Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

STEM education goals in the twenty-first century: Teachers’ perceptions and experiences

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Previous research has analyzed the meaning and value of STEM education and explored both its current possibilities and future development. However, STEM education experts have not reached a consensus on the goals of STEM education, making its promotion more challenging. Thus, this study examined which particular STEM education goals should be emphasized through a survey questionnaire. The study employed a stratified random sampling method to collect survey data from secondary teachers of STEM-related courses (i.e., science, technology, and mathematics) in Taiwan. A total of 645 valid survey responses were collected and then analyzed by independent t-test and analysis of variance to examine teachers’ perceptions about 17 critical competencies proposed as education goals relevant to STEM education. The findings revealed that STEM teachers generally had positive attitudes and high levels of acceptance toward implementing the 17 proposed STEM education goals through integrative STEM education. However, the proposed goal of “cultivating students’ entrepreneurial capabilities” received lower scores and should not be used at the secondary level. It may be introduced as an important education goal in tertiary STEM education. In addition, STEM teachers with different backgrounds (e.g., STEM teaching experience, perceptions of STEM teaching methods) perceived the competency goals as having different levels of importance in STEM education. Teachers’ willingness to teach STEM using a transdisciplinary integration method increases when they have access to sufficient resources and support.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Code Availability

N/A.

References

  • American Institutes for Research (2016). STEM 2026: A vision for innovation in STEM education. Retrieved from https://www.air.org/system/files/downloads/report/STEM-2026-Vision-for-Innovation-September-2016.pdf

  • Avery, Z. K., & Reeve, E. M. (2013). Developing effective STEM professional development programs. Journal of Technology Education, 25(1), 55–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, S., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A Taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barr, H., Koppel, I., Reeves, S., Hammick, M., & Freeth, D. (2005). Effective interprofessional education: Argument, assumption and evidence. Oxford, UK: Blackwell

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barth, J., & Muehlfeld, K. (2021). Thinking out of the box—by thinking in other boxes: A systematic review of interventions in early entrepreneurship vs. STEM education research. Management Review Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-021-00248-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bassok, M. (1990). Transfer of domain-specific problem-solving procedures. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition, 16(3), 522–533. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.16.3.522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D., Morrison-Love, D., Wooff, D., & McLain, M. (2018). STEM education in the twenty-first century: learning at work-an exploration of design and technology teacher perceptions and practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(3), 721–737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9414-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L., & Kane, M. J. (1988). Preschool children can learn to transfer: Learning to learn and learning from example. Cognitive Psychology, 20(4), 493–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(88)90014-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K. K. H., Yeh, Y.-F., & Hsu, Y.-S. (2019). A framework for examining teachers’ practical knowledge for STEM teaching. In Y.-S. Hsu & Y.-F. Yeh (eds.), Asia-pacific STEM teaching practices (pp. 39-50). Singapore: Springer.

  • Council of Canadian Academies (2015). Some assembly required: STEM skills and Canada’s economic productivity. Retrieved on July 21, 2017 from http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads/ENG/AssessmentsPublicationsNewsReleases/STEM/STEMFullReportEn.pdf

  • Douglas, K. A., & Strobel, J. (2015). Hopes and goals survey for use in STEM elementary education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(2), 245–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9277-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao, X., Li, P., Shen, J., & Sun, H. (2020). Reviewing assessment of student learning in interdisciplinary STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00225-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-4832-1446-7.50026-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, M. T., La, V. P., Nguyen, M. H., Pham, T. H., Vuong, T. T., Vuong, H. M. … Vuong, Q. H. (2020). An analytical view on STEM education and outcomes: Examples of the social gap and gender disparity in Vietnam. Children and Youth Services Review, 119, 105650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmlund, T. D., Lesseig, K., & Slavit, D. (2018). Making sense of “STEM education” in K-12 contexts. International Journal of STEM education, 5(32). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0127-2

  • Ifenthaler, D. (2012). Determining the effectiveness of prompts for self-regulated learning in problem-solving scenarios. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 38–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of Research in Technology in Education, 35(3), 362–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environment. NY: Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., & Ionas, I. G. (2008). Designing effective supports for causal reasoning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 287–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9021-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • Kendall, A. L. M., & Wendell, K. B. (2012, June). Understanding the beliefs and perceptions of teachers who choose to implement engineering-based science instruction. Paper presented at 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, Texas. 10.18260/1-2--22152

  • Lee, M. H., Chai, C. S., & Hong, H. Y. (2019). STEM education in Asia Pacific: Challenges and development. Asia-Pacific Education Research, 28, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-018-0424-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, K.-Y., Lu, S.-C., Hsiao, H.-H., Kao, C.-P., & Williams, P. J. (2021). Developing student imagination and career interest through a STEM project using 3D printing with repetitive modeling. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1913607

  • Lynch, S. J., Burton, E. P., Behrend, T., House, A., Ford, M., Spillane, N. … Means, B. (2018). Understanding inclusive STEM high schools as opportunity structures for underrepresented students: Critical components. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(5), 712–748. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayorova, V., Grishko, D., & Leonov, V. (2018). New educational tools to encourage high-school students’ activity in stem. Advances in Space Research, 61(1), 457–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13158.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Hara, S. (1992). A model of the ‘redescription’ process in the context of geometric proportional analogy problems. In Jantke, K. (ed.), Analogical and Inductive Inference - AII ’92 (pp. 268-293). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

  • P21 Partnership for 21st Century Learning (2009). P21 Framework Definitions. Retrieved on July 21, 2017 from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/docs/P21_Framework_Definitions_New_Logo_2015.pdf

  • Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and education research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, L., Venville, G., & Wallace, J. (2018). Making STEM curriculum useful, relevant, and motivating for students. In R. Jorgensen, & K. Larkin (Eds.), STEM education in the junior secondary (pp. 91–109). Singapore: Springer

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schon, D. A. (1991). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Schramm, C. (2012). Expanding the Entrepreneur Class. Harvard Business Review, July-August, 40

  • Stehle, S. M., & Peters-Burton, E. E. (2019). Developing student 21 st 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (1980). Transfer effects in a problem solving context. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1080%2F14640748008401159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, H. H., & Lin, Y. Q. (2011). The influence and problems of scenario design approach on multi-disciplinary collaboration design. Journal of Design, 16(3), 21–44. https://doi.org/10.6381/JD.201109.0021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, K. S., & Williams, P. J. (2019). STEM literacy or literacies? Examining the empirical basis of. these constructs. Review of Education, 7(3), 675–697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A. … Depaepe, F. (2018). Integrated STEM Education: A Systematic Review of Instructional Practices in Secondary Education. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 02. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/85525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R., Osborne, J., Williams, G., Tytler, K., & Clarke, J. C. (2008). Opening up pathways: Engagement in STEM across the Primary-Secondary school transition. A review of the literature concerning supports and barriers to Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics engagement at Primary-Secondary transition. Melbourne, Australia: Deakin University

    Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (1989). Analogical reasoning as a mechanism in knowledge acquisition: A developmental perspective. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 413-437). NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vendetti, M. S., Matlen, B. J., Richland, L. E., & Bunge, S. A. (2015). Analogical reasoning in the classroom: Insights from cognitive science. Mind, Brain, and Education, 9(2), 100–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volery, T., Müller, S., Oser, F., Naepflin, C., & del Rey, N. (2013). The impact of entrepreneurship education on human capital at upper-secondary level. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 429–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wahono, B., Lin, P. L., & Chang, C. Y. (2020). Evidence of STEM enactment effectiveness in Asian. student learning outcomes. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00236-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H. H., Charoenmuang, M., Knobloch, N. A., & Tormoehlen, R. L. (2020). Defining interdisciplinary collaboration based on high school teachers’ beliefs and practices of STEM integration using a complex designed system. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0201-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, J.-Y., Hsu, Y.-S., Wu, H.-K., Yang, K.-L., Lin, K.Y., & Yeh, Y.-F. (under review). Taiwanese secondary school teachers’ perception of STEM education: STEM teaching approaches, education goals, teacher self-efficacy, and teacher commitment.

  • Yang, K.-L., Wu, H.-K., Yeh, Y.-F., Lin, K.-Y., Wu, J.-Y., & Hsu, Y.-S. (2021b). Implementers, designers, and disseminators of integrated STEM activities: self-efficacy and commitment. Research in Science & Technological Education, DOI: 10.1080/02635143.2021.2008343

  • Yee, S. P. (2017). Students’ and teachers’ conceptual metaphors for mathematical problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 117(3–4), 146–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research is supported by the “Institute for Research Excellence in Learning Sciences” and “Higher Education Sprout Project” of National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU), sponsored by the Ministry of Education, Taiwan, R.O.C.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Technology Application & Human Resource Development / Institute for Research Excellence in Learning Sciences, National Taiwan Normal University, No. 162, He-Ping East Road Sec1, 10610, Taipei, Taiwan

    Kuen-Yi Lin

  2. College of Teacher Education, National Taiwan Normal University, No. 162, He-Ping East Road Sec1, 10610, Taipei, Taiwan

    Yi-Fen Yeh

  3. Graduate Institute of Science Education, Department of Earth Sciences / Office of Research and Development, National Taiwan Normal University, No.162, He-Ping East Road Sec1, 10610, Taipei, Taiwan

    Ying-Shao Hsu

  4. Graduate Institute of Science Education, Department of Earth Sciences, National Taiwan Normal University, No. 88, Sec 4, Ting-Jou Rd, 11677, Taipei, Taiwan

    Jen-Yi Wu

  5. Department of Mathematics, National Taiwan Normal University, No.88 Sec 4, Ting-Jou Rd, 11677, Taipei, Taiwan

    Kai-Lin Yang

  6. Faculty of Education, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

    Hsin-Kai Wu

  7. Graduate Institute of Science Education, National Taiwan Normal University, No. 88, Ting-Jou Rd., sec. 4, Taipei, Taiwan

    Hsin-Kai Wu

Authors
  1. Kuen-Yi Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yi-Fen Yeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ying-Shao Hsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jen-Yi Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kai-Lin Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hsin-Kai Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. The first and second authors drafted the manuscript; the third and fourth authors made some data analysis; the last two authors contributed research ideas in research meetings.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest/Competing interests

The author(s) declare(s) that they have no competing interests.

Ethics approval

Ethics approval for survey studies is not required.

Consent to participant

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

The authors affirm that human research participants provided informed consent for the survey data to be analyzed and presented.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lin, KY., Yeh, YF., Hsu, YS. et al. STEM education goals in the twenty-first century: Teachers’ perceptions and experiences. Int J Technol Des Educ 33, 479–496 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09737-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09737-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation