international journal of education and science research review

Identifiers

Linking ISSN (ISSN-L): 2348-6457

URL http://www.ijesrr.org

Google https://www.google.com/search?q=ISSN+%222348-6457%22

Bing https://www.bing.com/search?q=ISSN+%222348-6457%22

Yahoo https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=ISSN%20%222348-6457%22

National Library of India http://nationallibraryopac.nvli.in/cgi-bin/koha/opac-search.pl?advsearch=1&idx=ns&q=2348-6457&weight_search=1&do=Search&sort_by=relevance

Resource information

Title proper: International journal of education and science research review.

Country: India

Medium: Print

Record information

Last modification date: 09/05/2023

Type of record: Confirmed

ISSN Center responsible of the record: ISSN National Centre for India For all potential issues concerning the description of the publication identified by this bibliographic record (missing or wrong data etc.), please contact the ISSN National Centre mentioned above by clicking on the link.

downloads requested

Discover all the features of the complete ISSN records

Display mode x.

Labelled view

MARC21 view

UNIMARC view

• Paper Archives
• Journal Indexing
• Research Conference
• Add Journal

Searching By

• Search More ...

International Journal of Educational Science and Research (IJESR) (ISSN: 2249-6947)

Publisher TJPRC

ISSN-L 2249-6947

ISSN 2249-6947

E-ISSN 2249-8052

IF(Impact Factor) 2.543 / 2012

Website http://www.tjprc.org/

Description

Last modified: 2013-04-13 18:55:39

• No Archives

Advertisement

Message from Editor

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

International Journal of Educational Research Review ( ISSN:2458-9322 )

International Journal of Educational Research Review  publishes scholarly articles that are of general significance to the education research community and that come from a wide range of areas. The International Journal of Educational Research Review  aims to provide a forum for scholarly understanding of the field of education. Articles focus upon concepts, research, review and practices that emphasizes the intersections between education research and other fields, raises new questions, and develops innovative approaches to our understandings of pressing issues.

The range of topics covered in the International Journal of Educational Research Review   include;

read full aims and scope;  https://www.ijere.com/page/aims-and-scope

Peer Review Policy:

All articles in this journal will undergo initial editor screening, rigorous double-anonymous peer review, and review by the editorial board.

Double-blind peer review

International Journal of Educational Research Review  follows a double-blind reviewing procedure. This means that the author will remain anonymous to the reviewers throughout peer review. It is the responsibility of the author to anonymize the manuscript and any associated materials.

read full Peer Review Policy;  https://www.ijere.com/page/peer-review-policy

Ownership and management

IJERE journal is hosted by Dergipark/Tubitak. IJERE Journal is published with the support of Sakarya University Faculty of Education/TURKEY.

Governing body

Editor in Chief Dr. Serhat Arslan, Gazi University, Turkey 

read full  Governing body /Ownership and management/ Editorial board member ;  https://www.ijere.com/page/editorial-board

Copyright and licensing

Copyright Statement

Copyright violation is an important, and possibly related, ethical issue. Authors should check their manuscripts for possible breaches of copyright law (e.g., where permissions are needed for quotations, artwork or tables taken from other publications or from other freely available sources on the Internet) and secure the necessary permissions before submission to International Journal of Educational Research Review.

read full  Copyright and licensing;  https://www.ijere.com/page/copyright-and-licensing-open-access-statement

• Popular Articles
• Popular Articles from Current Issue

Moved Permanently

The document has been permanently moved.

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians
• Announcements
• Article Template

About the Journal

• Editorial Team
• Focus and Scope
• Section Policies
• Peer Review Process
• Publication Frequency
• Open Access Policy

Abstracting/Indexing

• Publication Fee
• Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
• Plagiarism Policy
• Copyright Policy
• Repository Policy
• Journal Content

Submissions

• Online Submissions
• Author Guidelines
• Copyright Notice
• Privacy Statement
• Journal Sponsorship
• About this Publishing System

Editor: Wilfried Admiraal,  The Netherlands

Place of Publication: Turkey & Name of Publisher: Ismail Sahin

ISSN:  2148-9955 (Online)

Research in Science Education

Research in Science Education is an international journal publishing and promoting scholarly science education research of interest to a wide group of people. The journal examines early childhood, primary, secondary, tertiary, workplace, and informal learning as they relate to science education.

In publishing scholarly articles, RISE is looking for articulation of the principles and practices used by scholars to make valid claims about the world and their critique of such claims. Publishing such work is important as it makes these principles and practices known to the scholarly community so that they can be considered, debated, judged, and accepted, rejected or reframed. Importantly, these principles and practices must be constantly advancing in ways that allow our knowledge to advance within the field. In looking for works to publish, RISE will seek articles that advance our knowledge in science education research rather than reproducing what we already know.

Research can take many forms, quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods to name a few. RISE is interested in producing valid and trustworthy research that takes on a variety of forms and embraces new capabilities at hand, particularly around new technologies. Innovative practices and how these relate to science education will be at the forefront of our thinking in RISE.

Scholarly works of interest need to encompass the wide diversity of readership. RISE is the journal associated with the Australasian Science Education Research Association (ASERA), one of the oldest such association in the world. With ASERA’s history from a colonial western tradition, combined with its location within the highly productive and exciting Asian region, the membership of ASERA and the readership of RISE spans the globe and cultural perspectives. Hence, the scholarly works of interest published within RISE need to reflect this diversity. Additionally, they must also include a diversity of form. So, RISE will continue to review articles, editorials, book reviews, and other material deemed appropriate by the Editors.

This is a transformative journal , you may have access to funding.

• Wendy Nielsen,
• Kok-Sing Tang

Latest issue

Volume 54, Issue 5

Latest articles

Developing and gathering validity evidence for an instrument to measure how high school students identify as researchers.

• Linda Morell
• Shruti Bathia
• Rebecca Smith

Integrating Entrepreneurial Education into STEM Education:

• Zhuoran Zheng

Fostering Teacher Pedagogical Growth through Entrepreneurial-STEM Literacy Development

• Marwa Eltanahy
• Nasser Mansour

Philosophical, Legal, Ethical, and Practical Considerations in the Emerging Use of Generative AI in Academic Journals: Guidelines for Research in Science Education (RISE)

• Grant Cooper
• Wendy Nielsen

Entrepreneurial STEM Education: Enhancing students’ Resourcefulness and Problem-solving Skills

• Sila Kaya-Capocci
• Aybuke Pabuccu-Akis
• Nil Orhan-Ozteber

Journal updates

Supporting the sustainable developmental goals.

Meet the Editors: Wendy Nielsen & Kok-Sing Tang

Expressions of Interest Co-Editor-in-Chief of 'Research In Science Education' (RISE)

Expressions of interest are sought from experienced science education academics with strong research profiles for the role of Co-Editor-in-Chief of the Australasian Science Education Research Association’s (ASERA) journal, Research In Science Education (RISE).

To read more, please click here

Topical Collections in RISE

Research in Science Education (RISE) is pleased to announce the introduction of topical collections to complement the ongoing publication of papers through regular and special issues. A topical collection curates papers on a given topic, theme or problem. The articles in a topical collection are published continuously over several issues, making them different from special issues that are time-bounded and assigned to one issue. Articles selected for a topical collection will appear in that collection. At the same time, they will still be published in a regular issue.

Topical collections represent a chance for editors to gather related papers on a topic of contemporary interest to the RISE readership and the wider science education research community. As such, we are interested to develop collections that both consolidate a series of thematically-related papers previously published in RISE and encourage future developments in the field. This approach allows us to connect the rich  historical conversation in RISE with contemporary issues that matter to the science education community.

With this objective, RISE has launched two inaugural topical collections on “Artificial Intelligence in Science Education” and “STEM and teaching engineering design”. Interested authors are encouraged to explore these collections and contribute new articles that build upon the ongoing work within the collection. To read more of these collections, please click here .

Authors wishing to submit their manuscripts to a topical collection can indicate their intention via the Editorial Manager submission system. All submissions to a topical collection will undergo the same peer review process and standards. The Editors-in-Chief have the final discretions to choose and include articles in any collection.

Furthermore, RISE welcomes proposals for new topical collections that meet the following criteria:

1.      Relevance to RISE: The topic should have a solid foundation within RISE, as evidenced by a substantial number of previously published articles in RISE. These articles will be curated to form the initial core of the collection.

2.      Timeliness: The topic should focus on current and urgent issues in science education, demonstrating a strong potential to draw future contributions to the collection

Researchers interested in editing a topical collection are encouraged to contact the Editors-in-Chief.

Journal information

• Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
• Current Contents/Social & Behavioral Sciences
• Google Scholar
• Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals and Series
• OCLC WorldCat Discovery Service
• Social Science Citation Index
• TD Net Discovery Service
• UGC-CARE List (India)

Rights and permissions

Editorial policies

© Springer Nature B.V.

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research

• Announcements
• Editorial Board
• Submit a Paper
• Publication Ethics
• ##PAPER TEMPLATE##
• ##Retraction Policy##

Transforming High School Education with Digital Tools: A Systematic Review

This systematic review comprehensively examines the impact of digital tools on high school education, drawing from 23 peer-reviewed studies published between 2018 and 2023. The study explores a wide range of research methodologies, including randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental designs, and experimental studies, to assess the effectiveness of digital technologies in enhancing education outcomes. The findings indicate that digital tools, particularly those integrated using the substitution augmentation modification and redefinition model, significantly improve student autonomy, engagement, and academic performance across diverse geographic and demographic contexts. However, the review also identifies challenges, such as the complexity of content, technological disparities, and the necessity for well-planned and context-sensitive implementation strategies. Furthermore, it highlights the importance of professional development for educators and the need for infrastructural support to ensure equitable access to technology. The study underscores the critical role of collaboration among educators, policymakers, and stakeholders to maximize the benefits of digital education. The review calls for ongoing research into innovative educational technologies and their long-term effects, and advocates for a strategic and well-supported approach to integrating these tools into high school settings.

https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.23.8.34

Azam, F. K. K., Fadhil, F., & Yunus, M. M. (2019). Enhancing ESL Learners’ Writing Skills via ProvWrit. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 9(1), 660–669.

Backfisch, I., Lachner, A., Stürmer, K., & Scheiter, K. (2021). Variability of teachers’ technology integration in the classroom: A matter of utility! Computers & Education, 166, 104159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104159

Cai, S., Liu, E., Shen, Y., Liu, C., Li, S., & Shen, Y. (2020). Probability learning in mathematics using augmented reality: Impact on student’s learning gains and attitudes. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(5), 560–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1696839

Cai, S., Liu, E., Yang, Y., & Liang, J.-C. (2019). Tablet-based AR technology: Impacts on students’ conceptions and approaches to learning mathematics according to their self-efficacy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 248–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12718

Dooley, C. M., Ellison, T. L., Welch, M. M., Allen, M., & Bauer, D. (2016). Digital Participatory Pedagogy: Digital Participation as a Method for Technology Integration in Curriculum. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 32(2), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2016.1138912

Faour, M. A., & Ayoubi, Z. (2018). The Effect of Using Virtual Laboratory on Grade 10 Students’ Conceptual Understanding and their Attitudes towards Physics. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health, 4(1), 54–68. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.387482

Homer, B. D., Plass, J. L., Rose, M. C., MacNamara, A. P., Pawar, S., & Ober, T. M. (2019). Activating adolescents’ “hot” executive functions in a digital game to train cognitive skills: The effects of age and prior abilities. Cognitive Development, 49, 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2018.11.005

Hsiao, H.-S., Chen, J.-C., Lin, C.-Y., Zhuo, P.-W., & Lin, K.-Y. (2018). Using 3D printing technology with experiential learning strategies to improve preengineering students’ comprehension of abstract scientific concepts and hands-on ability. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(2), 178–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12319

Kühl, T., & Münzer, S. (2019). The moderating role of additional information when learning with animations compared to static pictures. Instructional Science, 47(6), 659–677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-019-09498-x

Kunnath, B., & Kriek, J. (2018). Exploring effective pedagogies using computer simulations to improve Grade 12 learners’ understanding of the photoelectric effect. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 22(3), 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2018.1531500

Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional Development in Integrating Technology into Teaching and Learning: Knowns, Unknowns, and Ways to Pursue Better Questions and Answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575–614. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307309921

Lozada, R. N. R., Fernández, J. A. G., Dávila, R. G. C., Delgado, J. G. R., & Fernández, B. H. (2022). Google Classroom in Educational Service: A systematic Review. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(2), Article 2.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2018). Mobile-Based micro-Learning and Assessment: Impact on learning performance and motivation of high school students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(3), 269–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12240

Puentedura, R. R. (2010). SAMR and TPCK: Intro to Advanced Practice. Ruben R. Puentedura’s Weblog. http://hippasus.com/resources/sweden2010/SAMR_TPCK_IntroToAdvancedPractice.pdf

Raes, A., Vanneste, P., Pieters, M., Windey, I., Van Den Noortgate, W., & Depaepe, F. (2020). Learning and instruction in the hybrid virtual classroom: An investigation of students’ engagement and the effect of quizzes. Computers & Education, 143, 103682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103682

Sari, N. M., Zakariya, Z., & Khoo, Y. Y. (2022). Systematic literature review of Google Classroom assisted learning: Effects, strengths and challenges. 27.

Selwyn, N., Nemorin, S., Bulfin, S., & Johnson, N. F. (2017). Left to their own devices: The everyday realities of one-to-one classrooms. Oxford Review of Education, 43(3), 289?310. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2017.1305047

Shadiev, R., Hwang, W.-Y., & Liu, T.-Y. (2018). Investigating the effectiveness of a learning activity supported by a mobile multimedia learning system to enhance autonomous EFL learning in authentic contexts. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(4), 893–912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9590-1

Stenberdt, V. A., & Makransky, G. (2023). Mastery experiences in immersive virtual reality promote pro-environmental waste-sorting behavior. Computers & Education, 198, 104760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104760

Tong, D. H., Uyen, B. P., & Ngan, L. K. (2022). The effectiveness of blended learning on students’ academic achievement, self-study skills and learning attitudes: A quasi-experiment study in teaching the conventions for coordinates in the plane. Heliyon, 8(12), e12657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12657

Torbaghan, M. E., Sasidharan, M., Jefferson, I., & Watkins, J. (2022). Preparing Students for a Digitised Future. IEEE Transactions on Education, 66(1), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2022.3174263

Wang, J., Jou, M., Lv, Y., & Huang, C.-C. (2018). An investigation on teaching performances of model-based flipping classroom for physics supported by modern teaching technologies. Computers in Human Behavior, 84, 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.018

Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2019). Transitioning from introductory block-based and text-based environments to professional programming languages in high school computer science classrooms. Computers & Education, 142, 103646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103646

Wen, C.-T., Liu, C.-C., Chang, H.-Y., Chang, C.-J., Chang, M.-H., Fan Chiang, S.-H., Yang, C.-W., & Hwang, F.-K. (2020). Students’ guided inquiry with simulation and its relation to school science achievement and scientific literacy. Computers & Education, 149, 103830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103830

Winkler, R., Söllner, M., & Leimeister, J. M. (2021). Enhancing problem-solving skills with smart personal assistant technology. Computers & Education, 165, 104148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104148

Xing, W., Huang, X., Li, C., & Xie, C. (2023). Teaching thermodynamics with augmented interaction and learning analytics. Computers & Education, 196, 104726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104726

Yang, Q.-F., Chang, S.-C., Hwang, G.-J., & Zou, D. (2020). Balancing cognitive complexity and gaming level: Effects of a cognitive complexity-based competition game on EFL students’ English vocabulary learning performance, anxiety and behaviors. Computers & Education, 148, 103808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103808

Yusrianti, S., Guilin, X., Artanty, A., Jiao, D., & Setyawan, G. (2024). The Role of Google Classroom Application in Improving High School Student Achievement. World Psychology, 3(1), 156–170. https://doi.org/10.55849/wp.v3i1.615

Zakaria, M. A., & Aziz, A. A. (2019). The Impact of Digital Storytelling on ESL Narrative Writing Skill. SSRN Electronic Journal, Special Issue on CALL(5). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3431789

Zheng, J., Xing, W., & Zhu, G. (2019). Examining sequential patterns of self- and socially shared regulation of STEM learning in a CSCL environment. Computers & Education, 136, 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.03.005

Zhong, X., & Wakat, G. (2023). Enhancing grammar proficiency of EFL learners through corpus-integrated lessons. Ampersand, 11, 100139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2023.100139

Zhuoluo, M. A., Liu, Y., & Zhao, L. (2019). Effect of haptic feedback on a virtual lab about friction. Virtual Reality & Intelligent Hardware, 1(4), 428–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vrih.2019.07.001

• There are currently no refbacks.

e-ISSN: 1694-2116

p-ISSN: 1694-2493

• Open access
• Published: 05 September 2024

Exploring instructional design in K-12 STEM education: a systematic literature review

• Suarman Halawa 1 ,
• Tzu-Chiang Lin 2 , 3 &
• Ying-Shao Hsu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1635-8213 4  

International Journal of STEM Education volume  11 , Article number:  43 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

This study aimed to analyze articles published in the Web of Science database from 2012 to 2021 to examine the educational goals and instructional designs for STEM education. We selected articles based on the following criteria: (a) empirical research; (b) incorporating instructional design and strategies into STEM teaching; (c) including intervention; (d) focusing on K-12 education and on assessment of learning outcomes; and (e) excluding higher education and STEAM education. Based on the criteria, 229 articles were selected for coding educational goals and instructional designs for STEM education. The aspects of STEM educational goals were coded including engagement and career choice, STEM literacy, and twenty-first century competencies. The categories of instructional designs for STEM education were examined including design-based learning, inquiry-based learning, project-based learning, and problem-based learning. The results showed that engagement and career choices and STEM literacy were mainly emphasized in STEM education. Design-based learning was adopted more than inquiry-based, project-based, or problem-based learning, and this instructional design was mainly used to achieve STEM literacy. It is suggested that studies on twenty-first century competencies may require more research efforts in future STEM education research.

Introduction

Emphasizing STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) has been the main focus of policy makers in many countries (English, 2016 ; National Academy of Engineering & National Research Council, 2014 ; National Research Council, 2012 , 2013 ) to meet economic challenges (Kelley & Knowles, 2016 ). Educational systems are accordingly prioritizing STEM to prepare students’ capability for the workplace to face the sophisticated technologies and competitive economy (Kayan-Fadlelmula et al., 2022 ). Hence, students are expected to be interested in STEM so that they will engage in and pursue careers in STEM-related fields (Lie et al., 2019 ; Struyf et al., 2019 ). Besides, we need a new generation that has the abilities to develop proficient knowledge, to apply such knowledge to solve problems, and to face existing and upcoming issues of the twenty-first century (Bybee, 2010 ).

Although STEM education has been proved to benefit students, there is a lack of understanding of instructional design for STEM education, despite the fact that such understanding is critical to research and to classroom practices. Limited understanding of relevant instructional design may lead to problems in implementing STEM education in the classroom. There is hence a need to examine educational goals, specific designs, and features of the instructional designs consistently and specifically documented in the STEM education literature. Therefore, this current study conducted systematic analysis of the literature to understand the educational goals and instructional designs for STEM education. Based on the analysis, we present a thorough picture of how researchers have developed instructional designs for STEM education.

Despite the fact that many researchers have promoted STEM education, the definition of STEM education has not reached a consensus in the literature, and there is a certain degree of disagreement in the scientific community. Lamb et al. ( 2015 ) defined STEM as a broad area encompassing many disciplines and epistemological practices. Other researchers, such as Breiner et al. ( 2012 ), defined STEM as applying transdisciplinary knowledge and skills in solving real-world problems. A similar definition established by Shaughnessy ( 2013 ) regarding STEM education is problem solving based on science and mathematics concepts that incorporate engineering strategies and technology. Another study defined STEM education as teaching approaches based on technology and engineering design that integrate the concepts and practices of science and mathematics (Sanders & Wells, 2006 ). In this study, we clarify STEM education as an approach that utilizes integrations of knowledge and skills from science, technology, engineering, and/or mathematics to solve real-world problems that help students to succeed in school learning, future careers, and/or society.

The definition of STEM as an integrated approach involving science, technology, engineering, and mathematics raises several pertinent questions about its composition and expectations. First, the requirement for all four disciplines to be present in order to qualify an educational program or project as “STEM” is debatable. Conceptually, integrating any two or more fields helps foster the interdisciplinary learning that is the hallmark of STEM education. This flexibility allows educators to tailor their programs to match the available resources and specific learning outcomes without necessarily incorporating all four disciplines in every instance. Regarding the classification of “science” within STEM, it is more a conglomerate of disciplines—such as biology, chemistry, physics, and earth sciences—than a single field. This diversity within science enriches STEM education, providing a broader knowledge base and problem-solving skills. Each scientific discipline brings a unique perspective and set of tools to the interdisciplinary mix, enhancing the complexity and richness of STEM learning experiences.

Furthermore, previous studies have identified several challenges to the implementation of STEM education in the classroom including poor motivation of students, weak connection with individual learners, little support from the school system, poor content without integration across disciplines, lack of quality assessments, poor facilities, and lack of hands-on experience (Ejiwale, 2013 ; Hsu & Fang, 2019 ; Margot & Kettler, 2019 ). To help teachers face challenges in the advancement of STEM education, Hsu and Fang ( 2019 ) proposed a 5-step STEM curriculum designs framework and provided examples of how to apply it to a lesson plan to help teachers design their instruction. This previous study also suggested that researchers conduct more investigations related to instructional design to enrich our understanding of various aspects of STEM education. Teachers of STEM require more opportunities to construct their perspective and a vision of STEM education as well as to conduct appropriate instructional designs. Moreover, from review articles published from 2000 to 2016, Margot and Kettler ( 2019 ) found that in multiple studies concerning similar challenges and supports, teachers believed that the availability of a quality curriculum would enhance the success of STEM education. Teachers need to provide and use an appropriate instructional design for STEM education and understand the educational goals. Therefore, we see the need to conduct research related to STEM education, especially exploring the instructional design because identifying and using a quality instructional design could increase the effectivess of STEM education.

According to the previous literature review, educational goals for instructional design were highlighted in STEM education. First, engagement and career choice need to be emphasized in STEM learning to improve students’ interest and self-efficacy (Vongkulluksn et al., 2018 ). Students need to engage in STEM education to raise their interest and engagement in STEM and to increase and develop a STEM-capable workforce (Honey et al., 2014 ; Hsu & Fang, 2019 ; Schütte & Köller, 2015 ). Engaging students in STEM education could improve their attitudes (Vossen et al., 2018 ) and their interest in STEM fields, and encourage them to pursue STEM careers (Means et al., 2017 ).

Second, STEM literacy needs to be promoted in K-12 schools (Falloon et al., 2020 ; Jackson et al., 2021 ) to develop students’ ability to encounter global challenges (Bybee, 2010 ). Students need to have the ability to apply concepts from science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, and skills to solve problems related to social, personal, and global issues in society (Bybee, 2010 ; Jackson et al., 2021 ). Besides, improving students’ STEM literacy is needed for their decision-making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity (National Academy of Engineering & National Research Council, 2014 ; National Research Council, 2011 ).

Last, regarding the twenty-first century competencies, students are anticipated to have abilities of creativity and innovation, problem solving, critical thinking, collaboration and communication (Boon, 2019 ) as citizens, workers, and leaders in the twenty-first century (Bryan et al., 2015 ; National Academy of Engineering & National Research Council, 2014 ; Stehle & Peters-Burton, 2019 ). These abilities are critical for students to adapt and thrive in a changing world (National Research Council, 2013 ). Also, students need to have the abilities to adapt to the twenty-first century in order to succeed in the new workforce (Bybee, 2013 ).

Considering the achievement of students’ engagement, motivation, STEM literacy, as well as twenty-first century competencies, many countries have significantly enlarged the funding for research and education relevant to STEM (Sanders, 2009 ). One of the strands of the existing research is to help teachers know how to implement STEM education in schools (Aranda, 2020 ; Barak & Assal, 2018 ; English, 2017 ). Researchers have proposed instructional designs for STEM education including design-based learning (Kelley & Knowles, 2016 ; Yata et al., 2020 ), inquiry-based learning (Bybee, 2010 ), project-based learning (Capraro et al., 2013 ), and problem-based learning (Carpraro & Slough, 2013 ).

Design-based learning focuses on technological and engineering design. This instructional design engages students in learning about engineering design practices (Fan et al., 2021 ; Guzey et al., 2016 ; Hernandez et al., 2014 ) through the steps of designing, building, and testing (Yata et al., 2020 ). Design-based learning promotes problem solving, design, building, testing, and communication skills (Johnson et al., 2015 ) and improves students’ interest in STEM activities (Vongkulluksn et al., 2018 ). Also, design-based learning improves students’ engineering abilities and twenty-first century competencies (Wu et al., 2019 ) and attitudes (Vossen et al., 2018 ), and engages them in understanding core disciplinary ideas (Guzey et al., 2016 ).

Inquiry-based learning focuses on engaging students in hands-on activities to investigate scientific phenomena (Lederman & Lederman, 2012 ) and to construct their new knowledge (Bybee, 2010 ; Halawa et al., 2020 ). Students are encouraged to plan and design their experiments, analyze and interpret data, argue, and communicate their findings (Halawa et al., 2023 ; National Research Council, 2012 , 2013 ). Inquiry-based learning is also deemed to improve students’ knowledge, interest, engagement (Sinatra et al., 2017 ) and creativity (Smyrnaiou et al., 2020 ). Besides, researchers have noticed the importance of inquiry-based learning for improving students’ attitudes toward science-related careers (Kim, 2016 ). Although inquiry-based learning mainly focuses on science education to engage students in authentic learning (Halawa et al., 2024 ), it has been known to share common goals and characteristics with mathematics, technology, and engineering (Grangeat et al., 2021 ; Lin et al., 2020 ). Common elements in STEM education are engaging students in asking questions and testing their ideas in a systematic and interactive way (Grangeat et al., 2021 ).

Project-based learning and problem-based learning, both instructional designs, engage students in experiential and authentic learning with open-ended and real-world problems (English, 2017 ). Yet, project-based learning tends to be of longer duration and occurs over an extended period of time (Wilson, 2021 ), while problem-based learning is usually embedded in multiple problems (Carpraro & Slough, 2013 ). STEM project-based learning focuses on engaging students in an ill-defined task within a well-defined outcome situated with a contextually rich task, requiring them to solve certain problems (Capraro et al., 2013 ). Project-based learning and problem-based learning are both used to develop students’ problem solving, creativity, collaboration skills (Barak & Assal, 2018 ), and attitude (Preininger, 2017 ).

According to previous studies, researchers have adopted STEM instructional designs to achieve certain educational goals. For instance, in the aspects of engagement and career choice, Sullivan and Bers ( 2019 ) used design-based learning to improve students’ interest in engineering and students’ performance in elementary school. Kang et al. ( 2021 ) adopted inquiry-based learning for secondary school by embedding careers education to foster the students’ interest in science. Vallera and Bodzin ( 2020 ) adopted project-based learning at primary school in the northeastern United States to improve students’ STEM literacy and attitude. Preininger ( 2017 ) used problem-based learning to influence students’ attitudes toward mathematics and careers involving mathematics. In the aspect of STEM literacy, King and English ( 2016 ) adopted design-based learning to enable students to apply STEM concepts to the model of the construction of an optical instrument. Han et al. ( 2015 ) adopted STEM project-based learning to improve the performance of low-performing students in mathematics. Lastly, regarding the twenty-first century competencies, English et al. ( 2017 ) adopted design-based learning to improve students’ capabilities of handling the complexity of the task (English et al., 2017 ).

In conclusion, studies have grown to explore educational goals related to instructional designs for STEM education. However, consistent and systematic reviews related to instructional designs in K-12 STEM education are comparatively scarce. Although there are some reviews of the STEM education literature (Andrews et al., 2022 ; Gladstone & Cimpian, 2021 ; Kaya-Fadlelmula et al., 2022 ; López et al., 2022 ; Margot & Kettler, 2019 ; Martín-Páez et al., 2019 ; Nguyen et al., 2021 ), it is noteworthy that previous studies only explored undergraduate instruction in STEM education (Andrews et al., 2022 ; Henderson et al., 2011 ; Nguyen et al., 2021 ). Therefore, to fill the research gap, this current study conducted a systematic analysis of literature to understand the educational goals and instructional designs for K-12 STEM education from articles published between 2012 and 2021. The research questions of this study were formulated as follows:

What STEM education goals were more focused on in the reviewed articles? What was the trend of educational goals in the reviewed articles?

What instructional designs were more focused on in the reviewed articles? What was the trend of the instructional design in the review articles?

What instructional designs were more focused on to achieve certain educational goals in the reviewed articles?

What features of instructional designs were more focused on in the reviewed articles?

Data collection

To identify the target literature for further analysis, this study conducted several rounds of searching the Web of Science (WOS) database for articles (Gough et al., 2012 ; Møller & Myles, 2016 ). A systematic literature review using the PRISMA guidelines was used for article selection (Møller & Myles, 2016 ). First, we searched for articles using the keyword “STEM Education” along with “learning”, “teaching”, “curriculum”, and “professional development”, to refine the search results. The search identified a total of 1,531 articles published in the Web of Science from 2012 to 2021 (Fig.  1 ). We initially excluded duplicated articles; the search retrieved a total of 1,513 articles. We then screened the titles, abstract, and keywords of the articles based on the following criteria: (a) empirical research; (b) incorporating instructional design and strategies into STEM teaching; (c) including intervention; (d) focusing on K-12 education and on assessment of learning outcomes; and (e) excluding higher education and STEAM education. During this screening, we discussed which articles met the criteria through round-table discussions, and determined the preliminary target candidates composed of 394 articles. A full-text examination was then conducted. In this round of examination, we removed the articles without clear information about the educational goals and instructional designs related to STEM education. Finally, a corpus of literature comprising 229 articles was formed for further analysis.

PRISMA flow diagram of articles selection

Data analysis

According to the research questions, for this study, we developed a coding framework to conduct content analysis and to categorize the target literature. We first selected paradigmatic references of STEM education and instructional design from high quality publications. These articles provided sets of core concepts and terms to shape the provisional coding categories. We then constantly reviewed the paradigmatic references and discussed them to improve the coding scheme. The final analytic framework with coding categories was developed as follows. The first category, STEM educational goals, includes engagement and career choice (Honey et al., 2014 ; Hsu & Fang, 2019 ), STEM literacy (Falloon et al., 2020 ; Jackson et al., 2021 ), and twenty-first century competencies (Boon, 2019 ) (see Appendix 1). The second category, instructional design, includes design-based learning (Yata et al., 2020 ), inquiry-based learning (Bybee, 2010 ; Halawa et al., 2020 ), project-based learning (Capraro & Slough, 2013 ), and problem-based learning (Priemer et al., 2020 ). From the review articles, we found that 6E - oriented STEM (engage, explore, explain, engineer, enrich, and evaluate) and game-based learning were used for STEM education. These two instructional designs were added to our coding scheme. Articles that did not specify the instructional design were coded as “others”. We then analyzed the outcomes to see whether instructional design successfully improved STEM educational goals. We analyzed design-based, inquiry-based, and project-based learning to achieve engagement and career choice, STEM literacy, and a combination of engagement and career choice and STEM literacy because the selected articles mainly concentrated on them. We categorized the outcomes as positively improved, partially improved, and none (Amador et al., 2021 ). Instructional design that successfully increased STEM educational goals was categorized as positively improved. Instructional design that only increased a part of STEM educational goals was categorized as partially improved. If the instructional design did not increase STEM educational goals, we categorized it as none.

We then extended our coding scheme to identify the features of design-based, inquiry-based, and project-based learning. We focused on these three instructional designs because the selected articles mainly adopted them. Yata et al. ( 2020 ) proposed designing, building, and testing as the features of design-based learning. Other features of instructional designs including questioning or identifying problems, experimenting, analyzing, explaining, collaborating, communicating, and reflecting were proposed as features of inquiry-based learning (Bybee, 2010 ; Halawa et al., 2020 ) and project-based learning (Capraro et al., 2013 ). From the review articles, we found that redesigning was one of the features of instructional design and so added it to the coding scheme. These features of instructional designs were adopted for our coding scheme including questioning or identifying problems, designing, building, testing, experimenting, analyzing, collaborating, reflecting, communicating, and redesigning (Appendix 2). We then calculated the number of articles that adopted these features of instructional designs. We further summarized the features of instructional designs that were frequently used in the selected articles.

In order to make sure the coding process was reliable, we conducted a trial coding by randomly selecting 40 articles and individually categorizing the articles into the aforementioned categories: (a) STEM education goal, and (b) instructional design. Interrater reliability was calculated using a percent agreement metric reaching an acceptable level of 0.85 (McHugh, 2012 ). The discrepancies between authors were negotiated and solved through discussions. The NVivo 11 software was utilized to complete coding works on the remaining articles. We then calculated and reported descriptive statistics of the coded data as the analytic results.

Engagement and career choice as the main focused STEM educational goals

Table 1 shows that more articles focused on engagement and career choice (64 articles) and STEM literacy (61 articles) than twenty-first century competencies (16 articles). The articles also mainly focused on a combination of engagement and career choice and STEM literacy (47 articles) and a combination of engagement and career choice and twenty-first century competencies (18 articles). Nine articles were found that focused on the three learning goals of engagement and career choice, STEM literacy, and twenty-first century competencies.

Table 1 shows the numbers of articles regarding educational goals for STEM education for each 2 years in the review papers. The number of articles per 2 years increased from 2012 to 2021. The trend analysis indicated that engagement and career choice and STEM literacy increased greatly from 2014 to 2021. The numbers of articles focused on the combination of two educational goals (STEM literacy and twenty-first competencies) and three learning goals (engagement and career choice, STEM literacy, and twenty-first competencies) from 2016 to 2021 are also presented.

Design-based and inquiry-based learning as the main instructional designs for STEM

Table 2 reveals the numbers of articles that used instructional design for STEM education. The instructional designs of design-based, inquiry-based, project-based, and problem-based learning were mainly used and continued to be used over the study period. The trend analysis indicated a big jump in design-based, inquiry-based, and project-based learning from 2018 to 2021.

Table 2 also shows the instructional designs and educational goals for STEM from review papers. Most articles adopted design-based (80 articles), inquiry-based (46 articles), project-based (42 articles), and problem-based (27 articles) learning.

Design-based learning mainly used to achieve STEM literacy

The findings shown in Table  3 identified that STEM instructional designs were used differently to achieve engagement and career choice, STEM literacy, and the combination of engagement and career choice and STEM literacy. We found that design-based learning was mainly adopted to achieve STEM literacy (28 articles), while inquiry-based learning was mainly used to achieve engagement and career choice (14 articles) and the combination of engagement and career choice and STEM literacy (14 articles). Also, more articles (15 articles) adopted project-based learning to achieve engagement and career choice. Furthermore, more design-based learning (7 articles) and problem-based learning (4 articles) than inquiry-based learning (2 articles) and project-based learning (1) articles were adopted to achieve twenty-first century competencies.

As we identified that a major portion of the articles adopted design-based learning, inquiry-based learning, and project-based learning focused on engagement and career choice, STEM literacy, and a combination of engagement and career choice and STEM literacy (see Table  3 ), we focused further analysis on the outcomes of STEM educational goals in the articles. The total number of selected articles was 124, of which 54 adopted design-based learning, 37 adopted inquiry-based learning, and 33 adopted project-based learning (Table  4 ).

We categorized the outcomes of STEM education goals into three categories (positively improved, partially improved, and none) (Amador et al., 2021 ). Table 4 shows that the majority of selected articles adopted design-based, inquiry-based, and project-based learning, improving STEM educational goals positively. Most selected articles found that design-based learning positively improved engagement and career choice (10 articles), STEM literacy (26 articles), and a combination of engagement and career choice and STEM literacy (15 articles). Also, most of the selected articles indicated that inquiry learning has a positive impact on engagement and career choice (14 articles), STEM literacy (7 articles), and a combination of engagement and career choice and STEM literacy (13 articles). Project-based learning has demonstrated a beneficial impact on various outcomes, as reported across the selected literature. Specifically, 12 articles documented the enhancement of engagement and career decisions, nine indicated the advancement of STEM literacy, and six discussed a combined effect on engagement, career choice, and STEM literacy.

Frequently used features of STEM instructional designs

To identify the frequently used features of STEM instructional design, we further explored the activities in the selected articles. As previous results show that the major part of articles adopted design-based learning, inquiry-based learning, and project-based learning, we further analyzed the frequently used features of these STEM instructional designs that focused on engagement and career choice, STEM literacy, and combination of engagement and career choice and STEM literacy (see Table  3 ). We selected 54 articles that adopted design-based learning, 37 adopted inquiry-based learning, and 33 adopted project-based learning (Table  5 ).

Frequently used features of design-based learning

Based on the findings, a large portion of the selected articles adopted design-based learning for STEM education (54 articles). Table 5 shows the features that were adopted to implement instructional design for design-based learning. More than half of the selected articles adopted designing, building, testing, collaborating, experimenting, and reflecting. Building (88.9%), designing (87.0%), and testing (70.4%) were used to engage students in engineering (Yata et al., 2020 ). Besides, engaging students in these activities required students to use their knowledge and skills (Kelley & Knowles, 2016 ). For example, Aranda et al. ( 2020 ) and Lie et al. ( 2019 ) implemented design-based learning by asking students to design a process to both prevent and test for cross-pollination of non-GMO from GMO fields. In these selected articles, the curriculums were focused on helping students with designing, building, and testing.

Collaborating, which engages students in working with their classmates in the process of design-based learning, was also mainly emphasized in the selected articles (64.8%). For instance, English and King ( 2019 ) asked students to work with their groups to discuss the possible design of the bridge. Researchers also emphasized experimenting (53.7%) to engage students in design-based learning. English ( 2019 ) engaged students in investigating their feet and shoes. Students collected, represented, analyzed data, and drew conclusions from their findings. Lie et al. ( 2019 ) helped students conduct an investigation to prevent cross-contamination of non-GMO from GMO corn fields. The last critical feature of design-based learning is reflecting (51.9%). In this activity, students engaged in assessing their solutions against a set of criteria and constraints, generating, and evaluating solutions (Cunningham et al., 2019 ). By engaging students in reflecting, students have an opportunity to improve their design and choose their best strategy (Aranda et al., 2020 ; Lie et al., 2019 ).

Frequently used features of inquiry-based learning

As shown in Table  5 , the inquiry-based learning approach was frequently adopted by researchers for STEM education. The features of this approach applied to achieve specific STEM education goals (e.g., engagement and career choice, and STEM literacy) included experimenting (91.9%), collaborating (83.8%), reflecting (62.2%), and communicating (51.4%) (see Table  5 ). This finding indicated that the top three frequently used features of inquiry-based learning in STEM were experimenting, collaborating, and reflecting, which play an essential role when learners try out their ideas about a real-world problem related to STEM. For example, a four-phase inquiry (clarifying the situation, hands-on experiments, representing, analyzing the produced data, and reporting/whole-class discussions) for authentic modeling tasks guided students to develop their credibility of the tasks and to acquire STEM knowledge (Carreira & Baioa, 2018 ).

Frequently used features of project-based learning

As previously mentioned, project-based learning is one of the major approaches to support instructional design in the reviewed STEM education studies. The results shown in Table  5 further indicate the features that researchers tended to integrate into instructional design for project-based learning. More than half (51.5%) of the selected articles reported “reflecting” as a pivotal part of teaching that triggered students’ project-based learning. Reflecting is deemed to depict learners’ active perceptions and deliberation of what they encounter and what they are doing. This may contribute to their competence to retrieve appropriate information, to provide feedback, and to revise the project underlying their learning. For example, in Dasgupta et al.’s ( 2019 ) study, a design journal was utilized to help students’ reflection on what they knew, what is necessary to know, as well as their learning outcomes. Vallera and Bodzin ( 2020 ) also addressed the critical design features of their curriculum to help students achieve information obtaining, evaluating, and communicating in the learning project based on real-world contexts.

Besides, researchers focused on project-based learning regarding STEM have a tendency to foster students’ learning via “identifying problems” (48.5%). These studies can be differentiated into two types based on whether the researchers provided a driving question for the learning project. In Vallera and Bodzin’s ( 2020 ) study, the instructional design arranged a clear-cut driving question to guide students’ thinking about helping farmers to prepare products for sale in a farmers’ market. This led students to extend their thinking and identify further problems while solving the driving question. As for Barak and Assal’s ( 2018 ) study, their instructional design provided open-ended tasks and ill-defined problems. Such arrangements were deemed to afford students’ learning through problem defining and learning objective setting.

It is also noteworthy to mention that the percentages of “experimenting” and “collaborating” in studies involved with project-based learning design were lower than those of studies with design-based learning or inquiry-based learning. However, researchers who were interested in STEM project-based learning would still to some extent agree with instructional design that may provide opportunities to students to access authentic scientific activities and social communications.

This study focused on analyzing the STEM educational goals and instructional designs adopted in the 2012–2021 articles. The findings of this study present knowledge and understanding of the educational goals that need to be considered in STEM education, and how these goals could be achieved by adopting various STEM instructional designs.

Educational goals for STEM education

The majority of reviewed articles adopted instructional designs to achieve the goals of engagement, career choice and STEM literacy. In contrast, few articles focused on twenty-first century competencies. It is not surprising because many recent studies in nature emphasized economic viewpoints and workplace-readiness outcomes in the STEM education field (Cheng et al., 2021 ; Kelley & Knowles, 2016 ). The aspects of engagement and career choice were frequently considered in many previous studies on STEM education (Struyf et al., 2019 ; Vongkulluksn et al., 2018 ; Vossen et al., 2018 ). It indicated that engagement and career choice are important goals for STEM education (Honey et al., 2014 ; Hsu & Fang, 2019 ; Kelley & Knowles, 2016 ). Engaging and motivating students in STEM education are necessary to enhance their understanding of their future careers (Fleer, 2021 ) and to cultivate them to continue STEM learning (Maltese et al., 2014 ). Students who were motivated and interested in STEM education would pursue STEM careers (Maltese & Tai, 2011 ). Furthermore, the aspects of STEM literacy are also addressed in the reviewed articles. The aspects of STEM literacy (e.g., knowledge and capabilities) are deemed important for students’ productive engagement with STEM studies, issues, and practices (Falloon et al., 2020 ). The focus of STEM literacy encourages students to apply their knowledge to life situations and solve problems (Bybee, 2010 ). The importance of STEM literacy has been highlighted in several national documents (e.g., Committee on STEM Education of the National Science & Technology Council, 2018 ; National Research Council, 2011 ; U.S. Department of Education, 2016 ). These findings provide insights into what teaching goals have been focused on in STEM education. For instance, engagement and career choice have been mainly focused on in STEM education because the STEM teaching was designed to connect to the students’ real-world experiences or future professional situations (Strobel et al., 2013 ). The authentic and meaningful experience could engage and motivate students in the activity, and later they should pursue their future careers related to what they have learned.

However, there are few selected articles focused on twenty-first century competencies, although many previous studies considered the twenty-first century competencies as important goals for students. Some studies have advocated that students should be engaged in interdisciplinary sets of complex problems and encourage them to use critical thinking and develop their creativity and innovation as well as collaboration (Finegold & Notabartolo, 2010 ; Jang, 2016 ). Engaging students in STEM education focused on twenty-first century competencies could prepare them for the workplace and help them become successful in STEM-related fields (Jang, 2016 ). Future researchers should consider integrating twenty-first century competencies into STEM education to complement the existing focus on engagement, career choice, and STEM literacy, preparing students for a broader range of skills necessary for the modern workforce.

Instructional design for STEM education

Although the reviewed articles adopted various instructional designs for STEM education, the articles mostly adopted design-based rather than inquiry-based, project-based, or problem-based learning. The findings are in accordance with the existing literature on STEM education. Notably, these results corroborate the conclusions drawn from a comprehensive systematic review conducted by Mclure et al. ( 2022 ). Design-based learning was adopted to achieve the goals of STEM literacy, engagement and career choice, and this instructional design tended to be used more often according to the trend analysis. This indicated that design-based learning was considered as a main instructional design for STEM education. This instructional design has become an essential approach to engaging K-12 students in STEM education (Bybee, 2013 ; National Academy of Engineering & National Research Council, 2014 ; National Research Council, 2013 ). Some researchers claimed that students who participate in design-based learning could make meaningful connections between knowledge and skills by solving problems (English & King, 2019 ; Kelley et al., 2010 ). Design-based learning engages students in authentic problems and challenges that increase their level of engagement (Sadler et al., 2000 ), help students learn fundamental scientific principles (Mehalik et al., 2008 ), and build students’ natural and intuitive experience (Fortus et al., 2004 ). In the process of design, students learn the concepts of science, technology, and mathematics in the process of designing, building, or testing products (Yata et al., 2020 ). For instance, students have to learn the concept of energy to design a house that produces more renewable energy than it consumes over a period of 1 year (Zheng et al., 2020 ). It was also found that the majority of selected articles which adopted design-based learning successfully improved learners’ engagement, career choice, and STEM literacy (Table  4 ). The results align with the findings of a previous meta-analysis focusing on STEM education at the middle school level (Thomas & Larwin, 2023 ). K-12 students’ STEM learning successfully improved because the selected articles reported studies conducting design-based learning in K-12 education. For example, Cunningham et al. ( 2019 ) successfully implemented design-based learning to improve elementary students’ learning outcomes, while Fan et al. ( 2018 ) found that design-based learning positively improved secondary students’ conceptual knowledge and attitude.

However, the selected articles have not equally used the features of design-based learning such as collaborating, reflecting, and redesigning. We identified that the selected articles mainly used designing, building, and testing to engage students in engineering activities. One of the explanations for this finding is that researchers may face challenges in implementing a full cycle of design-based learning because of the time limit of instruction, so they only focus on the process of designing, building, and testing. Collaborating, reflecting, and redesigning should be emphasized while adopting effective design-based learning because students could solve complex problems by collaborating with others. With collaboration, the students can learn/solve problems through discussion within the group. This activity allows students to share new ideas and debate with others to generate solutions. Reflecting on the data and experience allows students to make improvements to their model and leads them to redesign it to produce a better model. This process could also grow students’ science knowledge (Fortus et al., 2004 ). This finding hence suggests future studies, and educators emphasize more collaborating, reflecting, and redesigning for design-based learning for STEM instruction.

Moreover, inquiry-based learning, project-based learning, and problem-based learning were adopted in some selected articles. Inquiry-based learning was considered to enable and to promote connections within and across curriculum disciplines and improve students’ engagement in STEM education (Attard et al., 2021 ). Project-based and problem-based learning can be used to engage students in authentic problems (Blumenfeld et al., 1991 ) and to improve their engagement in STEM education (Beckett et al., 2016 ). Furthermore, we identified that inquiry-based learning mainly engages students in experimenting, collaborating, and reflecting (Kim, 2016 ), and project-based learning (Han et al., 2015 ) mainly engages students in identifying problems and reflecting. This finding reveals the frequently used features of inquiry-based learning and project-based learning. Teachers could use these components of instructional design for preparing their instruction for teaching STEM. Given these findings, it is advisable to explore the integration of inquiry-based, project-based, and problem-based learning alongside design-based learning in STEM education. Such an approach may enhance the effectiveness of STEM education by providing a more comprehensive strategy to improve STEM literacy, engagement, and career choice among K-12 students.

However, we identified that some essentials of these instructional designs have not been included in selected articles. For instance, studies adopting inquiry-based learning rarely asked students to propose their questions, although questioning is one of the frequently used features of inquiry (National Research Council, 2012 , 2013 ). One of the possible explanations for this finding is that students may have a lack of experience with inquiry learning and not know how to formulate meaningful questions, and they may tend to propose low-level factual questions related to their personal interests (Krajcik et al., 1998 ). Besides, STEM education requires students to engage in complex real-world problems, which requires sufficient ability to propose meaningful questions. Yet, we expect that future studies and teachers should encourage students to propose their own questions because questioning improves students’ creativity, critical thinking, and problem solving skills (Hofstein et al., 2005 ). Teachers could start asking students to propose their own questions once they have experience and ability to propose good questions. Krajcik et al. ( 1998 ) suggested providing situations in which students can receive informative and critical feedback from teachers, classmates, and others so as to propose their own significant questions.

Conclusions

From an instructional design perspective, this study provides crucial insights into practical STEM education approaches. The findings underscore the importance of aligning instructional designs with specific STEM educational goals. The trend analysis revealed a significant increase in focus on engagement, career choice, and STEM literacy from 2014 to 2021, with a particularly sharp rise observed between 2018 and 2021. Each instructional design approach demonstrated unique strengths: design-based learning fosters STEM literacy. In contrast, inquiry-based and project-based learning effectively enhanced engagement and career choice. The study delineates specific features of these instructional designs that contribute to their success, such as building and testing in design-based learning, experimenting and collaborating in inquiry-based learning, and reflecting and problem identification in project-based learning.

Furthermore, this study advocates for a deliberate and systematic application of inquiry-based and project-based learning alongside design-based learning. Such integration is likely to cultivate a more dynamic and interactive learning environment that encourages critical thinking, problem-solving, and collaborative skills among students. The integration of twenty-first century competencies in the instructional design of STEM, though less presented, suggests a potential research space for further exploration of STEM teaching. This study recommends an expanded focus on incorporating these competencies to ensure a holistic educational approach that addresses immediate educational goals and equips students with essential skills for future challenges.

Teachers’ limited understanding of STEM instructional design also presents a significant challenge, necessitating targeted professional development initiatives. Educators must comprehend and implement a comprehensive approach that aligns educational goals with appropriate instructional designs to optimize STEM learning outcomes. This approach involves clearly defining learning objectives, such as STEM literacy, selecting suitable instructional designs, and effectively guiding students through the chosen learning process.

The findings in this study furnish instructional designers and educators with a clear framework for developing targeted STEM curricula. The research accentuates the importance of aligning instructional design features with specific educational goals, suggesting that a nuanced, goal-oriented approach to STEM instruction can significantly enhance student outcomes in literacy, engagement, and career readiness. These insights offer a robust foundation for refining and optimizing instructional design strategies in STEM education.

Availability of data and materials

No applicable.

Amador, J. M., Bragelman, J., & Superfine, A. C. (2021). Prospective teachers’ noticing: A literature review of methodological approaches to support and analyze noticing. Teaching and Teacher Education . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103256

Article   Google Scholar  

Andrews, T. C., Speer, N. M., & Shultz, G. V. (2022). Building bridges: A review and synthesis of research on teaching knowledge for undergraduate instruction in science, engineering, and mathematics. International Journal of STEM Education, 9 (1), 66. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00380-w

Aranda, M. L., Guzey, S. S., & Moore, T. J. (2020). Multidisciplinary discourses in an engineering design-based science curricular unit. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30 (3), 507–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09517-5

Attard, C., Berger, N., & Mackenzie, E. (2021). The positive influence of inquiry-based learning teacher professional learning and industry partnerships on student engagement with STEM. Frontiers in Education . https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.693221

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

Beckett, G. H., Hemmings, A., Maltbie, C., Wright, K., Sherman, M., & Sersion, B. (2016). Urban high school student engagement through cincySTEM iTEST projects. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25 (6), 995–1007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9640-6

Berland, L., Steingut, R., & Ko, P. (2014). High school student perceptions of the utility of the engineering design process: Creating opportunities to engage in engineering practices and apply math and science content. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23 (6), 705–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9498-4

Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26 (3–4), 369–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139

Boon, N. S. (2019). Exploring STEM competences for the 21st century . Current and Critical Issues in Curriculum, Learning and Assessment 30. Geneva: IBEUNESCO. Retrieved June 19, 2022, from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000368485.locale=en

Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112 (1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x

Bryan, L. A., Moore, T. J., Johnson, C. C., & Roehrig, G. H. (2015). Integrated STEM education. In C. C. Johnson, E. E. Peters-Burton, & T. J. Moore (Eds.), STEM roadmap: A framework for integration (pp. 23–37). Taylor & Francis.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70 (1), 30–35.

Google Scholar  

Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education . NSTA press.

Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., & Morgan, J. (Eds.). (2013). Project-based learning: An integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach (2nd ed.). Sense.

Capraro, R. M., & Slough, S. W. (2013). Why PBL? Why STEM? Why now? an introduction to STEM project-based learning. In R. M. Capraro, M. M. Capraro, & J. R. Morgan (Eds.), STEM Project-based learning: An integrated Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) approach (pp. 1–5). Sense Publishers.

Carreira, S., & Baioa, A. M. (2018). Mathematical modelling with hands-on experimental tasks: On the student’s sense of credibility. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 50 (1–2), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0905-1

Chen, C. S., & Lin, J. W. (2019). A practical action research study of the impact of maker-centered STEM-PjBL on a rural middle school in Taiwan. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17 , S85–S108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09961-8

Cheng, L., Antonenko, P., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & MacFadden, B. (2021). Exploring the role of 3D printing and STEM integration levels in students’ STEM career interest. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52 (3), 1262–1278. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13077

Committee on STEM Education of the National Science & Technology Council. (2018). Charting a course for success: America’s strategy for STEM education . Executive Office of the President National Science and Technology Council.

Cunningham, C. M., Lachapelle, C. P., Brennan, R. T., Kelly, G. J., Tunis, C. S. A., & Gentry, C. A. (2019). The impact of engineering curriculum design principles on elementary students’ engineering and science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57 (3), 423–453. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21601

Dasgupta, C., Magana, A. J., & Vieira, C. (2019). Investigating the affordances of a CAD enabled learning environment for promoting integrated STEM learning. Computers & Education, 129 , 122–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.014

Ejiwale, J. (2013). Barriers to successful implementation of STEM education. Journal of Education and Learning, 7 (2), 63–74.

English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3 (1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1

English, L. D. (2017). Advancing elementary and middle school STEM education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15 (1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9802-x

English, L. D. (2019). Learning while designing in a fourth-grade integrated STEM problem. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29 (5), 1011–1032. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9482-z

English, L. D., & King, D. (2019). STEM integration in sixth grade: Designing and constructing paper bridges. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17 (5), 863–884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9912-0

English, L. D., King, D., & Smeed, J. (2017). Advancing integrated STEM learning through engineering design: Sixth-grade students’ design and construction of earthquake resistant buildings. Journal of Educational Research, 110 (3), 255–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1264053

Falloon, G., Hatzigianni, M., Bower, M., Forbes, A., & Stevenson, M. (2020). Understanding K-12 STEM education: A framework for developing STEM literacy. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29 (3), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09823-x

Fan, S.-C., Yu, K.-C., & Lin, K.-Y. (2021). A framework for implementing an engineering-focused stem curriculum. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19 (8), 1523–1541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10129-y

Fan, S.-C., Yu, K.-C., & Lou, S.-J. (2018). Why do students present different design objectives in engineering design projects? International Journal of Technology and Design Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9420-5

Finegold, D., & Notabartolo, A. S. (2010). 21st century competencies and their impact: an interdisciplinary literature review. In D. Finegold, M. Gatta, H. Salzman, & S. J. Schurman (Eds.), Transforming the US workforce development system (pp. 19–56). Labor and Employment Relations Association.

Fleer, M. (2021). When preschool girls engineer: Future imaginings of being and becoming an engineer. Learning Culture and Social Interaction, 30 , 100372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100372

Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (10), 1081–1110. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.2004

Gladstone, J. R., & Cimpian, A. (2021). Which role models are effective for which students? A systematic review and four recommendations for maximizing the effectiveness of role models in STEM. International Journal of STEM Education, 8 (1), 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00315-x

Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2012). Introducing systematic reviews. In D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (pp. 1–16). Sage.

Grangeat, M., Harrison, C., & Dolin, J. (2021). Exploring assessment in STEM inquiry learning classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 43 (3), 345–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1903617

Guzey, S. S., Moore, T. J., Harwell, M., & Moreno, M. (2016). STEM integration in middle school life science: Student learning and attitudes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25 (4), 550–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9612-x

Halawa, S., Hsu, Y.-S., & Zhang, W.-X. (2023). Analysis of physics textbooks through the lens of inquiry practices. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 32 (4), 497–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-022-00671-4

Halawa, S., Hsu, Y.-S., & Zhang, W.-X. (2024). Inquiry activity design from Singaporean and indonesian physics textbooks. Science & Education, 33 (3), 581–607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00396-2

Halawa, S., Hsu, Y.-S., Zhang, W.-X., Kuo, Y.-R., & Wu, J.-Y. (2020). Features and trends of teaching strategies for scientific practices from a review of 2008–2017 articles. International Journal of Science Education, 42 (7), 1183–1206. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1752415

Han, S., Capraro, R., & Capraro, M. M. (2015). How science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (stem) project-based learning (pbl) affects high, middle, and low achievers differently: The impact of student factors on achievement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13 (5), 1089–1113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9526-0

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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20439

Hernandez, P. R., Bodin, R., Elliott, J. W., Ibrahim, B., Rambo-Hernandez, K. E., Chen, T. W., & de Miranda, M. A. (2014). Connecting the STEM dots: Measuring the effect of an integrated engineering design intervention. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24 (1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-013-9241-0

Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis, M., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Developing students’ ability to ask more and better questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42 (7), 791–806. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20072

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

Hsu, Y.-S., & Fang, S.-C. (2019). Opportunities and challenges of STEM education. In Y.-S. Hsu & Y.-F. Yeh (Eds.), Asia-Pacific STEM teaching practices: From theoretical frameworks to practices (pp. 1–16). Springer Singapore.

Jackson, C., Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., Bush, S. B., Maiorca, C., Roberts, T., Yost, C., & Fowler, A. (2021). Equity-oriented conceptual framework for k-12 STEM literacy. International Journal of STEM Education, 8 (1), 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00294-z

Jang, H. (2016). Identifying 21st century STEM competencies using workplace data. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25 (2), 284–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9593-1

Johnson, C. C., Peters-Burton, E. E., & Moore, T. J. (2015). STEM road map: A framework for integrated STEM Education . Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Kang, J., Salonen, A., Tolppanen, S., Scheersoi, A., Hense, J., Rannikmae, M., & Keinonen, T. (2021). Effect of embedded careers education in science lessons on students’ interest, awareness, and aspirations. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10238-2

Kayan-Fadlelmula, F., Sellami, A., Abdelkader, N., & Umer, S. (2022). A systematic review of STEM education research in the GCC countries: Trends, gaps and barriers. International Journal of STEM Education, 9 (1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00319-7

Kelley, T. R., Brenner, D. C., & Pieper, J. T. (2010). Two approaches to engineering design: Observations in STEM education. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 47 (2), 5–40.

Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3 (1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z

Kim, H. (2016). Inquiry-based science and technology enrichment program for middle school-aged female students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25 (2), 174–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9584-2

Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7 (3–4), 313–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.1998.9672057

Lamb, R., Akmal, T., & Petrie, K. (2015). Development of a cognition-priming model describing learning in a STEM classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52 (3), 410–437. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21200

Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S., et al. (2012). Nature of scientific knowledge and scientific inquiry: Building instructional capacity through professional development. In B. J. Fraser (Ed.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 335–359). Springer.

Lie, R., Guzey, S. S., & Moore, T. J. (2019). Implementing engineering in diverse upper elementary and middle school science classrooms: Student learning and attitudes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28 (2), 104–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9751-3

Lin, K.-Y., Hsiao, H.-S., Williams, P. J., & Chen, Y.-H. (2020). Effects of 6E-oriented STEM practical activities in cultivating middle school students’ attitudes toward technology and technological inquiry ability. Research in Science & Technological Education, 38 (1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2018.1561432

López, N., Morgan, D. L., Hutchings, Q. R., & Davis, K. (2022). Revisiting critical STEM interventions: A literature review of STEM organizational learning. International Journal of STEM Education, 9 (1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00357-9

Maltese, A. V., Melki, C. S., & Wiebke, H. L. (2014). The nature of experiences responsible for the generation and maintenance of interest in STEM. Science Education, 98 (6), 937–962. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21132

Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among US students. Science Education, 95 (5), 877–907. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20441

Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6 (1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2

Martín-Páez, T., Aguilera, D., Perales-Palacios, F. J., & Vílchez-González, J. M. (2019). What are we talking about when we talk about STEM education? A Review of Literature. Science Education, 103 (4), 799–822. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21522

McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22 , 276–282.

McLure, F. I., Tang, K.-S., & Williams, P. J. (2022). What do integrated STEM projects look like in middle school and high school classrooms? A systematic literature review of empirical studies of iSTEM projects. International Journal of STEM Education, 9 (1), 73. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00390-8

Means, B., Wang, H., Wei, X., Lynch, S., Peters, V., Young, V., & Allen, C. (2017). Expanding STEM opportunities through inclusive STEM-focused high schools. Science Education, 101 (5), 681–715. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21281

Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schuun, C. D. (2008). Middle-school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97 (1), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00955.x

Møller, A. M., & Myles, P. S. (2016). What makes a good systematic review and meta-analysis? BJA British Journal of Anaesthesia, 117 (4), 428–430. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aew264

National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research . National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics . National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas . The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2013). Monitoring progress toward successful K-12 STEM education: A nation advancing? National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13509

Nguyen, K. A., Borrego, M., Finelli, C. J., DeMonbrun, M., Crockett, C., Tharayil, S., Shekhar, P., Waters, C., & Rosenberg, R. (2021). Instructor strategies to aid implementation of active learning: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 8 (1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00270-7

Preininger, A. M. (2017). Embedded mathematics in chemistry: A case study of students’ attitudes and mastery. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26 (1), 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9651-3

Priemer, B., Eilerts, K., Filler, A., Pinkwart, N., Rösken-Winter, B., Tiemann, R., & Zu Belzen, A. U. (2020). A framework to foster problem-solving in STEM and computing education. Research in Science & Technological Education, 38 (1), 105–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2019.1600490

Sadler, P. M., Coyle, H. P., & Schwartz, M. (2000). Engineering competitions in the middle school classroom: Key elements in developing effective design challenges. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9 (3), 299–327. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS0903_3

Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68 (4), 20–26.

Sanders, M. E., & Wells, J. (2006). Integrative STEM education course syllabi & instructional materials: STEM education foundations . In STEM Education Trends & Issues, STEM Education Seminar.

Schütte, K., & Köller, O. (2015). ‘Discover, understand, implement, and transfer’: Effectiveness of an intervention programme to motivate students for science. International Journal of Science Education, 37 (14), 2306–2325. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1077537

Shaughnessy, J. M. (2013). Mathematics in a STEM context. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 18 (6), 324. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacmiddscho.18.6.0324

Sinatra, G. M., Mukhopadhyay, A., Allbright, T. N., Marsh, J. A., & Polikoff, M. S. (2017). Speedometry: A vehicle for promoting interest and engagement through integrated STEM instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 110 (3), 308–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1273178

Smyrnaiou, Z., Georgakopoulou, E., & Sotiriou, S. (2020). Promoting a mixed-design model of scientific creativity through digital storytelling—the CCQ model for creativity. International Journal of STEM Education, 7 (1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00223-6

Stehle, S. M., & Peters-Burton, E. E. (2019). Developing student 21st Century skills in selected exemplary inclusive STEM high schools. International Journal of STEM Education, 6 (1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0192-1

Strobel, J., Wang, J., Weber, N. R., & Dyehouse, M. (2013). The role of authenticity in design-based learning environments: The case of engineering education. Computers & Education, 64 , 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.026

Struyf, A., De Loof, H., Boeve-de Pauw, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2019). Students’ engagement in different STEM learning environments: Integrated STEM education as promising practice? International Journal of Science Education, 41 (10), 1387–1407. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1607983

Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2019). Investigating the use of robotics to increase girls’ interest in engineering during early elementary school. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29 (5), 1033–1051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9483-y

Thomas, D. R., & Larwin, K. H. (2023). A meta-analytic investigation of the impact of middle school STEM education: Where are all the students of color? International Journal of STEM Education, 10 (1), 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00425-8

U.S. Department of Education. (2016). STEM 2026: A vision for innovation in STEM education . U.S. Department of Education.

Vallera, F. L., & Bodzin, A. M. (2020). Integrating STEM with AgLIT (Agricultural literacy through innovative technology): The efficacy of a project-based curriculum for upper-primary students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18 (3), 419–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09979-y

Vongkulluksn, V. W., Matewos, A. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Marsh, J. A. (2018). Motivational factors in makerspaces: A mixed methods study of elementary school students’ situational interest, self-efficacy, and achievement emotions. International Journal of STEM Education, 5 (1), 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0129-0

Vossen, T. E., Henze, I., Rippe, R. C. A., Van Driel, J. H., & De Vries, M. J. (2018). Attitudes of secondary school students towards doing research and design activities. International Journal of Science Education, 40 (13), 1629–1652. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1494395

Wilson, K. (2021). Exploring the challenges and enablers of implementing a STEM project-based learning programme in a diverse junior secondary context. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19 (5), 881–897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10103-8

Wu, Y., Guo, S., & Zhu, L. (2019). Design and implementation of data collection mechanism for 3D design course based on xAPI standard. Interactive Learning Environments, 28 (5), 602–619. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1696842

Yata, C., Ohtani, T., & Isobe, M. (2020). Conceptual framework of STEM based on Japanese subject principles. International Journal of STEM Education, 7 (1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00205-8

Zheng, J., Xing, W., Zhu, G., Chen, G., Zhao, H., & Xie, C. (2020). Profiling self-regulation behaviors in STEM learning of engineering design. Computers & Education . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103669

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors express their sincere gratitude to the editors and reviewers for their invaluable inputs and suggestions, which have significantly enhanced the quality of this work.

This work was financially supported by the Institute for Research Excellence in Learning Sciences of National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU) from The Featured Areas Research Center Program within the framework of the Higher Education Sprout Project by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Research Center for Education, National Research and Innovation Agency, Jakarta, Indonesia

Suarman Halawa

Center for Teacher Education, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

Tzu-Chiang Lin

Center for the Liberal Arts, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

Graduate Institute of Science Education, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan

Ying-Shao Hsu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

SH contributed to the conception of the study, research question, methods, analysis, and interpretation of the data. TC contributed to the data collection, analysis and interpretation of data, and editing of the manuscript. YS contributed to the conception of the study, data analysis and interpretation, and editing of the manuscript. All authors equally contributed to writing, reading, and approving the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ying-Shao Hsu .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The author 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.

Description of STEM education goals

Description of the elements of instructional design for STEM education

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

Cite this article.

Halawa, S., Lin, TC. & Hsu, YS. Exploring instructional design in K-12 STEM education: a systematic literature review. IJ STEM Ed 11 , 43 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00503-5

Download citation

Received : 15 April 2024

Accepted : 24 August 2024

Published : 05 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00503-5

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

• STEM education
• Engagement and career choice
• STEM literacy

International Journal of Research and Review

International Journal of Research and Review (IJRR)

Issn: 2349-9788 (online) issn: 2454-2237 (print).

International Journal of Research and Review (E-ISSN: 2349-9788; P-ISSN: 2454-2237)is a double-blind, Indexed peer-reviewed, open access international journal dedicated to promotion of research in multidisciplinary areas. We define Open Access-journals as journals that use a funding model that does not charge readers or their institutions for access. From the BOAI definition of "Open Access" users shall have the right to "read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link" to the full texts of articles. The journal publishes original research article from broad areas like Accountancy, Agriculture, Anthropology, Anatomy, Architecture, Arts, Biochemistry, Bioinformatics, Biology, Bioscience, Biostatistics, Biotechnology, Botany, Chemistry, Commerce, Computer Science, Dairy Technology, Dentistry, Ecology, Economics, Education, Engineering, Environmental Science, Food & Nutrition, Forensic Science, Forestry, Geology, Geography, Health Sciences, History, Home Science, Journalism & Mass Communication, Language, Law, Life Science, Literature, Management, Marine Science, Mathematics, Medical Science, Microbiology, Pathology, Paramedical Science, Pharmacy, Philosophy, Physical Education, Physiotherapy, Physics, Political Science, Public Health, Psychology, Science, Social Science, Sociology, Sports Medicine, Statistics, Tourism, Veterinary Science & Animal Husbandry, Yoga, Zoology etc.

The International Journal of Research and Review (IJRR) provides rapid publication of articles in all areas of research.

Frequency: Monthly Language: English

Scope of Journal

International Journal of Research and Review (IJRR) is a double-blind Indexed peer-reviewed open access journal which publishes original articles, reviews and short communications that are not under consideration for publication elsewhere. The journal publishes papers based on original research that are judged by critical reviews, to make a substantial contribution in the field. It aims at rapid publication of high quality research results while maintaining rigorous review process. The Journal welcomes the submission of manuscripts that meet the general criteria of significance and academic excellence. Papers are published approximately one month after acceptance.

IJRR is dedicated to promote high quality research work in multidisciplinary field.

Index Copernicus Value (ICV) for 2022: 100.00; ICV 2021: 100.00; ICV 2020: 100.00; ICV 2019: 96.58; ICV 2018: 95.79; ICV 2017: 85.08; ICV 2016: 67.22; ICV 2015: 73.64; ICV 2014: 52.85

Salient features of our journal.

✵ Journal is indexed with Index Copernicus and other indexing agencies.

✵ Print version (hard copy) with P-ISSN number is available.

✵ Fast Publication Process.

✵ Free e-Certificate of Publication on author's request.

How to Submit Manuscript:

Thesis publication, research articles.

Nitin V Vichare, Rakesh Maggon

Smita Deshkar, Niranjan Patil, Pranali Balmiki

Ashish Choudhary, Riyaz Farooq, Aamir Rashid Purra, Fayaz Ahmed Ahangar

Joshi Medhavi H., Desai Devangi S, Singh Lalli M, Joshi Vaibhavi A

Jasvir Singh

Mariya Thomas Chacko, Tima Babu, Jenin Vincent Parambi, Irene T. Ivan, Sheik Haja Sherief

Click Here to Read more...

Anwar Sholeh, Alwi Thamrin Nasution, Radar Radius Tarigan

Arnaldi Fernando, Dairion Gatot, Yan Indra Fajar Sitepu

Iji Clement O, Age Terungwa James

Varsha S. Dhage, Pratibha Chougule

Uzma Khan, Arindam Ghosh

Dr. Uzma Khan, Dr. Arindam Ghosh, Dr. John Pramod

Our Journals

Visit Website

International Journal of Science and Healthcare Research

Galore International Journal of Health Sciences and Research

Galore International Journal of Applied Sciences and Humanities

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

Announcements

• Article Template

International Journal of Studies in Education and Science

The International Journal of Studies in Education and Science (IJSES) is a peer-reviewed scholarly online journal. The IJSES is  published quarterly  in Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall.

IJSES is affiliated with International Society for Technology, Education and Science (ISTES) : www.istes.org

The IJSES is an international journal and welcomes any research papers on education and science using techniques from and applications in any technical knowledge domain: original theoretical works, literature reviews, research reports, social issues, psychological issues, curricula, learning environments, book reviews, and review articles.

The focus of the journal is mainly on education so submissions from science areas should have educational aspects. The journal is aimed at covering educational topics.

The articles should be original, unpublished, and not in consideration for publication elsewhere at the time of submission to the IJSES.

Please consider that editor and reviewers invest significant time in the submission. Thus, the submission cannot be withdrawn without the approval of the editorial office during the review, the revision, the production after acceptance or publication process.

The submission is first reviewed by the editorial team. This i nitial review i s completed in two weeks. If the submission passes the initial review , then the blind review takes about 6 months.

The journal has a double-blind review process. Any manuscript submitted for consideration in publication in the regular or special issue of the journal is reviewed by at least two international reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area. 

The final author versions of the papers should be proofread in terms of language and APA style. If any paper does not meet the language and/or APA style standards at any level of review or publication process, then it will be rejected.

The template is not mandatory for articles submitted for review. The template can be used for accepted papers.

Vol 5, No 4 (2024)

Table of contents.

Abstracting/Indexing

International Journal of Studies in Education and Science (IJSES)  - ISSN:  2767-9799

affiliated with

International Society for Technology, Education and Science (ISTES)

www.istes.org

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

Citation Analysis

• Google Scholar
• Scholar Metrics
• Web of Science

Quick Links

• Author Guideline
• Editorial Boards

Online Submissions

• Abstracting and Indexing
• Publication Ethics
• Visitor Statistics

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians
• Announcements

Submissions

Author guidelines, copyright notice, privacy statement, author fees.

Already have a Username/Password for International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE)? Go to Login

Need a Username/Password? Go to Registration

Registration and login are required to submit items online and to check the status of current submissions.

The International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE) is an interdisciplinary publication of original research and writing on education which publishes papers to international audiences of educational researchers. The IJERE aims to provide a forum for scholarly understanding of the field of education and plays an important role in promoting the process that accumulated knowledge, values, and skills are transmitted from one generation to another; and to make methods and contents of evaluation and research in education available to teachers, administrators and research workers. The journal encompasses a variety of topics, including child development, curriculum, reading comprehension, philosophies of education and educational approaches, etc. Papers published in the journal: (1) report evaluation and research findings; (2) treat conceptual and methodological issues; and/or (3) consider the implications of the above for action; and/or (4) an extensive book reviews section and also occasional reports on educational materials and equipment. Kindly please download the template of the IJERE .

Checklist for preparing your paper for publication

You can use this list to carry out a final check of your submission before you send it to the journal for review.

• Is your manuscript adhere to the minimum standards? (written in English; the length of submitted paper is at least 4 pages and no more than 20 pages; use of a tool such as EndNote , Mendeley , or Zotero   for reference management and formatting , and choose IEEE style) 
• Is your manuscript written in IJERE format ?  At this stage, it is essential that you follow every detail of the IJERE format. Please try to follow the format as closely as possible.
• is your title adequate and is your abstract correctly written? The title of paper is max 10 words, without Acronym or abbreviation. The Abstract (MAX 200 WORDS) should be informative and completely self-explanatory (no citation in abstract) , provide a clear statement of the problem , the proposed approach or solution, and point out major findings and conclusions.
• Authors are suggested to present their articles in the sections structure : Introduction - The Proposed Method/Algorithm/Procedure specifically designed (optional) - Research Method - Results and Discussion – Conclusion. Authors may present complex proofs of theorems or non-obvious proofs of correctness of algorithms after introduction section (obvious theorems & straightforward proofs of existing theorems are NOT needed).
• Introduction section: explain the context of the study and state the precise objective. An Introduction should contain the following three parts: - Background: Authors have to make clear what the context is. Ideally, authors should give an idea of the state-of-the art of the field the report is about. - The Problem: If there was no problem, there would be no reason for writing a manuscript, and definitely no reason for reading it. So, please tell readers why they should proceed reading. Experience shows that for this part a few lines are often sufficient. - The Proposed Solution: Now and only now! - authors may outline the contribution of the manuscript. Here authors have to make sure readers point out what are the novel aspects of authors work. Authors should place the paper in proper context by citing relevant papers. At least, 5 references (recently journal articles) are used in this section.
• Method section: the presentation of the experimental methods should be clear and complete in every detail facilitating reproducibility by other scientists.
• Results and discussion section: The presentation of results should be simple and straightforward in style. This section report the most important findings, including results of statistical analyses as apropriate and comparisons to other research results. Results given in figures should not be repeated in tables. This is where the author(s) should explain in words what he/she/they discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. This section should be supported suitable references.
• Conclusion section: Summarize sentences the primary outcomes of the study in a paragraph. Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?
• Language . If an article is poorly written due to grammatical errors, while it may make it more difficult to understand the science.
• Please be sure that the manuscript is up to date. It is expected that 10 to 20%  of references are to recent papers.
• Is the manuscript clearly written?  Is the article exciting? Does the content flow well from one section to another? Please try to keep your manuscript on the proper level.  It should be easy to understand by well qualified professionals, but at the same time please avoid describing well known facts (use proper references instead). Often manuscripts receive negative reviews because reviewers are not able to understand the manuscript and this is authors' (not reviewers') fault.  Notice, that if reviewers have difficulties, then other readers will face the same problem and there is no reason to publish the manuscript.
• Do you have enough references?  We will usually expect a minimum of 10 to 25 references primarily to journal papers, depending on the length of the paper. Citations of textbooks should be used very rarely and citations to web pages should be avoided. All cited papers should be referenced within the text of the manuscript.
• Figures and Tables. Relation of Tables or Figures and Text: Because tables and figures supplement the text, all tables and figures should be referenced in the text. Authos also must explain what the reader should look for when using the table or figure. Focus only on the important point the reader should draw from them, and leave the details for the reader to examine on her own. Figures: a.    All figures appearing in article must be numbered in the order that they appear in the text. b.    Each figure must have a caption fully explaining the content c.    Figure captions are presented as a paragraph starting with the figure number i.e. Figure 1, Figure 2, etc. d.    Figure captions appear below the figure e.    Each figure must be fully cited if taken from another article f.    all figures must be referred to in the body of the article Tables: a.    Material that is tabular in nature must appear in a numbered captioned table. b.    All tables appearing in article must be numbered in the order that they appear in the text. c.    Each table must have a caption fully explaining the content with the table number  i.e. Table 1, Table 2, etc. d.    Each column must have a clear and concise heading e.    Tables are to be presented with single horizontal line under: the table caption, the column headings and at the end of the table. f.    All tables must be referred to in the body of the article g.    Each table must be fully cited if taken from another article
• This theory was first put forward in 1970 [9]."
• Sutikno [10] has argued that...
• Several recent studies [7], [9], [11]-[15] have suggested that....
• ...end of the line for my research [16].
• Self-citations: to control for citation manipulation ( COPE, 2019 ), this journal asks that authors keep self-citation to a minimum. We would strongly recommend no more than 5 (including jointly authored publications), or 20% self-citations, whichever number is lower.
• Please be aware that for the final submission of regular paper you will be asked to tailor your paper so the last page is not half empty.

Submission Preparation Checklist

As part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.

• The submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor).

The submission file is in Microsoft Word file format or LATEX .

If you prepare your paper using LATEX, please upload your PDF file to our online system and submit your LATEX source files to [email protected], cc: [email protected]

• Where available, URLs for the references have been provided.
• The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines , which is found in About the Journal.

COPYRIGHT TRANSFER FORM

The copyright to this article is transferred to Institute of Advanced Engineering and Science (IAES)  if and when the article is accepted for publication. The undersigned hereby transfers any and all rights in and to the paper including without limitation all copyrights to IAES . The undersigned hereby represents and warrants that the paper is original and that he/she is the author of the paper, except for material that is clearly identified as to its original source, with permission notices from the copyright owners where required. The undersigned represents that he/she has the power and authority to make and execute this assignment.

We declare that:

1.        This paper has not been published in the same form elsewhere.

2.        It will not be submitted anywhere else for publication prior to acceptance/rejection by this Journal.

3.        A copyright permission is obtained for materials published elsewhere and which require this permission for reproduction.

Furthermore, I/We hereby transfer the unlimited rights of publication of the above mentioned paper in whole to IAES . The copyright transfer covers the exclusive right to reproduce and distribute the article, including reprints, translations, photographic reproductions, microform, electronic form (offline, online) or any other reproductions of similar nature.

The corresponding author signs for and accepts responsibility for releasing this material on behalf of any and all co-authors. This agreement is to be signed by at least one of the authors who have obtained the assent of the co-author(s) where applicable. After submission of this agreement signed by the corresponding author, changes of authorship or in the order of the authors listed will not be accepted.

Retained Rights/Terms and Conditions

1.        Authors retain all proprietary rights in any process, procedure, or article of manufacture described in the Work.

2.        Authors may reproduce or authorize others to reproduce the Work or derivative works for the author’s personal use or for company use, provided that the source and the IAES copyright notice are indicated, the copies are not used in any way that implies IAES endorsement of a product or service of any employer, and the copies themselves are not offered for sale.

3.        Although authors are permitted to re-use all or portions of the Work in other works, this does not include granting third-party requests for reprinting, republishing, or other types of re-use.

The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.

This journal charges the following author fees.

To support the cost of wide open access dissemination of research results, to manage the various costs associated with handling and editing the submitted manuscripts, and to manage journal management and publication in general, the authors or the author's institution is requested to pay a publication fee. It is our policy that

• Each accepted paper will be charged USD 355 for paper collaboration.
• We do not appreciate papers with a single ( sole ) author. Papers with a single author will be charged twice, i.e., USD 710.

Instructions for money transfer via bank transfer will be provided by the editor with the notification of acceptance for the accepted paper.

International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE) p-ISSN: 2252-8822, e-ISSN: 2620-5440 The journal is published by  Institute of Advanced Engineering and Science (IAES)   in collaboration with   Intelektual Pustaka Media Utama (IPMU)  

• Title & authors

Alava, Estrella E., and María E. M. Martinez. "Impact of Teaching-learning Process for Brain." International journal of health sciences , vol. 3, no. 1, 30 Apr. 2019, pp. 33-40, doi: 10.29332/ijhs.v3n1.304 .

Download citation file:

This research has based on a theoretical review of the knowledge about the topics, the importance of the brain and its learning styles, which some theorists propose, whose interests and publications focus on the importance of the brain for learning. The purpose was to demonstrate, the impact of these topics on the teaching-learning process and the problems. That arise around them, as well as topics on the need to incorporate flexible models that take into account the diversity of human thought. Develop capacities taking into account the particularities of the student, attention should be paid, manipulate methodological strategies and resources that respond to the different learning styles and systems proposed in this article, so that the teaching of all students benefits, according to their progressive period, level of development and educational needs, without separating them from their environment or context in which they operate. It shows how the brain influences learning, so that knowledge has strengthened in a humanistic way. The objective is to potentiate teaching and learning, to achieve a better academic performance, which seeks to offer significant experiences to adapt to the new demands of the society of the 21st century.

Table of contents

The International Journal of Indian Psychȯlogy

Theoretical Orientation of Academic Stress among Students: A Review

| Published: September 05, 2024

Higher secondary school education is an important stage that could result in the increased incidence of psychological problems in the academic life of any student. The present study presents a review of past studies and presents the theoretical orientation of academic stress among students. The theoretical orientation to the concepts such as stress and academic stress, different types, sources, and factors of stress are reviewed. The causes of academic stress on students as well as symptoms and effects of stress are also discussed. The relation of stress with other factors such as frustration and anxiety are elaborated. The different kind of techniques for measuring academic stress is discussed. In view to reduce the academic stress among the students, a section on guidance for students having academic stress and the role of family, teachers & stakeholders in overcoming stress are highlighted. The present study helps the researcher in designing the research study in such a manner that recurrence/reappearance of the limitation and drawback observed in past research studies may be improved and unexplored areas can be taken for further studies.

Education , Academic Stress , Theoretical orientation , review

This is an Open Access Research distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any Medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2024, Ghatol, S.D. & Bharucha, N.

Received: January 30, 2024; Revision Received: September 01, 2024; Accepted: September 05, 2024

Snehalata D. Ghatol @ [email protected]

Article Overview

Published in   Volume 12, Issue 3, July-September, 2024