A growing number of studies have shown the benefits of K-12 integrated science and engineering education. With this study, we add to the literature by documenting the relationship between STEM learning and engagement, and the demographic characteristics that impact achievement in STEM. This longitudinal study followed a diverse group of 245 middle school students from sixth grade to eighth grade. Students in two cohorts, cohort I and cohort II, participated in three different integrated STEM units during middle school, one in each grade level. Each curriculum unit focused on the same engineering concepts and practices but addressed different science content standards. The students completed science content tests and engagement surveys before and after the curriculum units. The results of the mixed-effects model analysis showed that behavioral engagement and career inspiration played a critical role in student achievement. While the achievement gap between students of color (SOC) and their White peers was narrowed in cohort II, the achievement gap between the SOC and their White peers in cohort I remained. Our analysis also revealed no gender differences in student achievement. These findings can inform the design of curriculum interventions that specifically target closing the achievement gaps between different groups of students.
This is a preview of subscription content,to check access.
Access this article
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.
Altman, D. G. (1990). Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.
Anderson, E., & Kim, D. (2006). Increasing the success of minority students in science and technology. American Council on Education.
Anwar, S., Menekse, M., Guzey, S. S., & Bryan, L. (2022). The effectiveness of an integrated STEM curriculum unit on middle school students’ life science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(7), 1204–1234. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21756
Bhaumik, D. K., Roy, A., Aryal, S., Hur, K., Duan, N., et al. (2009). Sample size determination for studies with repeated continuous outcomes. Psychiatric Annals, 38, 765–771.
Blozis, S. A., & Harring, J. R. (2021). Fitting nonlinear mixed-effects models with alternative residual covariance structures. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(2), 531–566.
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case of STEM education. NSTA Press.
Bystydzienski, J. M., Eisenhart, M., & Bruning, M. (2015). High school is not too late: Developing girls’ interest and engagement in engineering careers. The Career Development Quarterly, 63(1), 88–95.
Calabrese-Barton, A., & Tan, E. (2018). A longitudinal study of equity-oriented STEM-rich making among youth from historically marginalized communities. American Educational Research Journal, 55(4), 761–800. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218758668
Calabrese-Barton, A., Tan, E., & Greenberg, D. (2017). The makerspace movement: Sites of possibilities for equitable opportunities to engage underrepresented youth in STEM. Teachers College Record, 119, 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811711900608
Capobianco, B. M., DeLisi, J., & Radloff, J. (2018). Characterizing elementary teachers’ enactment of high-leverage practices through engineering design-based science instruction. Science Education, 102(2), 342–376.
Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X023007013
Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb01127.x
Cunningham, C. M., & Kelly, G. (2017). Epistemic practices of engineering for education. Science Education, 101(3), 486–505. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21271
Cunningham, C. M., Lachapelle, C. P., Brennan, R. T., Kelly, G. J., Tunis, C. S. A., & Gentry, C. A. (2020). 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
Dalvi, T., Wendell, K. B., & Johnson, J. (2016). Community-based engineering: Experiences from a 2nd grade urban classroom. Young Children, 71(5), 8–15. Retrieved March 12, 2022, from https://www.naeyc.org/resources/pubs/yc/nov2016/engineering-second-grade
Dare, E. (2015). Understanding middle school students’ perceptions of physics using girl-friendly and integrated stem strategies: A gender study. Retrieved January 20, 2020, from the University of Minnesota digital conservancy. https://hdl.handle.net/11299/175413
Dare, E., Ring-Whalen, E. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2019). Creating a continuum of STEM models: Exploring how K-12 science teachers conceptualize STEM education. International Journal of Science Education, 41(12), 1701–1720. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1638531
Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371
Dym, C., Agogino, A., Eris, O., Frey, D., & Leifer, L. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.x
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Lawrence Erlbaum.
English, L. D., & King, D. (2019). STEM integration in sixth grade: Designing and constructing paper bridges. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17, 863–884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9912-0
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.
Ganesh, T., & Schnittka, C. G. (2014). Engineering education in the middle grades. In Ş. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. E. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices (pp. 89–116). Purdue University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt6wq7bh.9
Gurka, M. J., Edwards, L. J., & Muller, K. E. (2011). Avoiding bias in mixed model inference for fixed effects. Statistics in Medicine, 30(22), 2696–2707.
Guzey, S. S., & Aranda, M. (2017). Student participation in engineering practices and discourse: An exploratory case study. Journal of Engineering Education, 106, 585–606. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20176
Hirsch, L. S., Carpinelli, J. D., Kimmel, J., Rockland, R., & Bloom, J. (2007). The differential effects of pre-engineering curricula on middle school students’ attitudes to and knowledge of engineering careers. 37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Milwaukee. Retrieved February 10, 2022, from https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=4417918
Lachapelle, C. P., Cunningham, C. M., Jocz, J., Kay, A. E., Phadnis, P., Wertheimer, J., & Arteaga, R. (2011). Engineering is elementary: An evaluation of years 4 through 6 field testing. Museum of Science.
Ladachart, L., Cholsin, J., Kwanpet, S., Teerapanpong, R., Dessi, A., Phuangsuwan, L., & Phothong, W. (2021). Using reverse engineering to enhance ninth-grade students’ understanding of thermal expansion. Journal of Science Education Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09940-1
Lilly, S., McAlister, A. M., Fick, S. J., Chiu, J. L., & McElhaney, K. W. (2022). Elementary teachers’ verbal supports of science and engineering practices in an NGSS-aligned science, engineering, and computational thinking unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(6), 1035–1064. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21751
Lottero-Perdue, P., & Lachapelle, C. (2020). Engineering mindsets and learning outcomes in elementary school. Journal of Engineering Education, 109(4), 640–664. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20350
Maltese, A. V., & Cooper, C. S. (2017). STEM pathways: Do men and women differ in why they enter and exit? AERA Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858417727276
Maltese, A., & Tai, R. (2010). Eyeballs in the fridge: Sources of early interest in science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(5), 669–685. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902792385
Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schuun, C. D. (2008). Middle-school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(January), 71–85.
Moore, J. L. I. I. I. (2006). A qualitative investigation of African American males’ career trajectory in engineering: Implications for teachers, school counselors, and parents. Teachers College Record, 108(2), 246–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00653.x
Moore, T. J., Brophy, S. P., Tank, K. M., Lopez, R., Johnston, A., Hynes, M., & Gajdzik, E. (2020). Multiple representations in computational thinking tasks: A clinical study of second-grade students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(19–34), 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09812-0
Moore, T., Stohlmann, M., Wang, H., Tank, K., Glancy, A., & Roehrig, G. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. In S. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in Pre-College Settings: Synthesizing Research, Policy, and Practices (pp. 35–60). Purdue University Press.
Mullis, I. V. S., & Martin, M. O. (Eds.). (2015). PIRLS 2016 assessment framework (2nd ed.). Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) (2018). Science and engineering for grades 6–12: Investigation and design at the center. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25216
National Research Council (NRC) (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
National Science Board (2022). The state of U.S. science and engineering 2022. Retrieved March 1, 2020, from https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20221
Pleasant, J., & Olson, J. (2019). What is engineering? Elaborating the nature of engineering for K-12 education. Science Education, 103(1), 145–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21483
Purzer, S., & Quintana-Cifuentes, & Menekse, M. (2022). The honeycomb of engineering framework: Philosophy of engineering guiding precollege engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 111(1), 19–39.
Reynolds, B., Mehalik, M. M., Lovell, M. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). Increasing student awareness of and interest in engineering as a career option through design-based learning. International Journal of Engineering Education, 25(1), 788–798.
Roehrig, G. H., Dare, E. A., Ellis, J. A., Ring-Whalen, E. (2021a). Beyond the basics: A detailed conceptual framework of integrated STEM. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 3(11). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-021-00041-y
Roehrig, G., Dare, E., Ring-Whalen, E., & Wieselmann, J. (2021b). Understanding coherence and integration in integrated STEM curriculum. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00259-8
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in a social context. Oxford University Press.
Roy, A., Bhaumik, D. K., Aryal, S., & Gibbons, R. D. (2007). Sample size determination for hierarchical longitudinal designs with differential attrition rates. Biometrics, 63, 699–707.
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford University Press.
Siverling, E., Moore, T., Suazo-Flores, E., Mathis, C., & Guzey, S. S. (2021). What initiates evidence-based reasoning?: Situations that prompt students to justify their design ideas and decisions. Journal of Engineering Education, 110(2), 294–317. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20384
Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 493–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164408323233
Tai, R. H., Liu, C. Q., Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312(5777), 1143–1144.
Tan, E., Calabrese Barton, A., Kang, H., & O’Neill, T. (2013). Desiring a career in STEM- related fields: How middle school girls articulate and negotiate identities-in-practice in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(10), 1143–1179.
Valtorta, C. G., & Berland, L. K. (2015). Math, science, and engineering integration in a high school engineering course: A qualitative study. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 5(1), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1087
Wang, H. H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 1(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314636
Wang, M. T., Fredricks, J. A., Ye, F., Hofkens, T. L., & Linn, J. S. (2016). The math and science engagement scales: Scale development, validation, and psychometric properties. Learning and Instruction, 43, 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.008
Wendell, K. B., & Rogers, C. (2013). Engineering design-based science, science content performance, and science attitudes in elementary school. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 513–540. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20173
Wendell, K. B., Wright, C. G., & Paugh, P. (2017). Reflective decision-making in elementary students’ engineering design. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(3), 356–397.
Wieselmann, J. R., Dare, E. A., Ring-Whalen, E. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2020a). “I just do what the boys tell me”: Exploring small group student interactions in an integrated STEM unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57, 112–144. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21587
Wieselmann, J., Roehrig, G., & Kim, J. (2020b). Who succeeds in STEM? Elementary girls’ attitudes and beliefs about self and STEM. School Science and Mathematics, 120, 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12407
Wilson‐Lopez, A., Strong, A., Hartman, C., Garlick, J., Washburn, K., Minichiello, A., Weingart, S., & Acosta‐Feliz, J. (2020). A systematic review of argumentation related to the engineering‐designed world. Journal of Engineering Education, 109(2), 281–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20318
Wyss, V. L., Heulskamp, D., & Siebert, C. J. (2012.). Increasing middle school student interest in STEM careers with videos of scientists. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 7(4), 501–522.
This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) grant #1721141. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
IRB approval has been obtained from Purdue University.
Consent to Participate
Written informed consent was obtained from the parents and the teachers. The teachers have also consented to the submission of the study results to the journal.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Guzey, S.S., Li, W. Engagement and Science Achievement in the Context of Integrated STEM Education: A Longitudinal Study. J Sci Educ Technol 32, 168–180 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-10023-y