STEM Education under Discussion: Insights from Science Teaching

Downloads

Article abstract page views:  1091  

DOI

https://doi.org/10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2025.v22.i2.2102

Info

Vol. 22 No. 2 (2025): 22(2), june 2025
Fundamentals and current research lines
2102
Published: 13-05-2025
PlumX
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Authors

  • Mario Calvo Utrilla (ES) Área de Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales. Departamento de Pedagogía. Facultad de Educación de Albacete. Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha.
    Google Schoolar Google Scholar
    https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0204-4707
  • Esther Paños (ES) Área de Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales. Departamento de Pedagogía. Facultad de Educación de Albacete. Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha.
    Google Schoolar Google Scholar
    https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9219-855X
  • José-Reyes Ruiz-Gallardo (ES) Área de Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales. Departamento de Pedagogía. Facultad de Educación de Albacete. Sección de Etnobiología, Botánica y Educación. Instituto Botánico de Castilla-La Mancha. Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha.
    Google Schoolar Google Scholar
    https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3483-5906

Abstract

In recent years, the STEM approach (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) has gained considerable importance in education. In Spain, the latest educational reform (LOMLOE) includes it as part of one of the key competencies. This study presents a narrative review of the scientific literature on STEM, focusing on its definition, objectives, classroom integration and implementation, strengths, weaknesses, and outcomes, providing reflections and critical analysis of the ongoing debate surrounding this educational approach. It also examines the distribution of university graduates in selected OECD countries to evaluate the impact of this approach on promoting science and technology-related careers. The findings highlight disparities in its definition, its potential to boost motivation towards STEM subjects, and challenges in its integration and implementation, including the scope of disciplines to be involved. Regarding enrollments in STEM degree programs, there have been no major changes in STEM fields in most countries since 2000, contrary to some claims made by some authors. Finally, we propose a definition of STEM education that integrates all its disciplines. We also emphasize the need for standardization to allow for more consistent comparisons of STEM interventions.

Keywords

STEM education Google Schoolar
Integrated STEM Google Schoolar
STEM Literacy Google Schoolar
academic results Google Schoolar
motivation Google Schoolar

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

How to Cite

Calvo Utrilla, M., Paños, E., & Ruiz-Gallardo, J.-R. (2025). STEM Education under Discussion: Insights from Science Teaching. Revista Eureka Sobre Enseñanza Y Divulgación De Las Ciencias, 22(2), 2102. https://doi.org/10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2025.v22.i2.2102

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Mario Calvo Utrilla, Esther Paños, José-Reyes Ruiz-Gallardo

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Require authors to agree to Copyright Notice as part of the submission process. This allow the / o authors / is non-commercial use of the work, including the right to place it in an open access archive. In addition, Creative Commons is available on flexible copyright licenses (Creative Commons).

Reconocimiento-NoComercial
CC BY-NC

References

Abdullah, N., Halim, L. y Zakaria, E. (2014). VStops: A Thinking Strategy and Visual Representation Approach in Mathematical Word Problem Solving toward Enhancing STEM Literacy. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1073a

Abell, S. K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. En S. Abell y N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1105–1149). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Aguilera Morales, D., Lupiáñez, J. L., Perales, F. y Vílchez-González, J. M. (2021). ¿Qué es la Educación STEM? Definición basada en la revisión de la literatura. En Uni­versidad de Córdoba (Ed.), 29 Encuentros de Didáctica de las Ciencias Experi­mentales y 5a Escuelas de Doctorado (pp. 1148–1456).

Akerson, V. L., Burgess, A., Gerber, A., Guo, M., Khan, T. A. y Newman, S. (2018). Disentangling the Meaning of STEM: Implications for Science Education and Science Teacher Education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1435063

Andersen, I. G. y Andersen, S. C. (2017). Student-centered Instruction and academic achievement: linking mechanisms of educational inequality to schools’ instructional strategy. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(4), 533–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2015.1093409

Barak, M. y Assal, M. (2018). Robotics and STEM learning: students’ achievements in assignments according to the P3 Task Taxonomy—practice, problem solving, and projects. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(1), 121–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9385-9

Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C. y Koehler, C. M. (2012). What Is STEM? A Discussion About Conceptions of STEM in Education and Partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x

Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Chang, S.-H., Yang, L.-J., Chen, C.-H., Shih, C.-C., Shu, Y. y Chen, Y.-T. (2022). STEM education in academic achievement: a meta-analysis of its moderating effects. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2147956

Chen, C.-H. y Yang, Y.-C. (2019). Revisiting the effects of project-based learning on students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis investigating moderators. Educational Research Review, 26, 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.11.001

Chu, W. W., Hafiz, N. R. M., Mohamad, U. A., Ashamuddin, H. y Tho, S. W. (2022). A review of STEM education with the support of visualizing its structure through the CiteSpace software. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09728-3

de Jong, T., Lazonder, A. W., Chinn, C. A., Fischer, F., Gobert, J., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Koedinger, K. R., Krajcik, J. S., Kyza, E. A., Linn, M. C., Pedaste, M., Scheiter, K. y Zacharia, Z. C. (2023). Let’s talk evidence – The case for combining inquiry-based and direct instruction. Educational Research Review, 39, 100536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100536

Domènech-Casal, J. (2018). Aprendizaje Basado en Proyectos en el marco STEM. Compo­nentes didácticas para la Competencia Científica. Ápice. Revista de Educación Científica, 2(2), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.17979/arec.2018.2.2.4524

Ertmer, P. A. y Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features From an Instructional Design Perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21143

Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H. y Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Studies of Inquiry-Based Science Teaching. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457206

García-Carmona, A. (2023). Integración de la ingeniería en la educación científico-tecno­lógica desde un prisma CTS. Enseñanza de Las Ciencias. Revista de Investigación y Experiencias Didácticas, 41(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.5611

García-Carmona, A. y Toma, R. B. (2024). Integration of Engineering Practices into Secondary Science Education: Teacher Experiences, Emotions, and Appraisals. Research in Science Education, 54(4), 549–572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10152-3

Guerra García, J. (2020). El constructivismo en la educación y el aporte de la teoría sociocultural de Vygotsky para comprender la construcción del conocimiento en el ser humano. Dilemas Contemporáneos: Educación, Política y Valores. https://doi.org/10.46377/dilemas.v32i1.2033

Gülen, S. (2018). Determination the effect of STEM integrated argumentation based science learning approach in solving daily life problems. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 10(4), 266–285. https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v10i4.4087

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G. y Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368

Hung, W., Dolmans, D. H. J. M. y van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2019). A review to identify key perspectives in PBL meta-analyses and reviews: trends, gaps and future research directions. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 24(5), 943–957. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-019-09945-x

Johnson, C. C. (2013). Conceptualizing Integrated STEM Education. School Science and Mathematics, 113(8), 367–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12043

Kirschner, P. A. y Hendrick, C. (2020). How learning happens: Seminal works in educational psychology and what they mean in practice. Routledge.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J. y Clark, R. E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1

Lazonder, A. W. y Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-Analysis of Inquiry-Based Learning. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366

Li, A. Y. (2020). Performance Funding Policy Impacts on STEM Degree Attainment. Educational Policy, 34(2), 312–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818755455

Li, Y., Froyd, J. E. y Wang, K. (2019). Learning about research and readership development in STEM education: a systematic analysis of the journal’s publications from 2014 to 2018. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0176-1

Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y. y Froyd, J. E. (2020). Research and trends in STEM education: a systematic review of journal publications. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00207-6

Marín-Marín, J.-A., Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J., Dúo-Terrón, P. y López-Belmonte, J. (2021). STEAM in education: a bibliometric analysis of performance and co-words in Web of Science. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00296-x

Marle, P. D., Decker, L., Taylor, V., Fitzpatrick, K., Khaliqi, D., Owens, J. E. y Henry, R. M. (2014). CSI–Chocolate Science Investigation and the Case of the Recipe Rip-Off: Using an Extended Problem-Based Scenario To Enhance High School Students’ Science Engagement. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(3), 345–350. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed3001123

Martín-Páez, T., Aguilera, D., Perales-Palacios, F. J. y 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

Milner-Bolotin, M. (2018). Evidence-Based Research in STEM Teacher Education: From Theory to Practice. Frontiers in Education, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00092

National Science Foundation y Department of Education. (1980). Science y Engineering Education for the 1980’s and Beyond. (NSF Publication No.80-78). Government Printing Office.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). The next Generation Science Standars: For states, by states. The National Academic Press.

NSTA. (2024, November 20). Stem Resources. https://www.nsta.org/topics/stem

OCDE (2022), Education at a Glance 2022: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3197152b-en

Oficina de Prensa de la Casa Blanca. (23 de marzo de 2015). Hoja informativa: El presi­dente Obama anuncia más de 240 millones de dólares en nuevos compromisos con STEM en la Feria de Ciencias de la Casa Blanca 2015 [FACT SHEET: President Obama announces over $240 million in new STEM commitments at the 2015 White House Science Fair]. Sala de prensa, Washington, DC. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/23/fact-sheet-president-oba­ma-announces-over-240-million-new-stem-commitmen

Parno, P., Yuliati, L., Hermanto, F. M. y Ali, M. (2020). A Case Study on Comparison of High School Students’ Scientific Literacy Competencies Domain in Physics with Different Methods: Pbl-Stem Education, Pbl, and Conventional Learning. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 9(2), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v9i2.23894

Real Decreto 217/2022, de 29 de marzo, por el que se establece la ordenación y las ense­ñanzas mínimas de la Educación Secundaria Obligatoria.

Romero-Ariza, M. (2017). El aprendizaje por indagación: ¿existen suficientes evidencias sobres sus beneficios en la enseñanza de las ciencias? Revista Eureka Sobre Ense­ñanza y Divulgación de Las Ciencias, 14(2), 286–299. https://doi.org/10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2017.v14.i2.01

Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator, 36(1), 12–39.

Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM Education, STEMmania.

Sanders, M. (2012). Integrative Stem Education As “Best Practice". Paper Presented at the 7th Biennial International Technology Education Research Conference, 1–15.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4. https://doi.org/10.2307/1175860

Sjoquist, D. L. y Winters, J. V. (2015). State Merit Aid Programs and College Major: A Focus on STEM. Journal of Labor Economics, 33(4), 973–1006. https://doi.org/10.1086/681108

Smith, E. (2010). Is there a crisis in school science education in the UK? Educational Review, 62(2), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911003637014

Stockard, J., Wood, T. W., Coughlin, C. y Rasplica Khoury, C. (2018). The Effectiveness of Direct Instruction Curricula: A Meta-Analysis of a Half Century of Research. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 479–507. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317751919

Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., Boeve-de Pauw, J., Dehaene, W., Deprez, J., De Cock, M., Hellinckx, L., Knipprath, H., Langie, G., Struyven, K., Van de Velde, D., Van Petegem, P. y Depaepe, F. (2018). Integrated STEM Education: A Systematic Review of Instructional Practices in Secondary Education. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/85525

Toma, R. B. y García-Carmona, A. (2021). «De STEM nos gusta todo menos STEM». Análisis crítico de una tendencia educativa de moda. Enseñanza de Las Ciencias. Revista de Investigación y Experiencias Didácticas, 39(1), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.3093

van Driel, J. H., Berry, A. y Meirink, J. (2014). Research on Science Teacher Knowledge. En Lederman N. G. y Abell. S. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education: Vol. II (pp. 848–870). Routledge.

Wells, J. G. (2013). Integrative STEM Education and Virginia Tech: Graduate preparation for tomorrow’s leaders. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 72(5), 28–36.

Xue, Y. y Larson, R. (2015). STEM crisis or STEM surplus? Yes and yes. Monthly Labor Review. https://doi.org/10.21916/mlr.2015.14

Yu, X. y Yang, Z. (2022). STEM Education in China: A Five Years Review Report. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajess/2022/v32i130758

Zhang, L., Kirschner, P. A., Cobern, W. W. y Sweller, J. (2022). There is an Evidence Crisis in Science Educational Policy. Educational Psychology Review, 34(2), 1157–1176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09646-1

Zollman, A. (2012). Learning for STEM Literacy: STEM Literacy for Learning. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00101.x