Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In December 2015 the Australian state and territory governments endorsed the ‘National STEM School Education Strategy 2016–2026’. Since then, the individual jurisdictions have released their own STEM education strategies that aim to improve student STEM capabilities and aspirations. This paper analyses the various Australian STEM education strategies in relation to six themes informed by research into effective STEM education: STEM capabilities; STEM dispositions; STEM educational practices; Equity; Trajectories; and Educator capacities. The analysis shows that Australia’s STEM education strategies focus on actions aimed at building student STEM capabilities, particularly through inquiry and problem-based learning, and enhancing educator capacity. The strategies recognise student STEM learning trajectories and pay particular attention to the importance of early childhood STEM education, as well as the ways in which students’ potential career pathways might be influenced. However, less emphasis is placed on supporting key transitions in STEM education, developing student STEM dispositions, and addressing equity issues in STEM.

Keywords

STEM education early childhood primary secondary educational practice policy analysis

Introduction

Building a Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) skilled workforce and cultivating a STEM literate citizenry has been a focus of governments across the world for at least a decade (Gough, 2015). STEM education, a term that rose to prominence in the late 2000s referring to formal and informal education programmes from pre-school to tertiary level (Shanahan et al., 2016), is seen as the key strategy for achieving these goals. Governments look to STEM education to address an array of local, national and global issues (Gough, 2015). The Incheon Declaration for Education 2030 recommends the strengthening of STEM education as a key strategy for meeting its sustainable development goals (UNESCO, 2015). Fensham (2008), in his report to UNESCO, argues quality science and technology education is essential for socially and environmentally sustainable development by ensuring the supply of scientifically and technologically skilled professionals to drive it, and the preparation of a scientifically and technologically informed citizenry to guide it. STEM education is seen as a vehicle for improving a nation’s global competitiveness and ensuring its economic future (Breiner et al., 2012).

STEM education aims to grow in students the capability and inclination to identify questions and solve problems associated with STEM-related issues and the natural and designed world (Bybee, 2013). Informed by the work of Bybee, this paper takes the stance that effective STEM education explores significant 21st-century challenges in contexts such as health, environment, energy, technology and natural resources. It builds knowledge of the characteristics of the STEM disciplines, as well as an understanding of how these disciplines shape our physical and cultural worlds. Beyond disciplinary skills and knowledge, STEM education builds intra-disciplinary skills, such as complex problem solving, critical thinking and creativity.

While STEM education has been pursued internationally since the mid-2000s, Australia is a relative late adopter (Blackley and Howell, 2015). The Australian STEM education movement has gained significant momentum since 2013 with the publication of several key papers by the Australian Office of the Chief Scientist (2013, 2014) and the Australian Industry Group (2013, 2015). These papers suggest that improving Australia’s STEM education is vital for Australians to effectively manage the changing environment, their health and wellbeing, their food, water and energy, their security, and their economy. There is an accepted correlation between strong performing education systems and nations with thriving economies (Marginson et al., 2013). Given this, the urgency to improve STEM education in Australia is increased by sliding performance of Australian students, both relative to other nations and, in some cases, in absolute terms (Thomson et al., 2016; Thomson et al., 2016). Not only are Australian students underperforming in STEM testing, but fewer of them are choosing to study STEM subjects (Goodrum et al., 2012; McPhan et al., 2008; Morrison et al., 2015). These factors have caused STEM education to become a national priority.

The Australian focus on STEM education saw the state and territory governments¹ endorsing the ‘National STEM School Education Strategy 2016–2026’ in December of 2015 (Education Council, 2015). Since then, different states and territories have released their own STEM education strategies that aim to improve student STEM capabilities and aspirations. Ideally, these strategies would reflect the best evidence available about effective STEM education. This paper analyses the extent to which the various Australian STEM education strategies align to the STEM education research literature. It interrogates the ways in which the strategies conceptualise ‘STEM education’, the rationales provided by the strategies for the need to improve STEM education, and the types of actions that are recommended by the strategies to improve STEM education. In doing so, it provides insight into the degree to which the STEM education path being adopted by Australian jurisdictions is supported by the available research evidence.

Literature review

STEM education research is a relatively young field with limited but growing empirical research available to inform policy and practice (Brown, 2012). Given this, this literature review draws both on scholarly literature and reports from industry and governments. The literature on effective STEM education can be considered in relation to a number of themes. There is a body of literature exploring the impact of STEM education on students, particularly on the development of STEM capabilities, and on nurturing positive STEM dispositions. Other literature examines the delivery of STEM education and explores effective STEM education practices, equity issues in STEM education, or STEM trajectories. There is also a significant body of STEM education research examining the capacity of STEM educators. The following brief literature review brings together the pertinent findings related to these themes in order to offer a framework for analysing Australia’s STEM education strategies.

Capabilities

The literature discusses the need for students to develop STEM knowledge and skills to be adequately equipped for their futures and to meet the developing needs of Australia’s industries (Australian Industry Group, 2013). These capabilities include, but are more extensive than, the knowledge and skills associated with the individual STEM disciplines. In a rapidly changing world, STEM knowledge cannot be conceived as stable content; rather, STEM education needs to equip students to source, interpret and apply understandings as they evolve (Roth and Van Eijck, 2010). Similarly, the skill set required by students for life in the 21st century cannot be reduced to a definitive list; however, some skills are known and must be made explicit and included in each child’s education (Marzano and Heflebower, 2012). Bybee (2013) draws on the work of the Partnership for 21st Century Learning and the National Research Council of America to suggest a STEM skill set that includes adaptability, non-routine problem solving, and systems thinking, as well as complex communication skills and self-development. Australian employers seek to employ STEM graduates as they have skills such as active learning, complex problem-solving, creative problem solving, critical thinking, design thinking, programming, and systems analysis and evaluation (Prinsley and Baranyai, 2015). Commonly, the literature suggests that these capabilities are best developed through STEM education practices that use real world contexts and present learners with authentic problems or projects to work upon (e.g. Hefty, 2015; Kelley et al., 2010; Redmond et al., 2011).

Dispositions

STEM dispositions are the attitudes and states of mind that support students achieving success in STEM education and the pursuit of STEM career pathways. The research literature highlights the role of affect in effective STEM education and advocates for favourable dispositions to be cultivated in students. Students need to be interested in STEM, have a positive self-perception of themselves as STEM students, and to see STEM industries as personally relevant, if they are to engage in STEM learning and aspire to STEM careers (Goodrum et al., 2012; OECD Global Science Forum, 2006; Panizzon and Westwell, 2009). There is a significant body of research exploring motivational and academic emotion theory as it related to student STEM participation and performance. This research suggests that STEM self-concept, the value the learner places on STEM and STEM education, learner autonomy, and educator-learner and learner-learner relationships, are some of the most powerful influences on learner motivation in STEM education (e.g. Andersen and Chen, 2016; Petersen and Hyde, 2017; Robnett and Leaper, 2013; Wang and Degol, 2013). Moreover, children’s STEM dispositions can be influenced by educators from the early years onwards (Patrick et al., 2009). Given this, teacher practice, curriculum, and pedagogical choices impact significantly on student STEM dispositions (Panizzon and Westwell, 2009; McPhan et al., 2008).

Educational practices

STEM educational practices are intentional actions that schools and educators take to create STEM learning environments that build student STEM capabilities and nurture STEM dispositions. There is evidence that effective STEM education programmes view knowledge as interdisciplinary and present the curriculum in an integrated way (Becker and Park, 2011; Honey et al., 2014; Yildirim, 2016). There is, however, debate around the degree and form of integration of the disciplines in a STEM education programme for best impact on student learning (e.g. Bybee, 2013; Kelley, 2010; Moore and Smith, 2014). It is also clear in the literature that real world inquiry or problem-based learning (PBL) approaches have a positive impact on student learning in STEM education (Gee and Wong, 2012; MacLeod, 2013; McDonald, 2016; Ralph, 2015). At the core of an inquiry approach is the idea that approaches and methods used by STEM professionals should be reflected in the classroom (Gee and Wong, 2012). Such an approach requires that students exercise STEM capabilities (Capraro and Slough, 2013), while also presenting STEM as relevant to students, with the potential to cultivate STEM dispositions (Rennie et al., 2012). Research shows that there is significant variation in the impact of various inquiry approaches on students of different gender, ethnicity and socio-economic status (Gee and Wong, 2012; Von Secker, 2002). However, there is generally sound evidence to support a real-world inquiry or PBL approach to STEM education.

There is also a call for the increased use of computers and robotics in STEM education. Research shows that the use of these digital technologies expands available learning contexts (Starkey, 2012) and facilitates the development of problem solving and higher order thinking skills (McDonald, 2016). There is also evidence to suggest that digital learning has a positive impact on STEM dispositions, improving student interest and motivation in STEM (Lai Poh et al., 2016; McDonald, 2016; Starkey, 2012).

Equity

Research points to a need for STEM education to address significant equity issues for female, rural, Indigenous, and socio-economically disadvantaged students in Australia. Though girls are achieving as strongly in STEM as boys (Thomson et al., 2016), they are opting out of STEM subjects at a greater rate and are significantly under-represented in some STEM dominated industries (Australian Industry Group, 2013; Marginson, 2013). International and national testing suggests that metropolitan students are around 12–18 months ahead of rural students in both mathematical and scientific literacy, and that this gap is widening (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2016; Connolly, 2017; Thomson et al., 2016; Thomson, et al., 2016). The same testing reveals an even wider gap between the achievement of an average Australian student and that of an Indigenous Australian student in STEM skill development. This testing also suggests a strong correlation between the income and education levels of a child’s family and their development of mathematical and scientific literacy. The literature also suggests that educator curricular and pedagogical choices can have a significant impact on the dispositions and academic success of these different groups (Gee and Wong, 2012; Marginson, 2013; Patrick et al., 2009, Stacey et al., 2015).

Trajectories

An education trajectory can be considered as a long-term view of a student’s educational course or movement through the education system (Elder, 1985; Pallas, 2003). Given this, a student’s STEM trajectory is taken to include their STEM learning journey from early childhood through to senior secondary school and beyond. A growing body of research demonstrates the importance of early STEM competencies for later outcomes in STEM subjects (Johnston, 2011; Watts et al., 2014). However, a number of factors may alter children’s long-term STEM achievement trajectories, including changes in motivation and classroom practices, and failure or success in attaining key skills during the schooling years (Watts et al., 2014). Indeed, a study of children’s early mathematical competencies and later mathematical achievement shows that, while early competencies assist children in ‘getting off to a good start’, the quality of mathematics education experienced in the schooling years is critical (MacDonald and Carmichael, 2017). Moreover, transitions from preschool to primary, and from primary to secondary, may impact children’s engagement with STEM education (Perry et al., 2015; Tytler et al., 2008). Researchers recommend that effective STEM education occur before secondary school (Tytler et al., 2008), and preferably from the preschool years (Moomaw and Davis, 2010; Milford and Tippett, 2015). Furthermore, effective STEM education throughout the schooling years positively influences students’ aspirations in relation to tertiary STEM study and STEM career pursuits (van Tuijl and van der Molen, 2016).

Educator capacities

In order to meet the demands for delivering integrated, inquiry-driven STEM education that develops in all children the necessary STEM capabilities and dispositions, highly skilled educators are required at all levels of the educational journey. Educators play a pivotal role in STEM education when they provide a safe and supportive learning environment, engagement in effective pedagogical practices, and adequate time to engage in the learning process (McDonald, 2016). However, a number of challenges exist across the STEM educational continuum. Australian secondary schools are struggling to staff Science and Mathematics classes with qualified teachers, with large proportions of these classes taught by teachers without teacher training in these disciplines (Marginson et al., 2013). Prinsley and Johnston (2015) identify that primary teachers, in particular, make a serious difference in STEM education. However, there is a shortage of primary school teachers that are confident and competent in teaching science and mathematics (Marginson et al., 2013). Similar challenges are found in the early childhood education sector, with many early childhood educators reluctant to engage in intentional teaching of mathematics, science, and technology (Lee and Ginsburg, 2009). On a positive note, research shows that professional development can deepen both the subject and pedagogical knowledge of educators, leading to changes in classroom practice and improved student achievement (Perry and MacDonald, 2015; McDonald, 2016; Reimers et al., 2015).

Method

STEM education strategies, where they existed, were acquired for each Australian jurisdiction. A jurisdiction’s STEM education strategy was regarded as a public document or documents comprising:

A description of STEM education;

A rationale for planning to improve STEM education; and

Recommended actions to improve STEM education.

A web search was used to locate STEM education strategy documents where possible, as this was felt to be the most likely strategy to be used by STEM education practitioners and other audiences for these strategies. Where a search did not yield an obvious STEM education strategy document, the jurisdiction’s education department was contacted directly, to ascertain if a document existed and to request a copy. All jurisdictions provided a response to the query. This resulted in the set of STEM education strategy documents presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

STEM education strategy documents by jurisdiction

Jurisdiction	Author	Year	Length	Title	Acquired through…
National	Education Council	2015	12 pages	National STEM School Education Strategy	Web search
ACT	Education Directorate	–	–	Using the National strategy	Response to request
NSW	Department of Education	2017	Website	STEM	Web search and response to request
NT	Department of Education	–	–	Strategy awaiting approval	Response to request
QLD	Department of Education and Training	2016	2 pages	A strategy for STEM in Queensland state schools	Web search
SA	Department for Education and Child Development	2016	12 pages	STEM Learning Strategy for DECD Preschool to Year 12	Web search
TAS	Department of Education	2017	1 page	STEM Framework	Response to request
VIC	Department of Education and Training	2016	24 pages	STEM in the Education State	Web search
WA	Department of Education	2016	19 pages	STEM Support Plan 2016/17	Response to request

STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics; ACT: Australian Capital Territory; NSW: New South Wales; NT: Northern Territory; QLD: Queensland; SA: South Australia; TAS: Tasmania; VIC: Victoria; WA: Western Australia.

Analysis

This study utilised a thematic analysis approach (Joffe, 2011) to synthesise and analyse the content of the strategies. Each of the Australian STEM strategies were analysed according to their conceptualisation of ‘STEM education’, rationale for developing a STEM education strategy, and actions they articulated to enhance STEM education during the target period of each strategy. Relevant text from each of the strategies was extracted for thematic analysis. Each of the strategies provided a description of how they conceptualised STEM education in their jurisdiction. All strategies also included a section offering a rationale for focusing efforts and resources on improving STEM education. ‘Actions’ were taken to be the specific measures, initiatives, and programmes to be implemented by each jurisdiction that are designed to have positive impact upon learners, learning environments, and/or educators. The STEM conceptions, rationales and actions were interrogated in relation to the research questions using a coding scheme developed from the six themes associated with STEM education presented in the literature review. The key words coded to each of the themes are shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Coding themes and associated key words^a

Theme	Key words
Capabilities	Skills, knowledge, thinking, critical thinking, creativity, problem solving, coding, digital literacy, ICT skills, collaboration, communication, self-direction, investigating, experimenting, hypothesising, numeracy
Dispositions	Engage, motivate, aspire, inspired, confidence, curiosity, resilience, mind-set
Educational practices	Inquiry, project-based learning, PBL, real-world pedagogy, authentic, integrated, interdisciplinary, partnerships, networks, links with industry and universities, assessment, digital learning, ICT curriculum, coding, robotics, camps, competitions or challenges, virtual academies, resources, infrastructure, facilities, software
Equity	All learners, every student, girls, Indigenous, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, disadvantage
Trajectories	Early childhood, transition, primary, secondary, career pathways, lifelong learning
Educator capacities	Professional development or learning, teacher training, specialist STEM teachers, exemplars, mentoring, high quality STEM teaching, inspirational STEM teachers, preservice STEM teachers, STEM leaders, school leaders

ICT: Information and communications technology; PBL: Problem-based learning; STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics.

The key words listed here were taken to include any words that may have the key word as their root (e.g. ‘motivate’ includes ‘motivating’, ‘motivated’, and ‘motivation’).

The first two authors independently coded the relevant sections of the strategy, then held a consensus meeting, discussing coding decisions and developing a consensus view of findings (Hunt and Walsh, 2011).

Results and discussion

The following discussion presents the result of the thematic analysis with respect to the six themes, reflecting on the alignment of the strategies to the STEM education literature, and the consistency between the way Australian STEM education is conceived (as presented in Table 3) and rationalised, and the actions proposed to advance it. It is important to note when reading this analysis that the various strategies varied greatly in style and length, ranging from Tasmania’s single page ‘STEM framework’, through to Victoria’s 24-page overview of STEM education in the State.

Table 3.

Analyses of the way each jurisdiction’s strategy conceives of STEM education

Jurisdiction	STEM capabilities	STEM dispositions	STEM educational practices	Equity	Trajectories	Educator capacities
National	Creative thinkingCritical analysisProblem solvingMathematical, scientific and technological literacySTEM discipline skills	Interest	Individual STEM disciplines and cross-disciplinary		EC to Year 12
NSW	Creative thinkingCritical analysisSTEM discipline knowledge	CuriosityAspirations	InquiryProject-based learningInterdisciplinaryIntegratedAuthentic contexts	‘STEM education is for all students’	EC to Year 12Career pathways
QLD	Creative thinkingCritical analysisProblem solving		Digital technologiesCodingRobotics	‘Lift participation of students including girls and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students’	Career pathways	Innovate and engage with cutting edge science and teaching practiceAccess to specialist STEM teachers
SA	CollaborationProblem solvingInterdisciplinary thinkingSTEM discipline skills and knowledge		Inquiry	‘give each child and student… STEM knowledge and skills’	EC to Year 12
TAS	CollaborationCreative thinkingCritical analysisProblem solvingProject managementSelf-directionSTEM literacyUnderstanding of relevance of STEM in society and world of work	ResilienceGrowth mind-set	Project-based learningInterdisciplinaryReal worldApplied and contextualised learning settingsComplements explicit disciplinary teachingLearner centredLinks with community, industry and education partners	‘access and challenge for all learners’	Career pathways
VIC	ExperimentingHypothesisingInvestigatingProblem solvingCreative thinkingCritical analysisEthical thinkingSTEM discipline skills and knowledge				EC to Year 12Career pathways
WA	CollaborationCommunicationCreative thinkingCritical analysisIndependent thinkingIntegrated knowledgeProblem solvingICT skillsNumeracy		Integrated STEM disciplinesInquiryTechnologiesProblem-based learningAuthentic learning tasksReal contextsExplicit teaching of discipline content	‘Raising the capabilities of all students’	Career pathwaysLifelong learning

Capabilities

As shown in Table 3, student STEM capabilities is a key element of the way each of the Australian strategies conceive of STEM education. Understandably, STEM discipline knowledge and skills are prioritised among the strategies. However, the interdisciplinary capabilities of problem solving, critical analysis, and creative thinking are even more prominent. Capabilities associated with collaboration and digital technologies are also evident, though with less consistency across the strategies. Furthermore, individually the strategies present a range of other capabilities which are important for STEM, such as communication, interdisciplinary thinking, independent thinking, and inquiry skills.

The need to improve the STEM capabilities of Australians was a strong theme in the rationales of all the strategies. In all but the Tasmanian rationale, the emphasis on STEM capabilities is associated with the need to prepare STEM skilled workers to take up positions in the growing STEM sector, and to ensure a globally competitive economy. Some rationales also speak more generally of the need for improved STEM capabilities in response to a rapidly changing world (QLD, VIC). Less frequently mentioned is the role STEM capabilities play in ensuring individuals lead fulfilling lives as positive community members (TAS, WA). Several strategies cite Australian students’ slide in STEM enrolments and international testing of STEM skills and knowledge as a reason to address STEM education in Australia (National, SA, QLD, VIC).

The strategies adopt a range of actions to improve student STEM capabilities. Three strategies include actions to improve the tools to describe and track the development of STEM capabilities (National, TAS, WA). Despite creativity, critical thinking and problem solving being integral to each strategies description of STEM education few had explicit actions aimed at building these capabilities. Three strategies had actions for problem solving (National, QLD, VIC), three for creativity (National, QLD, WA) and three for critical thinking (QLD, VIC, WA). Similarly, though digital literacy was a common feature of the way strategies conceived of STEM education only three of the strategies have a strong emphasis on building student digital literacy, supported through resourcing and enrichment opportunities (National, QLD, VIC). This lack of consistency reflects the STEM education literature, where there is still a need to clearly articulate for educators how these capabilities are to be exercised in STEM learning environments.

Dispositions

Each of the strategies acknowledge the role of affect in effective STEM education in their conceptualisation (Table 3) and/or rationale; though, generally this element has only minor emphasis. Strategies tend to express their intent with vague phrases like ‘lift student engagement’ (National, p. 3) or ‘encourage greater interest…in STEM’ (WA, p. 2). While it is encouraging that dispositions such as interest, curiosity, aspiration, and confidence are cited within the strategies as being important for initiating and sustaining students’ motivation to pursue STEM learning and career paths, there is little attempt to operationalise these terms. Only the Tasmanian strategy flagged motivational constructs such as student self-direction and growth mindset that have been found to improve learner engagement in STEM.

Further, only three of the strategies include actions explicitly aiming to impact on student disposition (National, VIC, WA). These actions focus on building aspirations, curiosity and confidence. The actions explicitly identified are limited to building industry partnerships, a mathematics challenge, a research-based Early Childhood numeracy programme, and delivering STEM education professional learning. Given the strong evidence showing the role of affect on student success in STEM and engagement in STEM pathways, the limited consideration of ways to enhance STEM dispositions is a significant shortcoming across the Australian STEM strategies.

Educational practices

As shown in Table 3, all but the Victorian strategy include STEM educational practices in the conceptualisation of STEM education. The practices identified have a strong real-world and inquiry orientation; however, there is no consensus among the strategies as to whether STEM education should be delivered through the discrete disciplines, or as a learning experience where the disciplines are integrated, with the strategies variously describing ‘STEM’ as being four individual disciplines, cross-disciplinary, and/or inter-disciplinary.

To support building these STEM capabilities and dispositions, the strategies outline actions to transform educational practices. Encouragingly, given the evidence supporting inquiry learning in STEM education, the majority of strategies (National, NSW, SA, TAS, WA), have actions targeted at encouraging the adoption of inquiry or PBL pedagogies. Three strategies include actions aimed at ensuring STEM education is presented in an integrated way (NSW, TAS, WA). It is clear in the literature that the impact of both integrated curriculum and inquiry learning varies according to approach, context, and cohort; however, the strategies provide minimal description of how they conceived of these practices. All the strategies advocate building partnerships with industry, other educational institutions and the wider community, to improve the quality of STEM education (e.g. National, WA). While this has intuitive appeal, there is not yet conclusive evidence to support such actions (Gamse et al., 2017).

Three of the strategies (National, QLD, VIC) also place significant emphasis on digital learning practices. Each of these strategies establish a baseline action of implementing the set digital literacy curriculum. Victoria and Queensland have actions are focused on extra-curricular measures such as competitions. The remaining actions included the provision of software for secondary schools and the support of digital learning experiences for early childhood. These actions do not appear to be a strong match to those described in the literature expanding access to learning environments, or improving problem solving and motivation for all students.

Equity

As discussed in the literature review, the extant research identifies equity issues for key groups in STEM education in Australia. As Table 3 shows, five strategies (NSW, SA, TAS, QLD, WA) address equity in their conceptualisation of STEM education. Of these, all except Queensland used broad statements such as ‘STEM education is for all students’, implying the inclusion of groups that are known to be marginalised. Only Queensland explicitly identified girls and indigenous students as groups requiring particular support, consistent with the research literature.

Three of the STEM strategies (National, VIC, SA) made explicit reference to equity issues in their rationales. The National strategy nominated girls, indigenous students, students from low socio-economic backgrounds, and students from non-metropolitan areas, as groups that need to be considered. The South Australian rationale explicitly discussed the under-representations of women and Indigenous people in STEM, and the Victorian rationale had a strong focus on girls in STEM education, with some mention of the impact of student socio-economic background. Four strategies (QLD, SA, VIC, WA) included actions explicitly aiming to impact on equity in STEM education, and these were limited. However, the few actions articulated relied heavily on having impact through short term interventions such as camps for girls, mentoring programmes for Indigenous children, and online STEM enrichment programmes for non-metropolitan and disadvantaged communities.

Trajectories

As Table 3 shows, there is some acknowledgement of STEM education trajectories in the way STEM is conceived by each of the strategies; though, Tasmania and Queensland limit this to facilitating career pathways. Similarly, all rationales, implicitly or explicitly, give some consideration to STEM education trajectories. Universally, the rationales consider the role of STEM education in preparing students for future careers. Three of the rationales argue for the importance of STEM education to ensure senior secondary students continue on STEM learning pathways (National, QLD, VIC). Two of the rationales also acknowledge that STEM education begins in early childhood (National, VIC). Only the Victorian rationale makes explicit reference to stages of learning between early childhood and senior secondary, with a discussion of disengagement in STEM between Year 6 and Year 9.

Encouragingly, all strategies have actions focused on trajectories, with actions aiming at STEM education at the beginning and end of the formal learning journey. Aspiration building measures dominate, with all strategies including actions focused upon enhancing awareness of, and access to, career pathways and post-secondary opportunities throughout the schooling years. The literature argues that STEM education should begin well before children commence school; however, only three strategies have actions explicitly directed at STEM education in the early childhood years (National, SA, VIC). The research literature also makes it clear that each step of the learning journey is key to the development of a student’s STEM capabilities and dispositions. However, only Victoria and South Australia have explicit actions addressing STEM education for other stages of learning, and both only focus on Years 7 and 8.

Educator capacities

The research literature identifies a need for educators with sound STEM content knowledge, confidence to deliver STEM education programmes, and engaging STEM pedagogical approaches. Only one jurisdiction (QLD) explicitly describes the role of educators in their conceptualisation of STEM education; however, five of the rationales (National, NSW, QLD, SA, VIC) describe the importance of educator capacity for improving STEM education. These rationales highlight the importance of building teacher confidence and competence, both in terms of STEM expertise and engaging STEM pedagogy.

All jurisdiction strategies, with the exception of Tasmania, direct actions at raising the skills of educators. Each of these adopt actions to identifying and/or training of excellent STEM practitioners, and schools, to act as support and role models to others. There are several actions to improve the capacity and confidence of early childhood and primary teachers (National, SA, VIC), and other actions to provide mentoring to inspire secondary school STEM teachers (SA, VIC). Only two of the strategies (SA, WA) have actions directed at improving school leaders’ capacity to drive the implementation of STEM education.

Conclusion

As a group, Australia’s STEM education strategies align to the STEM education literature to some degree; however, no single strategy can be said to comprehensively address all the important themes arising in the STEM education literature. Several of the themes are addressed by the majority of the strategies. There is an emphasis in the strategies on developing STEM capabilities in students, and achieving this through research-supported educational practices such as inquiry and . Building educator capacity is seen as a key action for improving STEM education. The strategies strongly favour actions aimed at improving educator knowledge and confidence, and supporting the adoption of STEM education practices.

Other themes from the literature are less well addressed. While collectively the strategies acknowledge STEM education as a key part of a child’s entire learning journey, the strongest emphasis is on facilitating career pathways when exiting school. Less than half the strategies explicitly focus on STEM education in early childhood and even fewer consider maintaining student learning trajectories in between. Though most strategies allude to the importance of STEM dispositions and acknowledge various equity issues, these matters receive less explicit treatment in the articulated actions.

The recently released Australian STEM education strategies are designed to guide the actions of educational leaders and practitioners for up to a decade. While it is encouraging to see some of the themes from the literature into effective STEM education reflected in the strategies, it is concerning that issues regarding STEM dispositions, equity, and transitions within and between educational sectors, are not given significant attention. The implication of these deficits is that educators and leaders responding to the various strategies may miss addressing aspects crucial for improving STEM education for all children at all stages of learning.

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to acknowledge Paige Lee for her contribution to the development of this paper.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note

Steve Murphy is a PhD Candidate and sessional academic at Charles Sturt University, Albury-Wodonga, Australia. Steve’s doctoral research is examining successful STEM education practices in rural secondary schools. Steve is an experienced STEM Educator, Instructional Leader and Principal. He has worked in government and independent schools, and in primary, secondary and tertiary education sectors.

Amy MacDonald is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Education at Charles Sturt University, Albury-Wodonga, Australia. Amy specialises in early childhood mathematics education. Her research interests also include STEM education, educational transitions, and early childhood educators’ professional learning. She is experienced in mixed-methods research, and has particular expertise in researching with young children. Amy has received several awards for her work, including the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia Early Career Award, and an Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching ‘Citation for Outstanding Contribution to Student Learning’ for her approaches to mathematics education. Amy has previously worked as an early years teacher in regional Australia.

Lena Danaia is an Associate Professor in the School of Teacher Education at Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, Australia. Lena specialises in science and technology curriculum and is experienced in mixed methods research with a strong focus on surveys. Lena’s research interests include student engagement in school science, STEM education and astronomy education. She is experienced in working on large-scale research projects that involve cross-institution collaborations. Lena has also been recognised nationally for her outstanding contributions to learning and teaching where she was awarded an Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) Teaching Excellence Award. Lena previously worked as a teacher in both Australia and the UK.

Cen Wang is a Research Fellow in the School of Teacher Education at Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, Australia. Her research focuses on understanding the diverse ways that children develop, learn and achieve academic success. She also explores personal and contextual factors that influence children’s learning, motivation and social emotional well-being. Cen is also experienced in managing large longitudinal datasets and applying advanced statistical analyses.

References

Andersen

Chen

(2016) Do high‐ability students disidentify with science? A descriptive study of US ninth graders in 2009. Science Education 100(1): 57–77.

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2016) National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy. Achievement in Reading, Writing, Language Conventions and Numeracy: National Report for 2016. Available at: http://www.nap.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/2016-naplan-national-report.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (accessed 12 September 2017).

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2017) General capabilities. Available at: https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities (accessed 12 September 2017).

Australian Government Department of Education and Training (2017) Quality schools: Commonwealth and state responsibilities for schools funding. Canberra: Australian Government. Available at: https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/commonwealth_and_state_responsibilities_for_school_funding.pdf (accessed 12 September 2017).

Australian Industry Group (2013) Lifting our Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) Skills. Available at: http://www.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/368546/lifting_our_stem_skills_13.pdf (accessed 30 August 2017).

Australian Industry Group (2015) Progressing STEM Skills in Australia. Available at: http://cdn.aigroup.com.au/Reports/2015/14571_STEM_Skills_Report_Final_-.pdf (accessed 21 August 2017).

Becker

Park

(2011) Effects of integrative approaches among Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) subjects on students' learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research 12(5–6): 23–37.

Blackley

Howell

(2015) A STEM narrative: 15 years in the making. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 40(7): 102–112.

Breiner

Harkness

Johnson

et al . (2012) What Is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics 112(1): 3–11.

10.

Brown

(2012) The Current Status of STEM Education Research. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research 13(5): 7–11.

11.

Bybee

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

12.

Capraro

Slough

(2013) Why PBL? Why STEM? Why now? An introduction to STEM Project-Based Learning. In: Capraro

Capraro

Morgan

(eds) STEM Project-Based Learning (2nd edn). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp 1–6.

13.

Connolly

(2017) NAP Sample Assessment: Science Literacy 2015. Available at: http://www.nap.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/20170309-nap_sl_final.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (accessed 3 September 2017).

14.

Education Council (2015) National STEM School Education Strategy 2016–2026. Available at: http://www.scseec.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/National%20STEM%20School%20Education%20Strategy.pdf. (accessed 10 January 2017).

15.

Elder

(1985) Perspectives on the life course. In: Elder

(ed.) Life course dynamics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp 23–49.

16.

Fensham

(2008) Science education policy-making: Eleven emerging issues. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001567/156700E.pdf (accessed 21 August 2017).

17.

Gamse

Martinez

Bozzi

(2017) Calling STEM experts: How can experts contribute to students' increased STEM engagement? International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement 7(1): 31–59.

18.

Gee

Wong

(2012) A cross national examination of inquiry and its relationship to student performance in science: Evidence from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2006. International Journal of Educational Research 53: 303–318.

19.

Goodrum

Druhan

Abbs

(2012) The status and quality of Year 11 and 12 Science in Australian Schools. Available at: https://www.science.org.au/files/userfiles/support/reports-and-plans/2015/year11and12report.pdf. (accessed 21 August 2017).

20.

Gough

(2015) STEM policy and science education: Scientistic curriculum and sociopolitical silences. Cultural Studies of Science Education 10(2): 445–458.

21.

Hefty

(2015) STEM Gives Meaning to Mathematics. Teaching Children Mathematics 21(7): 422–429

22.

Honey

Pearson

Schweingruber

(2014) STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Available at: https://www.nap.edu/read/18612/chapter/1 (accessed 20 July 2017).

23.

Hunt

Walsh

(2011) Parents’ views about child sexual abuse prevention education: A systematic review. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 36(2): 63–76.

24.

Joffe

(2011) Thematic analysis. In: Harper

Thompson

(eds) Qualitative research methods in mental health and psychotherapy: A guide for students and practitioners. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons, pp 209–223.

25.

Johnston

(2011) The impact of home and school on early years scientific development. Education in Science 245: 30–31.

26.

Kelley

(2010) Staking the claim for the “T” in STEM. Journal of Technology Studies 36(1): 2–11.

27.

Kelley

Brenner

Pieper

(2010) Two approaches to engineering design: Observations in STEM education. Journal of sTEm Teacher Education 47(2): 5–40.

28.

Lai Poh

Causo

Pei-Wen

et al . (2016) A review on the use of robots in education and young children. Journal of Educational Technology and Society 19(2): 148–163.

29.

Lee

Ginsburg

(2009) Early childhood teachers’ misconceptions about mathematics education for young children in the United States. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 34(4): 37–45.

30.

MacDonald A and Carmichael C (2017) Early mathematical competencies and later achievement: Insights from the longitudinal study of australian children. Mathematics Education Research Journal. DOI: 10.1007/s[94-017-0230-6

31.

McDonald

(2016) STEM education: A review of the contribution of the disciplines of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. Science Education International 27(4): 530–569.

32.

MacLeod

(2013) Physics education and STSE: Perspectives from the literature. European Journal of Physics Education 4(4): 1–12.

33.

McPhan

Morony

Pegg

et al . (2008) Maths? Why not? Canberra: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.

34.

Marginson

Tytler

Freeman

et al . (2013) STEM: Country comparisons. Report for the Australian Council of Learned Academies. Available at: https://acola.org.au/wp/PDF/SAF02Consultants/SAF02_STEM_%20FINAL.pdf (accessed 10 August 2017).

35.

Marzano

Heflebower

(2012) Teaching and assessing 21st century skills. Bloomington: Marzano Research Laboratory.

36.

Milford

Tippett

(2015) The design and validation of an early childhood STEM classroom observational protocol. International Research in Early Childhood Education 6(1): 24–37.

37.

Moomaw

Davis

(2010) STEM comes to preschool. Young Children 65(5): 12–18.

38.

Moore

Smith

(2014) Advancing the state of the art of STEM integration. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research 15(1): 5–10.

39.

Morrison

Roth McDuffie

French

(2015) Identifying key components of teaching and learning in a STEM school. School Science and Mathematics 115(5): 244–255.

40.

OECD Global Science Forum (2006) Evolution of student interest in Science and Technology Studies Policy Report. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/science/sci-tech/36645825.pdf (accessed 2 August 2017).

41.

Office of the Chief Scientist (2013) Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in the national interest: A strategic approach. Available at: http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/STEMstrategy290713FINALweb.pdf. (accessed 21 August 2017).

42.

Office of the Chief Scientist (2014) Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics: Australia’s future. Available at: http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/STEM_AustraliasFuture_Sept2014_Web.pdf. (accessed 3 August 2017).

43.

Pallas

(2004) Educational transitions, trajectories, and pathways. In: Mortimer

Shanahan

(eds) Handbook of the life course. New York: Springer, pp. 165–184.

44.

Panizzon

Westwell

(2009) Engaging students in STEM-related subjects. What does the research evidence say? Available at: http://www.flinders.edu.au/shadomx/apps/fms/fmsdownload.cfm?file_uuid=A5917489-C8D7-01A1-D537-13FFAA534FEB&siteName=flinders (accessed 2 August 2017).

45.

Patrick

Mantzicopoulos

Samarapungavan

(2009) Motivation for learning science in Kindergarten: Is there a gender gap and does integrated inquiry and literacy instruction make a difference. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46(2): 166–191.

46.

Perry B and MacDonald A (2015) Educators’ expectations and aspirations around young children’s mathematical knowledge. Professional Development in Education 41(2): 366–381.

47.

Perry B, MacDonald A and Gervasoni A (Eds.). (2015) Mathematics and Transition to School: International Perspectives. Singapore: Springer.

48.

Petersen

Hyde

(2017) Trajectories of self-perceived math ability, utility value and interest across middle school as predictors of high school math performance. Educational Psychology 37: 438–456.

49.

Prinsley

Baranyai

(2015) STEM skills in the workforce: What do employers want? Available at: http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/OPS09_02Mar2015_Web.pdf (accessed 10 August 2017).

50.

Prinsley

Johnston

(2015) Transforming STEM teaching in Australian primary schools: Everybody’s business. Available at: http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/Transforming-STEM-teaching_FINAL.pdf (accessed 10 August 2017).

51.

Ralph

(2015) Post secondary project-based learning in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. Journal of Technology and Science Education 6(1): 26–35.

52.

Redmond

Thomas

High

et al . (2011) Enriching science and math through engineering. School Science and Mathematics 111(8): 399–408.

53.

Reimers

Farmer

Klein-Gardner

(2015) An introduction to the standards for preparation and professional development for teachers of engineering. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 5(1): Article 5.

54.

Rennie

Wallace

Venville

(2012) Exploring curriculum integration: Why integrate? In: Rennie

Venville

Wallace

(eds) Integrating Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Issues, reflections, and ways forward. New York: Routledge, pp 1–11.

55.

Robnett

Leaper

(2013) Friendship groups, personal motivation, and gender in relation to high school students' STEM career interest. Journal of Research on Adolescence 23: 652–664.

56.

Roth

W-M

Van Eijck

(2010) Fullness of life as minimal unit: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) learning across the life span. Science Education 94(6): 1027–1048.

57.

Shanahan

M-C

Burke

Francis

(2016) Using a boundary object perspective to reconsider the meaning of STEM in a Canadian context. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education 16(2): 129–139.

58.

Stacey

Vincent

Stephens

et al . (2015) Desktop review of mathematics school education and pedagogical approaches and learning resources. Available at: https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/trim_review_paper_2_-_aas_-_final.pdf (accessed 2 August 2017).

59.

Starkey

(2012) Teaching and learning in the digital age. New York: Taylor and Francis.

60.

Thomson

De Bortoli

Underwood

(2016) PISA 2015: A first look at Australia's results. Available at: http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=ozpisa (accessed 21 August 2017).

61.

Thomson

Wenert

O'Grady

et al . (2016) TIMSS 2015: a first look at Australia's results. Available at: http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=timss_2015 (accessed 21 August 2017).

62.

Tytler

Osborne

Williams

et al . (2008) Opening up pathways: Engagement in STEM across the Primary-Secondary school transition. Available at: https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/openpathinscitechmathenginprimsecschtrans.pdf (accessed 20 June 2017).

63.

UNESCO (2015) Incheon Declaration and SDGE - Education 2030 Framework for Action. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002456/245656E.pdf (accessed 21 August 2017).

64.

van Tuijl

van der Molen

(2016) Study choice and career development in STEM fields: An overview and integration of the research. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 26(2): 159–183.

65.

Von Secker

(2002) Effects of inquiry-based teacher practices on science excellence and equity. Journal of Educational Research 95(3): 151–160.

66.

Wang

Degol

(2013) Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using expectancy–value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM fields. Developmental Review 33: 304–340.

67.

Watts

Duncan

Siegler

Davis-Kean

(2014) What’s past is prologue: Relations between early mathematics knowledge and high school achievement. Educational Researcher 43(7): 352–360.

68.

Yildirim

(2016) An analyses and meta-synthesis of research on STEM education. Journal of Education and Practice 7(34): 23–33.

An analysis of Australian STEM education strategies

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature review

Capabilities

Dispositions

Educational practices

Equity

Trajectories

Educator capacities

Method

Analysis

Results and discussion

Capabilities

Dispositions

Educational practices

Equity

Trajectories

Educator capacities

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

Note

References