Opportunities and Challenges of STEM Education

  • Ying-Shao HsuEmail author
  • Su-Chi Fang


In recent years, the ubiquitous calls for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education has increasingly encouraged educators and policymakers to promote STEM teaching and learning in classrooms. We reviewed research studies on integrated STEM in science education; most of the research findings showed a lack of concrete conclusions about the influence of integrated STEM. For instance, little is known about how and to what extent integrated STEM learning experiences may foster student creativity, support the development of higher order thinking skills, or impact their epistemological beliefs and views about science learning. Moreover, the review found only a few studies that looked into issues about the preparation of STEM teachers in their initial teacher education and professional development programs on integrated STEM. More research about the effectiveness of various teaching practices (e.g., instructional design, teaching strategies, etc.) is needed to help preservice and in-service teachers develop expertise for teaching integrated STEM.


Integrated STEM STEM STEM PCK Teacher education 



This work was financially supported by the Institute for Research Excellence in Learning Sciences of National Taiwan Normal University from the Featured Areas Research Center Program within the framework of the Higher Education Sprout Project and Ministry of Science and Technology 107-2511-H-003-043-MY3 Project by the Ministry of Education in Taiwan.


References marked with an asterisk indicate the 26 studies included in the review

  1. *Adedokun, O. A., Bessenbacher, A. B., Parker, L. C., Kirkham, L. L., & Burgess, W. D. (2013). Research skills and STEM undergraduate research students’ aspirations for research careers: Mediating effects of research self-efficacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(8), 940–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, M., Webb, A. W., & Matthews, C. E. (2016). Adaptive teaching in STEM: Characteristics for effectiveness. Theory into Practice, 55(3), 217–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Breiner, J., Harkness, S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. *Brown, R. E., & Bogiages, C. A. (2019). Professional development through STEM integration: How early career math and science teachers respond to experiencing integrated STEM tasks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(1), 111–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryan, L. A., Moore, T. J., Johnson, C. C., & Roehrig, G. H. (2016). Integrated STEM educa-tion. In C. C. Johnson, E. E. Peters-Burton, & T. J. Moore (Eds.), STEM road map: A frame-work for integrated STEM education (pp. 23–37). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  6. *Burgin, S. R., McConnell, W. J., & Flowers III, A. M. (2015). “I actually contributed to their research”: The influence of an abbreviated summer apprenticeship program in science and engineering for diverse high-school learners. International Journal of Science Education, 37(3), 411–445.Google Scholar
  7. *Carrier, S. J., Whitehead, A. N., Walkowiak, T. A., Luginbuhl, S. C., & Thomson, M. M. (2017). The development of elementary teacher identities as teachers of science. International Journal of Science Education, 39(13), 1733–1754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. *Chien, Y. H., & Chu, P. Y. (2017). The different learning outcomes of high school and college students on a 3D-printing STEAM engineering design curriculum. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(6), 1047–1064.Google Scholar
  9. *Dickerson, D. L., Eckhoff, A., Stewart, C. O., Chappell, S., & Hathcock, S. (2014). The examination of a pullout STEM program for urban upper elementary students. Research in Science Education, 44(3), 483–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ejiwale, J. (2013). Barriers to successful implementation of STEM education. Journal of Education and Learning, 7(2), 63–74.Google Scholar
  11. English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1).
  12. English, L. D. (2017). Advancing elementary and middle school STEM education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. *Guzey, S. S., Ring-Whalen, E. A., Harwell, M., & Peralta, Y. (2019). Life STEM: A case study of life science learning through engineering design. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(1), 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. *Han, S., Capraro, R. M., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Han, S., Yalvac, B., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2015). In-service teachers’ implementation and understanding of STEM project based learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(1), 63–76.Google Scholar
  16. *Hughes, R. M., Nzekwe, B., & Molyneaux, K. J. (2013). The single sex debate for girls in science: A comparison between two informal science programs on middle school students’ STEM identity formation. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1979–2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. *King, D., & English, L. D. (2016). Engineering design in the primary school: Applying stem concepts to build an optical instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 38(18), 2762–2794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. *Kitchen, J. A., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P. M. (2018). The impact of college- and university-run high school summer programs on students’ end of high school STEM career aspirations. Science Education, 102(3), 529–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. *Korur, F., Efe, G., Erdogan, F., & Tunç, B. (2017). Effects of toy crane design-based learning on simple machines. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(2), 251–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. *Krogh, L. B., & Andersen, H. M. (2013). “Actually, I may be clever enough to do it”: Using identity as a lens to investigate students’ trajectories towards science and university. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 711–731.Google Scholar
  21. *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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. *Means, B., Wang, H., Wei, X., Lynch, S. J., Peters, V. L., Young, V., et al. (2017). Expanding STEM opportunities through inclusive STEM-focused high schools. Science Education, 101(5), 681–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. *Means, B., Wang, H., Young, V., Peters, V. L., & Lynch, S. J. (2016). STEM-focused high schools as a strategy for enhancing readiness for postsecondary STEM programs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(5), 709–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. *Micari, M., & Light, G. (2009). Reliance to independence: Approaches to learning in peer-led undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics workshops. International Journal of Science Education, 31(13), 1713–1741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. *Micari, M., Van Winkle, Z., & Pazos, P. (2016). Among friends: The role of academic-preparedness diversity in individual performance within a small-group STEM learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 38(12), 1904–1922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. National Academy of Engineering & National Research Council. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Scholar
  27. National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Scholar
  28. *Park, D. Y., Park, M. H., & Bates, A. B. (2018). Exploring young children’s understanding about the concept of volume through engineering design in a STEM activity: A case study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(2), 275–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Penner, D. E., Giles, N. D., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1997). Building functional models: Designing an elbow. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 125–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. *Prieto, E., & Dugar, N. (2017). An enquiry into the influence of mathematics on students’ choice of STEM careers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(8), 1501–1520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. *Romine, W. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2016). Measuring changes in interest in science and technology at the college level in response to two instructional interventions. Research in Science Education, 46(3), 309–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J., Hamilton, L., & Klein, S. (2002). On the evaluation of systemic science education reform: Searching for instructional sensitivity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(5), 369–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. *Sahin, A., Gulacar, O., & Stuessy, C. (2015). High school students’ perceptions of the effects of international science olympiad on their STEM career aspirations and twenty-first century skill development. Research in Science Education, 45(6), 785–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Saxton, E., Burns, R., Holveck, S., Kelley, S., Prince, D., Rigelman, N., et al. (2014). A common measurement system for K-12 STEM education: Adopting an educational evaluation methodology that elevates theoretical foundations and systems thinking. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 40, 18–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. *Schnittka, C. G., Evans, M. A., Won, S. G. L., & Drape, T. A. (2016). After-school spaces: Looking for learning in all the right places. Research in Science Education, 46(3), 389–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. *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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shaughnessy, J. M. (2013). Mathematics in a STEM context. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 18(6), 324–327. Scholar
  38. Shernoff, D. J., Sinha, S., Bressler, D. M., & Ginsburg, L. (2017). Assessing teacher education and professional development needs for the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1).
  39. *Tippett, C. D., & Milford, T. M. (2017). Findings from a pre-kindergarten classroom: Making the case for STEM in early childhood education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(Suppl 1), 67–86. Scholar
  40. *Todd, B., & Zvoch, K. (2017). Exploring girls’ science affinities through an informal science education program. Research in Science Education. Advance online publication.
  41. Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Pre-paring pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers & Education, 59(1), 134–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vasquez, J. A., Sneider, C., & Comer, M. (2013). STEM lesson essentials, grades 3–8: Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Institute of Science Education, National Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipei CityTaiwan

Personalised recommendations