Abstract
AbstractIn the last 5 years, there have been several literature reviews or meta-analyses investigating various aspects of STEM education; however, they have investigated a specific aspect of STEM, e.g. robotics, or digital games, or Early childhood, or Teacher perspectives. In addition, a broad-reaching review on STEM integration has not been conducted in the past 10 years. This article reports findings from a Systematic Qualitative Literature Review concerning STEM education for children aged 4–12 in formal education contexts. To provide context, the article initially presents descriptive findings (date and country of research, age of participants, research setting, and research methodologies used) in the 60 research articles that are included for analysis. The article then answers three research questions regarding the: (1) level of integration evident in the studies; (2) role of engineering in any such integration; and (3) teaching approaches used in the studies. Findings from this research suggest that there is still much work to be done to move from scenarios where STEM integration is claimed but is not evident in practice. To do so we encourage educators and researchers to (a) focus on authentic interdisciplinary approaches rather than the siloed approaches evident in the existing research; and (b) use a teaching approach such as problem-based or project-based learning that provide opportunities for authentic integration.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Mathematics,Education
Reference68 articles.
1. Acar, D., Tertemiz, N., & Tasdemir, A. (2018). The effects of STEM training on the academic achievement of 4th graders in science and mathematics and their views on STEM training teachers. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 10(4), 505–513. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.201843814
2. Aladé, F., Lauricella, A., Beaudoin-Ryan, L., & Wartella, E. (2016). Measuring with Murray: Touchscreen technology and preschoolers’ STEM learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 433–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.080
3. Albion, P. (2015). Project-, problem-, and inquiry-based learning. In M. Henderson, M. J. Henderson, & G. Romeo (Eds.), Teaching and digital technologies: Big issues and critical questions (pp. 240–252). Cambridge University Press. https://eprints.usq.edu.au/27878/1/Albion_Ch19_AV.pdf
4. Anderson, J., Wilson, K., Tully, D., & Way, J. (2019). “Can we build the wind powered car again?” Students’ and teachers’ responses to a new integrated STEM curriculum. Journal of Research in STEM Education, 5(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.51355/jstem.2019.61
5. Australian Academy of Science. (2016). The mathematical sciences in Australia: A vision for 2025. Retrieved from https://amsi.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/mathematics-decade-plan-2016-vision-for-2025.pdf
Cited by
8 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献