Increasing calls for greater STEM-integrated experiences in K–12 education have spawned numerous studies on teacher beliefs, educational goals, and practices for teaching and learning. However, how the field proposes to support the development of teachers’ STEM-integrated disciplinary knowledge appears to be underresearched. In this systematic review, we analyzed 110 articles to determine (a) in what ways has the literature focused on teacher learning, (b) to what extent the literature addressed the development of teachers’ STEM-integrated disciplinary knowledge, and (c) to what extent the literature identified mechanisms for developing teachers’ STEM-integrated disciplinary knowledge. Results reveal needs that include, among others, more studies focused on developing teacher disciplinary knowledge; studies that differentiate teacher needs at different grade levels; studies that differentiate mechanisms aimed at developing teachers’ pedagogical knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and disciplinary knowledge; and studies that explicitly examine the mechanisms being used to support the development of teachers’ STEM-integrated disciplinary knowledge.
AcarD.BüyükşahinY. (2021). Awareness and views of teachers who received in-service STEM training about STEM. International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(2), 473–490. http://dx.doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2020.332.29
2.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. Oxford University Press.
3.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford University Press.
4.
Antink-MeyerA.BrownR. A. (2017). Second-career science teachers’ classroom conceptions of science and engineering practices examined through the lens of their professional histories. International Journal of Science Education, 39(11), 1511–1528. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1338787
5.
AraujoR. C.FloydL.GadanidisG. (2019). Teacher candidates’ key understandings about computational thinking in mathematics and science education. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 38(3), 205–229.
6.
AsgharA.EllingtonR.RiceE.JohnsonF.PrimeG. M. (2012). Supporting STEM in secondary science contexts. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 6(2), 85–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1349
7.
AsundaP. A.WalkerC. (2018). Integrated STEM: Views and challenges of engineering and technology education k-12 teachers. Career and Technical Education Research, 43(2), 179–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.5328/cter43.2.179
8.
Aydogan YenmezA.GökceS.AydedeM. N.ÇelikT. (2021). Investigation of pre-service teachers’ awareness of STEM and STEM teaching intention. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 8(1), 250–260.
9.
BallD. L.ThamesM. H.PhelpsG. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it so special?Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554
BerlinD. F.WhiteA. L. (2012). A longitudinal look at attitudes and perceptions related to the integration of mathematics, science, and technology education. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 20–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00111.x
BoesdorferS. B. (2017). Is engineering inspiring change in secondary chemistry teachers’ practices?Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(7), 609–630. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2017.1389224
14.
BorowczakM.BurrowsA. C. (2019). Ants go marching: Integrating computer science into teacher professional development with NetLogo. Education Sciences, 9(66), 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci9010066
15.
Bozkurt AltanE.ErcanS. (2016). STEM education program for science teachers: Perceptions and competencies. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 13(special), 103–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.12973/tused.10174a
16.
BrandB. R. (2020). Integrating science and engineering practices: Outcomes from a collaborative professional development. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00210-x
17.
BraskénM.HemmiK.KurténB. (2020). Implementing a multidisciplinary curriculum in a Finnish lower secondary school: The perspective of science and mathematics. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(6), 852–868. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1623311
18.
BybeeR. W. (1993). Reforming science education: Social perspectives and personal reflections. Teacher’s College Press.
19.
CavlazogluB.StuessyC. (2017). Changes in science teachers’ conceptions and connections of STEM concepts and earthquake engineering. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(3), 239–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1273176
20.
ChinnC. A.BarzilaiS.DuncanR. G. (2021). Education for a “post-truth” world: New directions for research and practice. Educational Researcher, 52(1), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20940683
21.
CoxonS. V.DorhmanR. L.NadlerD. (2018). Children using robotics for engineering science, technology, and math (CREST-M): The development and evaluation of an engaging math curriculum. Roeper Review, 40(2), 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2018.1434711
22.
CunninghamC. M.KellyG. J. (2017). Epistemic practices of engineering for education. Science Education, 101(3), 486–505. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21271
23.
DaherW.ShahbariJ. A. (2020). Design of STEM activities: Experiences and perceptions of prospective secondary school teachers. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(4), 112–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i04.11689
24.
DareE. A.EllisJ. A.RoehrigG. H. (2018). Understanding science teachers’ implementations of integrated STEM curricular units through a phenomenological multiple case study. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0101-z
25.
Darling-HammondL.HylerM. E.GardnerM. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. https://doi.org/10.54300/122.311
26.
deChambeauA. L.RamloS. E. (2017). STEM high school teachers’ views of implementing PBL: An investigation using anecdote circles. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 11(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1566
27.
DongY.WangJ.YangY.KurupP. M. (2020). Understanding intrinsic challenges to STEM instructional practices for Chinese teachers based on their beliefs and knowledge base. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00245-0
28.
EckmanE. W.WilliamsM. A.Silver-ThornM. B. (2016). An integrated model for STEM teacher preparation: The value of a teaching cooperative educational experience. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 51(1), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.30707/JSTE51.1Eckman
29.
EnglishL. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(3), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1
30.
EricssonK. A.KrampeR. T.Tesch-RömerC. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychology Review, 100, 363–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363
31.
ErtmerP. A.Ottenbreit-LeftwichA. T.SendururE.SendururP. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59, 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001
32.
FairbanksC. M.DuffyG. G.FairclothB. S.HeY.LevinB.RohrJ.SteinC. (2010). Beyond knowledge: Exploring why some teachers are more thoughtfully adaptive than others. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347874
33.
FerandN. K.DiBenedettoC. A.ThoronA. C.MyersB. E. (2020). Agriscience teacher professional development focused on teaching STEM principles in the floriculture curriculum. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(4), 189–202. http://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.04189
34.
FrenchD. A.BurrowsA. C. (2018). Evidence of science and engineering practices in preservice secondary science teachers’ instructional planning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(6), 536–549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9742-4
35.
GengJ.JongM. S. Y.ChaiC. S. (2019). Hong Kong teachers’ self-efficacy and concerns about STEM education. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28(1), 35–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40299-018-0414-1
36.
GerardL.VarmaK.CorlissB.LinnM. (2011). Professional development for technology-enhanced inquiry science. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 408–448. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311415121
37.
GibsonK. S. (2012). Student teachers of technology and design: Can short periods of STEM-related industrial placement change student perceptions of engineering and technology?Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 17(1), 18–29. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/1684
GoldmanS. R.BrittA. M.BrownW.CribbG.GeorgeM.GreenleafC.ShanahanC.ProjectREADI. (2016). Disciplinary literacies and learning to read for understanding: A conceptual framework for disciplinary literacy. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 219–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1168741
40.
GormanS. E.GormanJ. M. (2017). Denying to the grave: Why we ignore the facts that will save us. Oxford University Press.
41.
GuptaA. (2015). Fueling chemical engineering concepts with biodiesel production: A professional development experience for K-12 pre-service teachers. Journal of STEM Education, 16(1), 25–30.
42.
HardréP. L.LingC.ShehabR. L.NannyM. A.NollertM. U.RefaiH.RamseyerC.HerronJ.WollegaE. D. (2013). Teachers in an interdisciplinary learning community: Engaging, integrating, and strengthening K-12 education. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 409–425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487113496640
43.
HatanoG.OuraY. (2003). Commentary: Reconceptualizing school learning using insight from expertise research. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 26–29. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032008026
44.
HerringM. C.KoehlerM. J.MishraP. (2016). Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for educators (2nd ed.). Routledge Press.
45.
JohnstonJ.RiordainM. N.WalsheG. (2014). An integrated approach to the teaching and learning of science and mathematics utilising technology: The teachers’ perspective. Journal on School Educational Technology, 9(4), 14–26.
46.
KelleyT. R.KnowlesJ. G.HollandJ. D.HanJ. (2020). Increasing high school teachers’ self-efficacy for integrated STEM instruction through a collaborative community of practice. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00211-w
47.
KelleyT. R.KnowlesJ. G.HollandJ. D.JungH. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
48.
KnowlesJ.KelleyT.HollandJ. (2018). Increasing teacher awareness of STEM careers. Journal of STEM Education, 19(3), 47–55.
49.
KovarikD. N.PattersonD. G.CohenC.SandersE. A.PetersonK. A.PorterS. G.ChowningJ. T. (2013). Bioinformatics education in high school: Implications for promoting science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(3), 441–459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-11-0193
50.
KubatU. (2018). The integration of STEM into science classes. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 10(3), 165–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v10i3.3557
51.
LaffeyE. H.Cook-ChennaultK.HirschL. S. (2013). Rutgers University research experience for teachers in engineering: Preliminary findings. American Journal of Engineering Education, 4(1), 13–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.19030/ajee.v4i1.793
52.
LiQ.RichmanL.HainesS.McNaryS. (2019). Computational thinking in classrooms: A study of a PD for STEM teachers in high-needs schools. Canadian Journal of Learning & Technology, 45(3), 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.21432/cjlt27857
53.
Martin-PaezT.AguileraD.Perales-PalaciosF. J.Vílchez-GonzálezJ. M. (2019). What are we talking about when we talk about STEM education? A review of literature. Science Education, 103, 799–822. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21522
54.
NadelsonL. S.SeifertA. (2017). Integrated STEM defined: Contexts, challenges, and the future. Journal of Educational Research, 110(3), 221–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1289775
55.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press.
56.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.
57.
OdenwaldS.DavisH.BowersS. (2020). A retrospective analysis of the impact of SpaceMath@NASA on student performance in math and science. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 39(4), 315–338.
58.
PageC.LewisC. W.AutenriethR.Butler-PurryK. (2013). Enrichment experiences in engineering (E3) for teachers summer research program. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 14(3), 27–33.
59.
PerkinsA. (2016). Earthquake: Game-based learning for 21st century STEM education [Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation]. Texas A&M University.
60.
PinnellM.FrancoM. S.PetryL.MianA.DoudicanB.SrinivasanR. (2018). Leveraging regional strengths for STEM teacher professional development: Results from an NSF RET program focused on advanced manufacturing and materials. Research in the Schools, 25(1), 20–34.
61.
PleasantsJ.OlsonJ. K. (2019). What is engineering? Elaborating the nature of engineering for K-12 education. Science Education, 103(1), 145–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21483
62.
ReynoldsD.YazdaniN.ManzurT. (2013). STEM high school teaching enhancement through collaborative engineering research on extreme winds. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 14(1), 12–19.
63.
RingE. A.DareE. A.CrottyE. A.RoehrigG. H. (2017). The evolution of teacher conceptions of STEM education throughout an intensive professional development experience. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(5), 444–467. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2017.1356671
64.
RitzJ. M.FanS. (2015). STEM and technology education: International state-of-the-art. International Journal of Technology Design Education, 25, 429–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9290-z
65.
RoehrigG. H.MooreT. J.WangH. H.ParkM. S. (2012). Is adding the E enough? Investigating the impact of K-12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM integration. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 31–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00112.x
66.
SchenkelK.Calabrese BartonA.WiersmaC.EidenO.TanE.Calabrese BartonS. (2021). An engineering funds of knowledge framework. Science & Children, 58(6), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/19434812.2021.12291694
67.
ShidiqG. A.FaikhamtaC. (2020). Exploring the relationship of teachers’ attitudes, perceptions, and knowledge towards integrated STEM. Ilkogretim Online, 19(4). https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2020.764619
68.
ShulmanL. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–20. https://.doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
69.
StubbsE. A.MyersB. E. (2016). Part of what we do: Teacher perceptions of STEM integration. Journal of Agricultural Education, 57(3), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2016.03087
70.
TanE.Calabrese BartonA.BenavidesA. (2019). Engineering for sustainable communities: Epistemic tools in support of equitable and consequential middle school engineering. Science Education, 103(4), 1011–1046. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21515
71.
ThibautL.CeuppensS.De LoofH.De MeesterJ.GoovaertsL.StruyfA.Boeve-de PauwJ.DehaeneW.DeprezJ.De CockM.HellinckxL.KnipprathH.LangieG.StruyvenK.Van de VeldeD.Van PetegemP.DepaepeF. (2018). Integrated STEM education: A systematic review of instructional practices in secondary education. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/85525
72.
TsuiA. B. M. (2009). Distinctive qualities of expert teachers. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(4), 421–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600903057179
73.
VossenT. E.HenzeI.De VriesM. J.Van DrielJ. H. (2020). Finding the connection between research and design: The knowledge development of STEM teachers in a professional learning community. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30(2), 295–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09507-7
74.
WeinbergA. E.Sample McMeekingL. B. (2017). Toward meaningful interdisciplinary education: High school teachers’ views of mathematics and science integration. School Science and Mathematics, 117(5), 204–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12224
YoonS. A.ChinnC.NoushadN.RichmanT.Hussain-AbidiH.HunkarK.CottoneA.KatzJ.MitkusE.WendelD. (2023). Seven design principles for teaching complex socioscientific issues: The design of a complex systems agent-based disease epidemic model and the application of epistemic practices in high school biology. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1210153
77.
YoonS. A.EvansC.AndersonE.KoehlerJ.MillerK. (2019). Validating a model for assessing science teacher’s adaptive expertise with computer-supported complex systems curricula and its relationship to student learning outcomes. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(8), 890–905. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2019.1646063
78.
YoonS. A.GohS.ParkM. (2018). Teaching and learning about complex systems in K–12 science education: A review of empirical studies 1995–2015. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 285–325. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317746090
79.
YoonS. A.Koehler-YomJ.AndersonE.LinJ.KlopferE. (2015). Using an adaptive expertise lens to understand the quality of teachers’ classroom implementation of computer-supported complex systems curricula in high school science. Research in Science and Technology Education, 33(2), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2015.1031099
80.
YoonS. A.ShimJ.CottoneA.NoushadN.YooJ.MillerK. (2023). Professional development for STEM integration: Analyzing bioinformatics teaching through considerations of adaptive expertise and cognitive load. In SuperfineA.GoldmanS.KoM. (Eds.), Teacher learning in changing contexts (pp. 69–90). Routledge Press.
81.
ZengZ.YaoJ.GuH.PrzybylskiR. (2018). A meta-analysis on the effects of STEM education on students’ abilities. Science Insights Education Frontiers, 1(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.15354/sief.18.re005
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
