The effect of STEM practices on students' attitudes and achievements: A meta-analysis study

Abstract

This meta-analysis investigates the impact of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) practices on students' academic achievement and attitudes toward STEM subjects. The study used meta-analysis as a research methodology and searched for relevant literature in databases such as EBSCOhost, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ULAKBIM. The keywords used were "STEM," "STEM Education," and "experimental studies on STEM." The search yielded 45 studies, including articles and proceedings papers, of which 22 met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. The Comprehensive meta-analysis (CMA) program was used as a data analysis tool for the data obtained. Effect sizes were calculated, and the values obtained between variables in the studies were presented in the forest plots at a 95 percent confidence interval. As a result, the individual studies included in the analysis are heterogeneous, and the achievement level in the experimental group is approximately 5 points higher than in the control group. So, the achievement level of the students who received STEM education is (on average) 4.89 units higher than those who did not. The results showed that STEM education had a positive and significant impact on students' attitudes toward the course and academic achievement compared to other methods. Therefore, STEM education enhances students' attitudes towards the course and academic achievement.

Keywords

• STEM education
• Meta-analysis
• Attitude
• Achievement

References

1. Abanoz, T. (2020). STEM yaklaşımına uygun fen etkinliklerinin okul öncesi dönem çocuklarının bilimsel süreç becerilerine etkisinin incelenmesi [The effect of STEM-based science activities on preschool children's scientific process skills] [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Gazi University.
2. Abdelraheem, A., & Asan, A. (2006). The effectiveness of inquiry-based technology-enhanced collaborative learning environment. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 65–87.
3. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
4. Aksoy Kürü, S. (2021). Meta-analiz [Meta-analysis]. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 42, 215–229.
5. Altunel, M. (2018). STEM eğitimi ve Türkiye: fırsatlar ve riskler [STEM education and Türkiye: Opportunities and risks]. Seta Perspektif, 207, 1–7.
6. Atik, A. (2019). STEM etkinliklerinin bilimsel süreç becerileri üzerine etkisi: 5 yaş örneği [The effect of STEM activities on scientific process skills: The case of 5-year-old children] [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Trabzon University.
7. Ayaz, M.F., & Sekerci, H. (2015). The effects of the constructivist learning approach on students' academic achievement: a meta-analysis study. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14 (4), 143-156.
8. Aydagül, B., & Terzioğlu, T. (2014). Importance of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. TÜSİAD Journal of Opinion, 85, 13-19.

9. Aydın, T. (2019). STEM uygulamalarının okul öncesi öğrencilerinin bilimsel süreç becerileri ve bilişsel alan gelişimlerine etkisi [The effect of STEM applications on preschool students' scientific process skills and cognitive domain development] [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Fırat University.
10. Ayverdi, L., & Aydın, S. Ö. (2020). STEM eğitiminin akademik başarı üzerindeki etkisini inceleyen çalışmaların meta-analizi [Meta-analysis of studies examining the effect of STEM education on academic success]. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 14(2), 840–888.
11. Bal, E. (2018). FeTeMM (Fen, teknoloji, mühendislik, matematik) etkinliklerinin 48–72 aylık okul öncesi çocuklarının bilimsel süreç ve problem çözme becerileri üzerindeki etkisinin incelenmesi [The effect of STEM activities on the scientific process and problem-solving skills of preschool children aged 48–72 months] [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Marmara University.
12. BBC. (2022, December 13). Breakthrough in nuclear fusion energy announced. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63950962
13. Beatty, A.S. (2011). Successful STEM education. National Academies Press.
14. Bedar, R.W. A.-H., & Al-Shboul, M.A. (2020). The effect of using STEAM approach on motivation towards learning among high school students in Jordan. International Education Studies, 13(9), 48–57.
15. Beers, S.Z. (2011). 21st century skills: Preparing students for their future. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(2), 64-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2011.10516575
16. Belland, B.R., Walker, A.E., Kim, N.J., & Lefler, M. (2017). Synthesizing results from empirical research on computer-based scaffolding in STEM education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 309-344.
17. Bircan, M.A., & Çalışıcı, H. (2022). STEM eğitimi etkinliklerinin ilkokul dördüncü sınıf öğrencilerinin STEM’e yönelik tutumlarına, 21. yüzyıl becerilerine ve matematik başarılarına etkisi [The effects of STEM education activities on fourth-grade students’ attitudes towards STEM, 21st-century skills, and mathematics achievement]. Eğitim ve Bilim Dergisi, 47(211), 87–119. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2022.10710
18. Blotnicky, K.A., Franz-Odendaal, T., French, F., & Joy, P. (2018). A study of the correlation between STEM career knowledge, mathematics self-efficacy, career interests, and career activities on the likelihood of pursuing a STEM career among middle school students. IJ STEM, 5(22).
19. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L.V., Higgins, J.P.T. and Rothstein, H.R. (2009). Introduction to Meta-Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex.
20. Breiner, J.M., Harkness, S.S., Johnson, C.C., & Koehler, C.M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School science and mathematics, 112(1), 3–11.
21. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2015). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods]. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
22. Bybee, R.W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. NSTA Press.
23. Capraro, R.M., & Slough, S.W. (Eds.). (2013). Project-based learning: An integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach. Springer.
24. Celiker, N., Ustunel, M.F. and Guzeller, C.O. (2019). The relationship between emotional labour and burnout: A meta analysis. Anatolia, 30(3), 328 345. https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2019.1581625
25. Cochran, W.G. (1954). The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics, 10(1),101-129.
26. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. Routledge.
27. Cohen, L. (2007). Experiments, quasi-experiments, single-case research and Meta-analysis. In L. Cohen, L. Manion, & K. Morrison, (Eds.), Research Methods in Education (pp.272–296). Routledge.
28. Creswell, J.W. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (5th Edition). Pearson Prentice Hall.
29. Cunningham, C.M., & Hester, K. (2007, March). Engineering is elementary: An engineering and technology curriculum for children [Oral Proceeding]. American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Honolulu, HI.
30. Çepni, S., & Çil, E. (2009). Fen ve teknoloji programı ilköğretim 1. ve 2. kademe öğretmen el kitabı [Science and technology curriculum primary school teacher’s handbook (grades 1–8)]. Pegem Akademi.
31. Çetin, I., & Türkan, A. (2020). The impact of STEM activities on students’ academic achievement: A meta analytic review. Education and Science, 45(203), 55 72. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2020.8460
32. Değerli, M. (2021). Fen eğitiminde STEM yaklaşımının etkililiği: Bir meta analiz çalışması [The effectiveness of the STEM approach in science education: A meta-analysis study] [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Dicle University.
33. Değerli, M., & Yapıcı, Ü. (2022). Fen eğitiminde STEM yaklaşımının akademik başarıya etkisi: Bir meta-analiz çalışması [The effect of the STEM approach in science education on academic achievement: A meta-analysis study]. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 16(1), 17–48.
34. Dweck, C.S. (2006). Mindset: the new psychology of success. random house. Ejiwale, J. A. (2013). Barriers to successful implementation of STEM education. Journal of Education and Learning, 7(2), 63-74.
35. Ejiwale, J.A. (2013). Barriers to successful implementation of STEM education. Journal of Education and Learning, 7(2), 63-74.
36. Fraenkel, J.R., & Wallen, N. E (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education. (7th Edition). McGraw-Hill Companies.
37. Fraser, B.J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity, and applications. Learning Environments Research, 1(1), 7–33.
38. Glass, G.V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5(10), 3-8.
39. Gonzalez, H.B., & Kuenzi, J.J. (2012, August). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: A primer. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
40. Hackman, S.T., Zhang, D., & He, J. (2021). Secondary school science teachers’ attitudes towards STEM education in Liberia. International Journal of Science Education, 43(2), 223–246.
41. Hedges, L.V., & Pigott, T.D. (2004). The power of statistical tests for moderators in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 9(4), 426.
42. Henriksen, D. (2014). Full STEAM ahead: Creativity in excellent STEM teaching practices. The STEAM Journal, 1(2), Article 15. https://doi.org/10.5642/steam.20140102.15
43. Herdem, K., & Ünal, İ. (2018). Analysis of studies about STEM Education: A meta-synthesis study. Journal of Educational Sciences, 48(48), 145-163.
44. Huedo-Medina T.B., Sanchez-Meca, J., Marin-Martinez F., & Botella, J. (2006). Assessing heterogeneity in meta analysis: Q statistics or I2 index? Psychological Methods, 11(2),193-206.
45. Kanadlı, S. (2019). STEM eğitimi hakkında nitel bulguların meta-özeti [A meta-summary of qualitative findings about STEM education]. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 959–976.
46. Kaya, A. (2020). Türkiye örnekleminde STEM eğitimi alanında yapılan çalışmaların içerik analizi [Content analysis of studies conducted in Türkiye in the field of STEM education]. İstanbul Aydın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 275–306.
47. Kazu, İ.Y., & Kaplan, A. (2024). STEM uygulamalarının bilimsel süreç becerilerine etkisi: Bir meta-analiz çalışması [The effect of STEM applications on scientific process skills: A meta-analysis study]. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 23(89), 234 255. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.1331946
48. Kazu, I.Y., & Kurtoğlu Yalçın, C. (2021). The effect of STEM education on academic performance: a meta-analysis study. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 20(4), 101-116.
49. Kelley, T.R., & Knowles, J.G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
50. Kiazai, A.N., Siddiqua, N., & Waheed, Z. (2019). Challenges in implementing STEM education and role of teacher education programs in mitigating these challenges. International Journal of Distance Education and E- Learning, 1(1), 123-137.
51. Kim, N.J., Belland, B.R., & Walker, A.E. (2018). Effectiveness of computer-based scaffolding in the context of problem-based learning for STEM education: Bayesian meta-analysis. Educational Psychological Review 30, 397–429.
52. Landis, J.R., & Koch, G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.
53. Lestari, T.P., Sarwi, S., & Sumarti, S.S. (2018). STEM-based project-based learning model to increase science process and creative thinking skills of 5th grade. Journal of Primary Education, 7(1), 18-24.
54. Madden, L., Beyers, J., & O'Brien, S. (2016). The importance of STEM education in the elementary grades: Learning from pre-service and novice teachers’ perspectives. The Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education, 20(5), 1–18.
55. Marrero, M.E., Gunning, A.M., & Germain-Williams, T. (2014). What is STEM education? Global Education Review, 1(4), 1–6.
56. Marshall, J.C., & Horton, R.M. (2011). The relationship of teacher-facilitated inquiry-based instruction to student higher-order thinking. School Science and Mathematics, 111(3), 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2010.00066.x
57. Martín‐Páez, T., Aguilera, D., Perales‐Palacios, F.J., & Vílchez‐González, J.M. (2019). What are we talking about when we talk about STEM education? A review of literature. Science Education, 103(4), 799-822.
58. McClain, M.L. (2015). The effect of STEM education on mathematics achievement of fourth-grade underrepresented minority students [Doctoral dissertation, Capella University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
59. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (2002). The Qualitative Researcher's Companion. Sage, CA.
60. Mittlböck, M., & Heinzl, H.A. (2006). Simulation study comparing properties of heterogenity measures in meta analyses. Statistics in Medicine, 25(24), 4321-4333.
61. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., & PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement. BMJ, 339, b2535.
62. Mousoulides, N.G. (2013). Facilitating parental engagement in school mathematics and science through inquiry-based learning: An examination of teachers’ and parents’ beliefs. ZDM, 45(6), 863-874.
63. National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. National Academies Press.
64. Navruz, B., Erdogan, N., Bicer, A., Capraro, R.M., & Capraro, M.M. (2014). Would a STEM school ‘by any other name smell as sweet’? International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 1(2), 67-75.
65. Neely, J.G., Magit, A.E., Rich, J.T., Voelker, C.C., Wang, E.W., Paniello, R.C., & Bradley, J.P. (2010). A practical guide to understanding systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery,142(1), 6–14.
66. Olasehinde, K.J., & Olatoye, R.A. (2014). Scientific attitude, attitude to science and science achievement of senior secondary school students in Katsina State, Nigeria. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 4(1), 445-452.
67. Ormancı, Ü. (2020). Thematic content analysis of doctoral theses in STEM education: Turkey context. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 17(1), 126–146.
68. Özkan, B., & Doğan, Y. (2022). The effect of STEAM activities on the academic achievement, scientific creativity and attitudes of seventh grade students. Journal of Human Sciences, 19(1), 37–54. https://www.j-humansciences.com/ojs/index.php/IJHS/article/view/5430
69. Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T.C., & Mulrow, C.D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ;372(71). http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
70. Parker, L.A., Saez, N.G., Porta, M., Herna'ndez-Aguado, I., & Lumbreras, B. (2013). The impact of including different study designs in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies. European Journal of Epidemiology, 28(9), 713-720.
71. Pintrich, P.R., & De Groot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.
72. Pigott, T.D., & Polanin, J.R. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: High-quality meta-analysis in a systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 24–46.
73. Quintana, S.M., & Minami, T. (2006). Guidelines for meta-analyses of counseling psychology research. The Counseling Psychologist,34(6), 839-877.
74. Saçan, E. (2018). Stem-based curriculum proposal and effectiveness for science applications course. [Unpublished master’s thesis] Hacettepe University.
75. Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–27.
76. Shelby, L.B., & Vaske, J.J. (2008). Understanding meta-analysis: a review of the methodological literature. Leisure Sciences,30(2), 96-110.
77. Strong, M.G. (2013). Developing elementary math and science process skills through engineering design instruction. [Unpublished master’s thesis] Hofstra University.
78. Sutton, A.J., Abrams, K.R., Jones, D.R., Sheldon, T.A., & Song, F. (2000). Methods for Meta-analysis in Medical Research. John Wiley & Sons.
79. Tarım, K. (2003). Kubaşık öğrenme yönteminin matematik öğretimindeki etkinliği ve kubaşık öğrenme yöntemine ilişkin bir meta-analiz çalışması [The effectiveness of the cooperative learning method in mathematics teaching and a meta-analysis study on the cooperative learning method] [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Çukurova University.
80. Tate, W.F., Jones, B.D., Thorne-Wallington, E., & Hogrebe, M.C. (2012). Science and the city: Thinking geospatially about opportunity to learn. Urban Education, 47(2), 399–433.
81. Tatlı, F. (2022). Kimya öğretiminde STEM uygulamalarının farklı öğrenme stillerine ve zeka alanlarına sahip öğrencilerin kavramsal anlamaları ve bilimsel süreç becerilerine etkisi [The effect of STEM applications in chemistry teaching on students with different learning styles and intelligence domains in terms of conceptual understanding and scientific process skills] [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Marmara University.
82. Tolliver, E.R. (2016). The effects of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education on elementary student achievement in urban schools [Doctoral dissertation] Grand Canyon University.
83. Toma, R.B., & Greca, I.M. (2018). The effect of integrative STEM instruction on elementary students’ attitudes toward science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(4), 1383-1395.
84. Ulum, H. (2022). A meta-analysis of the effects of different integrated STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) approaches on primary students' attitudes. International Journal of Educational Research Review, 7(4), 307–317.
85. Vennix, J., den Brok, P., & Taconis, R. (2018). Do outreach activities in secondary STEM education motivate students and improve their attitudes towards STEM? International Journal of Science Education, 40(11), 1263-1283.
86. Wang, L.H., Chen, B., Hwang, G.J., Guan, J.Q., & Wang, Y.Q. (2022). Effects of digital game-based STEM education on students’ learning achievement: a meta-analysis. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 1-13.
87. Xie, Y., Fang, M., & Shauman, K. (2015). STEM education. Annual review of sociology, 41, 331-357.
88. Yakman, G. (2008). STΣ@ M Education: an overview of creating a model of integrative education. Pupils Attitudes Towards Technology. 2008 Annual Proceedings. Netherlands.
89. Yamak, H., Bulut, N., & Dündar, S. (2014). The impact of STEM Activities on 5th grade students’scientific process skills and their attitudes towards science. GEFAD / GUJGEF 34(2), 249-265.
90. Yıldırım, B., & Altun, Y. (2015). Investigating the effect of STEM Education and engineering applications on science laboratory lectures. El-Cezeri Journal of Science and Engineering, 2(2), 28-40.
91. Yıldırım, B. (2016). An analyses and meta-synthesis of research on STEM education. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(34), 23–33.
92. Yıldırım, B. (2016). An examination of the effects of science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) applications, and mastery learning integrated into the 7th grade science course (Unpublished master’s thesis] Gazi University.
93. Yılmaz, R.M., & Yılmaz, F.G.K. (2024). Gamified STEAM activities and their effects on student motivation and performance. ERIC - Education Resources Information Center. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1437934.pdf
94. Yigit, M., & Bagci, H. (2024). Effects of STEAM education on students’ creativity: A meta-analysis study. Education Sciences, 14(6), 676. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/14/6/676