innovation: Challenges and Opportunities. ICBT 2023. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol. 923. Springer, Cham (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55911-2_46

David, N.B., Tiffany, A.J., David, L., George, M., Beethika, K., Mark, E.: Doms Women in STEM: A Gender Gap to Innovation (2011)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Kristu Jayanti College Autonomous, Bengaluru, India

Ardra Shaju, Catherine Rose Jomy & K. P. Jaheer Mukthar

Ahlia University, Manama, Bahrain

Reem Alhashimi & Reem Alhashimi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reem Alhashimi .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

College of Business of Finance, Ahlia University, Manama, Bahrain

Allam Hamdan

Department of Business Studies, Box Hill College Kuwait, Kuwait, Kuwait

Arezou Harraf

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Shaju, A., Jomy, C.R., Jaheer Mukthar, K.P., Alhashimi, R. (2024). Empowering Women in STEM: Addressing Challenges, Strategies, and the Gender Gap. In: Hamdan, A., Harraf, A. (eds) Business Development via AI and Digitalization. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, vol 537. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-62106-2_84

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-62106-2_84

Published : 03 September 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-62105-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-62106-2

eBook Packages : Intelligent Technologies and Robotics Intelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research