importance education research paper

Advertisement

Lifelong Learning in the Educational Setting: A Systematic Literature Review

• Regular Article
• Open access
• Published: 13 May 2023
• Volume 33 , pages 407–417, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Win Phyu Thwe   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7461-2892 1 &
• Anikó Kálmán 2  

5530 Accesses

2 Citations

Explore all metrics

This systematic literature review aimed to provide updated information on lifelong learning in educational research by examining theoretical documents and empirical papers from 2000 to 2022. This review sought to identify concepts, theories, and research trends and methods linked to lifelong learning in educational research in different countries. Our review findings showed that theoretical papers, such as reports, policies, and concepts of lifelong learning, are generally much more extensive than empirical studies. Word cloud analysis revealed that the most prominent concepts were lifelong learning skills, lifelong learning competencies, and the three types of lifelong learning (formal, nonformal, and informal). Following the inductive analysis, this study investigated three common research trends: conceptual framework or policies of lifelong learning, lifelong learning abilities, and influencing factors of lifelong learning and/or lifelong learning abilities. Regarding methodology, this study identified only three studies that used mixed methods, which is insufficient in the field. In addition, heterogeneity was also observed between research instruments in lifelong learning. Different data analysis techniques can be applied in this field, including content analysis, descriptive analysis, and inferential analysis. Finally, the participants involved in the examined studies were students, primary and secondary school teachers, undergraduates, postgraduates, student teachers, European Union Lifelong Learning experts, young adults, teacher educators, administrators, and academic staff.

Similar content being viewed by others

Lifelong Learning: Researching a Contested Concept in the Twenty-First Century

Advancing Research and Collecting Evidence on Lifelong Learning Globally

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Lifelong learning is a broad term whose definitions have common meanings and which has been explained by organizations such as the European Commission, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

The European Commission ( 2001 ) defines lifelong learning as any intentional learning activities conducted throughout a person’s lifetime to improve their knowledge, skills, and competencies from an individual, municipal, societal, and/or career standpoint. From this conventional definition, a more robust definition of lifelong learning emerged—that is, lifelong learning refers to all processes that transform a person’s body, mind, and social experiences intellectually, emotionally, and practically before they are integrated into their life story, resulting in a more experienced individual (Jarvis, 2009 ).

Meanwhile, the UNESCO definition of lifelong learning includes all intentional learning from birth to death that attempts to advance knowledge and skills for anyone who intends to engage in learning activities. Part of the broad definition of lifelong learning refers to both informal learning in settings such as the workplace, at home, or in the community and formal education in institutions such as schools, universities, and alternative education centers (Tuijnman et al., 1996 ). According to the European Lifelong Learning Initiative, lifelong learning is a consistently supportive process that stimulates and empowers individuals in acquiring all the awareness, values, skills, and comprehension they would require throughout their lifetime and apply them with self-belief, innovation, and pleasure in all positions, contexts, and climates (Watson, 2003 ). Therefore, lifelong learning can be generally defined as learning that one seeks throughout their life and that is flexible, varied, and accessible at diverse times and locations.

According to John Dewey, education is the process of giving a person the skills necessary to take charge of their world and fulfill their obligations. The ideas of education and lifelong learning endure over the life of an individual's existence. Lifelong learning transcends the limits of education and goes beyond traditional education (Edwards & Usher, 1998 ). In this regard, it is vital to assess how education settings can support lifelong learning. This literature review is the groundwork for the future implementation of educational institutions as lifelong learning centers.

Importance of a Systematic Literature Review of Lifelong Learning

A review of educational research in lifelong learning is the initial step to understanding relevant concepts and conducting empirical research. Both narrative and systematic reviews help identify research gaps and develop research questions, respectively. Meanwhile, systematic reviews include not only information obtained from the literature but also the adopted approach and where and how the literature was found. The significance of a systematic literature review (Cronin, 2011 ; Mallett et al., 2012 ) can be seen in the criteria used to assess whether to include or exclude a study from the review, reducing article selection bias.

Do et al. ( 2021 ) conducted the first systematic scientific investigation of the literature on lifelong learning although the selected studies focused only on the Southeast Asia context. Because the researchers used bibliometric analysis, it was not possible to study the intricacies of a lifelong learning issue, evaluate the quality of each scientific paper, or accurately highlight its effects on the topic. To overcome these limitations and provide a more general overview of the research topic, another systematic review of lifelong learning literature must be conducted. Therefore, our research will contain policy document, theoretical and empirical papers from 2000 to 2022 to provide updated information on lifelong learning in educational research. This literature review aims to identify concepts and theories, research areas, research trends, and research methods associated with lifelong learning in educational research in different countries. These intentions have guided the following research questions for this literature review:

What concepts and theories have been applied to explain lifelong learning in education research?

What research problems have been examined in lifelong learning in education research?

What research methodologies have been adopted to evaluate lifelong learning in education?

Methodology

Lifelong learning in the educational setting is assessed using a systematic review of literature instead of a narrative review or bibliometric analysis. A systematic literature review is considered as a scientific, unambiguous, and repeatable process for locating, analyzing, and summarizing every available published and registered research article to address a clearly articulated question (Dewey & Drahota, 2016 ). To ensure the effectiveness of the document search strategy, this study used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020) as suggested by Page et al. ( 2021 ).

This study employed the largest multidisciplinary databases, such as Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and ProQuest, to search for studies in lifelong learning. It also investigated two institution-based websites focusing on lifelong learning, the UNESCO Institute of Lifelong Learning and the European Commission, and gathered their policy documents, publications, and reports. Throughout the period 2000–2022, all lifelong learning studies were considered to ensure that all up-to-date information is captured. Our keywords were “lifelong learning” and “education,” and we set our filters to include open-access articles and journals related to education, social science, and the English language. Based on the publication of hundreds of articles, we developed our inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Included and Excluded Studies

We selected articles based on the following criteria: published in educational science and social science publications, employed both theoretical and empirical research (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods), and open access. The decision was made to exclude lifelong learning articles that did not focus on the education field, such as medicine, engineering, and labor studies, and those with unsuitable titles and abstracts. Duplicate articles were removed after the articles that met these criteria were assessed using R Studio software.

The screening stage involved an evaluation of titles and abstracts to determine their suitability for the research question and literature review methodology. Through this method, we discovered irrelevant articles and removed them. The remaining policy documents, theoretical and empirical studies were reviewed and analyzed in the last screening round, producing a total of 55 eligible articles. Figure  1 shows the procedure of finding and selecting relevant literature according to the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram (Page et al., 2021 ).

Selection procedure of studies for analysis according to PRISMA 2020

Data Extraction and Analysis

To answer the research questions, we categorized lifelong learning concepts and theories, research trends, and methods. We extracted the concepts and theories from both policy documents, theoretical and empirical publications and then gathered information on research trends and methods based on empirical studies. We then conceptually coded and categorized the data and used R Studio software to analyze the articles both qualitatively and quantitatively.

Lifelong Learning Concepts and Theories

Our analysis of 55 studies covering the period 2000–2022 showed that lifelong learning was explained using different concepts based on the research area and trends. An overview of concepts related to lifelong learning can be found in Table 1 . Meanwhile, the results of the word cloud analysis in R Studio (Fig.  2 ) revealed that the most prominent concepts were lifelong learning skills, lifelong learning competencies, and the three types of lifelong learning (formal, nonformal, and informal).

Word cloud analysis of lifelong learning concepts

Many publications included in our review lack a clear theory of lifelong learning. Our analysis of the 55 studies, however, revealed an attempt by scholars to apply comprehensive theory (Bagnall, 2017 ), theory of transformative learning (Eschenbacher & Fleming, 2020 ), theories of societal learning (Osborne & Borkowska, 2017 ) to lifelong learning.

Research Areas in Lifelong Learning

We inductively analyzed 21 of the 55 empirical studies in our review to examine the common research problems that the researchers presented and addressed. From this analysis, three common research areas emerged: problems associated with the conceptual framework or policies of lifelong learning, issues surrounding lifelong learning abilities, and challenges linked to factors that influence lifelong learning and/or lifelong learning abilities. Table 2 presents a detailed analysis of these research problems in the 21 studies.

We also found that researchers described lifelong learning abilities using terms such as “lifelong learning skills,” “lifelong learning competencies,” and “lifelong learning tendencies.” Some studies also investigated the impacts of demographic data to address their research problems (e.g., Buza et al., 2010 ; Nacaroglu et al., 2021 ; Sen & Durak, 2022 ; Shin & Jun, 2019 ).

Research Methodologies in Lifelong Learning

Of the 21 studies, 11 conducted quantitative research, seven qualitative researches, and three mixed-method research. Differences were observed in their research instruments, analysis, and participants based on their research design and methods. We will discuss these research methodologies based on the aforementioned three common research problems.

Table 3 summarizes the main research instruments used by lifelong learning studies. The researchers also adopted several other research tools, including the Competences Scale for Educational Technology Standards, the Teaching–Learning Conceptions Scale, the Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale, the Perceived Self-Regulation Scale, the Dimension Learning Organization Questionnaire, learning agility, knowledge sharing, learning approaches, the General Self-Efficacy Scale, the Openness to Experience Scale, change readiness, the Epistemic Beliefs Inventory, general intelligence, self-assessment of metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive activity, reflexive skills, the questionnaire of implicit theories, a diagnosis of motivational structure, and the teaching and assessment strategies for pedagogical practice instrument, to investigate the relation between lifelong learning abilities and other variables or their impacts.

In some cases, some researchers developed these instruments, while in others, they modified existing tools (e.g., Effective Lifelong Learning Inventory (Crick et al., 2004 ), Lifelong Learning Competencies Scale (Sahin et al., 2010 ), and Lifelong Learning Tendency Scale (Coşkuna & Demirel, 2010 )). These researchers also performed many types of data analysis based on their data collection tools and data distribution methods, including descriptive and diagnostic analyses, hierarchical linear modeling, reliability, principal component analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, structural equation modeling, regression, multivariate regression, correlation, comparative analyses ( t -test or Mann–Whitney U test), and content analysis.

These studies also involved several types of participants, such as students, primary and secondary school teachers, undergraduates, postgraduates, student teachers, EU Lifelong Learning experts, young adults, teacher educators, administrators, and academic staffs, which all represent different contexts. Table 4 shows that Asia, the Middle East, and Europe can be regarded as the general contexts of these studies. Notably, however, fewer studies have been conducted in Asia than in the Middle East and Europe, which may pose a challenge to the generalization of the findings of some studies in these contexts.

The results of our review showed that theoretical papers, such as reports, policy document, and lifelong learning concepts were generally much more extensive than empirical studies. Despite attempts to formulate new lifelong learning theories and apply existing ones, researchers have yet to develop a strong theory of lifelong learning. Consistent with the results of our systematic review is Steffens ( 2015 ) assertion that no single theory of learning can adequately account for all types of lifelong learning.

The prior studies' use of lifelong learning concepts can be the basis for further studies to build comprehensive theoretical frameworks in line with the current situation. This study’s concept analysis identified lifelong learning skills; lifelong learning competencies; and formal, nonformal, and informal learning as the most salient concepts.

Meanwhile, the analysis of each empirical study’s research problems generated three shared research trends in lifelong learning. Additionally, these studies were found to have investigated the relation between lifelong learning abilities and other variables, such as professional competencies, self-efficacy, and teaching–learning approaches. Moreover, they examined the factors affecting lifelong learning, lifelong learning skills, lifelong learning competencies, and lifelong learning tendencies; the hierarchical effects of individual and organizational variables; external barriers; professional learning environment; metacognitions; and personality determinants. Alongside these factors, demographic components such as gender, age, subjects, and educational level can also significantly influence lifelong learning. Furthermore, this review also found research gaps in lifelong learning in educational research, which offers the potential to explore lifelong learning using variables such as new learning communities, advanced teaching–learning techniques, learning styles, learning strategies and motivation in addition to self-directed learning, personal learning environments, and educational technology.

With regard to research methods, this study identified only three studies that used mixed methods, indicating an inadequacy in the field. Hence, all future research of lifelong learning should be conducted using mixed methods. Our examination of instruments revealed different tools that were used to assess the three common research problems. Such an effort may require the application of different data analysis techniques, including content analysis, descriptive analysis, and inferential analysis.

The prior studies, as a result of our review, only interviewed lifelong learning specialists, young adults, and secondary teachers to address their research issues, such as concepts and policies. Indeed, the development of lifelong learning policies or conceptual frameworks would benefit from the involvement of teachers from basic education schools, teacher education institutions, and universities.

Several research problems associated with lifelong learning capabilities involved university students, students and teacher educators. In light of this, it is still important to examine the lifelong learning skills, competencies, and tendencies of all stakeholders in the educational setting. The previous studies analyzed different factors that may shape lifelong learning and/or lifelong learning abilities with all possible participants. Considering the geographical context, more research must be conducted on the three research trends in lifelong learning in Asia as opposed to Europe. This will strengthen the generalizability of findings to specific target groups such as students, teachers, and teacher trainers in the specific area.

Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that our study is not without limitations. Our review may have overlooked several empirical studies that were not in Scopus, WoS, or ProQuest because we selected only open-access articles indexed in these databases. Additional research may have a different effect on the results. Neither the details of the research instruments nor the findings of each study can be examined in detail.

Therefore, we recommend that subsequent systematic reviews and meta-analyses in lifelong learning incorporate articles indexed in other databases. Researchers may also conduct future reviews examining the history and psychometrics of research instruments used in lifelong learning and considers the results of each empirical study. However, a comparison of study findings in the Asian context continues to be a challenge because not enough research has been conducted in all possible lifelong learning research areas. Considering the impact of COVID-19, lifelong learning research in new learning communities, environments, or organizations may be conducted to capture updated information.

This literature review aimed to identify concepts, theories, issues, trends, and research methodologies associated with lifelong learning in educational research. Our findings addressed concepts, lifelong learning policies, lifelong learning competencies, and formal, nonformal, and informal. The studies included in this review highlighted that a strong theory of lifelong learning has yet to be developed and applied. In addition, we deductively examined three common research trends: issues with basic concepts or guiding principles of lifelong learning, problems surrounding lifelong learning capacities, and challenges regarding variables that affect lifelong learning and/or lifelong learning capacities. Regarding methodology, we examined the techniques, tools, data analysis, and participants included in lifelong learning studies. Overall, educational researchers must continue to conduct more mixed methods studies, focusing on the Asian context.

Adams, D. (2007). Lifelong learning skills and attributes: The perceptions of Australian secondary school teachers. Issues in Educational Research, 17 (2), 149–160.

ADS   Google Scholar  

Bagnall, R. G. (2017). A critique of Peter Jarvis’s conceptualisation of the lifelong learner in the contemporary cultural context. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 36 (1–2), 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2017.1268838

Article   Google Scholar  

Bath, D. M., & Smith, C. D. (2009). The relationship between epistemological beliefs and the propensity for lifelong learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 31 (2), 173–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/01580370902927758

Beighton, C. (2021). Biopolitics and lifelong learning: The vitalistic turn in English further education discourse. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 40 (3), 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2021.1946863

Black, S. (2021). Lifelong learning as cruel optimism: Considering the discourses of lifelong learning and techno-solutionism in South African education. International Review of Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-021-09924-8

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Buza, L., Buza, H., & Tabaku, E. (2010). Perceptıon of lifelong learning in higher education. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 26 , 42–51.

Google Scholar  

Cefalo, R., & Kazepov, Y. (2018). Investing over the life course: The role of lifelong learning in a social investment strategy 1. Studies in the Education of Adults, 50 (2), 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/02660830.2018.1550709

Cort, P. (2009). The EC discourse on vocational training: How a “common vocational training policy” turned into a lifelong learning strategy. Vocations and Learning, 2 (2), 87–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-008-9019-9

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Coşkuna, Y. D., & Demirel, M. (2010). Lifelong learning tendency scale: The study of validity and reliability. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5 , 2343–2350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.461

Council of the European Union. (2018). Council recommendation on key competences for lifelong learning. In Official Journal of the European Union 61(2). https://cutt.ly/MKKtVUN

Crick, R. D., Broadfoot, P., & Claxton, G. (2004). Developing an effective lifelong learning inventory: The ELLI Project. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 11 (3), 247–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594042000304582

Cronin, C. (2011). Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques. Evaluation & Research in Education, 24 (3), 219–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500790.2011.581509

Deveci, T. (2019). Interpersonal communication predispositions for lifelong learning: The case of first year students. Journal of Education and Future-Egitim Ve Gelecek Dergisi, 15 , 77–94. https://doi.org/10.30786/jef.358529

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Deveci, T. (2022). UAE-based first-year university students’ perception of lifelong learning skills affected by COVID-19. Tuning Journal for Higher Education, 9 (2), 279–306. https://doi.org/10.18543/tjhe.2069

Dewey, A., & Drahota, A. (2016). Introduction to systematic reviews: online learning module . Cochrane Training. Available at https://Training.Cochrane.Org/Interactivelearning/Module-1-Introduction-Conducting-Systematic-Reviews . Retrieved March 6, 2020.

do Nascimento, D. V., Valdés-Cotera, R., & (Germany), U. I. for L. L. (UIL). (2018). Promoting Lifelong Learning for All: The Experiences of Ethiopia, Kenya, Namibia, Rwanda and the United Republic of Tanzania. UIL Publications Series on Lifelong Learning Policies and Strategies: No. 5. In UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (Issue 5). https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED590194&lang=es&site=ehost-live

Do, T.-T., Thi Tinh, P., Tran-Thi, H.-G., Bui, D. M., Pham, T. O., Nguyen-Le, V.-A., & Nguyen, T.-T. (2021). Research on lifelong learning in Southeast Asia: A bibliometrics review between 1972 and 2019. Cogent Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.1994361

Edwards, R., & Usher, R. (1998). Lo(o)s(en)ing the boundaries: From “education” to “lifelong learning.” International Journal of Phytoremediation, 20 (1), 83–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037980200106

Elken, M. (2015). Developing policy instruments for education in the EU: The European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 34 (6), 710–726. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2015.1103795

Eschenbacher, S., & Fleming, T. (2020). Transformative dimensions of lifelong learning: Mezirow, Rorty and COVID-19. International Review of Education, 66 (5–6), 657–672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-020-09859-6

Article   ADS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

European Commission. (2001). Making a European area of lifelong learning a reality—communication from the commission, COM(2001) 678 final. Eric . http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:No+Title#0%5Cnhttp://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED476026

Green, A. (2002). The many faces of lifelong learning: Recent education policy trends in Europe. Journal of Education Policy, 17 (6), 611–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000032274

Grokholskyi, V. L., Kaida, N. I., Albul, S. V., Ryzhkov, E. V., & Trehub, S. Y. (2020). Cognitive and metacognitive aspects of the development of lifelong learning competencies in law students. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 8 (2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.5937/IJCRSEE2002001G

Ivanova, I. (2009). A good adult educator as an important factor in the lifelong. Education And Training, 12 , 61–67.

James, D. (2020). Is lifelong learning still useful? Disappointments and prospects for rediscovery. Journal of Education and Work, 33 (7–8), 522–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2020.1852509

Jarvis, P. (Ed.). (2009). The Routledge international handbook of lifelong learning . London: Routledge.

Karalis, T. (2009). Lifelong learning and preschool education: odd couple or eclectic relationship? Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 12 , 68.

Karataş, K., Şentürk, C., & Teke, A. (2021). The mediating role of self-directed learning readiness in the relationship between teaching-learning conceptions and lifelong learning tendencies. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 46 (6), 54–77. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2021v46n6.4

Kuit, T., & Fildes, K. (2014). Changing curriculum design to engage students to develop lifelong learning skills in biology. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education , 22 (2), 19–34. https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3598&context=smhpapers

Kwan, E., MacLeod, S., Chandler, M., & Fox, T. (2017). Report on a literature review of reforms related to the 2006 European Framework of Key Competences for lifelong learning and the role of the Framework in these reforms. In European Commission, Bruselas. Recuperado de https://bit.ly/2Ixsj5F .

Lavrijsen, J., & Nicaise, I. (2017). Systemic obstacles to lifelong learning: The influence of the educational system design on learning attitudes. Studies in Continuing Education, 39 (2), 176–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2016.1275540

Mallett, R., Hagen-Zanker, J., Slater, R., & Duvendack, M. (2012). The benefits and challenges of using systematic reviews in international development research. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 4 (3), 445–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2012.711342

Mandal, S. (2019). The rise of lifelong learning and fall of adult education in india. London Review of Education, 17 (3), 318–330. https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.17.3.08

Matsumoto-Royo, K., Ramírez-Montoya, M. S., & Glasserman-Morales, L. D. (2022). Lifelong learning and metacognition in the assessment of pre-service teachers in practice-based teacher education. Frontiers in Education . https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.879238

Maxwell, B. (2014). Improving workplace learning of lifelong learning sector trainee teachers in the UK. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 38 (3), 377–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2013.831036

Moore, T., & Shaffer, S. C. (2017). Awakening the learner within: purposeful prompts and lifelong learning measures in a first-year composition course. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 17 (4), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v17i4.21899

Muller, R., & Beiten, S. (2013). Changing learning environments at university? Comparing the learning strategies of non-traditional European students engaged in lifelong learning. Journal of Educational Sciences & Psychology, 65 (1), 1–7.

Nacaroglu, O., Kizkapan, O., & Bozdag, T. (2021). Investigation of lifelong learning tendencies and self-regulatory learning perceptions of gifted students. Egitim ve Bilim, 46 (205), 113–135. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2020.8935

Nicoll, K., & Fejes, A. (2011). Lifelong learning: A pacification of “know how.” Studies in Philosophy and Education, 30 (4), 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-011-9235-x

Omirbayev, S., Akhmed-Zaki, D., Mukhatayev, A., Biloshchytskyi, A., Kassenov, K., & Faizullin, A. (2021). The conceptual foundations of lifelong learning in Kazakhstan: Process modeling. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 16 (17), 60–75. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i17.23685

Oosterbeek, H., & Patrinos, H. A. (2009). Financing lifelong learning. Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training, 1 (1), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03546478

Osborne, M., & Borkowska, K. (2017). A European lens upon adult and lifelong learning in Asia. Asia Pacific Education Review, 18 (2), 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-017-9479-4

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., & Moher, D. (2021). Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: Development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 134 , 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.003

Panitsides, E. A. (2014). Lifelong Learning as a lever for tackling the ageing phenomenon in the European Union: new challenges, new tools. Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology , IV (1). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265330401_Lifelong_Learning_as_a_lever_for_tackling_the_ageing_phenomenon_in_the_European_Union_New_challenges_new_tools

Rambla, X., Kazepov, Y., Jacovkis, J., Alexander, L., Amaral, P. D., & M. (2020). Regional lifelong learning policies and the social vulnerability of young adults in Girona and Vienna. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 39 (1), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2019.1678691

Sahin, M., Akbasli, S., & Yelken, T. Y. (2010). Key competences for lifelong learning: The case of prospective teachers. Educational Research and Reviews, 5 (10), 545–556.

Sen, N., & Durak, H. Y. (2022). Examining the relationships between english teachers’ lifelong learning tendencies with professional competencies and technology integrating self-efficacy. Education and Information Technologies, 27 (5), 5953–5988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10867-8

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Shin, Y.-S., & Jun, J. (2019). The hierarchical effects of individual and organizational variables on elementary school teachers’ lifelong learning competence. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 12 (2), 205–212. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2019257668

Simmons, R., & Walker, M. (2013). A comparative study of awarding organisation and HEI initial teacher training programmes for the lifelong learning sector in England. Professional Development in Education, 39 (3), 352–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2012.729514

Steffens, K. (2015). Competences, learning theories and moocs: Recent developments in lifelong learning. European Journal of Education, 50 (1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12102

Sunthonkanokpong, W., & Murphy, E. (2019). Quality, equity, inclusion and lifelong learning in pre-service teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 21 (2), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.2478/jtes-2019-0019

Theodosopoulou, M. (2010). The challenge of developing strategic lifelong learning in the school community. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 21 , 153–162.

Tsatsaroni, A., & Evans, J. (2014). Adult numeracy and the totally pedagogised society: PIAAC and other international surveys in the context of global educational policy on lifelong learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 87 (2), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-013-9470-x

Tuijnman, A., Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development., OECD Education Committee. Meeting (4th : 1996 : Paris, F. (1996). Lifelong learning for all : Meeting of the Education Committee at Ministerial level, 16–17 January 1996. (Vol. 9). http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/97779

Tuparevska, E., Santibáñez, R., & Solabarrieta, J. (2020a). Equity and social exclusion measures in EU lifelong learning policies. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 39 (1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2019.1689435

Tuparevska, E., Santibáñez, R., & Solabarrieta, J. (2020b). Social exclusion in EU lifelong learning policies: Prevalence and definitions. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 39 (2), 179–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2020.1728404

Tyson, L. S., & Vega, V. W. (2019). Why we need to talk about lifelong learning and intercultural universities. London Review of Education, 17 (3), 347–361. https://doi.org/10.1854/LRE.17.3.10

UIL, R. Y. (2017). Lifelong learning in transformation : Promising practices in Southeast Asia. In UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (Issue 4). ERIC.

Usher, R. (2015). Riding the lines of flight. European Journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults, 1 (1–2), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.3384/rela.2000-7426.rela0011

Valiente, O., Capsada-Munsech, Q., & de Otero, J. P. G. (2020a). Educationalisation of youth unemployment through lifelong learning policies in Europe. European Educational Research Journal, 19 (6), 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904120908751

Valiente, O., Lowden, K., & Capsada-Munsech, Q. (2020b). Lifelong learning policies for vulnerable young adults in post-recession Scotland. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 41 (2), 218–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2019.1685937

Walters, S., Yang, J., & Roslander, P. (2014) Lifelong Learning in Selected African Countries: Ethiopia, Kenya, Namibia, Rwanda and Tanzania. UIL Publication Series on Lifelong Learning Policies and … . ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED560506%0Ahttps://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED560506.pdf

Watson, L. (2003). Lifelong learning in Australia . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Lifelong-learning-in-Australia-Watson/30be62bbe2448a4f9df723b70c2e2ab0f96cc854

Yang, J., Schneller, C., Roche, S., & (Germany), U. I. for L. L. (UIL). (2015). The Role of Higher Education in Promoting Lifelong Learning. UIL Publication Series on Lifelong Learning Policies and Strategies: No. 3. In UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning . ERIC. https://login.proxy.hil.unb.ca/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED564050&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Yen, C. J., Tu, C. H., Sujo-Montes, L. E., Harati, H., & Rodas, C. R. (2019). Using personal learning environment (PLE) management to support digital lifelong learning. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 9 (3), 13–31. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJOPCD.2019070102

Yorozu, R. (2017). Lifelong learning in transformation: Promising practices in Southeast Asia: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste and Viet Nam. In UNESCO Insitute for Lifelong Learning (Issue 4). UNESCO Insitute for Lifelong Learning. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000253603

Zuhairi, A., Hsueh, A. C. T., & Chiang, I.-C.N. (2020). Empowering lifelong learning through open universities in Taiwan and Indonesia. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 15 (2), 167–188. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAOUJ-12-2019-0059

Download references

Acknowledgements

The first author is the Stipendium Hungaricum Scholarship holder. This paper would have been impossible without the financial support of the Hungarian government’s Stipendium Hungaricum Scholarship in collaboration with the Myanmar government.

Open access funding provided by University of Szeged.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Doctoral School of Education, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary

Win Phyu Thwe

Department of Technical Education, Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences, Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BME), Műegyetem rkp.3, H-1111, Budapest, Hungary

Anikó Kálmán

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Win Phyu Thwe .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

There are no competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Thwe, W.P., Kálmán, A. Lifelong Learning in the Educational Setting: A Systematic Literature Review. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 33 , 407–417 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-023-00738-w

Download citation

Accepted : 30 April 2023

Published : 13 May 2023

Issue Date : April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-023-00738-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Lifelong learning
• Lifelong learning skills
• Lifelong learning competencies
• Systematic literature review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Open access
• Published: 10 March 2020

Research and trends in STEM education: a systematic review of journal publications

• Yeping Li 1 ,
• Ke Wang 2 ,
• Yu Xiao 1 &
• Jeffrey E. Froyd 3  

International Journal of STEM Education volume  7 , Article number:  11 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

167k Accesses

151 Citations

5 Altmetric

Metrics details

With the rapid increase in the number of scholarly publications on STEM education in recent years, reviews of the status and trends in STEM education research internationally support the development of the field. For this review, we conducted a systematic analysis of 798 articles in STEM education published between 2000 and the end of 2018 in 36 journals to get an overview about developments in STEM education scholarship. We examined those selected journal publications both quantitatively and qualitatively, including the number of articles published, journals in which the articles were published, authorship nationality, and research topic and methods over the years. The results show that research in STEM education is increasing in importance internationally and that the identity of STEM education journals is becoming clearer over time.

Introduction

A recent review of 144 publications in the International Journal of STEM Education ( IJ - STEM ) showed how scholarship in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education developed between August 2014 and the end of 2018 through the lens of one journal (Li, Froyd, & Wang, 2019 ). The review of articles published in only one journal over a short period of time prompted the need to review the status and trends in STEM education research internationally by analyzing articles published in a wider range of journals over a longer period of time.

With global recognition of the growing importance of STEM education, we have witnessed the urgent need to support research and scholarship in STEM education (Li, 2014 , 2018a ). Researchers and educators have responded to this on-going call and published their scholarly work through many different publication outlets including journals, books, and conference proceedings. A simple Google search with the term “STEM,” “STEM education,” or “STEM education research” all returned more than 450,000,000 items. Such voluminous information shows the rapidly evolving and vibrant field of STEM education and sheds light on the volume of STEM education research. In any field, it is important to know and understand the status and trends in scholarship for the field to develop and be appropriately supported. This applies to STEM education.

Conducting systematic reviews to explore the status and trends in specific disciplines is common in educational research. For example, researchers surveyed the historical development of research in mathematics education (Kilpatrick, 1992 ) and studied patterns in technology usage in mathematics education (Bray & Tangney, 2017 ; Sokolowski, Li, & Willson, 2015 ). In science education, Tsai and his colleagues have conducted a sequence of reviews of journal articles to synthesize research trends in every 5 years since 1998 (i.e., 1998–2002, 2003–2007, 2008–2012, and 2013–2017), based on publications in three main science education journals including, Science Education , the International Journal of Science Education , and the Journal of Research in Science Teaching (e.g., Lin, Lin, Potvin, & Tsai, 2019 ; Tsai & Wen, 2005 ). Erduran, Ozdem, and Park ( 2015 ) reviewed argumentation in science education research from 1998 to 2014 and Minner, Levy, and Century ( 2010 ) reviewed inquiry-based science instruction between 1984 and 2002. There are also many literature reviews and syntheses in engineering and technology education (e.g., Borrego, Foster, & Froyd, 2015 ; Xu, Williams, Gu, & Zhang, 2019 ). All of these reviews have been well received in different fields of traditional disciplinary education as they critically appraise and summarize the state-of-art of relevant research in a field in general or with a specific focus. Both types of reviews have been conducted with different methods for identifying, collecting, and analyzing relevant publications, and they differ in terms of review aim and topic scope, time period, and ways of literature selection. In this review, we systematically analyze journal publications in STEM education research to overview STEM education scholarship development broadly and globally.

The complexity and ambiguity of examining the status and trends in STEM education research

A review of research development in a field is relatively straight forward, when the field is mature and its scope can be well defined. Unlike discipline-based education research (DBER, National Research Council, 2012 ), STEM education is not a well-defined field. Conducting a comprehensive literature review of STEM education research require careful thought and clearly specified scope to tackle the complexity naturally associated with STEM education. In the following sub-sections, we provide some further discussion.

Diverse perspectives about STEM and STEM education

STEM education as explicated by the term does not have a long history. The interest in helping students learn across STEM fields can be traced back to the 1990s when the US National Science Foundation (NSF) formally included engineering and technology with science and mathematics in undergraduate and K-12 school education (e.g., National Science Foundation, 1998 ). It coined the acronym SMET (science, mathematics, engineering, and technology) that was subsequently used by other agencies including the US Congress (e.g., United States Congress House Committee on Science, 1998 ). NSF also coined the acronym STEM to replace SMET (e.g., Christenson, 2011 ; Chute, 2009 ) and it has become the acronym of choice. However, a consensus has not been reached on the disciplines included within STEM.

To clarify its intent, NSF published a list of approved fields it considered under the umbrella of STEM (see http://bit.ly/2Bk1Yp5 ). The list not only includes disciplines widely considered under the STEM tent (called “core” disciplines, such as physics, chemistry, and materials research), but also includes disciplines in psychology and social sciences (e.g., political science, economics). However, NSF’s list of STEM fields is inconsistent with other federal agencies. Gonzalez and Kuenzi ( 2012 ) noted that at least two US agencies, the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, use a narrower definition that excludes social sciences. Researchers also view integration across different disciplines of STEM differently using various terms such as, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary (Vasquez, Sneider, & Comer, 2013 ). These are only two examples of the ambiguity and complexity in describing and specifying what constitutes STEM.

Multiple perspectives about the meaning of STEM education adds further complexity to determining the extent to which scholarly activity can be categorized as STEM education. For example, STEM education can be viewed with a broad and inclusive perspective to include education in the individual disciplines of STEM, i.e., science education, technology education, engineering education, and mathematics education, as well as interdisciplinary or cross-disciplinary combinations of the individual STEM disciplines (English, 2016 ; Li, 2014 ). On the other hand, STEM education can be viewed by others as referring only to interdisciplinary or cross-disciplinary combinations of the individual STEM disciplines (Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014 ; Johnson, Peters-Burton, & Moore, 2015 ; Kelley & Knowles, 2016 ; Li, 2018a ). These multiple perspectives allow scholars to publish articles in a vast array and diverse journals, as long as journals are willing to take the position as connected with STEM education. At the same time, however, the situation presents considerable challenges for researchers intending to locate, identify, and classify publications as STEM education research. To tackle such challenges, we tried to find out what we can learn from prior reviews related to STEM education.

Guidance from prior reviews related to STEM education

A search for reviews of STEM education research found multiple reviews that could suggest approaches for identifying publications (e.g., Brown, 2012 ; Henderson, Beach, & Finkelstein, 2011 ; Kim, Sinatra, & Seyranian, 2018 ; Margot & Kettler, 2019 ; Minichiello, Hood, & Harkness, 2018 ; Mizell & Brown, 2016 ; Thibaut et al., 2018 ; Wu & Rau, 2019 ). The review conducted by Brown ( 2012 ) examined the research base of STEM education. He addressed the complexity and ambiguity by confining the review with publications in eight journals, two in each individual discipline, one academic research journal (e.g., the Journal of Research in Science Teaching ) and one practitioner journal (e.g., Science Teacher ). Journals were selected based on suggestions from some faculty members and K-12 teachers. Out of 1100 articles published in these eight journals from January 1, 2007, to October 1, 2010, Brown located 60 articles that authors self-identified as connected to STEM education. He found that the vast majority of these 60 articles focused on issues beyond an individual discipline and there was a research base forming for STEM education. In a follow-up study, Mizell and Brown ( 2016 ) reviewed articles published from January 2013 to October 2015 in the same eight journals plus two additional journals. Mizell and Brown used the same criteria to identify and include articles that authors self-identified as connected to STEM education, i.e., if the authors included STEM in the title or author-supplied keywords. In comparison to Brown’s findings, they found that many more STEM articles were published in a shorter time period and by scholars from many more different academic institutions. Taking together, both Brown ( 2012 ) and Mizell and Brown ( 2016 ) tended to suggest that STEM education mainly consists of interdisciplinary or cross-disciplinary combinations of the individual STEM disciplines, but their approach consisted of selecting a limited number of individual discipline-based journals and then selecting articles that authors self-identified as connected to STEM education.

In contrast to reviews on STEM education, in general, other reviews focused on specific issues in STEM education (e.g., Henderson et al., 2011 ; Kim et al., 2018 ; Margot & Kettler, 2019 ; Minichiello et al., 2018 ; Schreffler, Vasquez III, Chini, & James, 2019 ; Thibaut et al., 2018 ; Wu & Rau, 2019 ). For example, the review by Henderson et al. ( 2011 ) focused on instructional change in undergraduate STEM courses based on 191 conceptual and empirical journal articles published between 1995 and 2008. Margot and Kettler ( 2019 ) focused on what is known about teachers’ values, beliefs, perceived barriers, and needed support related to STEM education based on 25 empirical journal articles published between 2000 and 2016. The focus of these reviews allowed the researchers to limit the number of articles considered, and they typically used keyword searches of selected databases to identify articles on STEM education. Some researchers used this approach to identify publications from journals only (e.g., Henderson et al., 2011 ; Margot & Kettler, 2019 ; Schreffler et al., 2019 ), and others selected and reviewed publications beyond journals (e.g., Minichiello et al., 2018 ; Thibaut et al., 2018 ; Wu & Rau, 2019 ).

The discussion in this section suggests possible reasons contributing to the absence of a general literature review of STEM education research and development: (1) diverse perspectives in existence about STEM and STEM education that contribute to the difficulty of specifying a scope of literature review, (2) its short but rapid development history in comparison to other discipline-based education (e.g., science education), and (3) difficulties in deciding how to establish the scope of the literature review. With respect to the third reason, prior reviews have used one of two approaches to identify and select articles: (a) identifying specific journals first and then searching and selecting specific articles from these journals (e.g., Brown, 2012 ; Erduran et al., 2015 ; Mizell & Brown, 2016 ) and (b) conducting selected database searches with keywords based on a specific focus (e.g., Margot & Kettler, 2019 ; Thibaut et al., 2018 ). However, neither the first approach of selecting a limited number of individual discipline-based journals nor the second approach of selecting a specific focus for the review leads to an approach that provides a general overview of STEM education scholarship development based on existing journal publications.

Current review

Two issues were identified in setting the scope for this review.

What time period should be considered?

What publications will be selected for review?

Time period

We start with the easy one first. As discussed above, the acronym STEM did exist until the early 2000s. Although the existence of the acronym does not generate scholarship on student learning in STEM disciplines, it is symbolic and helps focus attention to efforts in STEM education. Since we want to examine the status and trends in STEM education, it is reasonable to start with the year 2000. Then, we can use the acronym of STEM as an identifier in locating specific research articles in a way as done by others (e.g., Brown, 2012 ; Mizell & Brown, 2016 ). We chose the end of 2018 as the end of the time period for our review that began during 2019.

Focusing on publications beyond individual discipline-based journals

As mentioned before, scholars responded to the call for scholarship development in STEM education with publications that appeared in various outlets and diverse languages, including journals, books, and conference proceedings. However, journal publications are typically credited and valued as one of the most important outlets for research exchange (e.g., Erduran et al., 2015 ; Henderson et al., 2011 ; Lin et al., 2019 ; Xu et al., 2019 ). Thus, in this review, we will also focus on articles published in journals in English.

The discourse above on the complexity and ambiguity regarding STEM education suggests that scholars may publish their research in a wide range of journals beyond individual discipline-based journals. To search and select articles from a wide range of journals, we thought about the approach of searching selected databases with keywords as other scholars used in reviewing STEM education with a specific focus. However, existing journals in STEM education do not have a long history. In fact, IJ-STEM is the first journal in STEM education that has just been accepted into the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) (Li, 2019a ). Publications in many STEM education journals are practically not available in several important and popular databases, such as the Web of Science and Scopus. Moreover, some journals in STEM education were not normalized due to a journal’s name change or irregular publication schedule. For example, the Journal of STEM Education was named as Journal of SMET Education when it started in 2000 in a print format, and the journal’s name was not changed until 2003, Vol 4 (3 and 4), and also went fully on-line starting 2004 (Raju & Sankar, 2003 ). A simple Google Scholar search with keywords will not be able to provide accurate information, unless you visit the journal’s website to check all publications over the years. Those added complexities prevented us from taking the database search as a viable approach. Thus, we decided to identify journals first and then search and select articles from these journals. Further details about the approach are provided in the “ Method ” section.

Research questions

Given a broader range of journals and a longer period of time to be covered in this review, we can examine some of the same questions as the IJ-STEM review (Li, Froyd, & Wang, 2019 ), but we do not have access to data on readership, articles accessed, or articles cited for the other journals selected for this review. Specifically, we are interested in addressing the following six research questions:

What were the status and trends in STEM education research from 2000 to the end of 2018 based on journal publications?

What were the patterns of publications in STEM education research across different journals?

Which countries or regions, based on the countries or regions in which authors were located, contributed to journal publications in STEM education?

What were the patterns of single-author and multiple-author publications in STEM education?

What main topics had emerged in STEM education research based on the journal publications?

What research methods did authors tend to use in conducting STEM education research?

Based on the above discussion, we developed the methods for this literature review to follow careful sequential steps to identify journals first and then identify and select STEM education research articles published in these journals from January 2000 to the end of 2018. The methods should allow us to obtain a comprehensive overview about the status and trends of STEM education research based on a systematic analysis of related publications from a broad range of journals and over a longer period of time.

Identifying journals

We used the following three steps to search and identify journals for inclusion:

We assumed articles on research in STEM education have been published in journals that involve more than one traditional discipline. Thus, we used Google to search and identify all education journals with their titles containing either two, three, or all four disciplines of STEM. For example, we did Google search of all the different combinations of three areas of science, mathematics, technology Footnote 1 , and engineering as contained in a journal’s title. In addition, we also searched possible journals containing the word STEAM in the title.

Since STEM education may be viewed as encompassing discipline-based education research, articles on STEM education research may have been published in traditional discipline-based education journals, such as the Journal of Research in Science Teaching . However, there are too many such journals. Yale’s Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning has listed 16 journals that publish articles spanning across undergraduate STEM education disciplines (see https://poorvucenter.yale.edu/FacultyResources/STEMjournals ). Thus, we selected from the list some individual discipline-based education research journals, and also added a few more common ones such as the Journal of Engineering Education .

Since articles on research in STEM education have appeared in some general education research journals, especially those well-established ones. Thus, we identified and selected a few of those journals that we noticed some publications in STEM education research.

Following the above three steps, we identified 45 journals (see Table  1 ).

Identifying articles

In this review, we will not discuss or define the meaning of STEM education. We used the acronym STEM (or STEAM, or written as the phrase of “science, technology, engineering, and mathematics”) as a term in our search of publication titles and/or abstracts. To identify and select articles for review, we searched all items published in those 45 journals and selected only those articles that author(s) self-identified with the acronym STEM (or STEAM, or written as the phrase of “science, technology, engineering, and mathematics”) in the title and/or abstract. We excluded publications in the sections of practices, letters to editors, corrections, and (guest) editorials. Our search found 798 publications that authors self-identified as in STEM education, identified from 36 journals. The remaining 9 journals either did not have publications that met our search terms or published in another language other than English (see the two separate lists in Table 1 ).

Data analysis

To address research question 3, we analyzed authorship to examine which countries/regions contributed to STEM education research over the years. Because each publication may have either one or multiple authors, we used two different methods to analyze authorship nationality that have been recognized as valuable from our review of IJ-STEM publications (Li, Froyd, & Wang, 2019 ). The first method considers only the corresponding author’s (or the first author, if no specific indication is given about the corresponding author) nationality and his/her first institution affiliation, if multiple institution affiliations are listed. Method 2 considers every author of a publication, using the following formula (Howard, Cole, & Maxwell, 1987 ) to quantitatively assign and estimate each author’s contribution to a publication (and thus associated institution’s productivity), when multiple authors are included in a publication. As an example, each publication is given one credit point. For the publication co-authored by two, the first author would be given 0.6 and the second author 0.4 credit point. For an article contributed jointly by three authors, the three authors would be credited with scores of 0.47, 0.32, and 0.21, respectively.

After calculating all the scores for each author of each paper, we added all the credit scores together in terms of each author’s country/region. For brevity, we present only the top 10 countries/regions in terms of their total credit scores calculated using these two different methods, respectively.

To address research question 5, we used the same seven topic categories identified and used in our review of IJ-STEM publications (Li, Froyd, & Wang, 2019 ). We tested coding 100 articles first to ensure the feasibility. Through test-coding and discussions, we found seven topic categories could be used to examine and classify all 798 items.

K-12 teaching, teacher, and teacher education in STEM (including both pre-service and in-service teacher education)

Post-secondary teacher and teaching in STEM (including faculty development, etc.)

K-12 STEM learner, learning, and learning environment

Post-secondary STEM learner, learning, and learning environments (excluding pre-service teacher education)

Policy, curriculum, evaluation, and assessment in STEM (including literature review about a field in general)

Culture and social and gender issues in STEM education

History, epistemology, and perspectives about STEM and STEM education

To address research question 6, we coded all 798 publications in terms of (1) qualitative methods, (2) quantitative methods, (3) mixed methods, and (4) non-empirical studies (including theoretical or conceptual papers, and literature reviews). We assigned each publication to only one research topic and one method, following the process used in the IJ-STEM review (Li, Froyd, & Wang, 2019 ). When there was more than one topic or method that could have been used for a publication, a decision was made in choosing and assigning a topic or a method. The agreement between two coders for all 798 publications was 89.5%. When topic and method coding discrepancies occurred, a final decision was reached after discussion.

Results and discussion

In the following sections, we report findings as corresponding to each of the six research questions.

The status and trends of journal publications in STEM education research from 2000 to 2018

Figure  1 shows the number of publications per year. As Fig.  1 shows, the number of publications increased each year beginning in 2010. There are noticeable jumps from 2015 to 2016 and from 2017 to 2018. The result shows that research in STEM education had grown significantly since 2010, and the most recent large number of STEM education publications also suggests that STEM education research gained its own recognition by many different journals for publication as a hot and important topic area.

The distribution of STEM education publications over the years

Among the 798 articles, there were 549 articles with the word “STEM” (or STEAM, or written with the phrase of “science, technology, engineering, and mathematics”) included in the article’s title or both title and abstract and 249 articles without such identifiers included in the title but abstract only. The results suggest that many scholars tended to include STEM in the publications’ titles to highlight their research in or about STEM education. Figure  2 shows the number of publications per year where publications are distinguished depending on whether they used the term STEM in the title or only in the abstract. The number of publications in both categories had significant increases since 2010. Use of the acronym STEM in the title was growing at a faster rate than using the acronym only in the abstract.

The trends of STEM education publications with vs. without STEM included in the title

Not all the publications that used the acronym STEM in the title and/or abstract reported on a study involving all four STEM areas. For each publication, we further examined the number of the four areas involved in the reported study.

Figure  3 presents the number of publications categorized by the number of the four areas involved in the study, breaking down the distribution of these 798 publications in terms of the content scope being focused on. Studies involving all four STEM areas are the most numerous with 488 (61.2%) publications, followed by involving one area (141, 17.7%), then studies involving both STEM and non-STEM (84, 10.5%), and finally studies involving two or three areas of STEM (72, 9%; 13, 1.6%; respectively). Publications that used the acronym STEAM in either the title or abstract were classified as involving both STEM and non-STEM. For example, both of the following publications were included in this category.

Dika and D’Amico ( 2016 ). “Early experiences and integration in the persistence of first-generation college students in STEM and non-STEM majors.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 53 (3), 368–383. (Note: this article focused on early experience in both STEM and Non-STEM majors.)

Sochacka, Guyotte, and Walther ( 2016 ). “Learning together: A collaborative autoethnographic exploration of STEAM (STEM+ the Arts) education.” Journal of Engineering Education , 105 (1), 15–42. (Note: this article focused on STEAM (both STEM and Arts).)

Publication distribution in terms of content scope being focused on. (Note: 1=single subject of STEM, 2=two subjects of STEM, 3=three subjects of STEM, 4=four subjects of STEM, 5=topics related to both STEM and non-STEM)

Figure  4 presents the number of publications per year in each of the five categories described earlier (category 1, one area of STEM; category 2, two areas of STEM; category 3, three areas of STEM; category 4, four areas of STEM; category 5, STEM and non-STEM). The category that had grown most rapidly since 2010 is the one involving all four areas. Recent growth in the number of publications in category 1 likely reflected growing interest of traditional individual disciplinary based educators in developing and sharing multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary scholarship in STEM education, as what was noted recently by Li and Schoenfeld ( 2019 ) with publications in IJ-STEM.

Publication distribution in terms of content scope being focused on over the years

Patterns of publications across different journals

Among the 36 journals that published STEM education articles, two are general education research journals (referred to as “subject-0”), 12 with their titles containing one discipline of STEM (“subject-1”), eight with journal’s titles covering two disciplines of STEM (“subject-2”), six covering three disciplines of STEM (“subject-3”), seven containing the word STEM (“subject-4”), and one in STEAM education (“subject-5”).

Table  2 shows that both subject-0 and subject-1 journals were usually mature journals with a long history, and they were all traditional subscription-based journals, except the Journal of Pre - College Engineering Education Research , a subject-1 journal established in 2011 that provided open access (OA). In comparison to subject-0 and subject-1 journals, subject-2 and subject-3 journals were relatively newer but still had quite many years of history on average. There are also some more journals in these two categories that provided OA. Subject-4 and subject-5 journals had a short history, and most provided OA. The results show that well-established journals had tended to focus on individual disciplines or education research in general. Multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary education journals were started some years later, followed by the recent establishment of several STEM or STEAM journals.

Table 2 also shows that subject-1, subject-2, and subject-4 journals published approximately a quarter each of the publications. The number of publications in subject-1 journals is interested, because we selected a relatively limited number of journals in this category. There are many other journals in the subject-1 category (as well as subject-0 journals) that we did not select, and thus it is very likely that we did not include some STEM education articles published in subject-0 or subject-1 journals that we did not include in our study.

Figure  5 shows the number of publications per year in each of the five categories described earlier (subject-0 through subject-5). The number of publications per year in subject-5 and subject-0 journals did not change much over the time period of the study. On the other hand, the number of publications per year in subject-4 (all 4 areas), subject-1 (single area), and subject-2 journals were all over 40 by the end of the study period. The number of publications per year in subject-3 journals increased but remained less than 30. At first sight, it may be a bit surprising that the number of publications in STEM education per year in subject-1 journals increased much faster than those in subject-2 journals over the past few years. However, as Table 2 indicates these journals had long been established with great reputations, and scholars would like to publish their research in such journals. In contrast to the trend in subject-1 journals, the trend in subject-4 journals suggests that STEM education journals collectively started to gain its own identity for publishing and sharing STEM education research.

STEM education publication distribution across different journal categories over the years. (Note: 0=subject-0; 1=subject-1; 2=subject-2; 3=subject-3; 4=subject-4; 5=subject-5)

Figure  6 shows the number of STEM education publications in each journal where the bars are color-coded (yellow, subject-0; light blue, subject-1; green, subject-2; purple, subject-3; dark blue, subject-4; and black, subject-5). There is no clear pattern shown in terms of the overall number of STEM education publications across categories or journals, but very much individual journal-based performance. The result indicates that the number of STEM education publications might heavily rely on the individual journal’s willingness and capability of attracting STEM education research work and thus suggests the potential value of examining individual journal’s performance.

Publication distribution across all 36 individual journals across different categories with the same color-coded for journals in the same subject category

The top five journals in terms of the number of STEM education publications are Journal of Science Education and Technology (80 publications, journal number 25 in Fig.  6 ), Journal of STEM Education (65 publications, journal number 26), International Journal of STEM Education (64 publications, journal number 17), International Journal of Engineering Education (54 publications, journal number 12), and School Science and Mathematics (41 publications, journal number 31). Among these five journals, two journals are specifically on STEM education (J26, J17), two on two subjects of STEM (J25, J31), and one on one subject of STEM (J12).

Figure  7 shows the number of STEM education publications per year in each of these top five journals. As expected, based on earlier trends, the number of publications per year increased over the study period. The largest increase was in the International Journal of STEM Education (J17) that was established in 2014. As the other four journals were all established in or before 2000, J17’s short history further suggests its outstanding performance in attracting and publishing STEM education articles since 2014 (Li, 2018b ; Li, Froyd, & Wang, 2019 ). The increase was consistent with the journal’s recognition as the first STEM education journal for inclusion in SSCI starting in 2019 (Li, 2019a ).

Publication distribution of selected five journals over the years. (Note: J12: International Journal of Engineering Education; J17: International Journal of STEM Education; J25: Journal of Science Education and Technology; J26: Journal of STEM Education; J31: School Science and Mathematics)

Top 10 countries/regions where scholars contributed journal publications in STEM education

Table  3 shows top countries/regions in terms of the number of publications, where the country/region was established by the authorship using the two different methods presented above. About 75% (depending on the method) of contributions were made by authors from the USA, followed by Australia, Canada, Taiwan, and UK. Only Africa as a continent was not represented among the top 10 countries/regions. The results are relatively consistent with patterns reported in the IJ-STEM study (Li, Froyd, & Wang, 2019 )

Further examination of Table 3 reveals that the two methods provide not only fairly consistent results but also yield some differences. For example, Israel and Germany had more publication credit if only the corresponding author was considered, but South Korea and Turkey had more publication credit when co-authors were considered. The results in Table 3 show that each method has value when analyzing and comparing publications by country/region or institution based on authorship.

Recognizing that, as shown in Fig. 1 , the number of publications per year increased rapidly since 2010, Table  4 shows the number of publications by country/region over a 10-year period (2009–2018) and Table 5 shows the number of publications by country/region over a 5-year period (2014–2018). The ranks in Tables  3 , 4 , and 5 are fairly consistent, but that would be expected since the larger numbers of publications in STEM education had occurred in recent years. At the same time, it is interesting to note in Table 5 some changes over the recent several years with Malaysia, but not Israel, entering the top 10 list when either method was used to calculate author's credit.

Patterns of single-author and multiple-author publications in STEM education

Since STEM education differs from traditional individual disciplinary education, we are interested in determining how common joint co-authorship with collaborations was in STEM education articles. Figure  8 shows that joint co-authorship was very common among these 798 STEM education publications, with 83.7% publications with two or more co-authors. Publications with two, three, or at least five co-authors were highest, with 204, 181, and 157 publications, respectively.

Number of publications with single or different joint authorship. (Note: 1=single author; 2=two co-authors; 3=three co-authors; 4=four co-authors; 5=five or more co-authors)

Figure  9 shows the number of publications per year using the joint authorship categories in Fig.  8 . Each category shows an increase consistent with the increase shown in Fig. 1 for all 798 publications. By the end of the time period, the number of publications with two, three, or at least five co-authors was the largest, which might suggest an increase in collaborations in STEM education research.

Publication distribution with single or different joint authorship over the years. (Note: 1=single author; 2=two co-authors; 3=three co-authors; 4=four co-authors; 5=five or more co-authors)

Co-authors can be from the same or different countries/regions. Figure  10 shows the number of publications per year by single authors (no collaboration), co-authors from the same country (collaboration in a country/region), and co-authors from different countries (collaboration across countries/regions). Each year the largest number of publications was by co-authors from the same country, and the number increased dramatically during the period of the study. Although the number of publications in the other two categories increased, the numbers of publications were noticeably fewer than the number of publications by co-authors from the same country.

Publication distribution in authorship across different categories in terms of collaboration over the years

Published articles by research topics

Figure  11 shows the number of publications in each of the seven topic categories. The topic category of goals, policy, curriculum, evaluation, and assessment had almost half of publications (375, 47%). Literature reviews were included in this topic category, as providing an overview assessment of education and research development in a topic area or a field. Sample publications included in this category are listed as follows:

DeCoito ( 2016 ). “STEM education in Canada: A knowledge synthesis.” Canadian Journal of Science , Mathematics and Technology Education , 16 (2), 114–128. (Note: this article provides a national overview of STEM initiatives and programs, including success, criteria for effective programs and current research in STEM education.)

Ring-Whalen, Dare, Roehrig, Titu, and Crotty ( 2018 ). “From conception to curricula: The role of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in integrated STEM units.” International Journal of Education in Mathematics Science and Technology , 6 (4), 343–362. (Note: this article investigates the conceptions of integrated STEM education held by in-service science teachers through the use of photo-elicitation interviews and examines how those conceptions were reflected in teacher-created integrated STEM curricula.)

Schwab et al. ( 2018 ). “A summer STEM outreach program run by graduate students: Successes, challenges, and recommendations for implementation.” Journal of Research in STEM Education , 4 (2), 117–129. (Note: the article details the organization and scope of the Foundation in Science and Mathematics Program and evaluates this program.)

Frequencies of publications’ research topic distributions. (Note: 1=K-12 teaching, teacher and teacher education; 2=Post-secondary teacher and teaching; 3=K-12 STEM learner, learning, and learning environment; 4=Post-secondary STEM learner, learning, and learning environments; 5=Goals and policy, curriculum, evaluation, and assessment (including literature review); 6=Culture, social, and gender issues; 7=History, philosophy, Epistemology, and nature of STEM and STEM education)

The topic with the second most publications was “K-12 teaching, teacher and teacher education” (103, 12.9%), followed closely by “K-12 learner, learning, and learning environment” (97, 12.2%). The results likely suggest the research community had a broad interest in both teaching and learning in K-12 STEM education. The top three topics were the same in the IJ-STEM review (Li, Froyd, & Wang, 2019 ).

Figure  11 also shows there was a virtual tie between two topics with the fourth most cumulative publications, “post-secondary STEM learner & learning” (76, 9.5%) and “culture, social, and gender issues in STEM” (78, 9.8%), such as STEM identity, students’ career choices in STEM, and inclusion. This result is different from the IJ-STEM review (Li, Froyd, & Wang, 2019 ), where “post-secondary STEM teacher & teaching” and “post-secondary STEM learner & learning” were tied as the fourth most common topics. This difference is likely due to the scope of journals and the length of the time period being reviewed.

Figure  12 shows the number of publications per year in each topic category. As expected from the results in Fig.  11 the number of publications in topic category 5 (goals, policy, curriculum, evaluation, and assessment) was the largest each year. The numbers of publications in topic category 3 (K-12 learner, learning, and learning environment), 1 (K-12 teaching, teacher, and teacher education), 6 (culture, social, and gender issues in STEM), and 4 (post-secondary STEM learner and learning) were also increasing. Although Fig.  11 shows the number of publications in topic category 1 was slightly more than the number of publications in topic category 3 (see Fig.  11 ), the number of publications in topic category 3 was increasing more rapidly in recent years than its counterpart in topic category 1. This may suggest a more rapidly growing interest in K-12 STEM learner, learning, and learning environment. The numbers of publications in topic categories 2 and 7 were not increasing, but the number of publications in IJ-STEM in topic category 2 was notable (Li, Froyd, & Wang, 2019 ). It will be interesting to follow trends in the seven topic categories in the future.

Publication distributions in terms of research topics over the years

Published articles by research methods

Figure  13 shows the number of publications per year by research methods in empirical studies. Publications with non-empirical studies are shown in a separate category. Although the number of publications in each of the four categories increased during the study period, there were many more publications presenting empirical studies than those without. For those with empirical studies, the number of publications using quantitative methods increased most rapidly in recent years, followed by qualitative and then mixed methods. Although there were quite many publications with non-empirical studies (e.g., theoretical or conceptual papers, literature reviews) during the study period, the increase of the number of publications in this category was noticeably less than empirical studies.

Publication distributions in terms of research methods over the years. (Note: 1=qualitative, 2=quantitative, 3=mixed, 4=Non-empirical)

Concluding remarks

The systematic analysis of publications that were considered to be in STEM education in 36 selected journals shows tremendous growth in scholarship in this field from 2000 to 2018, especially over the past 10 years. Our analysis indicates that STEM education research has been increasingly recognized as an important topic area and studies were being published across many different journals. Scholars still hold diverse perspectives about how research is designated as STEM education; however, authors have been increasingly distinguishing their articles with STEM, STEAM, or related words in the titles, abstracts, and lists of keywords during the past 10 years. Moreover, our systematic analysis shows a dramatic increase in the number of publications in STEM education journals in recent years, which indicates that these journals have been collectively developing their own professional identity. In addition, the International Journal of STEM Education has become the first STEM education journal to be accepted in SSCI in 2019 (Li, 2019a ). The achievement may mark an important milestone as STEM education journals develop their own identity for publishing and sharing STEM education research.

Consistent with our previous reviews (Li, Froyd, & Wang, 2019 ; Li, Wang, & Xiao, 2019 ), the vast majority of publications in STEM education research were contributed by authors from the USA, where STEM and STEAM education originated, followed by Australia, Canada, and Taiwan. At the same time, authors in some countries/regions in Asia were becoming very active in the field over the past several years. This trend is consistent with findings from the IJ-STEM review (Li, Froyd, & Wang, 2019 ). We certainly hope that STEM education scholarship continues its development across all five continents to support educational initiatives and programs in STEM worldwide.

Our analysis has shown that collaboration, as indicated by publications with multiple authors, has been very common among STEM education scholars, as that is often how STEM education distinguishes itself from the traditional individual disciplinary based education. Currently, most collaborations occurred among authors from the same country/region, although collaborations across cross-countries/regions were slowly increasing.

With the rapid changes in STEM education internationally (Li, 2019b ), it is often difficult for researchers to get an overall sense about possible hot topics in STEM education especially when STEM education publications appeared in a vast array of journals across different fields. Our systematic analysis of publications has shown that studies in the topic category of goals, policy, curriculum, evaluation, and assessment have been the most prevalent, by far. Our analysis also suggests that the research community had a broad interest in both teaching and learning in K-12 STEM education. These top three topic categories are the same as in the IJ-STEM review (Li, Froyd, & Wang, 2019 ). Work in STEM education will continue to evolve and it will be interesting to review the trends in another 5 years.

Encouraged by our recent IJ-STEM review, we began this review with an ambitious goal to provide an overview of the status and trends of STEM education research. In a way, this systematic review allowed us to achieve our initial goal with a larger scope of journal selection over a much longer period of publication time. At the same time, there are still limitations, such as the decision to limit the number of journals from which we would identify publications for analysis. We understand that there are many publications on STEM education research that were not included in our review. Also, we only identified publications in journals. Although this is one of the most important outlets for scholars to share their research work, future reviews could examine publications on STEM education research in other venues such as books, conference proceedings, and grant proposals.

Availability of data and materials

The data and materials used and analyzed for the report are publicly available at the various journal websites.

Journals containing the word "computers" or "ICT" appeared automatically when searching with the word "technology". Thus, the word of "computers" or "ICT" was taken as equivalent to "technology" if appeared in a journal's name.

Abbreviations

Information and Communications Technology

International Journal of STEM Education

Kindergarten–Grade 12

Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology

Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

Borrego, M., Foster, M. J., & Froyd, J. E. (2015). What is the state of the art of systematic review in engineering education? Journal of Engineering Education, 104 (2), 212–242. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20069 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Bray, A., & Tangney, B. (2017). Technology usage in mathematics education research – a systematic review of recent trends. Computers & Education, 114 , 255–273.

Brown, J. (2012). The current status of STEM education research. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 13 (5), 7–11.

Google Scholar  

Christenson, J. (2011). Ramaley coined STEM term now used nationwide . Winona Daily News Retrieved from http://www.winonadailynews.com/news/local/article_457afe3e-0db3-11e1-abe0-001cc4c03286.html Accessed on 16 Jan 2018.

Chute, E. (2009). STEM education is branching out . Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Feb 9, 2009. https://www.post-gazette.com/news/education/2009/02/10/STEM-education-is-branching-out/stories/200902100165 Accessed on 2 Jan 2020.

DeCoito, I. (2016). STEM education in Canada: A knowledge synthesis. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 16 (2), 114–128.

Dika, S. L., & D'Amico, M. M. (2016). Early experiences and integration in the persistence of first-generation college students in STEM and non-STEM majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53 (3), 368–383.

English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3 , 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s4059%204-016-0036-1 .

Erduran, S., Ozdem, Y., & Park, J.-Y. (2015). Research trends on argumentation in science education: A journal content analysis from 1998-2014. International Journal of STEM Education, 2 , 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0020-1 .

Gonzalez, H. B. & Kuenzi, J. J. (2012). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: A primer. CRS report for congress, R42642, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42642.pdf Accessed on 2 Jan 2020.

Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48 (8), 952–984.

Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, A. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research . Washington: National Academies Press.

Howard, G. S., Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (1987). Research productivity in psychology based on publication in the journals of the American Psychological Association. American Psychologist, 42 (11), 975–986.

Johnson, C. C., Peters-Burton, E. E., & Moore, T. J. (2015). STEM roadmap: A framework for integration . London: Taylor & Francis.

Book   Google Scholar  

Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3 , 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z .

Kilpatrick, J. (1992). A history of research in mathematics education. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 3–38). New York: Macmillan.

Kim, A. Y., Sinatra, G. M., & Seyranian, V. (2018). Developing a STEM identity among young women: A social identity perspective. Review of Educational Research, 88 (4), 589–625.

Li, Y. (2014). International journal of STEM education – a platform to promote STEM education and research worldwide. International Journal of STEM Education, 1 , 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-7822-1-1 .

Li, Y. (2018a). Journal for STEM education research – promoting the development of interdisciplinary research in STEM education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 1 (1–2), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-018-0009-z .

Li, Y. (2018b). Four years of development as a gathering place for international researchers and readers in STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 5 , 54. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0153-0 .

Li, Y. (2019a). Five years of development in pursuing excellence in quality and global impact to become the first journal in STEM education covered in SSCI. International Journal of STEM Education, 6 , 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0198-8 .

Li, Y. (2019b). STEM education research and development as a rapidly evolving and international field. 数学教育学报(Journal of Mathematics Education), 28 (3), 42–44.

Li, Y., Froyd, J. E., & 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 , 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0176-1 .

Li, Y., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2019). Problematizing teaching and learning mathematics as ‘given’ in STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 6 , 44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0197-9 .

Li, Y., Wang, K., & Xiao, Y. (2019). Exploring the status and development trends of STEM education research: A review of research articles in selected journals published between 2000 and 2018. 数学教育学报(Journal of Mathematics Education), 28 (3), 45–52.

Lin, T.-J., Lin, T.-C., Potvin, P., & Tsai, C.-C. (2019). Research trends in science education from 2013 to 2017: A systematic content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 41 (3), 367–387.

Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6 , 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2 .

Minichiello, A., Hood, J. R., & Harkness, D. S. (2018). Bring user experience design to bear on STEM education: A narrative literature review. Journal for STEM Education Research, 1 (1–2), 7–33.

Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction – what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (4), 474–496.

Mizell, S., & Brown, S. (2016). The current status of STEM education research 2013-2015. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 17 (4), 52–56.

National Research Council. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering . Washington DC: National Academies Press.

National Science Foundation (1998). Information technology: Its impact on undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. (NSF 98–82), April 18–20, 1996. http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?nsf9882 Accessed 16 Jan 2018.

Raju, P. K., & Sankar, C. S. (2003). Editorial. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 4 (3&4), 2.

Ring-Whalen, E., Dare, E., Roehrig, G., Titu, P., & Crotty, E. (2018). From conception to curricula: The role of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in integrated STEM units. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 6 (4), 343–362.

Schreffler, J., Vasquez III, E., Chini, J., & James, W. (2019). Universal design for learning in postsecondary STEM education for students with disabilities: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6 , 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0161-8 .

Schwab, D. B., Cole, L. W., Desai, K. M., Hemann, J., Hummels, K. R., & Maltese, A. V. (2018). A summer STEM outreach program run by graduate students: Successes, challenges, and recommendations for implementation. Journal of Research in STEM Education, 4 (2), 117–129.

Sochacka, N. W., Guyotte, K. W., & Walther, J. (2016). Learning together: A collaborative autoethnographic exploration of STEAM (STEM+ the Arts) education. Journal of Engineering Education, 105 (1), 15–42.

Sokolowski, A., Li, Y., & Willson, V. (2015). The effects of using exploratory computerized environments in grades 1 to 8 mathematics: A meta-analysis of research. International Journal of STEM Education, 2 , 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0022-z .

Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., Pauw, J. B., Dehaene, W., Deprez, J., De Cock, M., Hellinckx, L., Knipprath, H., Langie, G., Struyven, K., Van de Velde, D., Van Petegem, P., & Depaepe, F. (2018). Integrated STEM education: A systematic review of instructional practices in secondary education. European Journal of STEM Education, 3 (1), 2.

Tsai, C. C., & Wen, L. M. C. (2005). Research and trends in science education from 1998 to 2002: A content analysis of publication in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 27 (1), 3–14.

United States Congress House Committee on Science. (1998). The state of science, math, engineering, and technology (SMET) education in America, parts I-IV, including the results of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS): hearings before the Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifth Congress, first session, July 23, September 24, October 8 and 29, 1997. Washington: U.S. G.P.O.

Vasquez, J., Sneider, C., & Comer, M. (2013). STEM lesson essentials, grades 3–8: Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics . Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Wu, S. P. W., & Rau, M. A. (2019). How students learn content in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) through drawing activities. Educational Psychology Review . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09467-3 .

Xu, M., Williams, P. J., Gu, J., & Zhang, H. (2019). Hotspots and trends of technology education in the International Journal of Technology and Design Education: 2000-2018. International Journal of Technology and Design Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09508-6 .

Download references

Not applicable

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843-4232, USA

Yeping Li & Yu Xiao

Nicholls State University, Thibodaux, LA, 70310, USA

Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

Jeffrey E. Froyd

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

YL conceptualized the study and drafted the manuscript. KW and YX contributed with data collection, coding, and analyses. JEF reviewed drafts and contributed to manuscript revisions. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yeping Li .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y. et al. Research and trends in STEM education: a systematic review of journal publications. IJ STEM Ed 7 , 11 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00207-6

Download citation

Received : 10 February 2020

Accepted : 12 February 2020

Published : 10 March 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00207-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Journal publication
• Literature review
• STEM education research

What is the Importance of Research in Education

Table of Contents

As students begin on their educational journey, they often encounter the term “research” as a fundamental aspect of their academic experience. But what exactly is the importance of research in education? In this blog, we’ll see the importance of educational research and its profound impact on student learning, teaching methods, critical thinking skills, and the broader landscape of higher education.

What is Educational Research?

Educational research is a systematic process of investigating, exploring, and analyzing educational phenomena to gain insights, improve practices, and contribute to the knowledge base in the field of education. It involves the application of various research methodologies to address questions related to teaching, learning, curriculum development, and educational policies.

Educational research encompasses both qualitative and quantitative approaches, offering a comprehensive understanding of educational issues. Qualitative research focuses on exploring the complexities of human behavior and experiences, while quantitative research employs statistical methods to analyze numerical data, providing a more structured and measurable perspective.

Importance of Research in Education as a Student

The importance of research in the field of education cannot be emphasized enough. It’s like a big important block that helps make education better, encourages new ideas, and decides how learning will be in the future. To continually refine teaching methods, enhance educational outcomes, and prepare students for a lifetime of critical thinking and inquiry, educators need to conduct research . Educational research is a dynamic force that continually refines teaching methods, enhances educational outcomes, and prepares students for a lifetime of critical thinking and inquiry.

The importance of research in education as a student is crucial for several reasons. First and foremost, it helps you gain a deeper understanding of the topics you’re studying. Instead of just memorizing facts, research allows you to explore different perspectives, analyze information, and form your own opinions.

This not only helps you excel academically but also prepares you for real-life situations where critical thinking and problem-solving skills are essential. Similarly, the benefits of educational research for teachers are immense as it enables them to stay updated with the latest teaching methodologies, strategies, and best practices, ultimately enhancing their effectiveness in the classroom.

Additionally, research enables you to stay updated with the latest developments in your field of study. Education is constantly evolving, and conducting research helps you stay ahead by learning about new theories, discoveries, and advancements. This knowledge not only enriches your learning experience but also enhances your credibility as a student.

Types of Educational Research

Educational research can take various forms, each serving a unique purpose in contributing to the educational landscape. Here are the following types of educational research:

Descriptive research

Descriptive research seeks to provide a detailed account of educational phenomena, helping researchers understand and explain specific aspects of the learning environment.

Exploratory research

Exploratory research aims to identify new educational trends or issues, paving the way for further investigation.

Experimental research

Experimental research involves controlled experiments to test the effectiveness of educational interventions, offering evidence-based insights into teaching methodologies.

5 Importance of Educational Research

Here are the following major 5 importance of educational research:

i. Improving Teaching Methods:

Educational research helps teachers find better ways to teach students. By studying different methods and strategies, teachers can understand what works best for different learners.

ii. Enhancing Learning Outcomes:

Research in education helps us understand how students learn and what factors influence their learning. This knowledge can be used to design curriculum and activities that improve learning outcomes for students.

iii. Identifying Problems:

Through research, we can identify issues and challenges in the education system. This could include things like gaps in learning, disparities in access to education, or ineffective teaching practices. Once these problems are identified, solutions can be developed to address them.

iv. Informing Policy:

Educational research provides evidence that policymakers can use to make decisions about education policies and practices. For example, research might show that certain teaching methods are more effective than others, leading policymakers to implement changes in curriculum or teacher training programs.

v. Continuous Improvement:

By continuously conducting research and evaluating educational practices, we can ensure that the education system is always improving. This means better outcomes for students and a more effective education system overall.

What is the Purpose of Educational Research?

The primary purpose of educational research is to advance knowledge and improve educational practices. It seeks to answer questions, solve problems, and contribute to the ongoing development of effective teaching and learning strategies. Educational research serves as a guiding light for educators, policymakers, and students alike, offering evidence-based insights that drive positive change in the educational landscape.

10 Reasons Why Educational Research is Important for Students

Here are the following 10 reasons why educational research is important for students:

i. Informed Decision-Making:

Educational research provides evidence-based information that helps educators, policymakers, and administrators make informed decisions about curriculum design, teaching methods, and educational policies, ensuring that choices are grounded in data rather than assumptions.

ii. Effective Teaching Strategies:

Research helps identify and validate effective teaching strategies, enabling educators to adopt methods that have been proven to enhance student engagement, understanding, and retention of information.

iii. Tailored Learning Approaches:

By understanding diverse learning styles and preferences, educational research assists in the development of tailored learning approaches that address individual student needs, promoting inclusivity and a more personalized educational experience.

iv. Continuous Improvement:

Ongoing research contributes to the continuous improvement of educational systems, allowing for the identification and correction of weaknesses or inefficiencies in teaching methods, curriculum, and assessment practices.

v. Student Achievement:

Research helps identify factors that contribute to student success, allowing educators to focus on strategies and interventions that positively impact academic achievement and overall student well-being.

vi. Innovation in Education:

Educational research fosters innovation by exploring new technologies, teaching methods, and approaches to learning. This innovation can lead to the development of more engaging and effective educational experiences for students.

vii. Addressing Educational Inequities:

Research can uncover disparities in educational opportunities and outcomes, helping policymakers and educators develop targeted interventions to address issues of equity and promote equal access to quality education for all students.

viii. Professional Development:

Educators can benefit from research findings by incorporating them into their professional development activities. This ensures that teachers stay informed about the latest advancements in educational theory and practice.

ix. Parent and Community Engagement:

Research can facilitate better communication between schools, parents, and the community by providing evidence-based insights into the educational process. This engagement is crucial for fostering a supportive learning environment.

x. Global Competitiveness:

In an increasingly interconnected world, educational research helps identify the skills and knowledge areas that are crucial for students to compete globally. This ensures that education systems prepare students for the challenges and opportunities of the modern workforce.

In conclusion, the importance of research in education goes beyond the limitations of the classroom. It is a dynamic force that empowers students to become critical thinkers, fosters a culture of inquiry, and contributes to the continuous improvement of educational practices.

As students embrace research, they not only enhance their academic journey but also lay the foundation for a future where learning is a lifelong pursuit. Educational research is not just a requirement; it is a gateway to unlocking the full potential of students and shaping the landscape of education for generations to come. So, let the journey of research begin, as it unfolds a world of possibilities for students on their educational journey.

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Our Mission

The 10 Most Significant Education Studies of 2021

From reframing our notion of “good” schools to mining the magic of expert teachers, here’s a curated list of must-read research from 2021.

It was a year of unprecedented hardship for teachers and school leaders. We pored through hundreds of studies to see if we could follow the trail of exactly what happened: The research revealed a complex portrait of a grueling year during which persistent issues of burnout and mental and physical health impacted millions of educators. Meanwhile, many of the old debates continued: Does paper beat digital? Is project-based learning as effective as direct instruction? How do you define what a “good” school is?

Other studies grabbed our attention, and in a few cases, made headlines. Researchers from the University of Chicago and Columbia University turned artificial intelligence loose on some 1,130 award-winning children’s books in search of invisible patterns of bias. (Spoiler alert: They found some.) Another study revealed why many parents are reluctant to support social and emotional learning in schools—and provided hints about how educators can flip the script.

1. What Parents Fear About SEL (and How to Change Their Minds)

When researchers at the Fordham Institute asked parents to rank phrases associated with social and emotional learning , nothing seemed to add up. The term “social-emotional learning” was very unpopular; parents wanted to steer their kids clear of it. But when the researchers added a simple clause, forming a new phrase—”social-emotional & academic learning”—the program shot all the way up to No. 2 in the rankings.

What gives?

Parents were picking up subtle cues in the list of SEL-related terms that irked or worried them, the researchers suggest. Phrases like “soft skills” and “growth mindset” felt “nebulous” and devoid of academic content. For some, the language felt suspiciously like “code for liberal indoctrination.”

But the study suggests that parents might need the simplest of reassurances to break through the political noise. Removing the jargon, focusing on productive phrases like “life skills,” and relentlessly connecting SEL to academic progress puts parents at ease—and seems to save social and emotional learning in the process.

2. The Secret Management Techniques of Expert Teachers

In the hands of experienced teachers, classroom management can seem almost invisible: Subtle techniques are quietly at work behind the scenes, with students falling into orderly routines and engaging in rigorous academic tasks almost as if by magic. 

That’s no accident, according to new research . While outbursts are inevitable in school settings, expert teachers seed their classrooms with proactive, relationship-building strategies that often prevent misbehavior before it erupts. They also approach discipline more holistically than their less-experienced counterparts, consistently reframing misbehavior in the broader context of how lessons can be more engaging, or how clearly they communicate expectations.

Focusing on the underlying dynamics of classroom behavior—and not on surface-level disruptions—means that expert teachers often look the other way at all the right times, too. Rather than rise to the bait of a minor breach in etiquette, a common mistake of new teachers, they tend to play the long game, asking questions about the origins of misbehavior, deftly navigating the terrain between discipline and student autonomy, and opting to confront misconduct privately when possible.

3. The Surprising Power of Pretesting

Asking students to take a practice test before they’ve even encountered the material may seem like a waste of time—after all, they’d just be guessing.

But new research concludes that the approach, called pretesting, is actually more effective than other typical study strategies. Surprisingly, pretesting even beat out taking practice tests after learning the material, a proven strategy endorsed by cognitive scientists and educators alike. In the study, students who took a practice test before learning the material outperformed their peers who studied more traditionally by 49 percent on a follow-up test, while outperforming students who took practice tests after studying the material by 27 percent.

The researchers hypothesize that the “generation of errors” was a key to the strategy’s success, spurring student curiosity and priming them to “search for the correct answers” when they finally explored the new material—and adding grist to a 2018 study that found that making educated guesses helped students connect background knowledge to new material.

Learning is more durable when students do the hard work of correcting misconceptions, the research suggests, reminding us yet again that being wrong is an important milestone on the road to being right.

4. Confronting an Old Myth About Immigrant Students

Immigrant students are sometimes portrayed as a costly expense to the education system, but new research is systematically dismantling that myth.

In a 2021 study , researchers analyzed over 1.3 million academic and birth records for students in Florida communities, and concluded that the presence of immigrant students actually has “a positive effect on the academic achievement of U.S.-born students,” raising test scores as the size of the immigrant school population increases. The benefits were especially powerful for low-income students.

While immigrants initially “face challenges in assimilation that may require additional school resources,” the researchers concluded, hard work and resilience may allow them to excel and thus “positively affect exposed U.S.-born students’ attitudes and behavior.” But according to teacher Larry Ferlazzo, the improvements might stem from the fact that having English language learners in classes improves pedagogy , pushing teachers to consider “issues like prior knowledge, scaffolding, and maximizing accessibility.”

5. A Fuller Picture of What a ‘Good’ School Is

It’s time to rethink our definition of what a “good school” is, researchers assert in a study published in late 2020.⁣ That’s because typical measures of school quality like test scores often provide an incomplete and misleading picture, the researchers found.

The study looked at over 150,000 ninth-grade students who attended Chicago public schools and concluded that emphasizing the social and emotional dimensions of learning—relationship-building, a sense of belonging, and resilience, for example—improves high school graduation and college matriculation rates for both high- and low-income students, beating out schools that focus primarily on improving test scores.⁣

“Schools that promote socio-emotional development actually have a really big positive impact on kids,” said lead researcher C. Kirabo Jackson in an interview with Edutopia . “And these impacts are particularly large for vulnerable student populations who don’t tend to do very well in the education system.”

The findings reinforce the importance of a holistic approach to measuring student progress, and are a reminder that schools—and teachers—can influence students in ways that are difficult to measure, and may only materialize well into the future.⁣

6. Teaching Is Learning

One of the best ways to learn a concept is to teach it to someone else. But do you actually have to step into the shoes of a teacher, or does the mere expectation of teaching do the trick?

In a 2021 study , researchers split students into two groups and gave them each a science passage about the Doppler effect—a phenomenon associated with sound and light waves that explains the gradual change in tone and pitch as a car races off into the distance, for example. One group studied the text as preparation for a test; the other was told that they’d be teaching the material to another student.

The researchers never carried out the second half of the activity—students read the passages but never taught the lesson. All of the participants were then tested on their factual recall of the Doppler effect, and their ability to draw deeper conclusions from the reading.

The upshot? Students who prepared to teach outperformed their counterparts in both duration and depth of learning, scoring 9 percent higher on factual recall a week after the lessons concluded, and 24 percent higher on their ability to make inferences. The research suggests that asking students to prepare to teach something—or encouraging them to think “could I teach this to someone else?”—can significantly alter their learning trajectories.

7. A Disturbing Strain of Bias in Kids’ Books

Some of the most popular and well-regarded children’s books—Caldecott and Newbery honorees among them—persistently depict Black, Asian, and Hispanic characters with lighter skin, according to new research .

Using artificial intelligence, researchers combed through 1,130 children’s books written in the last century, comparing two sets of diverse children’s books—one a collection of popular books that garnered major literary awards, the other favored by identity-based awards. The software analyzed data on skin tone, race, age, and gender.

Among the findings: While more characters with darker skin color begin to appear over time, the most popular books—those most frequently checked out of libraries and lining classroom bookshelves—continue to depict people of color in lighter skin tones. More insidiously, when adult characters are “moral or upstanding,” their skin color tends to appear lighter, the study’s lead author, Anjali Aduki,  told The 74 , with some books converting “Martin Luther King Jr.’s chocolate complexion to a light brown or beige.” Female characters, meanwhile, are often seen but not heard.

Cultural representations are a reflection of our values, the researchers conclude: “Inequality in representation, therefore, constitutes an explicit statement of inequality of value.”

8. The Never-Ending ‘Paper Versus Digital’ War

The argument goes like this: Digital screens turn reading into a cold and impersonal task; they’re good for information foraging, and not much more. “Real” books, meanwhile, have a heft and “tactility”  that make them intimate, enchanting—and irreplaceable.

But researchers have often found weak or equivocal evidence for the superiority of reading on paper. While a recent study concluded that paper books yielded better comprehension than e-books when many of the digital tools had been removed, the effect sizes were small. A 2021 meta-analysis further muddies the water: When digital and paper books are “mostly similar,” kids comprehend the print version more readily—but when enhancements like motion and sound “target the story content,” e-books generally have the edge.

Nostalgia is a force that every new technology must eventually confront. There’s plenty of evidence that writing with pen and paper encodes learning more deeply than typing. But new digital book formats come preloaded with powerful tools that allow readers to annotate, look up words, answer embedded questions, and share their thinking with other readers.

We may not be ready to admit it, but these are precisely the kinds of activities that drive deeper engagement, enhance comprehension, and leave us with a lasting memory of what we’ve read. The future of e-reading, despite the naysayers, remains promising.

9. New Research Makes a Powerful Case for PBL

Many classrooms today still look like they did 100 years ago, when students were preparing for factory jobs. But the world’s moved on: Modern careers demand a more sophisticated set of skills—collaboration, advanced problem-solving, and creativity, for example—and those can be difficult to teach in classrooms that rarely give students the time and space to develop those competencies.

Project-based learning (PBL) would seem like an ideal solution. But critics say PBL places too much responsibility on novice learners, ignoring the evidence about the effectiveness of direct instruction and ultimately undermining subject fluency. Advocates counter that student-centered learning and direct instruction can and should coexist in classrooms.

Now two new large-scale studies —encompassing over 6,000 students in 114 diverse schools across the nation—provide evidence that a well-structured, project-based approach boosts learning for a wide range of students.

In the studies, which were funded by Lucas Education Research, a sister division of Edutopia , elementary and high school students engaged in challenging projects that had them designing water systems for local farms, or creating toys using simple household objects to learn about gravity, friction, and force. Subsequent testing revealed notable learning gains—well above those experienced by students in traditional classrooms—and those gains seemed to raise all boats, persisting across socioeconomic class, race, and reading levels.

10. Tracking a Tumultuous Year for Teachers

The Covid-19 pandemic cast a long shadow over the lives of educators in 2021, according to a year’s worth of research.

The average teacher’s workload suddenly “spiked last spring,” wrote the Center for Reinventing Public Education in its January 2021 report, and then—in defiance of the laws of motion—simply never let up. By the fall, a RAND study recorded an astonishing shift in work habits: 24 percent of teachers reported that they were working 56 hours or more per week, compared to 5 percent pre-pandemic.

The vaccine was the promised land, but when it arrived nothing seemed to change. In an April 2021 survey  conducted four months after the first vaccine was administered in New York City, 92 percent of teachers said their jobs were more stressful than prior to the pandemic, up from 81 percent in an earlier survey.

It wasn’t just the length of the work days; a close look at the research reveals that the school system’s failure to adjust expectations was ruinous. It seemed to start with the obligations of hybrid teaching, which surfaced in Edutopia ’s coverage of overseas school reopenings. In June 2020, well before many U.S. schools reopened, we reported that hybrid teaching was an emerging problem internationally, and warned that if the “model is to work well for any period of time,” schools must “recognize and seek to reduce the workload for teachers.” Almost eight months later, a 2021 RAND study identified hybrid teaching as a primary source of teacher stress in the U.S., easily outpacing factors like the health of a high-risk loved one.

New and ever-increasing demands for tech solutions put teachers on a knife’s edge. In several important 2021 studies, researchers concluded that teachers were being pushed to adopt new technology without the “resources and equipment necessary for its correct didactic use.” Consequently, they were spending more than 20 hours a week adapting lessons for online use, and experiencing an unprecedented erosion of the boundaries between their work and home lives, leading to an unsustainable “always on” mentality. When it seemed like nothing more could be piled on—when all of the lights were blinking red—the federal government restarted standardized testing .

Change will be hard; many of the pathologies that exist in the system now predate the pandemic. But creating strict school policies that separate work from rest, eliminating the adoption of new tech tools without proper supports, distributing surveys regularly to gauge teacher well-being, and above all listening to educators to identify and confront emerging problems might be a good place to start, if the research can be believed.

Welcome to the United Nations

Breaking gender barriers through education

Get monthly e-newsletter.

Roseline Adewuyi  is a fervent advocate for gender equality in Nigeria, driven by a passion for dismantling entrenched gender stereotypes. She spoke to Africa Renewal’s  Kingsley Ighobor on the need to empower girls through education. This is in line with the African Union’s theme for 2024: Educating and skilling Africa for the 21 st   Century.

Roseline Adewuyi believes that fighting gender inequality requires raising awareness and empowering young women and girls through education.

“My goal is to help break those barriers that limit our potential,” she told  African Renewal  in an interview. “I am talking about issues related to land rights, access to education, economic empowerment, leadership, and trust me, gender discrimination.”

Gender discrimination, she explains, is heightened during times of severe economic constraints such as now, when the tendency is often to invest in boys over girls. “That’s when parents often choose to send their sons to school or provide them start-up funding for business ventures, while daughters are expected to focus on house chores and wait for marriage. It’s absolutely absurd.” she insists. 

Roseline has her work cut out for her. “We are constantly finding ways to help women and girls break free from these constraints.” 

She founded the Ending Gender Stereotypes in Schools (ENGENDERS) project, which is dedicated to unlearning gender stereotypes in educational institutions.

“We reach the students, boys and girls in high schools and universities, and we do community engagement, speaking to parents and other influential community inhabitants,” she explains.

Already, she claims to have reached tens of communities and over 6,000 young girls through seminars and webinars, while her  blog , featuring over 300 articles on gender equity, has garnered a wide audience.

Currently pursuing a Ph.D. in French Literature with a focus on women, gender, and sexuality studies at Purdue University in Indiana, US, Roseline now aims to merge academic rigour with passionate advocacy.

“It’s an interesting intersection,” she says, adding that “The body of knowledge that we pass on to future generations is full of gender stereotypes. Our books need to be gender conscious.

“In most African literature, characters often depict women or girls as housemaids and men as pilots or engineers. It reinforces stereotypes; we need to root it out,” she stresses.

Roseline's journey into gender advocacy began in her childhood, fueled by a belief in the transformative power of education. She recognized the systemic challenges faced by African women and girls, including limited access to education and entrenched cultural biases.

“When I served as a prefect in secondary school, the belief among boys and even some girls was that I did not merit the position, that leadership was reserved for the boys. That experience sparked my curiosity as to why girls weren’t perceived as equally competent as boys.”

In 2019, she worked as a translator and interpreter for the African Union (AU), having been selected as one of 120 young people from various African countries to participate in the AU Youth Volunteer Corps. 

Her exposure to continental leaders' efforts to address gender-related challenges reinforced her conviction that gender equality is essential for achieving sustainable peace and security.

“At the AU, I also realized the connection between gender and peace and security. When there is a crisis, it is women who suffer the most. Therefore, women must be at the centre of efforts to achieve peace in our societies,” she adds.

Her international exposure includes being a participant in the Young African Leaders Initiative in 2016 (YALI – Regional Leadership Center West Africa), as well as being a Dalai Lama fellow in 2018. She says these experiences exposed her to gender best practices and strengthened her resolve to advocate for change in her home country.

Although some advances have been made in gender equality in Nigeria, Roseline highlights that the remaining hurdles include challenges in female land ownership, financial inclusion, and access to education.

“For example, we have laws [in Nigeria] that provide for women’s rights to land, but many communities still prevent them from owning a piece of land. We also have situations in which widows are not allowed to inherit the properties of their husbands. 

She says: “So, we have a lot more work to do. We need effective community engagement in raising awareness among women about their rights.

“Importantly, we need to provide women with access to education to equip them with the knowledge and skills to assert their rights effectively.”

In her ongoing advocacy work, she acknowledges facing cyberbullying, which she attributes to resistance from elements of a patriarchal society reluctant to embrace progress.

Roseline's final message to young African women and girls is for them to drive positive change, stand up for their rights, and challenge gender norms.

Also in this issue

Guiding the Future: UN launches new panel on critical energy transition minerals

We must do more to prevent genocide

Football saved me from genocide; now I promote peace with it

30 years on, South Africa still dismantling racism and apartheid’s legacy

Kwibuka30: Learning from the past, safeguarding the future against genocide

Streamlining Egypt’s food value chain through technology

Lessons post the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda: we must speak out against discrimination and prejudice

Creating credible carbon market in Africa

REMEMBER.UNITE.RENEW.

Claver Irakoze: Bridging Generations Through the Memory of the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda

We must confront the legacy of slavery, tackle systemic racism

More from africa renewal.

Advancing the Women, Peace and Security Agenda

Empowering change: Safeguarding women in Sierra Leone

Intra-African trade provides an opportunity for inclusive economic growth

Racheal’s resolve: Championing disability rights in Uganda

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

In Tight Presidential Race, Voters Are Broadly Critical of Both Biden and Trump

• 4. Joe Biden’s approval ratings

Table of Contents

• The state of the 2024 presidential race
• Other findings: Biden’s job approval ticks up, Trump’s election-related criminal charges
• Educational differences in candidate support
• What are 2020 voters’ preferences today?
• How Biden’s supporters view his personal traits
• How Trump’s supporters view his personal traits
• Views of Biden’s presidency and retrospective evaluations of Trump’s time in office
• Attention to the candidates
• Does it matter who wins?
• What if voters could change the presidential ballot?
• How important is it for the losing candidate to publicly acknowledge the winner?
• Acknowledgments
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology
• Validated voters

Americans’ ratings of Joe Biden’s job performance remain more negative than positive and have been largely stable over the last year: Today, 35% of Americans approve of his performance, while 62% disapprove.

Trends among Democrats

About two-thirds of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (65%) approve of Biden’s job performance. This is a modest improvement from January, when 61% of Democrats approved of his job performance. However, Biden’s job rating among Democrats remains lower than it was in the first year of his administration.

Trends among Republicans

Just 6% of Republicans and Republican leaners approve of Biden’s job performance. This is essentially unchanged over the last several years.

Biden’s job approval among demographic groups

While Biden’s job rating continues to differ by race and ethnicity, education, and age, majorities in most groups disapprove of his performance.

Race and ethnicity

Majorities of White (66%), Hispanic (63%) and Asian (57%) Americans disapprove of Biden’s job performance.

Black adults’ ratings are more positive than negative: A narrow majority of Black adults (55%) say they approve of Biden’s job performance, a modest improvement from earlier this year. (In January, 48% of Black adults approved of Biden.)

Younger adults’ evaluations of Biden continue to be more negative than older adults’ ratings. About four-in-ten Americans ages 50 and older (39%) approve of his job performance, compared with 34% of those 30 to 49 and 28% of adults under 30.

Majorities of adults who have a four-year college degree (61%), some college experience (66%), or a high school diploma or less education (66%) say they disapprove of Biden’s job performance. Ratings among those with a postgraduate degree are more evenly divided (52% approve, 47% disapprove).

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Donald Trump
• Election 2024
• Partisanship & Issues
• Presidential Approval
• Voter Demographics
• Voter Participation

Changing Partisan Coalitions in a Politically Divided Nation

About 1 in 4 americans have unfavorable views of both biden and trump, 2024 presidential primary season was one of the shortest in the modern political era, americans more upbeat on the economy; biden’s job rating remains very low, key facts about hispanic eligible voters in 2024, most popular, report materials.

• April 2024 Biden Job Approval Detailed Tables

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Biden Administration Releases Revised Title IX Rules

The new regulations extended legal protections to L.G.B.T.Q. students and rolled back several policies set under the Trump administration.

By Zach Montague and Erica L. Green

Reporting from Washington

The Biden administration issued new rules on Friday cementing protections for L.G.B.T.Q. students under federal law and reversing a number of Trump-era policies that dictated how schools should respond to cases of alleged sexual misconduct in K-12 schools and college campuses.

The new rules, which take effect on Aug. 1, effectively broadened the scope of Title IX, the 1972 law prohibiting sex discrimination in educational programs that receive federal funding. They extend the law’s reach to prohibit discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and widen the range of sexual harassment complaints that schools will be responsible for investigating.

“These regulations make it crystal clear that everyone can access schools that are safe, welcoming and that respect their rights,” Miguel A. Cardona, the education secretary, said in a call with reporters.

The rules deliver on a key campaign promise for Mr. Biden, who declared he would put a “quick end” to the Trump-era Title IX rules and faced mounting pressure from Democrats and civil rights leaders to do so.

The release of the updated rules, after two delays, came as Mr. Biden is in the thick of his re-election bid and is trying to galvanize key electoral constituencies.

Through the new regulations, the administration moved to include students in its interpretation of Bostock v. Clayton County, the landmark 2020 Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects gay and transgender workers from workplace discrimination. The Trump administration held that transgender students were not protected under federal laws, including after the Bostock ruling .

In a statement, Betsy DeVos, who served as Mr. Trump’s education secretary, criticized what she called a “radical rewrite” of the law, asserting that it was an “endeavor born entirely of progressive politics, not sound policy.”

Ms. DeVos said the inclusion of transgender students in the law gutted decades of protections and opportunities for women. She added that the Biden administration also “seeks to U-turn to the bad old days where sexual misconduct was sent to campus kangaroo courts, not resolved in a way that actually sought justice.”

While the regulations released on Friday contained considerably stronger protections for L.G.B.T.Q. students, the administration steered clear of the lightning-rod issue of whether transgender students should be able to play on school sports teams corresponding to their gender identity.

The administration stressed that while, writ large, exclusion based on gender identity violated Title IX, the new regulations did not extend to single-sex living facilities or sports teams. The Education Department is pursuing a second rule dealing with sex-related eligibility for male and female sports teams. The rule-making process has drawn more than 150,000 comments.

Under the revisions announced on Friday, instances where transgender students are subjected to a “hostile environment” through bullying or harassment, or face unequal treatment and exclusion in programs or facilities based on their gender identity, could trigger an investigation by the department’s Office for Civil Rights.

Instances where students are repeatedly referred to by a name or pronoun other than one they have chosen could also be considered harassment on a case-by-case basis.

“This is a bold and important statement that transgender and nonbinary students belong, in their schools and in their communities,” said Olivia Hunt, the policy director for the National Center for Transgender Equality.

The regulations appeared certain to draw to legal challenges from conservative groups.

May Mailman, the director of the Independent Women’s Law Center, said in a statement that the group planned to sue the administration. She said it was clear that the statute barring discrimination on the basis of “sex” means “binary and biological.”

“The unlawful omnibus regulation reimagines Title IX to permit the invasion of women’s spaces and the reduction of women’s rights in the name of elevating protections for ‘gender identity,’ which is contrary to the text and purpose of Title IX,” she said.

The existing rules, which took effect under Mr. Trump in 2020, were the first time that sexual assault provisions were codified under Title IX. They bolstered due process rights of accused students, relieved schools of some legal liabilities and laid out rigid parameters for how schools should conduct impartial investigations.

They were a sharp departure from the Obama administration’s interpretation of the law, which came in the form of unenforceable guidance documents directing schools to ramp up investigations into sexual assault complaints under the threat of losing federal funding. Scores of students who had been accused of sexual assault went on to win court cases against their colleges for violating their due process rights under the guidelines.

The Biden administration’s rules struck a balance between the Obama and Trump administration’s goals. Taken together, the regulation largely provides more flexibility for how schools conduct investigations, which advocates and schools have long lobbied for.

Catherine E. Lhamon, the head of the department’s Office for Civil Rights who also held the job under President Barack Obama, called the new rules the “most comprehensive coverage under Title IX since the regulations were first promulgated in 1975.”

They replaced a narrower definition of sex-based harassment adopted under the Trump administration with one that would include a wider range of conduct. And they reversed a requirement that schools investigate only incidents alleged to have occurred on their campuses or in their programs.

Still, some key provisions in the Trump-era rules were preserved, including one allowing informal resolutions and another prohibiting penalties against students until after an investigation.

Among the most anticipated changes was the undoing of a provision that required in-person, or so-called live hearings, in which students accused of sexual misconduct, or their lawyers, could confront and question accusers in a courtroom-like setting.

The new rules allow in-person hearings, but do not mandate them. They also require a process through which a decision maker could assess a party or witness’s credibility, including posing questions from the opposing party.

“The new regulations put an end to unfair and traumatic grievance procedures that favor harassers,” Kel O’Hara, a senior attorney at Equal Rights Advocates. “No longer will student survivors be subjected to processes that prioritize the interests of their perpetrators over their own well being and safety.”

The new rules also allow room for schools to use a “preponderance of evidence” standard, a lower burden of proof than the DeVos-era rules encouraged, through which administrators need only to determine whether it was more likely than not that sexual misconduct had occurred.

The renewed push for that standard drew criticism from legal groups who said the rule stripped away hard-won protections against flawed findings.

“When you are dealing with accusations of really one of the most heinous crimes that a person can commit — sexual assault — it’s not enough to say, ‘50 percent and a feather,’ before you brand someone guilty of this repulsive crime,” said Will Creeley, the legal director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

The changes concluded a three-year process in which the department received 240,000 public comments. The rules also strengthen protections for pregnant students, requiring accommodations such as a bigger desk or ensuring access to elevators and prohibiting exclusion from activities based on additional needs.

Title IX was designed to end discrimination based on sex in educational programs or activities at all institutions receiving federal financial assistance, beginning with sports programs and other spaces previously dominated by male students.

The effects of the original law have been pronounced. Far beyond the impact on school programs like sports teams, many educators credit Title IX with setting the stage for academic parity today. Female college students routinely outnumber male students on campus and have become more likely than men of the same age to graduate with a four-year degree.

But since its inception, Title IX has also become a powerful vehicle through which past administrations have sought to steer schools to respond to the dynamic and diverse nature of schools and universities.

While civil rights groups were disappointed that some ambiguity remains for the L.G.B.T.Q. students and their families, the new rules were widely praised for taking a stand at a time when education debates are reminiscent to the backlash after the Supreme Court ordered schools to integrate.

More than 20 states have passed laws that broadly prohibit anyone assigned male at birth from playing on girls’ and women’s sports teams or participating in scholastic athletic programs, while 10 states have laws barring transgender people from using bathrooms based on their gender identity.

“Some adults are showing up and saying, ‘I’m going to make school harder for children,” said Liz King, senior program director of the education equity program at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “It’s an incredibly important rule, at an incredibly important moment.”

Schools will have to cram over the summer to implement the rules, which will require a retraining staff and overhauling procedures they implemented only four years ago.

Ted Mitchell, the president of the American Council on Education, which represents more than 1,700 colleges and universities, said in a statement that while the group welcomed the changes in the new rule, the timeline “disregards the difficulties inherent in making these changes on our nation’s campuses in such a short period of time.”

“After years of constant churn in Title IX guidance and regulations,” Mr. Mitchell said, “we hope for the sake of students and institutions that there will be more stability and consistency in the requirements going forward.”

Zach Montague is based in Washington. He covers breaking news and developments around the district. More about Zach Montague

Erica L. Green is a White House correspondent, covering President Biden and his administration. More about Erica L. Green

• Skip to top navigation
• Skip to side navigation
• Skip to content
• Skip to footer
• Online Services |
• Search Maine.gov

Office of Governor Janet T. Mills

Home → Governor Mills Signs Supplemental Budget

Governor Mills Signs Supplemental Budget

Governor Janet Mills announced today that she has signed into law the supplemental budget proposal passed by the Legislature last week.

The proposal funds important public safety and mental health initiatives, strengthens storm response and recovery efforts, and addresses urgent challenges, like housing, education, health care, child protection, the opioid epidemic, and more.

“This budget makes vital investments in things Maine people need right now – like storm relief, mental health services, child care, housing, and much more,” said Governor Mills . “It is the product of a lot of discussion and negotiation, and while we will need to keep a close eye on the budget next year in light of flattening revenues, this budget takes important steps forward to address our state’s most pressing problems.”

Read a detailed summary of initiatives in the supplemental budget (PDF) .

The supplemental budget builds on the historic biennial budget signed by Governor Mills in 2023 that created a paid family and medical leave program in Maine, modernized Maine’s business incentive program, and made transformational investments in housing, child care, health care, and education.

The supplemental budget represents $127.4 million in appropriations and would result in a $10.47 billion budget. The current budget is $10.34 billion, including more than $285 million in  tax relief per year.