Transcending Disciplinary Boundaries: The Advantages, Challenges, and Future Directions of STEM Education

Shuai Yang; Eunjoo Oh

doi:10.54097/f2vdfx14

Authors

Shuai Yang
Eunjoo Oh

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/f2vdfx14

Keywords:

STEM education; advantages; challenges; future development.

Abstract

STEM education (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics), as a key model in 21st-century global educational reform, has become a central focus due to its advantages in cultivating interdisciplinary skills, critical thinking, collaboration, communication abilities, and in stimulating students’ interest in learning. By integrating interdisciplinary knowledge, STEM education not only equips students to address complex real-world problems but also significantly enhances their practical skills. However, the implementation of STEM education faces challenges such as the complexity of curriculum integration, insufficient teacher training, and the limitations of assessment tools, all of which hinder its broad adoption and effective implementation. This study aims to comprehensively analyze the advantages of STEM education, explore its key challenges, and propose future development directions. By offering theoretical support to education policymakers, school administrators, and frontline teachers, the study seeks to promote the sustainable development and innovation of STEM education.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Schleicher, A., World class. 2018: OECD Publishing, Paris.

[2] Bybee, R.W., Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and engineering teacher, 2010. 70(1): 30.

[3] Schweingruber, H., G. Pearson, and M. Honey, STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. 2014: National Academies Press.

[4] Council, N.R., A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academy of Sciences, 2012.

[5] Capraro, R.M., M.M. Capraro, and J.R. Morgan, STEM project-based learning: An integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach. 2013: Springer Science & Business Media.

[6] Beers, S., 21st century skills: Preparing students for their future. 2011.

[7] Margot, K.C. and T. Kettler, Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: a systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM education, 2019. 6(1): 1-16.

[8] Bialik, M., et al., Skills for the 21st century: What should students learn. Center for Curriculum Redesign, 2015. 3(4): 29.

[9] Sanders, M.E., Stem, stem education, stemmania. 2008.

[10] Moore, T.J., et al., Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education, in Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices. 2014, Purdue University Press. 35-60.

[11] Bybee, R.W., The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. 2013.

[12] Jolly, A., STEM by design: Strategies and activities for grades 4-8. 2016: Routledge.

[13] Ennis, R.H., Critical thinking assessment. Theory into practice, 1993. 32(3): 179-186.

[14] Kuhn, D., A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational researcher, 1999. 28(2): 16-46.

[15] Facione, P.A., Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight assessment, 2011. 1(1): 1-23.

[16] Paul, R. and L. Elder, Critical Thinking: Strategies for Improving Student Learning, Part II. Journal of Developmental Education, 2008. 32(2): 34-35.

[17] Jonassen, D.H., Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational technology research and development, 2000. 48(4): 63-85.

[18] Kelley, T.R. and J.G. Knowles, A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM education, 2016. 3: 1-11.

[19] Johnson, D.W. and R.T. Johnson, Making cooperative learning work. Theory into practice, 1999. 38(2): 67-73.

[20] Slavin, R.E., Cooperative Learning and Intergroup Relations. 1995.

[21] Barron, B., Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The journal of the learning sciences, 2000. 9(4): 403-436.

[22] Gillies, R.M. and A.F. Ashman, Cooperative learning. Cooperative Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice. Available online also at: http://doi. org/10.4135/9781483329598 [accessed in Bandung, Indonesia: March 24, 2017], 2007.

[23] Baran, E., et al., Moving STEM beyond schools: Students’ perceptions about an out-of-school STEM education program. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 2016. 4(1): 9-19.

[24] Becker, K.H. and K. Park, Integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A meta-analysis. 2011.

[25] Maltese, A.V. and R.H. Tai, Eyeballs in the fridge: Sources of early interest in science. International Journal of Science Education, 2010. 32(5): 669-685.

[26] Council, N.R. Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. in National Academy of Science. 2011.

[27] Roehrig, G.H., et al., Is adding the E enough? Investigating the impact of K‐12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM integration. School science and mathematics, 2012. 112(1): 31-44.

[28] Wang, H.-H., et al., STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 2011. 1(2): 2.

[29] Fogarty, R.J. and B.M. Pete, How to integrate the curricula. 2009: Corwin Press.

[30] Ritz, J.M. and S.-C. Fan, STEM and technology education: International state-of-the-art. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 2015. 25: 429-451.

[31] Vasquez, J., C. Sneider, and M. Comer, STEM lesson essentials, grades 3-8: Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Heinemann Portsmouth. 2013, NH.

[32] Korucu-Kis, S. and K.S. Ozmen, Toward an Integrated Technology Integration Framework for Teacher Preparation: Instructional Technological Competence. Journal on School Educational Technology, 2018. 14(2): 31-50.

[33] Johnson, L., NMC horizon report: 2016 higher education edition. 2016.

[34] Darling-Hammond, L., M.E. Hyler, and M. Gardner, Effective teacher professional development. Learning policy institute, 2017.

[35] Sahlberg, P., Finnish lessons 3.0: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? 2021: Teachers College Press.