STEM and technology education: international state-of-the-art

  • John M. RitzEmail author
  • Szu-Chun Fan


This paper reports the perceptions of 20 international technology education scholars on their country’s involvement in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. Survey research was used to obtain data. It was found that the concept of STEM education is being discussed differently by nations. Some consider STEM education to be the improved teaching of the separate subjects of STEM. Others believe STEM should be taught using an integrative subjects approach. Many believe it is a combination of both of these approaches. Different countries are exploring STEM because of political and economic pressures and because some believe it is a means to improve the delivery of this knowledge. The development of a STEM agenda is mixed. In many countries there have been discussions about STEM education, but little action has been undertaken to modify educational systems to deliver this form of education/instruction. Countries are providing professional development experiences to show teachers how to incorporate STEM into their teaching practices.


STEM education State-of-the-art Technology education 


  1. Aerospace Industries Association of America. (2008). Launching the 21st century American aerospace workforce. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  2. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). (2011). Preparing future engineers around the world. Prism, 21(5), 26–34.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, R. S., & Speck, B. W. (1998). Oh what a difference team makes, why team teaching makes a difference. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(7), 671–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banks, F., & Barlex, D. (2014). Teaching STEM in the secondary school: Helping teachers meet the challenge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Barlex, D. (2009, August). The STEM Programme in England—Help or hindrance for design and technology education? Paper presented at the PATT22 conference, Delft, Netherlands. Retrieved from
  6. Becker, K., & Kyungsuk, P. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 12(5/6), 23–37.Google Scholar
  7. Bell, D. (2012). Perceptions of STEM, within the context of teaching D&T in secondary schools: A phenomenographically inspired study. In T. Ginner, J. Hallström, & M. Hultén (Eds.), Technology education in the 21st century (pp. 74–79). Linköping: Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings.Google Scholar
  8. Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Business Roundtable. (2005). Tapping America’s potential: The education for innovation initiative. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  10. Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington: NSTA Press.Google Scholar
  11. Carneval, A. P., Smith, N., & Melton, M. (2011). STEM. Washington, DC: Center on Education and the Workforce.Google Scholar
  12. Center for Teaching and Learning. (2006). Team teaching: Benefits and challenges. Speaking of Teaching, 16(1), 1–4.Google Scholar
  13. Colvin, G. (2013). A mighty culture of innovation cannot be taken for granted. Fortune Magazine, 168(5), 67.Google Scholar
  14. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research (4th ed.). New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
  15. Crisp, G., Nora, A., & Taggart, A. (2009). Student characteristics, pre-college, college, and environmental factors as predictors of majoring in and earning a STEM degree: An analysis of students attending a Hispanic serving institution. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 924–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Department of Education and Skills. (2006). The science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) programme report. Retrieved from
  17. Dugger, W. E. (2010, December). Evolution of STEM in the United States. Paper presented at the 6th Biennial international conference on technology education research, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.Google Scholar
  18. Fleck, R. K. (2008). Voter influence and the big policy change: The positive political economy of the New Deal. The Journal of Political Economy, 116(1), 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  20. France: Troubled economic outlook heightens the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration in STEM education. (2013). Retrieved from
  21. Fraser, B. J., Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C. J. (Eds.). (2012). Second international handbook on science education. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Frazier, M. T. (2009). The effect of technology education on student’s state standardized test scores (Doctoral dissertation, Old Dominion University).Google Scholar
  23. Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2012). Educational research (10th ed.). New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
  24. Goldfarb, B. (2008). The effect of government contracting on academic research: Does the source of funding affect scientific output? Research Policy, 37(1), 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haugsbakk, G. (2013). From Sputnik to PISA shock—New technology and educational reform in Norway and Sweden. Education Inquiry, 4(4), 607–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Havice, W. (2009). The power and promise of a STEM education: Thriving in a complex technological world. In International Technology Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA) (Ed.), The overlooked STEM imperatives: Technology and engineering (pp. 10–17). Reston, VA: ITEEA.Google Scholar
  27. Herschbach, D. R. (2011). The STEM initiative: Constraints and challenges. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 48(1), 96–122.Google Scholar
  28. Holsinger, D. B., & Cowell, R. N. (2000). Positioning secondary school education in developing countries: Expansion and curriculum. UNESCO: IIEP Publications.Google Scholar
  29. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IAE). (2011). TIMSS 2011. Boston: Boston College.Google Scholar
  30. Jorde, D., & Dillon, J. (2012). Science education research and practice in Europe. In D. Jorde & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science education research and practice in Europe (Vol. 5, pp. 1–11). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Khazan, O. (2012). Lack of interest and aptitude keeps students out of STEM majors. Washington, DC: Washington Post.Google Scholar
  32. Kim, J. S. (2011, November). New national curriculum of technology education in Korea. Paper presented at the 2011 international conference on technology education in the Pacific-Rim Countries, Nagoya, Japan.Google Scholar
  33. Krug, D. H. (2012). STEM education and sustainability in Canada and the United States. Paper presented at the 2nd international STEM in education conference, Beijing, China. Retrieved from
  34. Lester, F. K., Garofalo, J., & Kroll, D. L. (1989). Self-confidence, interest, beliefs, and metacognition: Key influences on problem-solving behavior. In D. McLeod & V. Adams (Eds.), Affect and mathematical problem solving (pp. 75–88). Rotterdam: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lou, S., Shih, R., Diez, C., & Tseng, K. (2011). The impact of problem-based learning strategies on STEM knowledge integration and attitudes: An exploratory study among female Taiwanese senior high school students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(2), 195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: Country comparisons: Final report. Melbourne: Australian Council of Learned Academies.Google Scholar
  37. McDaniel, E. A., & Colarulli, G. C. (1997). Collaborative teaching in the face of productivity concerns: The dispersed team model. Innovative Higher Education, 22(1), 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ministry of Education. (2003). 國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要 [Grade 1–9 curriculum guidelines]. Taipei: Author.Google Scholar
  39. Moon, B., Brown, S., & Ben-Peretz, M. (Eds.). (2000). Routledge international companion to education. London: Taylor and Francis Books.Google Scholar
  40. Morrison, J., & Bartlett, R. (2009). STEM as curriculum: An experiential approach. Education Week, 23, 28–31.Google Scholar
  41. Nadelson, L. S., Seifert, A., Moll, A., & Coats, B. (2012). i-STEM summer institute: An integrated approach to teacher professional development in STEM. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 13(2), 69–83.Google Scholar
  42. National Academy for Educational Research. (2014). 十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱(草案) [Grade 1–12 curriculum guidelines master Plan (draft)]. Retrieved from
  43. National Governors Association. (2007). Building a science, technology, engineering and math agenda. Retrieved from
  44. National Research Council (NRC). (2010). Rising above the gathering storm, revisited: Rapidly approaching category 5. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  45. National STEM Centre. (2010). STEM case studies. Retrieved from
  46. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  47. Office of the Chief Scientist. (2013). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics in the national interest: A strategic approach. Retrieved from
  48. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2013). Strong performers and successful reformers in education. New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
  49. Pitt, J. (2009). Blurring the boundaries–STEM education and education for sustainable development. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 14(1), 37–48.Google Scholar
  50. Project Lead the Way (PLTW). (2014). Today’s STEM realities. Retrieved from
  51. Qui sommes-nous? (n. d.). Retrieved from
  52. Ritz, J. M. (2011, November). Technology education in U.S.: Report of progress. Paper presented at the 2011 international conference on technology education in the Pacific-Rim Countries, Nagoya, Japan.Google Scholar
  53. Roberts, A., & Cantu, D. (2012, June). Applying STEM instructional strategies to design and technology curriculum. In T. Ginner, J. Hallström, & M. Hultén (Eds.), Technology education in the 21st century (pp. 111–118). Linköping: Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings.Google Scholar
  54. Salinger, G., & Zuga, K. (2009). Background and history of the STEM movement. In International Technology Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA) (Ed.), The overlooked STEM imperatives: Technology and engineering (pp. 4–9). Reston, VA: ITEEA.Google Scholar
  55. Salzman, H., & Lowell, B. L. (2013). Guestworkers in the high-skill U.S. labor market. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  56. Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.Google Scholar
  57. Sasol Inzalo Foundation. (2012). Reaching new frontiers in STEM education. Retrieved from
  58. Science and Engineering Education Advisory Group. (2012). Supporting Scotland’s STEM education and culture. Retrieved from
  59. Tseng, K. H., Chang, C. C., Lou, S. J., & Chen, W. P. (2013). Attitudes towards science, technology, engineering and mathematics STEM in a project-based learning environment for college freshmen in Taiwan. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(1), 87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wang, X. (2013). Why students choose STEM majors: Motivation, high school learning, and postsecondary context of support. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1081–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Williams, P. J. (2011). STEM education: Proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education, 16(1), 26–35.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Old Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA
  2. 2.National Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations