REVIEW Open Access

Teachers’ perception of STEM integrationand education: a systematic literaturereviewKelly C. Margot1* and Todd Kettler2

Abstract

Background: For schools to include quality STEM education, it is important to understand teachers’ beliefs andperceptions related to STEM talent development. Teachers, as important persons within a student’s talentdevelopment, hold prior views and experiences that will influence their STEM instruction. This study attempts tounderstand what is known about teachers’ perceptions of STEM education by examining existing literature.

Results: Study inclusion criteria consisted of empirical articles, which aligned with research questions, published ina scholarly journal between 2000 and 2016 in English. Participants included in primary studies were preK-12teachers. After quality assessment, 25 articles were included in the analysis. Thematic analysis was used to findthemes within the data. Findings indicate that while teachers value STEM education, they reported barriers such aspedagogical challenges, curriculum challenges, structural challenges, concerns about students, concerns aboutassessments, and lack of teacher support. Teachers felt supports that would improve their effort to implement STEMeducation included collaboration with peers, quality curriculum, district support, prior experiences, and effectiveprofessional development.

Conclusions: Recommendations for practice include quality in-service instruction over STEM pedagogy best practicesand district support of collaboration time with peer teachers. Recommendations for future research are given.

Keywords: STEM, Teacher perception, Teacher beliefs, Systematic literature review, Engineering in K-12 schools

IntroductionIn order to address the need for more science, technol-ogy, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) literateworkers, both elementary and secondary classrooms areintegrating STEM curriculum and pedagogy into theirschool day. According to NAE & NRC (2014), STEM lit-erate means (1) awareness of the roles of science, tech-nology, engineering, and mathematics in modernsociety; (2) familiarity with at least some of the funda-mental concepts from each area; and (3) a basic level ofapplication fluency (e.g., the ability to critically evaluatethe science or engineering content in a news report,conduct basic troubleshooting of common technologies,and perform basic mathematical operations relevant todaily life) (p. 34).For every person that is unemployed

with a STEM degree, there are 2.4 million unfilled jobs(National Science Board 2012). It is important to oureconomy that schools be successful at producing stu-dents capable of talented contributions in STEM fields.In order to capitalize fully on the STEM potential of ourstudents, schools must streamline STEM education andrefine their instructional pedagogy. Gomez and Albrecht(2013) advocate for grounding this education and in-struction in STEM pedagogy through an interdisciplin-ary approach. This approach allows students to makereal-world connections and prepare for STEM pathwaysand careers. Reform initiatives have begun with the goalof better integrating engineering and technology intotraditional math and science classrooms (National Sci-ence Board 2007). Teaching through the engineering de-sign process is one approach to integrating the subjectsusing a project-based approach that requires students toapply content knowledge to solve problems. This is thebasis for STEM pedagogy. The students learn by doing

* Correspondence: margotk@gvsu.edu1Department of Teaching and Learning, Grand Valley State University, 401Fulton St. W, Grand Rapids, MI 49504, USAFull list of author information is available at the end of the article

International Journal ofSTEM Education

© The Author(s). 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, andreproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link tothe Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Margot and Kettler International Journal of STEM Education (2019) 6:2 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2

and are encouraged to develop new understandingswhile refining their ideas (Mooney and Laubach 2002).Providing in-depth problem solving through STEM edu-cation with authentic experiences requires that teachersare skilled with this unique student-directed pedagogy.Educators have to understand the value and power ofthe engineering design process to enable students to failand persevere. These teachers have to know not justtheir subject matter, but the content of the other disci-plines. Also, they must feel capable of creating an educa-tional environment that allows students to solveill-defined problems while deepening their contentknowledge.

STEM education and talent developmentGagné’s (2011) differentiated model of giftedness andtalent explains how a person’s natural abilities, or gifts,can be developed through learning and practice into tal-ents. Part of this model is the presence of catalysts thatcan either inhibit or facilitate the talent developmentprocess. These catalysts can be intrapersonal, like perfec-tionism or confidence, environmental, like programs orpersons, or chance, things like genetic make-up andfamily. Teachers are an example of persons who play therole of catalyst in the talent development process (Gagné2007). In this role, they can either help or hinder a stu-dent’s development of STEM talent. STEM programs arean example of an environmental catalyst. The availabilityof a quality STEM program in a student’s educationwould facilitate their talent development in science,technology, engineering, and mathematics (MacFarlane2016). The teacher plays an important role in this envir-onment, and therefore, the person and environmentwork together to develop STEM talent in this model.Within Gagné’s (2011) model, catalysts are not part ofthe initial gift or the end talent, they are just part of thedevelopmental pathway between the two. During thelearning and practice required to develop STEM talent,teachers and STEM programs provide the opportunities,support, and experiences students need to reach theirpotential (MacFarlane 2016).STEM education is not a well-defined experience, but

it does involve similar hallmarks within the design andimplementation (Honey et al. 2014). Moore et al. (2014)conducted an extensive review of published literature,analyzed documents of state content standards, and con-sulted with experts in STEM fields in order to determinethe ways teachers utilize STEM education in their class-rooms. After this exhaustive search, these researchersdesignated a framework that includes six major tenetsfor quality K-12 STEM education: (a) the inclusion ofmath and science content, (b) student-centered peda-gogy, (c) lessons are situated in engaging and motivatingcontext, (d) inclusion of engineering design or redesign

challenge, (e) students learn from making mistakes, and(f ) teamwork is emphasized. STEM in education is botha curriculum and pedagogy. The curriculum includescross-curricular real-world challenges for students tosolve. Judith Ramely, who was the director of the Na-tional Science Foundation’s education and human re-sources division, decided on the acronym STEM. Sheexplained that math and science are used as the book-ends for engineering and technology (Christenson 2011).According to Honey et al. (2014), the integration ofknowledge must be explicit both within the disciplinesand across the disciplines. Students must haveintentional instruction into the connectedness of sci-ence, technology, engineering, and mathematics. STEMeducation also includes the use of the engineering designprocess. There are various forms of this process, butthey all include a cyclical process of students evaluatingtheir solutions and then working to improve upon them.This revision step is an important part of STEM becauseit requires perseverance and the acknowledgment thatsolutions can always be improved upon. There is morethan one answer to STEM challenges. STEM pedagogyexplains the teacher’s role within STEM instruction. Theteacher guides students to examine problems from allangles by questioning. This pedagogy involves the phil-osophy that students are capable of guiding their ownlearning. Teachers are just there to facilitate thisstudent-led process. Students use hands-on, practical ap-plications of content in order to solve their challenges.Students are also introduced to STEM professions,which some researchers believe may increase the num-ber of underrepresented populations in STEM jobs(Bagiati and Evangelou 2015). The student goals ofSTEM education according to Honey et al. (2014) in-clude STEM literacy, twenty-first century competencies,STEM workforce readiness, ability to make connectionsamong STEM disciplines, and interest and engagement.While addressing the standards in each subject area, stu-dents engage in the engineering design process to makeconnections to the real world. An example is studyingsimple machines to discover how a car works.STEM education includes student use of math and sci-

ence concepts they have learned in an applied settingthrough the use of engineering design and technology. In-stead of being taught in a vacuum, math and science arebrought to life through their need to be used in order tosolve a real problem (Chamberlin and Pereira 2017).An example of STEM education in action was a stu-

dent raising the question about what could be done toprevent a neighborhood raccoon from getting into hisfamily’s trashcan. The class analyzed the situation andthe trashcan in question then proposed creating a clipfor the lid using a 3D printer. The students carefullymeasured and designed the clip. After printing, they

Margot and Kettler International Journal of STEM Education (2019) 6:2 Page 2 of 16

discovered the clip would not stay attached to the can.At this point, they evaluated what modifications neededto be made in the design. Using 3D CAD software, thestudents made the changes and reprinted the trashcanclip. This time the clip worked to keep the lid attachedto the trashcan and prevented further raccoon scaven-ging in his family’s trash.

STEM and giftedSome of the same tenets of gifted education are seen inSTEM pedagogy. Hockett (2009) examined all majorcurriculum recommendations for gifted learners andfound five principles of agreement: uses a conceptual ap-proach within a discipline; pursues advanced levels ofunderstanding; asks students to use processes and mate-rials that approximate those of a practicing professionalin the domain; and emphasizes problems, products, andperformances that are true-to-life with transformationaloutcomes, and the curriculum needs to be flexibleenough to allow self-directed learning fueled by studentinterest. STEM pedagogy contains all five principles byallowing students to work as professionals within thedisciplines of science, technology, engineering, andmath, while solving real-world problems in which theyare interested. STEM pedagogy also leads students to adeeper understanding of content while solvingill-defined problems (Mann and Mann 2017).According to VanTassel-Baska and Little (2011), this

type of pedagogy is not only good practice with giftedstudents, but is also best practice with all students. Allstudents benefit from instruction rich in context andstudent-led investigations.Though efforts are being made to implement STEM

programming from the government all the way down tolocal school district initiatives, teachers are the singlemost important factor in the equation (McMullin andReeve 2014). Curriculum is simply a blueprint, andSTEM education requires a pedagogical shift tostudent-centered learning. In addition, much of the in-struction is inquiry-based and experimental. It is para-mount that administrators and policy-makers discoverthe challenges and barriers teachers believe impede thiseffort to develop STEM talent in classrooms. It is alsosalient to discover what supports teachers feel wouldbolster their work as STEM practitioners. The role ofthe teacher is different with STEM, but just as import-ant. These teachers have to provide project-based les-sons that encourage critical thinking and innovationwhile building student understanding of content andconcepts (Nadelson and Seifert 2013). Teachers mustuse questioning strategies to challenge students to thinkusing higher cognitive processes so they will thinkdeeply about concepts and ideas in order to solve STEMchallenges (Bruce-Davis et al. 2014). This type of

questioning is an essential skill for STEM teachers’ in-struction. How do teachers feel about using this type ofquestioning with students? Although primary and sec-ondary teachers play an important role in the STEM tal-ent development of these students, few studies existdetermining the prior held beliefs and perceptions ofthese practitioners toward STEM curriculum and peda-gogy. Policy-makers, administrators, and school adminis-trators need to understand what challenges and barriersteachers feel exist that prevent them from developingSTEM talent in our schools. Johnson (2006) reportedthat many teachers lack resources needed to effectivelyimplement inquiry-based learning experiences for theirstudents. Understanding these challenges can help facili-tate the implementation and success of STEM programs.Both school administrators and teacher educators alsoneed to determine what supports teachers feel wouldimprove their ability to prepare students seeking STEMdegrees and pursuing STEM careers.This review, by examining and critically analyzing

multiple existing studies, will provide a complete sum-mary of what is known about teacher beliefs and percep-tions regarding STEM curriculum and pedagogy.

Research questionsThe purpose of the study is to examine existing litera-ture on teachers’ perceptions of developing STEM talent.This study attempts to understand what is known aboutteacher beliefs related to STEM talent development. Toexamine what exists in the literature, the following ques-tions were used:

1) How does existing research characterize teachers’perceptions of utilizing STEM pedagogy?

2) What do teachers identify as challenges andbarriers to using STEM pedagogy in theirclassrooms?

3) What supports do teachers feel would improvetheir efforts to implement STEM pedagogy in theirclassrooms?

MethodsThis systematic literature review utilized the PRISMAguidelines and flow chart. PRISMA guidelines include a27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram outlin-ing the items essential for transparency in conductingliterature reviews (Liberati et al. 2009).

Eligibility criteriaIn order to be included in this review, studies needed tobe peer-reviewed and published in a scholarly journal(trade journals, magazines, and newspapers were ex-cluded) between 2000 and 2017. Eligible studies alsoneeded to be published in English with preK-12 teacher

Margot and Kettler International Journal of STEM Education (2019) 6:2 Page 3 of 16

participants and empirical in nature (editorials andmonographs were excluded). The study also needed toaddress at least one of the review’s research questions.

Data sourcesDatabases searched were electronic and concerned theareas of education and social science. The exact data-bases searched were Academic Search Complete, ERICvia Ebscohost, and PsychINFO via Ebscohost. To bethorough, Google Scholar was also used to check that allrelevant articles had been found. Google Scholar doesnot have the same limiting search terms so yielded869,000 results sorted by relevance. Haddaway et al.’s(2015) recommendation to examine the first 200 to 300results from Google Scholar in order to find any missedliterature was followed, and the abstracts of the first 300articles were examined. One article was found that hadnot been found on the other databases. The last searchwas run on September 28, 2018.

SearchThe following search terms were used to search eachdatabase: “teacher” AND “perception OR beliefs OR atti-tudes” AND “STEM OR engineering.” All searches weremade against article abstracts. Search limiters were usedto align with the screening criteria. Results of the initialsearch can be found in Table 1.

Study selectionScreeningA diagram of the screening process can be seen in Fig. 1.In order to select studies for inclusion the following cri-teria were used sequentially against article abstracts:

Criteria 1: Study published between 2000 and 2017 inEnglishCriteria 2: Study published in scholarly journalCriteria 3: Study participants included preK-12 teachersCriteria 4: Study is empirical (qualitative, quantitative,mixed methods, or meta-analyses)Criteria 5: Extracted data aligns with current study’sfocus and research questions

A total of 29 articles were retained after screening.

EvaluationIn order to evaluate the quality of each article, a rubricthat examined seven criterion (Objectives and Purposes,Review of the Literature, Theoretical Frameworks, Par-ticipants, Methods, Results and Conclusions, and Signifi-cance) was used against the full-text contents, and eachof the seven parts was measured to see that they met thestandards of quality reporting (Mullet 2016) (Table 2).Each of the seven parts was scored on a 4-point scalewhere 1 = Does Not Meet Standard, 2 = Nearly MeetsStandard, 3 =Meets Standard, and 4 = Exceeds Standard.After summing the seven parts, the total possible scorefor each article was between 7 and 28. Articles thatscored equal to or less than 14 were excluded as notmeeting the quality standard. After assessing the qualityof each article, four were excluded and 25 retained. Toguard against bias, the second author reviewed includedand excluded articles against the criteria and confirmedthat all retained articles met the criteria.

Data analysisThematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006) was used asa method for identifying, analyzing, and reportingthemes (or patterns) within the data. Each theme ismeant to capture important information about the data.Braun and Clarke (2006) recommend six phases of the-matic analysis. The first phase involved becoming famil-iar with the data, the second phase was where initialcodes were generated, the third phase involved an initialsearch for themes by collating the codes, the fourthphase required that each theme was checked or reviewedto ensure the coded extracts work in relation, the fifthphase was when the themes were defined and named,and the sixth phase was producing the report from thethemes by relating them back to the research questions.To establish a rating protocol, both authors read all 25

retained articles and agreed on a pre-set coding protocolusing four broad categories: (a) teachers, (b) district sup-port, (c) curriculum/materials, and (d) students. The firstthree articles were analyzed independently by both au-thors, and 45 text segments were extracted and placed

Table 1 Results of initial search

Search terms Database Search limiters Hits

“teacher” AND “perception OR beliefs OR attitudes” AND Academic Search Complete Scholarly (peer reviewed) JournalsPublished: 2000–2017

897

“STEM OR engineering” ERIC via Ebscohost Scholarly (peer reviewed) JournalsPublished: 2000–2017

1151

PsycINFO via Ebscohost Scholarly (peer reviewed) JournalsPublished: 2000–2017

470

Total with duplications removed 712

Note. Searches were performed against article abstracts

Margot and Kettler International Journal of STEM Education (2019) 6:2 Page 4 of 16

into one of the four categories. Interrater reliability onthose three articles was calculated using a percent agree-ment metric (McHugh 2012) with both raters assigningthe text segment to the same category 42 out of 45 timesfor an agreement rate of .93. The first author used thisfour-category protocol to code each of the remaining 22articles. Five articles were selected at random for thesecond author to independently code to corroborateinterrater reliability. Thus, a total of eight articles werecoded by two raters—the first three and then five se-lected randomly. This yielded 129 extracted text seg-ments assigned to the four broad categories. Both ratersagreed on 116 of the 129 for an agreement rate of .90.Analysis of those 13 disagreement codes helped bothraters better understand the categories until both ratersagreed on the assignment of each text segment. Bothraters worked together to refine the broad codes intosub-codes (see Table 3) that could contextually be inter-preted toward thematic findings. Approximately 430total pieces of data as text segments, or codes, were ex-tracted from the 25 articles.

ResultsWhen examining the years each of the 25 retained arti-cles was published, an interesting phenomenon wasnoted. The earliest date was 2010, and then, the numberof articles published on the topic each year increased,ending with five articles in 2017. This issue is of importbeyond the USA as 20 of the articles retained were

conducted in the USA, two in the UK, one in Saudi Ara-bia, one in Thailand, and one in South Korea. With re-gard to the methodology used in the retained studies, 12of them were qualitative, seven used mixed methods,and six used a quantitative method to analyze the col-lected data. A summary of retained articles can be foundin Table 4.

How does existing research characterize teachers’perceptions of utilizing STEM pedagogy?Existing research gives us some insight into the beliefsteachers hold about STEM education. Several themesemerged to summarize existing research related to thefollowing codes: teacher variables, application activities,cross-curricular integration, student enjoyment, studentstruggles, and value of STEM.

Teacher variablesTeachers’ years of experience are inconsistently related totheir perceptions of STEM integration or education, andteachers’ value or interest in STEM may mediate the re-lationship (finding 1). For example, teacher’s years of ex-perience seem to have some influence on his/herfeelings. One study showed more experienced teachers(> 15 years) had a more positive view of the importanceof STEM education when compared with new teachers(between 1 and 5 years of experience) (Park et al. 2016),while two other studies showed teacher’s years of experi-ence were not associated with their knowledge of or

Fig. 1 Diagram of the screening process. The diagram shows how the studies were culled down from the initial database search to the finalretained studies

Margot and Kettler International Journal of STEM Education (2019) 6:2 Page 5 of 16

comfort with teaching STEM (Nadelson et al. 2013; Sri-koom et al. 2017). Another study found teachers withmoderate experience (between 6 and 15 years) were ac-tually least familiar with engineering characteristics andlikely to have a bias against female students’ ability tolearn STEM (Hsu et al. 2011). While Park et al. (2017)found that, for participants who valued STEM educa-tion, as teaching experience increased, so too did a

teachers’ readiness level for teaching STEM. However,teachers who did not value STEM education did notshow higher readiness levels with more years of experi-ence. These teachers’ years of experience made no differ-ence in their feelings of preparedness with teachingSTEM. Stohlmann et al. (2012) also found teacher pas-sion toward STEM education affected their confidenceand comfort in implementing the curriculum. Perhapsvaluing this type of pedagogy mediates growth in teacherreadiness, and this variable should be considered morefrequently.Age, gender, and STEM experiences of teachers may

also play a role in their perceptions of STEM education(finding 2). Nadelson et al. (2013) found as teachers’ ageincreased so did their positive attitude toward engineer-ing in the classroom. Female teachers have been shownto perceive technology as less important within theSTEM field than their male colleagues (Smith et al.2015) and have also been found to have a more negativeview in general of STEM education than male teachers(Park et al. 2016).

Table 2 Quality assessment rubric

Criterion 4—exceeds standard 3—meets standard 2—nearly meets standard 1—does not meetstandard

I Objectivesandpurposes

Clearly articulated problem,objective, rationale, researchquestions.

Adequately articulated. Poorly articulated. Incomplete.

II Review ofliterature

Critically examines state of thefield. Clearly situates the topicwithin the broader field. Makescompelling connections to pastwork. Discusses and resolvesambiguities in definitions.Synthesizes and evaluates ideas;offers new perspectives.

Discusses what has and has notbeen done. Situates topic withinthe broader field. Makesconnections to past work.Defines key vocabulary.Synthesizes and evaluates ideas.

Minimally discusses what hasand has not been done. Vaguelydiscusses broader field. Makesfew connections to past work.Lacks synthesis across literature.Minimal evaluation of ideas.

Fails to discuss what hasand has not been done.Topic not situated withinbroader literature. Noconnections to past work.

III Theoreticalorconceptualframeworks

Clearly articulated and describedin detail. Frameworks align withstudy purposes.

Articulated; aligns with studypurposes.

Implied or described in vagueterms, or fails to align withpurposes.

Absent.

IV Participants Detailed, contextual descriptionof population, sample andsampling procedures.

Detailed description ofpopulation, sample andprocedures.

Basic description of sample andprocedures.

Incomplete.

V Methods Instruments and theiradministration described indetail. Evidence for validity andreliability. Documented bestresearch practices. Potential biasconsidered.

Instruments and theiradministration described.Evidence for validity or reliability.Some evidence of best researchpractices. Potential biasconsidered.

Instruments described.Incomplete evidence of validityor reliability. Questionableresearch practices.

Incomplete.

VI Results andconclusions

Detailed results. Exceptional useof data displays. Discussionclearly connects findings to pastwork. Proposes future directionsfor research. Conclusions clearlyaddress the problem orquestions.

Complete results. Sufficient useof data displays. Discussionconnects findings to past work.Conclusions address theproblems or questions.

Basic results. Insufficient use ofdata displays. Discussion fails toconnect findings to past work.Conclusions summarize findings.

Incomplete.

VII Significance Clearly and convincinglyarticulates scholarly andpractical significance of thestudy.

Articulates scholarly and practicalsignificance of the study.

Articulates scholarly or practicalsignificance, but is neither clearnor convincing.

Not articulated.

Table 3 Four pre-established codes with refined sub-codes

Teachers• Professional development• Prior experiences with STEM• Working in collaborative teams• Time (not enough)• Knowledge of STEM disciplines• Teachers’ value of STEM education

Students• Student struggles• Enjoyment of STEM activities• Student concerns

District• Support systems• Assessments• Structural issues

Curriculum• Cross-curricular integration• Application activities• Curriculum materials• STEM pedagogy

Margot and Kettler International Journal of STEM Education (2019) 6:2 Page 6 of 16

Table 4 Summary of included empirical articles

Author(s)(year)

Participants Methodology Findings

Al Salami etal. (2017)

42 middle and high schoolteachers in USA

Pretest-posttest surveys administered with PD andteaching a STEM unit. 29 of the teachers alsoanswered 2 open-ended questions about successesand challenges with implementation of STEM.

No overall significant change from pretest toposttest in attitudes toward STEM. Qualitativefindings of the challenges and barriers teachers feltare as follows: (1) students’ background knowledgeand skills, (2) students’ buy-in, (3) securing supplies/expenses, (4) students’ group, (5) using fellows, (6)time constraints, (7) meeting mandated require-ments, and (8) cross-content collaboration

Asghar etal. (2012)

25 teachers at a STEMworkshop in the USA

Interviews, focus groups, and observational datawere analyzed using the constant comparativemethod.

Major themes found (1) initial perceptions, (2)perceptions after PD, (3) integrating STEM contentand pedagogy, (4) problems with model problems,and (5) barriers to implementation.

Bagiati andEvangelou(2015)

1 preschool teacher at auniversity-based lab schoolin the USA

During a 2-week long engineering related lesson,field notes, journal entries, and interview noteswere analyzed using open coding and a phenom-enological framework.

Facilitators and barriers of implementation fromboth the teacher’s and researcher’s perspectivewere found. Regarding facilitators, teachermotivation is at top of influential factors. Barriersincluded teacher apprehension of engineeringcontent and practical constraints (time, scheduling,and attendance).

Bell (2016) 19 secondary design andtechnology teachers inEngland and Wales

Phenomenography was used to analyze interviewtranscript data. Interrelated themes were identifiedand data categories of description were formed.

Four empirically grounded outcome spaces found(1) externally imposed knowledge, (2) internalengagement with knowledge, (3) understandinglearned, and (4) STEM understanding taught.Findings indicate when a teacher’s knowledge islimited, student learning is limited.

Bruce-Daviset al. (2014)

Students, teachers, andadministrators at 6 STEMhigh schools in the USA

Data from individual and focus group interviewswere analyzed to identify recurring patternsthrough an inductive and deductive codingprocess.

Three themes emerged (1) a common vision of achallenging and engaging learning environment,(2) a focus on applying curricular and instructionalstrategies and practices to real-world problems, and(3) an appreciation for academic and affective sup-port in the challenging learning environment.

Clark andAndrews(2010)

30 teachers, govt. reps, andengineering non-profit inthe UK

Grounded theory methodology using findings ofan exploratory study that identified and analyzedperceptions of elementary level engineeringeducation.

Three main findings are (1) pedagogic issues, (2)exposure to engineering within the curriculum, and(3) children’s interest

Dare et al.(2014)

48 9th grade physicalscience teachers in the USA

Mixed methods methodology using observations,interviews and surveys

Teachers focused on soft skill integration(teamwork and communication) instead ofengineering content. Teachers felt studentengagement and enjoyment were importantconsiderations for STEM.

El-Deghaidyet al. (2017)

21 male middle schoolscience teachers in SaudiArabia

Qualitative methodology included focus groupdiscussions and an interview protocol.

The five patterns that emerged from focus groupswere (1) STEM as interdisciplinary, (2) STEM aslinked to life, (3) twenty-first century skills and ca-reers, (4) pedagogical content knowledge andSTEM, (5) STEM school culture, (6) factors facilitatingSTEM implementation, and (7) factors hinderingSTEM implementation.

Goodpasteret al. (2012)

6 rural STEM teachers in theUSA

Phenomenographical study using interviewsregarding their perceptions of benefits andchallenges.

Community interactions, professional development,and rural school structures emerged as three keyfactors. Participants felt each of these factors hadboth positive and negative implications.

Herro andQuigley(2017)

21 middle school math andscience teachers in the USA

Descriptive case study of teachers participating in ayear-long STEAM PD using observations, written re-flections, focus group interviews, and teacher-created artifacts.

Teachers increased their understanding of STEAMto teach content and perceived the PD as effectivein changing their practices. They felt collaborationand integrated technology were importantconsiderations to effect successful STEAMimplementation.

Holsteinand Keene(2013)

3 high school teachersimplementing new STEMcurriculum in the USA

Observations and interviews examining teachers’conceptions related to their implementation ofSTEM materials were coded using ProductivePedagogies framework.

Common conceptions that influenced teacherimplementation were (1) negative beliefs aboutstudent abilities, (2) lack of subject matterknowledge, and (3) non-traditional beliefs aboutteaching that led to use of pedagogical techniques

Margot and Kettler International Journal of STEM Education (2019) 6:2 Page 7 of 16

Table 4 Summary of included empirical articles (Continued)

Author(s)(year)

Participants Methodology Findings

similar to those of the curriculum creators.

Hsu et al.(2011)

192 elementary teachers inthe USA

DET survey results were examined using non-parametric tests (Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis).

Participants felt design, engineering, andtechnology (DET) is important, but felt unfamiliarwith the content. Teacher motivations to teach DETdiffered based on their ethnic backgrounds.

Lehman etal. (2014)

40 6th grade teachers and10 university faculty in theUSA

Mixed methods using surveys and interviews.Interpretive phenomenological analysis was usedfor qualitative data and ANOVA for quantitativedata.

Quantitative results suggest teachers and facultydemonstrate elements of collaboration similar tothose of an effective community of practice, andqualitative data identified factors that participantsfelt were important (dialog, decision-making, actiontaking, and evaluation.)

Lesseig etal. (2016)

34 grade 6–8 teachers inthe USA

Case study of observations, field notes, artifacts,and video during implementation of STEM designchallenges.

Teachers valued STEM practices and learnermotivation/engagement. Challenges associatedwith pedagogy, curriculum, and school structureswere identified.

McMullinand Reeve(2014)

Phase II—33 teachers, 29counselors, and 29administrators in the USA

Phase I led to factors that contribute to programsuccess; Phase II—surveys over these factors withcomment boxes were sent to participants anddescriptive statistics for each group were analyzed.

Factors found necessary for successful programwere supportive administrators, supportivecounselors, and dynamic teachers. Teachers felthigh-quality curriculum and meeting program goalswere important. They felt providing career path-ways for students and opportunities for engineer-ing related education were goals forimplementation.

Nadelson etal. (2013)

33 elementary teachers inthe USA

Demographics, confidence for teaching STEMsurvey, and a survey of efficacy for teaching STEMwere analyzed for correlations pre and post PD.

Significant and consistent increases in pre- to post-PD of teacher confidence, efficacy, and perceptionsof STEM. Also, increased links between STEM cur-riculum and instruction to learning standards weremade by teachers.

Nadelsonand Seifert(2013)

377 K-12 teachers in theUSA

Several STEM teaching surveys were administeredpre and post STEM institute then descriptivestatistics and correlations were found.

Participants had an average level of comfortteaching STEM before the institute, which increasedsignificantly after the institute. Some teachercharacteristics, perceptions, and practices wererelated to one another.

Nadelson etal. (2012)

230 grade 4–9 teachers inthe USA.

Pre- and post- survey results of various STEMimplementation factors were analyzed usingdescriptive statistics and correlations.

Participants’ perceptions and conceptions of STEMachieved substantial gains after the STEM institute.Perceptions of efficacy for teaching STEM wasfound related to comfort with teaching STEM,pedagogical discontentment with teaching STEMand inquiry implementation.

Park et al.(2016)

705 STEAM teachers inSouth Korea

Online surveys of beliefs and perceptions towardSTEAM and demographic data were analyzed usingOLS regression.

Although the majority of teachers had a positiveview of STEAM education, they noted challenges tosuccessful implementation such as time, increasesin workload, and lack of financial and administrativesupport.

Park et al.(2017)

830 early childhoodteachers in preschool –third grade in the USA

Online survey of teachers’ beliefs about readinessfor teaching STEM was examined using latent classanalysis. Open-ended survey questions were usedto reveal themes about their opinions about STEMeducation.

Teachers’ teaching experience and their awarenessof the importance of STEM played a differential rolein the classification of teachers into latent classes.Themes from open-ended questions revealedteachers felt these were challenges: (1) lack of timeto teach STEM, (2) lack of administrative support, (3)lack of PD, (4) lack of knowledge about STEMtopics, (5) lack of parental participation, and (6) re-luctance of teachers to collaborate.

Smith et al.(2015)

280 secondary agricultureteachers in the USA

Descriptive survey methods were used. Onlinesurvey results were analyzed using MANOVA anddescriptive statistics were found.

Teachers felt each of the four components of STEMintegration important. They had high levels ofconfidence in integrating science and math, butlower confidence levels for teaching technologyand engineering.

Srikoom etal. (2017)

154 teachers (k-12) fromschools in Thailand.

Using survey data, descriptive statistics, and ANOVAwere used for quantitative analysis. Interpretivemethods were used for qualitative analysis.

Majority of teachers (85.5%) had not heard of STEMeducation and 19% could not provide a definitionof it. Teachers felt STEM education is important, but

Margot and Kettler International Journal of STEM Education (2019) 6:2 Page 8 of 16

A relationship (r = .21, p < .05) was found between thenumber of college level math or science courses taken and ateacher’s comfort level for teaching STEM, such that themore courses taken the more comfortable the teacher(Nadelson et al. 2012). Differences also seem to exist be-tween elementary and secondary teachers. Secondaryteachers have been found to have a more negative view ofthe potential impact of STEM education on student achieve-ment when compared to elementary teachers (Park et al.2016). Srikoom et al. (2017) found the strongest concerns inteachers of grades 1–3 and 7–9. This is consistent with thefindings of Park et al. (2017), where only one-third of theearly childhood teachers surveyed felt prepared to teachSTEM. Middle school teachers (6th–8th grades) reportedconcern with lesson planning without knowledge of the dur-ation students would need for each task. These teacherswere also concerned with their ability to guide students inthis type of interdisciplinary learning (Stohlmann et al.2012). In addition, a group of middle school teachers iden-tify the importance of professional development and experi-ence in working with engineering in the curriculum.Teachers with prior experiences with engineering scoredhigher on their knowledge of instructional techniques asso-ciated with STEM education and their ability to meet thegoals of STEM education (Van Haneghan et al. 2015). Forall teachers, knowledge of STEM content seems to matter.Teacher efficacy, confidence, and comfort for teachingSTEM all appear to be positively correlated to knowledge ofSTEM content (Nadelson et al. 2012; Nadelson et al. 2013).

Application activitiesTeachers emphasize the importance of student participa-tion in application activities within STEM education as

a crucial indicator of their academic achievement (find-ing 3). The hands-on, application activities that are afundamental part of STEM education are highly valuedby teachers as a necessary and beneficial tool for studentlearning outcomes. Teachers also note that these en-gaging, kinesthetic activities motivate their students(Bruce-Davis et al. 2014; Dare et al. 2014; Goodpaster etal. 2012; Van Haneghan et al. 2015). Early childhoodteachers believed these types of learning experienceswere not only developmentally appropriate, but wouldalso build a strong foundation of each of the STEM sub-ject areas (Park et al. 2017). Secondary teachers felt theengineering-based hands-on activities would be particu-larly useful as students are mastering math concepts(Asghar et al. 2012). Rural teachers also noted the valueof these activities as they allow students to link scienceto their rural lives (Goodpaster et al. 2012).

Cross-curricular integrationTeachers perceive that the cross-curricular nature ofSTEM education is beneficial to student learning, butsecondary teachers may perceive barriers or challenges tocross-curricular programs (finding 4). They believe in-cluding engineering with the other subjects adds valu-able problem-solving and real-world aspects toinstruction that will give students an advantage in prep-aration for their futures. The cross-curricular connec-tions students make are seen as an advantage to STEMeducation as they give students necessary skills to ap-proach and solve problems similar to those they will en-counter in future careers (Asghar et al. 2012;Bruce-Davis et al. 2014; Dare et al. 2014; McMullin andReeve 2014; Smith et al. 2015). Technology teachers

Table 4 Summary of included empirical articles (Continued)

Author(s)(year)

Participants Methodology Findings

have concerns about the engineering discipline.

Stohlmannet al. (2012)

4 middle school STEMteachers in the USA

Field notes, observations, and interviews, collectedover school year, were analyzed using constantcomparative method.

Content and pedagogical knowledge were foundto contribute to positive self-efficacy. Teacher feltthese supports are needed for successful STEM edu-cation: (1) partner with university or nearby school,(2) attend PD, (3) teacher collaboration time, and(4) curriculum company training and contacts.

VanHaneghanet al. (2015)

43 middle school math,science, and technologyteachers in the USA

Surveys of teacher efficacy in teaching STEM wereanalyzed using t tests Pearson correlations, Fisher’sexact test, and for descriptive comments.

Teachers believe they have the instructional skills,professional development, and resources to carryout engineering design challenges, but some didnot feel confident in their ability to foster intrinsicmotivation in students.

Wang et al.(2011)

3 middle school teachersthat participated in a year-long PD on STEM in theUSA

Qualitative case study was used to determineteachers’ beliefs about and perceptions of STEMintegration. Constant comparative method wasused to analyze data.

Technology was the hardest discipline to integrate.The problem-solving process is a key componentto successfully integrating STEM disciplines.Teachers in different STEM disciplines have differentperceptions about STEM that leads to differentclassroom practices. Teachers are aware they needto add more content knowledge in their STEMintegration.

Margot and Kettler International Journal of STEM Education (2019) 6:2 Page 9 of 16

were particularly interested in using this integratedcross-curricular approach in their classrooms (Asghar etal. 2012).Although secondary teachers (grades 6–12) considered

collaboration across disciplines an important success,they also reported concerns about limited communica-tion between subject area teachers (Al Salami et al.2017). In another study, middle school teachersexpressed concerns about scheduling and content stan-dards they felt might inhibit cross-curricular teaching(Herro and Quigley 2017). The same teachers felt collab-oration and technology would be important to transdis-ciplinary teaching. The concept of interdisciplinarity wasdifficult for some secondary teachers to grasp, with aperception that integration between two subjects waspossible but putting the four STEM disciplines togetherwas problematic (El-Deghaidy et al. 2017). El-Deghaidyet al. (2017) also found the teachers did not have a clearunderstanding of how to integrate technology, believingit was just hardware.

Student enjoymentTeachers believe STEM education is inherently motivat-ing to students (finding 5). Teachers feel the persistenceand interest gained by students are very valuable as theywork on STEM challenges and that students eventuallybegin to feel motivated and empowered by their abilityto solve complex problems. The complex, open-endeddesign of STEM challenges also lead to student increasesin academic achievement. Teachers commented that theaddition of engineering to their math and science curric-ula brings them to life. They also felt students are genu-inely interested in STEM problems. Teachers note anoverwhelmingly positive response from students duringSTEM education. Moreover, teachers felt this increase instudent enjoyment and engagement was the main reasonfor integrating STEM into their curriculum (Dare et al.2014; Herro and Quigley 2017; Lesseig et al. 2016;McMullin and Reeve 2014; Srikoom et al. 2017; VanHaneghan et al. 2015).

Student strugglesTeachers believe that struggle and even failure are inher-ent yet valuable components of the engineering designprocess within STEM education (finding 6). Students areasked to improve upon their designs and solutions. Theyare encouraged to take risks. Teachers feel this is benefi-cial to students, especially high-achieving students thattypically do not reach a point of frustration in theirclassrooms (Dare et al. 2014). Because failure is part ofthe process, it is expected and therefore accepted. Thisencourages students to do things they do not know howto do and challenge themselves to confront failure.Teachers feel this helps encourage students to think for

themselves and better understand the content in theirclasses by thinking critically about it (Holstein andKeene 2013). Teachers value these authentic learning ex-periences, without one right answer (Bruce-Davis et al.2014). They felt students needed lots of practice partici-pating in group work and learning through doing inorder to be successful with STEM learning (El-Deghaidyet al. 2017; Herro and Quigley 2017). Several teacherswere happily surprised that low-performing studentswere able to be successful in the less-structured andmore challenging STEM problems (Lesseig et al. 2016;Wang et al. 2011). Teachers even reported that studentswere reluctant to begin with the STEM equipment be-cause they were afraid it would be damaged. Studentshad to learn that making mistakes was going to happenand experimenting with the equipment would help themsolve their STEM problem (Dare et al. 2014).

Value of STEMTeachers’ efficacy beliefs and the value they place onSTEM education seems to influence their willingness toengage and implement STEM curriculum (finding 7).Student learning is limited when teachers’ knowledgeand understanding is deficient (McMullin and Reeve2014). Teachers who have limited knowledge and com-fort with STEM may feel they are unable to contributeto classroom learning during STEM activities. On theother hand, teachers that feel they have the knowledgeand skill sets to implement STEM activities have a highself-efficacy toward this type of learning. Teacher per-ceptions of the importance of STEM influence their abil-ity to learn and develop as STEM educators (Bell 2016).This will affect how they teach STEM curriculum.Teachers have reported challenges associated with learn-ing the content while teaching multiple courses together(El-Deghaidy et al. 2017; Goodpaster et al. 2012; Herroand Quigley 2017). Teachers felt developing new STEMproblems while integrating different domains was diffi-cult. Teachers also reported trouble combining theSTEM pedagogical approach with their typical contentconcepts (Asghar et al. 2012). These teachers seemed tobe unable to see these things as anything but separate.Even after professional development, some teachers arestill uncomfortable using STEM activities in their class-room (Asghar et al. 2012; Herro and Quigley 2017).Many professional development facilitators have seen re-sistance by teachers to utilizing STEM (Dare et al. 2014;Holstein and Keene 2013). STEM teachers show a rangeof fidelity with implementation, and engineering appearsto be the content area teachers are least confident inteaching (Smith et al. 2015; Srikoom et al. 2017). Thismay be why there is a lack of evidence that engineeringdecisions are explicitly being made by teachers and

Margot and Kettler International Journal of STEM Education (2019) 6:2 Page 10 of 16

students during STEM education (Lehman et al. 2014;Van Haneghan et al. 2015).While some teachers saw STEM as one more thing

they needed to cover in their classrooms, many teachersfelt it was a valuable way for students to learn. Teachersfelt strongly that STEM should be integrated into stu-dents’ K-12 education (Hsu et al. 2011; McMullin andReeve 2014; Smith et al. 2015). In other words, they feltSTEM is important. Teachers believed STEM leads tohigher expectations for students after high school andfelt increases in scientific literacy were valuable as theychallenge students to think critically about current issuesand future implications in their own lives (Bruce-Daviset al. 2014; El-Deghaidy et al. 2017; Herro and Quigley2017). These K-12 elementary and secondary teachers(n = 729) believed STEM education has a positive impacton student learning and outcomes (Park et al. 2016).Teachers also experienced rewarding feelings of makinga difference with students and their communities whenutilizing STEM education (Hsu et al. 2011; Goodpasteret al. 2012; Wang et al. 2011). Teachers seemed to focuson how they could improve their STEM lessons the nexttime they use them. They were working on future im-provements almost as soon as the lesson was over (Dareet al. 2014).Teacher perceptions of STEM education influence

how they design their STEM units and their methods ofdelivery of instruction. A dynamic teacher with a posi-tive attitude toward STEM seems to be the single mostimportant factor to implementation fidelity and STEMprogram success (McMullin and Reeve 2014). Theseteachers believe STEM integration can improve theirstudents’ learning outcomes (Bagiati and Evangelou2015; Dare et al. 2014; El-Deghaidy et al. 2017; Wang etal. 2011).

What do teachers identify as challenges and barriers tousing STEM pedagogy in their classrooms?The area teachers identified as challenges and barriersrelated to STEM education can be organized in six cat-egories: pedagogical challenges, curricular challenges,structural challenges, student concerns, assessment con-cerns, and teacher supports.

Pedagogical challengesTeachers perceive that STEM pedagogy requires somefundamental shifts in how they establish classroom envi-ronments and teach, and for some teachers these shiftsare not always positive (finding 8). Several pedagogicalchallenges were cited by teachers as inhibiting factors toSTEM implementation. For example, teachers mentionSTEM pedagogy requires a fundamental shift away fromteacher-led instruction to student led-instruction (Les-seig et al. 2016; Park et al. 2017). Teachers have to be

able to step out of the director role and allow studentsto find their own way during the lesson, which might in-volve unexpected directions (Lesseig et al. 2016). An-other similar concern is that teachers must have a viewof instruction that aligns with the philosophy of theSTEM curriculum authors. There must be a match be-tween the teachers’ pedagogy and the curriculum peda-gogy (Holstein and Keene 2013). Teachers voiced aconcern that they might incorrectly or inadvertentlymisinterpret the STEM developer’s expectations (Bagiatiand Evangelou 2015; Holstein and Keene 2013).Teachers also expressed concerns about STEM pedagogymeeting the diverse needs of all learners, particularlythose with disabilities and various cognitive abilities(Herro and Quigley 2017; Park et al. 2017). One lastpedagogy concern suggests that utilization of STEMcould actually hinder direct instruction of science con-tent. Dare et al. (2014) found secondary teachers notedthat they were not teaching science concepts as wellwhen utilizing STEM in their classrooms.

Curriculum challengesSome teachers, especially at the high school level, perceivethe integrated nature of STEM curriculum is a challenge(finding 9). Teachers had apprehension about followingsomeone else’s curriculum plan (Bagiati and Evangelou2015). Teachers were also concerned about integratingSTEM curriculum into their existing curricula. Districtalignment and grade level standards can be inflexible,which prevents a smooth integration of STEM. Inaddition, teachers noted they felt STEM curriculum couldbe inflexible and the difficulty with combining two inflex-ible curricular plans (Bagiati and Evangelou 2015; Lesseiget al. 2016). Secondary teachers felt their domain specificcourses (biology II, geometry, etc.) did not integrate wellwith other STEM disciplines (Asghar et al. 2012). Also,secondary teachers felt miscommunications between vari-ous STEM teachers’ perception of each other’s domain ledto feelings of anger and subsequently caused interdiscip-linary curriculum to fail. For similar reasons, teachers hadconcerns about developing their own STEM-based cur-riculum with teachers from other subject areas (Asghar etal. 2012; Bell 2016; El-Deghaidy et al. 2017). Teacherswere also concerned about STEM curriculum’s ability toimpart meaningful learning (Asghar et al. 2012). Whenimplementing STEM curriculum, teachers were observedtreating the inclusion of specific content as more of anafterthought (Dare et al. 2014).

Structural challengesTeachers perceived typical school structures are barriersto the implementation of STEM education (finding 10).Teachers felt the confines of class scheduling prohibitedthe interdisciplinary nature of STEM lessons, and

Margot and Kettler International Journal of STEM Education (2019) 6:2 Page 11 of 16

various teachers teaching their own specific subjectswere not conducive to interdisciplinary work either. Thissame scheduling prevented teachers in different subjectsfrom planning together (Asghar et al. 2012; Dare et al.2014; Lesseig et al. 2016). The structure of studentschedules, and lack of flexibility in them, was also citedas a barrier to STEM (El-Deghaidy et al. 2017; Lesseig etal. 2016). Lack of control over pacing of curriculum andthe sequence of instruction were also discussed astroublesome when teachers sought to integrate multipledisciplines for authentic STEM lessons (Herro and Quig-ley 2017). At the district level, teachers felt administra-tive and financial supports could be a challenge toSTEM implementation (Asghar et al. 2012; Clark andAndrews 2010; Hsu et al. 2011; Park et al. 2016; Park etal. 2017). Another concern was a lack of technology re-sources available to students. Without student com-puters and other technology tools available, it wasdifficult to integrate the technology piece into STEMlessons (Wang et al. 2011). The last structural concernwas the way education is organized and evaluated at thestate level (Asghar et al. 2012).

Student concernsTeachers believe that students are unable or unwilling tobe successful with STEM education or initiatives (finding11). Several studies reported teachers underestimate stu-dent abilities to solve STEM problems (Al Salami et al.2017; Asghar et al. 2012; Bagiati and Evangelou 2015;Goodpaster et al. 2012; Van Haneghan et al. 2015).Many of these teachers did not believe their studentswere competent enough in content areas to apply theseskills to self-directed STEM problems. They felt thesetypes of problems would be very difficult for their stu-dents and would cause their students to become un-motivated to learn. Teachers reported a need forinstructional tools they could use to motivate studentsand get them interested in STEM subjects. In addition,rural teachers noted the challenges associated withmodifying the curriculum in order to meet the needs ofunderperforming students (Goodpaster et al. 2012).Teacher beliefs about their students may be related totheir implementation fidelity of STEM curriculum (Hol-stein and Keene 2013).

Assessments, time, and knowledgeTeachers perceive that lack of quality assessment tools,planning time, and knowledge of STEM disciplines arechallenges and barriers to STEM initiatives (finding 12).In one study, more than 40% of the teachers felt therewas a lack of assessments for STEM programs (Nadel-son and Seifert 2013). These teachers and many othersfelt there were not enough standardized classroom as-sessments to use with STEM lessons. This makes

assessing student learning in a STEM curriculum verydifficult. Teachers felt there were not enough formativeassessments to discover what concepts students under-stood from other disciplines (Asghar et al. 2012; Dare etal. 2014). Additionally, teachers were concerned aboutgroup grading. They felt unsure of how they would as-sess each member of the group individually to make surethey had mastery of the standards (Herro and Quigley2017). Formative assessments help teachers know whenreteaching or remediating is necessary or when studentsalready know the material.Teachers were concerned with the increased workload

associated with STEM programming. They have to findmore time to plan with other subject areas and to pre-pare the materials for students. Presenting the materialand allowing for varying ability levels among studentsalso required more time. This makes a lack of time oneof the primary concerns teachers had when implement-ing STEM (Bagiati and Evangelou 2015; Hsu et al. 2011;Goodpaster et al. 2012; Park et al. 2016).Teachers also believed they had a lack of subject mat-

ter knowledge concerning STEM content. Pre-serviceand in-service training was seen as inadequate in prepar-ing teachers to implement STEM. Teachers felt theyneeded clarity about how the program was supposed tobe implemented into existing programs (Nadelson andSeifert 2013). They did not feel fully prepared to inte-grate STEM subjects (Al Salami et al. 2017; Hsu et al.2011). Teachers also perceived a lack of instructional re-sources was a hurdle in their path to provide STEM op-portunities for students (Park et al. 2017). Althoughteachers deemed STEM education important and valu-able, they were not comfortable with meeting the highteacher expectations they felt were associated withSTEM. Feeling unsure about one’s ability to teach STEMcould lead teachers to a reduced confidence in theirteaching efficacy (Bagiati and Evangelou 2015; Clark andAndrews 2010; Holstein and Keene 2013).

What do teachers feel supports their efforts to implementSTEM?Some studies captured ways that teachers might need anadditional support. Five main areas were found in the re-search that addressed this need for support. They werein the areas of collaboration, curriculum, district sup-port, prior experiences, and professional development.

CollaborationTeachers believe that a culture of collaboration would in-crease the viability of STEM programs (finding 13;Asghar et al. 2012; Bruce-Davis et al. 2014; Herro andQuigley 2017; Lehman et al. 2014; Stohlmann et al.2012; Wang et al. 2011). Teachers explained the import-ance of collaborating with other STEM teachers and

Margot and Kettler International Journal of STEM Education (2019) 6:2 Page 12 of 16

university professionals in order to not only create an at-mosphere that enhances preparation for STEM lessons,but also to model a team approach to students. STEMpedagogy required students to collaborate to solve chal-lenges, so a teacher modeling the strength of a group ap-proach is beneficial. One teacher noted that teachershad been siloed in the past, and an integrated team ap-proach was necessary for STEM planning and imple-mentation (Asghar et al. 2012). Other teachersattributed much of their success with STEM to partner-ships with university faculty and accessing the expertisein their community (Lehman et al. 2014). Partnershipswith museums and other community-based centers werehelpful to capitalize on learning about STEM careersand experiences (El-Deghaidy et al. 2017). These sup-ports helped the teachers feel comfortable taking risksand delving deeper into STEM concepts outside theircomfort area.Many teachers felt collaboration was the key to suc-

cessful transdisciplinary teaching required for STEM les-sons (Herro and Quigley 2017; Stohlmann et al. 2012).Teachers felt intentional time was necessary throughoutthe school year for various disciplines to meet togetherfor planning in order to bridge the disciplines. They alsobelieved a technology-enabled network could be an ef-fective means of collaborating between content areateachers. Providing time and opportunities for collabora-tive planning and open communication betweenteachers may be critical to successful implementation.

CurriculumTeachers believe that the availability of a quality curricu-lum would enhance the likelihood of success of STEM initia-tives (finding 14; Asghar et al. 2012; Lehman et al. 2014;McMullin and Reeve 2014; Stohlmann et al. 2012; VanHaneghan et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2011). Teachers dis-cussed the importance of a flexible curriculum that isengineering-based. In order to be effective, the curriculummust be flexible enough to be used with various abilitylevels and educational environments while still being fo-cused on the engineering design process (Lehman et al.2014). Teachers believed this type of curriculum increasedtheir belief in themselves, or self-efficacy, to teach STEM(Lehman et al. 2014; Van Haneghan et al. 2015). TheSTEM curriculum or modules must also be explicitly andtightly connected to the standards. In addition, these mod-ules need to be developmentally appropriate (Asghar et al.2012). Teachers expressed a desire for specific,ready-made STEM problems they could use in their class-rooms immediately. These problems must be grounded inthe STEM disciplines and driven by the standards (Asgharet al. 2012; Wang et al. 2011). Also, there must be fidelityin the implementation of the curriculum such that theteachers utilize the expectations and goals intended by the

curriculum designers (McMullin and Reeve 2014; Stohl-mann et al. 2012).

District supportTeachers perceive school district support, guidance, andflexibility were necessary for STEM initiatives (finding15). In fact, school district support was cited as thenumber one most important factor to STEM success intwo of the studies (Bruce-Davis et al. 2014; McMullinand Reeve 2014). It was also mentioned by otherstudies as an important factor (Holstein and Keene2013; Park et al. 2016). A supportive administrator oradministrative team is important when teachers areimplementing STEM pedagogy. Teachers believedguidance by and constant dialog with administratorsis needed in order to successfully utilize STEM pro-grams (El-Deghaidy et al. 2017; Holstein and Keene2013; McMullin and Reeve 2014). Teachers believedit was necessary for their school districts to allowflexibility for them to expand the curricula and in-struction beyond national and state standards, so theywere able to offer problems that meet student inter-ests, talents, and academic needs (Bruce-Davis et al.2014). In addition, the K-12 curricular framework orscope and sequence should be restructured to allowfor STEM programing (Herro and Quigley 2017; Parket al. 2016).Teachers also felt that districts need to help parents

and students understand course offerings and whatSTEM courses will teach them. Secondary teachersbelieved another important consideration is how highschool credit will be given in these courses. Moremath or science credit might have increased studentenrollment rather than only giving elective credits fortaking STEM courses (McMullin and Reeve 2014).

Prior experiencesTeachers perceive that previous experience usingstudent-centered, inquiry models of instruction facili-tate success in a STEM initiative (finding 16). Similarlystructured prior experiences by teachers were commonlyseen as facilitators to STEM success. Teachers who hadmore science or math courses in college (Park et al.2016) or had utilized similar instructional methods (i.e.,problem-based learning, inquiry-based learning, ques-tioning techniques, guided independent research studies)felt these experiences allowed them to promote the in-ductive and deductive reasoning across disciplines ne-cessary for STEM (Bagiati and Evangelou 2015;Bruce-Davis et al. 2014; Park et al. 2017). Confidencewith STEM pedagogy increased because of these priorexperiences.

Margot and Kettler International Journal of STEM Education (2019) 6:2 Page 13 of 16

Professional developmentTeachers believe that well-organized and frequentlyavailable professional learning opportunities would fa-cilitate successful STEM initiatives (finding 17). Themost often mentioned support that would increase theeffectiveness of STEM education was learning opportun-ities for teachers to increase their ability to effectively in-tegrate STEM content into their curriculum. Teachers atmultiple stages in their careers reported significant in-creases in their confidence, knowledge, and efficacy toteach STEM after attending professional developmentprograms (Lesseig et al. 2016; Nadelson et al. 2012;Nadelson et al. 2013; Nadelson and Seifert 2013; VanHaneghan et al. 2015). Effective professional develop-ment or continuing education needs to provide time andstructure for teachers to explore how STEM can be inte-grated within their curriculum while focusing on in-creasing teacher’s content knowledge and experienceswith STEM. Research indicates these factors will directlyinfluence teacher practice and student learning (Nadel-son et al. 2013; Van Haneghan et al. 2015). Teacherswanted more strategies to improve student performancein engineering design challenges (Bruce-Davis et al.2014; Lesseig et al. 2016; Van Haneghan et al. 2015).Teachers need support when incorporating engineeringinto their math and science instruction (El-Deghaidy etal. 2017; Lehman et al. 2014). Teachers felt support forplanning and implementation should be ongoing and in-clude pedagogical tools they can use to increase studentacademic success (Lesseig et al. 2016).The thematic analysis process began with assigning

codes to segments of text followed by the grouping ofthose coded text segments. These grouped segments ledto 17 findings that were supported by multiple text seg-ments extracted from the qualified studies. Ultimately,these 17 findings suggest the following themes from thissystematic review of research involving teachers’ percep-tions of STEM education initiatives:

� Variation among teachers’ age, gender, experience,and perceived value of STEM education mayinfluence their support and enthusiasm for school-wide STEM initiatives.

� Secondary, especially high school, teachers seemmore likely to perceive interdisciplinary STEMinitiatives as challenges to what they believe to behigh-quality learning opportunities for students.

� STEM education initiatives may require substantialshifts in pedagogy, curriculum, assessment, support,and training, and teachers are likely to see any ofthese as challenges and/or barriers.

� Teachers perceive the engaging and authentic natureof interdisciplinary STEM education initiatives aspotentially beneficial for students.

DiscussionRecommendations for practiceIn order to support teachers and STEM programs asthey seek to develop STEM talent, necessary provisionsmust be provided so they can act as a facilitating catalystin the student’s development. It seems very promisingthat the results from multiple studies were so similar intheir findings concerning challenges and supports.Teachers need quality curriculum that aligns with dis-trict and state guidelines and includes formative assess-ment techniques teachers can use to assess theirstudents’ conceptual understandings. Professional devel-opment that is attended by the team of teachers that willbe utilizing the curriculum (Nadelson et al. 2012) and al-lows teachers to gain experience with STEM conceptsand the pedagogy in a meaningful way is also necessary.The pedagogical strategies associated with STEM mustbe explicitly taught to teachers and modeled in order toimprove fidelity of programming. Teachers have to be-come comfortable allowing their students to “take thewheel” and drive instruction. They have to learn how toplay the role of facilitator of knowledge and how to en-courage students to take academic risks. All of this canbe practiced and reinforced in professional developmentbefore implementation in classrooms. The National Re-search Council (2013) recommends that districts developa mechanism for focused professional development to becoordinated that aligns with instructional reforms andprovides high-quality learning opportunities for teachers.The content knowledge and affective needs teachershave regarding STEM instruction must be attended toduring in-service learning.District administrators must be aware of the need for

increased time to collaborate with the other STEMteachers. Building time into the school year for teachersto plan lessons and prepare lessons with colleagueswould facilitate STEM integration. As teachers movefrom teaching single subjects to teachingcross-curricular units, they will need time to work to-gether. Teachers need to be encouraged to work to-gether to create innovative ways to successfully integratethis multidisciplinary way of thinking and learning. Anopen and transparent means of communicating is neces-sary within the school and district concerning teacherneeds and supports regarding STEM education.

Recommendations for future researchMore studies that document the success of STEM pro-grams with low ability and diverse student populationswould be beneficial encouragement to teachers.Teachers need to believe all students can benefit fromSTEM instruction. As they begin to experience studentsuccess in their classrooms, they will be encouraged tocontinue implementing STEM activities.

Margot and Kettler International Journal of STEM Education (2019) 6:2 Page 14 of 16

A study examining differences in STEM perceptionamong gifted and non-gifted educators would be inter-esting in light of the pedagogical similarities betweenSTEM and gifted education (Mann and Mann 2017). Anexamination of the confidence levels of these two groupsof teachers as they develop STEM talent within theirclassrooms would yield useful data for future profes-sional development.Further study of effective implementation of the core

tenets Moore et al. (2014) suggested should be con-ducted in classrooms in various school settings (urban,rural, and suburban). There may be specific pedagogicalneeds within different settings that can be addressedwith teacher in-service instruction.Research into effective formative assessment strategies

during STEM education needs to be conducted.Teachers felt this was a missing component of STEMprograms (Asghar et al. 2012; Dare et al. 2014). Effectiveways to gauge student understanding would yield moreefficient STEM talent development. Teachers could bet-ter differentiate for various ability levels within theirclassrooms if they better understand each student’s pro-gress throughout the unit (Tomlinson and Moon 2013).More work needs to be done in order to understand

how best to support teachers as they attempt to inte-grate STEM education into their classrooms (Dare et al.2014).

ConclusionsThe 17 findings from this study should be used to guideschool/district STEM initiatives. Because these 17 find-ings were found across multiple studies, they could helpinform future professional development and teacher ini-tiatives to improve teacher efficacy related to STEM in-struction/integration.Teachers appear to value STEM education and believe

it enhances student-learning outcomes while preparingstudents for their future. With increased confidence,teachers would likely be more effective at integratingSTEM activities. The research seems clear that increasedconfidence leads to better performance during instruc-tion, and this will lead to gains in student learning(Nadelson et al. 2012; Nadelson et al. 2013).

AcknowledgementsNot applicable

FundingThere are no sources of funding for this study.

Availability of data and materialsAll data were found on the following databases: Academic Search Complete,ERIC via Ebscohost, PsychINFO via Ebscohost, and Google Scholar.

Authors’ contributionsBoth authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s NoteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims inpublished maps and institutional affiliations.

Author details1Department of Teaching and Learning, Grand Valley State University, 401Fulton St. W, Grand Rapids, MI 49504, USA. 2School of Education, BaylorUniversity, Waco, USA.

Received: 30 May 2018 Accepted: 10 December 2018

References

Articles included in the review are indicated by an asterisk (*).Al Salami, M. K., Makela, C. J., & de Miranda M. A. (2017). Assessing changes in

teachers’ attitudes toward interdisciplinary STEM teaching. InternationalJournal of Technology and Design Education, 27, 63–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9341-0.

Asghar, A., Ellington, R., Rice, E., Johnson, F., & Prime, G. M. (2012). SupportingSTEM education in secondary science contexts. The Interdisciplinary Journal ofProblem-based Learning, 6(2), 85–125. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1349.

Bagiati, A., & Evangelou, D. (2015). Engineering curriculum in the preschoolclassroom: the teacher’s experience. European Early Childhood EducationResearch Journal, 23(1), 112–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2014.991099.

Bell, D. (2016). The reality of STEM education, design, and technology teachers’perceptions: a phenomenographic study. International Journal of DesignEducation, 26, 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9300-9.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. QualitativeResearch in Psychology, 3, 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

Bruce-Davis, M. N., Gubbins, E. J., Gilson, C. M., Villanueva, M., Foreman, J. L., &Rubenstein, L. D. (2014). STEM high school administrators’, teachers’, andstudents’ perceptions of curricular and instructional strategies and practices.Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(3), 272–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X14527952.

Chamberlin, S. A., & Pereira, N. (2017). Differentiating engineering activities for usein a mathematics setting. In D. Dailey & A. Cotabish (Eds.), EngineeringInstruction for High-Ability Learners in K-8 Classrooms (pp. 45–55). Waco, TX:Prufrock Press.

Christenson, J. (2011). Ramaley coined STEM term now used nationwide. WinonaDaily News. Retrieved from http://www.winonadailynews.com/news/local/article_457afe3e-0db3-11e1-abe0-001cc4c03286.html

Clark, R., & Andrews, J. (2010). Researching primary engineering education: UKperspectives, an exploratory study. European Journal of Engineering Education,35(5), 585–595. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2010.497551.

Dare, E. A., Ellis, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2014). Driven by beliefs: understandingchallenges physical science teachers face when integrating engineering andphysics. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 4(2), 47–61.https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1098.

El-Deghaidy, H., Mansour, N., Alzaghibi, M. & Alhammad, K. (2017). Context ofSTEM integration in schools: views from in-service science teachers. EURASIAJournal of Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education, 13(6), 2459–2484.https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.01235a.

Gagné, F. (2007). Ten commandments for academic talent development. TheGifted Child Quarterly, 51, 93–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986206296660.

Gagné, F. (2011). Academic talent development and the equity issue in giftededucation. Talent Development and Excellence, 3(1), 3–22 http://d-nb.info/1011435659/34.

Gomez, A., & Albrecht, B. (2013). True STEM education. Technology andEngineering Teacher, 73(4), 8 Retrieved from https://www.iteea.org/39191.aspx.

Goodpaster, K. P. S., Adedokun, O. A., & Weaver, G. C. (2012). Teachers’perceptions of rural STEM teaching: implications for rural teacher retention.Rural Educator, 33(3), 9–22. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/950f/3fe943ee93114431d09a56ffb61e1b665778.pdf

Margot and Kettler International Journal of STEM Education (2019) 6:2 Page 15 of 16

Haddaway, N. R., Collins, A. M., Coughlin, D., & Kirk, S. (2015). The role of googlescholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching.PLoS One, 10(9). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138237.

Herro, D. & Quigley, C. (2017). Exploring teachers’ perceptions of STEAM teachingthrough professional development: implications for teacher educators.Professional Development in Education, 43, 416–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2016.1205507.

Hockett, J. A. (2009). Curriculum for highly able learners that conforms to generaleducation and gifted education quality indicators. Journal for the Educationof the Gifted, 32(3), 394–440. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2009-857.

Holstein, K. A., & Keene, K. A. (2013). The complexities and challenges associatedwith the implementation of a STEM curriculum. Teacher Education andPractice, 4, 616–636. Retrieved from https://journals.rowman.com

Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM Integration in K-12Education: Status, Prospects, and an Agenda for Research (pdf version). https://doi.org/10.17226/18612.

Hsu, M. C., Purzer, S., & Cardella, M. E. (2011). Elementary teachers’ views aboutteaching design, engineering, and technology. Journal of Pre-CollegeEngineering Education Research, 1(2), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314639.

Johnson, C. C. (2006). Effective professional development and change in practice:barriers teachers encounter and implications for reform. School Science andMathematics, 106(3), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2006.tb18172.x.

Lehman, J. D., Kim, W., & Harris, C. (2014). Collaborations in a community ofpractice working to integrate engineering design in elementary scienceeducation. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 15(3), 21–28.Retrieved from http://jstem.org/

Lesseig, K., Slavit, D., Nelson, T. H., & Seidel, R. A. (2016). Supporting middle schoolteachers’ implementation of STEM design challenges. School Science andMathematics, 116(4), 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12172.

Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P., etal. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation andelaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006.

MacFarlane, B. (2016). Infrastructure of comprehensive STEM programming foradvanced learners. In B. MacFarlane (Ed.), STEM Education for High-Ability LearnersDesigning and Implementing Programming (pp. 139–160). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Mann, E. L., & Mann, R. L. (2017). Engineering design and gifted pedagogy. In D.Dailey & A. Cotabish (Eds.), Engineering Instruction for High-Ability Learners inK-8 Classrooms (pp. 33–44). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica,22(3), 276–282.

McMullin, K., & Reeve, E. (2014). Identifying perceptions that contribute to thedevelopment of successful project lead the way pre-engineering programsin Utah. Journal of Technology Education, 26(1), 22–46. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v26i1.a.2.

Mooney, M. A., & Laubach, T. A. (2002). Adventure engineering: a designcentered, inquiry based approach to middle grade science and mathematicseducation. Journal of Engineering Education, 91(3), 309–318. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2002.tb00708.x.

Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M. S., Wang, H. H., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A., & Roehrig, G. H.(2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEMeducation. In J. Strobel, S. Purzer, & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering inprecollege settings: research into practice. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Mullet, D. R. (2016). Catalysts of Women’s Talent Development in STEM: A SystematicReview (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Denton: University of North Texas.

Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013).Teacher STEM perception and preparation: inquiry-based STEM professionaldevelopment for elementary teachers. The Journal of Educational Research,106(2), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.667014.

Nadelson, L. S., & Seifert, A. (2013). Perceptions, engagement, and practices ofteachers seeking professional development in place-based integrated STEM.Teacher Education and Practice, 26(2), 242–265. Retrieved from https://journals.rowman.com

Nadelson, L. S., Seifert, A., Moll, A. J., & Coats, B. (2012). i-stem summer institute:an integrated approach to teacher professional development in stem.Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 13(2), 69–83. Retrievedfrom www.jstem.org

National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and National Research Council (NRC).(2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: status, prospects, and an agenda

for research. In M. Honey, G. Pearson, & H. Schweingruber (Eds.), Committeeon K-12 engineering education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2013). Monitoring Progress Toward Successful K-12STEM Education: A Nation Advancing? Washington, DC: The NationalAcademies Press Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu/download/13509#.

National Science Board. (2007). A national action plan for addressing the criticalneeds of the U.S. science, technology, engineering, and mathematics educationsystem. Washington, D. C: National Science Foundation.

National Science Board. (2012). Science and Engineering Indicators 2012 (NSB 12-01). Arlington: National Science Foundation Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/pdf/overview.pdf.

Park, H., Byun, S., Sim, J., Han, H., & Baek, Y. S. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions andpractices of STEAM education in South Korea. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics,Science, & Technology Education, 12(7), 1739–1753. https://doi.org/10.12973/Eurasia.2016.1531a.

Park, M., Dimitrov, D. M., Patterson, L. G., & Park, D. (2017). Early childhoodteachers’ beliefs about readiness for teaching science, technology,engineering, and mathematics. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 15, 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X15614040.

Smith, K. L., Rayfield, J., & McKim, B. R. (2015). Effective practices in STEMintegration: describing teacher perceptions and instructional method use.Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(4), 182–201. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2015.04183.

Srikoom, W., Hanuscin, D. L., & Faikhamta, C. (2017). Perceptions of in-serviceteachers toward teaching STEM in Thailand. Asia-Pacific Forum on ScienceLearning and Teaching, 18(2), 1–23. Retrieved from: http://www.eduhk.hk/apfslt/

Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teachingintegrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering EducationResearch, 2(1), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314653

Tomlinson, C. A., & Moon, T. R. (2013). Assessment and Student Success in aDifferentiated Classroom. Alexandria: ASCD.

Van Haneghan, J. P., Pruet, S. A., Neal-Waltman, R., & Harlan, J. M. (2015). Teacherbeliefs about motivating and teaching students to carry out engineeringdesign challenges: some initial data. Journal of Pre-College EngineeringEducation Research, 5(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1097.

VanTassel-Baska, J., & Little, C. A. (2011). Content-based curriculum for high-abilitylearners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Wang, H. H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration:teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering EducationResearch, 1(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314636.

Margot and Kettler International Journal of STEM Education (2019) 6:2 Page 16 of 16