Abstract
Chen et al. conducted a meta-analysis on the effects of integrated STEM education (iSTEMe) on K–12 achievement, reporting strong evidence of its superiority over traditional STEM instruction. Such a forceful finding given the complexity of iSTEMe led us to approach the meta-analysis with skepticism. Guided by the falsifiability principle, we examined whether the included primary studies met Chen et al.’s own criteria. Two major flaws were found: (1) the inclusion of studies that do not meet the inclusion criteria for integrated STEM disciplines, and (2) the failure to isolate the disciplinary integration variable from confounding instructional factors. These shortcomings call into question Chen et al.’s conclusions and highlight the need for more rigorous research designs to evaluate the effectiveness of iSTEMe.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
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.
