Assessment Challenges in STEM Reforms and Innovations

  • Su-Chi FangEmail author
  • Ying-Shao Hsu


The development and implementation of integrated STEM curricula are largely determined by the extent to which opportunities can be promoted or restricted within the target school system. The educational system is defined by three essential features: standards, assessment, and teacher education and professional development. Research efforts have been devoted to the development of integrated curricula, the measurement of their impact on students’ interests and career choices, and teacher preparation. Few studies have looked into possible approaches to examine integrated knowledge and practices or have discussed assessment issues for integrated STEM education. This chapter draws attention to assessment issues (i.e., types and functions) in STEM education using three steps. First, we explored current assessment issues considered and approaches used for STEM learning through a review of research on STEM. Second, the review findings were further examined and are discussed using the perspective of the assessment triangle. Third, we propose a multilevel-multifaceted STEM assessment framework to support the design and development of useful assessments for the emergent problems in STEM learning.


Integrated STEM STEM Assessments 



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 12 studies included in the review

  1. Basawapatna, A., Repenning, A., & Koh, K. H. (2015). Closing the cyberlearning loop. In Paper Presented at the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education—SIGCSE’15, Kansas City, MO, USA.Google Scholar
  2. *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
  3. *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
  4. Earl, L. M. (2013). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin/Sage.Google Scholar
  5. English, L. D., Hudson, P. B., & Dawes, L. A. (2013). Engineering based problem solving in the middle school: Design and construction with simple machines. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 3(2), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Guzey, S. S., Harwell, M., & Moore, T. (2014). Development of an instrument to assess attitudes toward science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). School Science and Mathematics, 114(6), 271–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. *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
  9. *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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. *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
  11. *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
  12. *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
  13. Larkin, K., & Jorgensen, R. (2018). STEM Education in the junior secondary: The state of play. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B.-S. (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lou, S.-J., Shih, R.-C., Ray Diez, C., & Tseng, K.-H. (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
  16. 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. Advance online publication. Scholar
  17. *Means, B., Wang, H., Wei, X., Lynch, S., Peters, V., Young, V., et al. (2017). Expanding STEM opportunities through inclusive STEM-focused high schools. Science Education, 101(5), 681–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. *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
  19. *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
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. National Assessment Governing Board. (2013). 2014 abridged technology and engineering literacy framework for the 2014 national assessment of educational progress. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
  22. National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  23. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  24. National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  25. Rennie, L., Venville, G., & Wallace, J. (2012). Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Issues, reflections, and ways forward. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. *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
  28. *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
  29. Sengupta, P., Dickes, A., & Farris, A. (2018). Toward a phenomenology of computational thinking in STEM education. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Computational thinking in the STEM disciplines: Foundations and research highlights (pp. 49–72). Cham, CH: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sondergeld, T. A., Koskey, K. L. K., Stone, G. E., & Peters-Burton, E. E. (2015). Data-driven STEM assessment. In C. C. Johnson, E. E. Peters-Burton, & T. J. Moore (Eds.), STEM road map: A framework for integrated STEM education. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. 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 (PjBL) environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(1), 87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Weese, J. L., & Feldhausen, R. (2017, June). STEM outreach: Assessing computational thinking and problem solving. In Paper presented at the 124th American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition (ASEE 2017), Columbus, OH, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Institute of Science EducationNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations