This meta-analysis synthesizes research findings on the effects of integrated STEM education implemented in K12 settings. The implementation fell into three categories: (1) adopting integrated STEM education, (2) using extra teaching and learning strategies to enhance integrated STEM education, and (3) using specific learning technologies to support integrated STEM education. Student learning outcomes were investigated in terms of knowledge and skills acquisition, problem-solving task performance, and student perceptions. Based on 124 extracted and coded studies (2010–2022), the findings are as follows. All three types of interventions yielded a medium effect on knowledge acquisition and a small effect on student perceptions. Besides, adopting integrated STEM education had a large effect on cognitive skills; using extra teaching and learning strategies in integrated STEM programs produced a medium effect on cognitive skills and problem-solving task performance; using specific learning technologies had a small effect on problem-solving task performance. Some factors, such as task type (inquiry or design-based task) and program duration, may influence STEM learning outcomes. Future studies should pay more attention to the effective design and implementation of STEM programs by integrating the four core characteristics of STEM education, applying extra teaching and learning strategies, incorporating relevant learning technologies, and assessing learning outcomes in multiple dimensions.
*AhmadJ.SiewN. M. (2022). An entrepreneurial science thinking module based on the socioscientific issues approach with thinking wheel map for primary school students in STEM education. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 80(1), 30–51. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/22.80.30
2.
*AnwarS.MenekseM.GuzeyS.BryanL. A. (2022). The effectiveness of an integrated STEM curriculum unit on middle school students’ life science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(7), 1204–1234. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21756
3.
*ArgelagósE.PifarréM. (2012). Improving information problem solving skills in secondary education through embedded instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.024
4.
†ArshadA. M.HalimL.NasriN. M. (2021). Impact of integrating science and engineering teaching approach on students achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 10(2), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v10i2.29839
5.
†BeckerK. H.ParkK. (2011). 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). 23–37.
6.
†BellandB. R.WalkerA. E.KimN. J.LeflerM. (2017). Synthesizing results from empirical research on computer-based scaffolding in STEM Education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 309–344. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316670999
7.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2021). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
8.
*BresslerD. M.BodzinA. M. (2016). Investigating flow experience and scientific practices during a mobile serious educational game. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(5), 795–805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9639-z
9.
†BrownJ. (2012). The current status of STEM education research. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 13(5), 7–11.
BryanL. A.MooreT. J.JohnsonC. C.RoehrigG. H. (2015). Integrated STEM education. In JohnsonC. C.Peters-BurtonE. E.MooreT. J. (Eds.), STEM Road Map: A Framework for Integrated STEM Education (pp. 23–37). Routledge.
12.
BybeeR. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. National Science Teachers Association.
13.
†ÇetinM.DemircanH. Ö. (2020). Empowering technology and engineering for STEM education through programming robots: A systematic literature review. Early Child Development and Care, 190(9), 1323–1335. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1534844
14.
*ChangC. S.ChenT. S.HsuW. H. (2011). The study on integrating WebQuest with mobile learning for environmental education. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1228–1239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.005
15.
*ChangD.HwangG. J.ChangS. C.WangS. Y. (2021). Promoting students’ cross-disciplinary performance and higher order thinking: A peer assessment-facilitated STEM approach in a mathematics course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(6), 3281–3306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10062-z
16.
*ChenC. H.YangC. K.HuangK.YaoK. C. (2020a). Augmented reality and competition in robotics education: Effects on 21st century competencies, group collaboration and learning motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(6), 1052–1062. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12469
17.
*ChenJ. C.HuangY.LinK. Y.ChangY. S.LinH. C.LinC. Y.HsiaoH. S. (2020b). Developing a hands-on activity using virtual reality to help students learn by doing. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(1), 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12389
18.
*ChenJ.WangM.GrotzerT. A.DedeC. (2018a). Using a three-dimensional thinking graph to support inquiry learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(9), 1239–1263. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21450
19.
ChenJ.WangM.KirschnerP. A.TsaiC.-C. (2018b). The role of collaboration, computer use, learning environments, and supporting strategies in CSCL: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 88(6), 799–843. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318791584
20.
*ChenY.ChangC. C. (2018). The impact of an integrated robotics STEM course with a sailboat topic on high school students’ perceptions of integrative stem, interest, and career orientation. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(12), em1614. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/94314
21.
*ChienY. H. (2017). Developing a pre-engineering curriculum for 3D printing skills for high school technology education. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(7), 2941–2958. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00729a
22.
ChittumJ. R.JonesB. D.AkalinS.SchramÁ. B. (2017). The effects of an afterschool STEM program on students’ motivation and engagement. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0065-4
23.
*ChristensenR.KnezekG.Tyler-WoodT. (2015). Alignment of hands-on STEM engagement activities with positive STEM dispositions in secondary school students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(6), 898–909. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9572-6
24.
†ChuW. W.HafizN. R. M.MohamadU. A.AshamuddinH.ThoS. W. (2022). A review of STEM education with the support of visualizing its structure through the CiteSpace software. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 33(1), 39-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09728-3
†CondeM. Á.Rodríguez-SedanoF. J.Fernández-LlamasC.GonçalvesJ.LimaJ.García-PeñalvoF. J. (2021). Fostering STEAM through challenge-based learning, robotics, and physical devices: A systematic mapping literature review. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(1), 46–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22354
28.
*CrottyE. A.GuzeyS. S.RoehrigG. H.GlancyA. W.Ring-WhalenE. A.MooreT. J. (2017). Approaches to integrating engineering in STEM units and student achievement gains. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 7(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1148
29.
*CunninghamC. M.LachapelleC. P.BrennanR. T.KellyG. J.TunisC. S. A.GentryC. A. (2020). 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
30.
DeweyJ. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
31.
DuvalS.TweedieR. (2000). A nonparametric “trim and fill” method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95(449), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2000.10473905
*FanS. C.YuK. C. (2017). How an integrative STEM curriculum can benefit students in engineering design practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(1), 107–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9328-x
34.
†GaoF.LiL.SunY. (2020). A systematic review of mobile game-based learning in STEM education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(4), 1791–1827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09787-0
35.
*Gillespie RouseA.RouseR. (2019). Third graders’ use of writing to facilitate learning of engineering concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(10), 1406–1430. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21581
36.
†GyasiJ. F.ZhengL.ZhouY. (2021). Perusing the past to propel the future: A systematic review of STEM learning activity based on activity theory. Sustainability, 13(16), 8828. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168828
37.
HedgesL. V.PigottT. D. (2004). The power of statistical tests for moderators in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 9(4), 426–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.426
†HessJ.SorgeB.FeldhausC. (2016). The efficacy of Project Lead the Way: A systematic literature review. Paper presented at 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.26151
40.
*HiğdeE.AktamışH. (2022). The effects of STEM activities on students’ STEM career interests, motivation, science process skills, science achievement and views. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 43, 101000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101000
41.
*HousealA. K.Abd-El-KhalickF.DestefanoL. (2014). Impact of a student-teacher-scientist partnership on students’ and teachers’ content knowledge, attitudes toward science, and pedagogical practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 84–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21126
42.
*HuH. W.ChiuC. H.ChiouG.-F. (2019). Effects of question stem on pupils’ online questioning, science learning, and critical thinking. Journal of Educational Research, 112(4), 564–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2019.1608896
43.
†HynesM. M.MathisC.PurzerS.RynearsonA.SiverlingE. (2017). Systematic review of research in P-12 engineering education from 2000-2015. The International Journal of Engineering Education, 33(1B), 453–462.
†JeongH.Hmelo-SilverC. E.JoK. (2019). Ten years of computer-supported collaborative learning: A meta-analysis of CSCL in STEM education during 2005–2014. Educational Research Review, 28, 100284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100284
46.
*KaraahmetoğluK.KorkmazÖ. (2019). The effect of project-based Arduino educational robot applications on students’ computational thinking skills and their perception of basic STEM skills levels. Participatory Educational Research, 6(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.19.8.6.2
47.
*KeF. (2019). Mathematical problem solving and learning in an architecture-themed epistemic game. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(5), 1085–1104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-09643-2
KelleyT. R.KnowlesJ. 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
50.
†KimN. J.BellandB. R.LeflerM.AndreasenL.WalkerA.AxelrodD. (2020). Computer-based scaffolding targeting individual versus groups in problem-centered instruction for STEM education: Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32(2), 415–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09502-3
51.
†KimN. J.BellandB. R.WalkerA. E. (2018). Effectiveness of computer-based scaffolding in the context of problem-based learning for STEM education: Bayesian meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(2), 397–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9419-1
52.
KirschnerP. A.HendrickC. (2020). How learning happens: Seminal works in educational psychology and what they mean in practice. Routledge.
53.
KirschnerP. A.SwellerJ.ClarkR. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
54.
*KnezekG.ChristensenR. (2020). Project-based learning for middle school students monitoring standby power: Replication of impact on stem knowledge and dispositions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 137–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09674-3
55.
*KorurF.EfeG.ErdoganF.TunçB. (2017). Effects of toy crane design-based learning on simple machines. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(2), 251–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9688-4
56.
*LambR.AkmalT.PetrieK. (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
57.
LaveJ.WengerE. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
58.
LazonderA. W.HarmsenR. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718.
59.
*LiY.HuangZ.JiangM.ChangT. W. (2016). The effect on pupils’ science performance and problem-solving ability through Lego: An engineering design-based modeling approach. Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 143–156.
60.
†LiY.WangK.XiaoY.FroydJ. E. (2020). Research and trends in STEM education: A systematic review of journal publications. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00207-6
61.
*LinK. Y.HsiaoH. S.ChangY. S.ChienY. H.WuY. T. (2018). The effectiveness of using 3D printing technology in STEM project-based learning activities. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(12), em1633. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/97189
62.
*LinK.-Y.HsiaoH.-S.WilliamsP. J.ChenY.-H. (2020a). 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
63.
*LinK. Y.LuS. C.HsiaoH. H.KaoC. P.WilliamsP. J. (2021). Developing student imagination and career interest through a STEM project using 3D printing with repetitive modeling. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(5), 2884–2898. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1913607
64.
*LinK. Y.YuK. C.HsiaoH. S.ChangY. S.ChienY. H. (2020b). Effects of web-based versus classroom-based STEM learning environments on the development of collaborative problem-solving skills in junior high school students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9488-6
65.
*LinY.-T.WangM.-T.WuC.-C. (2019). Design and implementation of interdisciplinary stem instruction: Teaching programming by computational physics. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28(1), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-018-0415-0
66.
*LindgrenR.TschollM.WangS.JohnsonE. (2016). Enhancing learning and engagement through embodied interaction within a mixed reality simulation. Computers & Education, 95, 174–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.001
67.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Sage.
68.
MargotK. C.KettlerT. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: a systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1-16.
69.
†Martín-PáezT.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(4), 799–822. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21522
70.
*McHughL.KellyA. M.FisherJ. H.BurghardtM. D. (2021). Graphing as a means to improve middle school science learning and mathematics-related affective domains. Research in Science Education, 51(2), 301–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9796-6
71.
*MentzerN. (2014). High school student information access and engineering design performance. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 4(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1074
72.
†MizellS.BrownS. D. (2017). The current status of stem education research 2013-2015. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 17(4), 52–56.
73.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
74.
MooreT. J.JohnstonA. C.GlancyA. W. (2020). STEM integration: A synthesis of conceptual frameworks and definitions. In JohnsonC. C.Mohr-SchroederM. J.MooreT. J.EnglishL. D. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on STEM Education (pp. 3–16). Routledge.
75.
MorrisS. B. (2008). Estimating effect sizes from pretest-posttest-control group designs. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 364–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106291059
76.
†MustafaN.IsmailZ.TasirZ.Mohamad SaidM. N. H. (2016). A meta-analysis on effective strategies for integrated STEM education. Advanced Science Letters, 22(12), 4225–4228. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2016.8111
77.
National Research Council. (2012a). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
78.
National Research Council. (2012b). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st Century. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13398
79.
National Research Council. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18612
80.
National Science Foundation. (2020). STEM Education for the Future: A Vision Report. National Science Foundation. https://www.nsf.gov/edu/Materials/STEM Education for the Future - 2020 Visioning Report.pdf
81.
National Science Foundation. (2000). An introduction to inquiry. In Inquiry: Thoughts, views, and strategies for the K-5 classroom (Vol. 2, pp. 1–5). Washington, DC.
82.
*NguyenH.SantagataR. (2021). Impact of computer modeling on learning and teaching systems thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(5), 661–688. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21674
83.
*NugentG.BarkerB.LesterH.GrandgenettN.ValentineD. (2019). Wearable textiles to support student stem learning and attitudes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(5), 470–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09779-7
84.
†NiteS. B.CapraroM. M.CapraroR. M.BicerA. (2017). Explicating the characteristics of STEM teaching and learning: A metasynthesis. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 52(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.30707/JSTE52.1Nite
85.
*OzkanG.Umdu TopsakalU. (2021). Investigating the effectiveness of STEAM education on students’ conceptual understanding of force and energy topics. Research in Science & Technological Education, 39(4), 441–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2020.1769586
86.
*ParnoP.YuliatiL.HermantoF. M.AliM. (2020). A case study on comparison of high school students’ scientific literacy competencies domain in physics with different methods: PBL-STEM education, PBL, and conventional learning. Journal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 9(2), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v9i2.23894
87.
†PellasN.DengelA.ChristopoulosA. (2020). A scoping review of immersive virtual reality in STEM education. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 13(4), 748–761. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2020.3019405
88.
†PellasN.KazanidisI.KonstantinouN.GeorgiouG. (2017). Exploring the educational potential of three-dimensional multi-user virtual worlds for STEM education: A mixed-method systematic literature review. Education and Information Technologies, 22(5), 2235–2279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9537-2
89.
†Quintana-CifuentesJ. P.AsundaP.PurzerS.MaganaA. J. (2019). Sustainability competencies in stem education at secondary schools: A systematized literature review. Paper presented at 2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2–33329
90.
*RachmatullahA.WiebeE. N. (2022). Building a computational model of food webs: Impacts on middle school students’ computational and systems thinking skills. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(4), 585–618. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21738
91.
*RaesA.SchellensT.De WeverB.VanderhovenE. (2012). Scaffolding information problem solving in web-based collaborative inquiry learning. Computers & Education, 59(1), 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.010
92.
†RahmanN. A.RosliR.RambelyA. S.HalimL. (2021). Mathematics teachers’ practices of STEM education: A systematic literature review. European Journal of Educational Research, 10(3), 1541–1559. https://doi.org/10.12973/EU-JER.10.3.1541
93.
RoehrigG. H.DareE. A.EllisJ. A.Ring-WhalenE. (2021). Beyond the basics: A detailed conceptual framework of integrated STEM. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 3(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-021-00041-y
94.
*RosenY.TagerM. (2014). Making student thinking visible through a concept map in computer-based assessment of critical thinking. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50(2), 249–270. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.50.2.f
*SchnittkaC.BellR. (2011). Engineering design and conceptual change in science: Addressing thermal energy and heat transfer in eighth grade. International Journal of Science Education, 33(13), 1861–1887. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.529177
97.
*SchuchardtA. M.SchunnC. D. (2016). Modeling scientific processes with mathematics equations enhances student qualitative conceptual understanding and quantitative problem solving. Science Education, 100(2), 290–320. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21198
98.
*SiewN. M.AmboN. (2020). The scientific creativity of fifth graders in a STEM project-based cooperative learning approach. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 78(4), 627–643. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/20.78.627
99.
†SırakayaM.SırakayaD. A. (2020). Augmented reality in STEM education: A systematic review. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(8), 1556–1569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1722713
100.
SlavinR. E.LakeC.ChambersB.CheungA.DavisS. (2009). Effective reading programs for the elementary grades: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 79(4), 1391–1466. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309341374
101.
†SopakitiboonT.TuampoemsabS.ChookaewS.HowimanpornS. (2021). Trends of engineering design process in STEM education: A systematic review of the evidence during 2017-2021. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computers in Education (pp. 587–596). Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.
102.
SterneJ. A. C.SuttonA. J.IoannidisJ. P. A.TerrinN.JonesD. R.LauJ., . . .. . .HigginsJ. P. T. (2011). Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ, 343(1), d4002–d4002. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d4002
103.
†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
104.
TukeyJ. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Addison-Wesley.
105.
*ValleraF. L.BodzinA. 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
106.
VongkulluksnV. W.MatewosA. M.SinatraG. M.MarshJ. 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
107.
*VossenT. E.HenzeI.RippeR. C. A.Van DrielJ. H.De VriesM. 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
108.
†WangL. H.ChenB.HwangG. J.GuanJ. Q.WangY. Q. (2022a). Effects of digital game-based STEM education on students’ learning achievement: A meta-analysis. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00344-0
109.
WangM. (2024). Rethinking how people learn: A holistic framework for effective learning design. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 16(2), 208–216. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2024.16.010
110.
WangM.WuB.KirschnerP. A.SpectorJ. M. (2018a). Using cognitive mapping to foster deeper learning with complex problems in a computer-based environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 450–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.024
111.
WangM.YuanB.KirschnerP. A.KushnirukA. W.PengJ. (2018b). Reflective learning with complex problems in a visualization-based learning environment with expert support. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 406–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.025
112.
*WangQ.PengY.WangH. (2022b). A curation activity-based self-regulated learning promotion approach as scaffolding to improving learners’ performance in STEM courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(4), 843–876. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211056532
113.
*WendellK.B.RogersC. (2013). Engineering design-based science, science content performance, and science attitudes in elementary school. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 513–540. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20026
114.
†WinarnoN.RusdianaD.SamsudinA.SusilowatiE.AhmadN. J.AfifahR. M. A. (2020). Synthesizing results from empirical research on engineering design process in science education: A systematic literature review. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(12), em1912. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9129
115.
*WrzesienM.RayaM. A. (2010). Learning in serious virtual worlds: Evaluation of learning effectiveness and appeal to students in the E-Junior project. Computers & Education, 55(1), 178–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.01.003
116.
WuB.WangM. (2012). Integrating problem solving and knowledge construction through dual mapping. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 4(3), 248. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2012.04.021
117.
WuB.WangM.GrotzerT. A.LiuJ.JohnsonJ. M. (2016). Visualizing complex processes using a cognitive-mapping tool to support the learning of clinical reasoning. BMC Medical Education, 16, 216. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0734-x
118.
*YannierN.HudsonS. E.KoedingerK. R. (2020). Active learning is about more than hands-on: A mixed-reality AI system to support STEM education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 30(1), 74–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-020-00194-3
119.
†YildirimB. (2016). An analyses and meta-synthesis of research on STEM education. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(34), 23–33.
120.
†YoungJ.OrtizN.YoungJ. (2017). STEMulating interest: A meta-analysis of the effects of out-of-school time on student STEM interest. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(1), 62–74.
121.
ZhangL.KirschnerP. A.CobernW. W.SwellerJ. (2022). There is an evidence crisis in science educational policy. Educational Psychology Review, 34, 1157–1176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09646-1
*ZoharB. R.TrumperR. (2020). The influence of inquiry-based remote observations via powerful optic robotic telescopes on high school students’ conceptions of physics and of learning physics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(5), 635–645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09842-8
Supplementary Material
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.
