critical thinking and stem

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Ways of thinking in STEM-based problem solving

Lyn d. english.

Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

Associated Data

The data sets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

This article proposes an interconnected framework, Ways of thinking in STEM-based Problem Solving , which addresses cognitive processes that facilitate learning, problem solving, and interdisciplinary concept development. The framework comprises critical thinking, incorporating critical mathematical modelling and philosophical inquiry, systems thinking, and design-based thinking, which collectively contribute to adaptive and innovative thinking. It is argued that the pinnacle of this framework is learning innovation, involving the generation of powerful disciplinary knowledge and thinking processes that can be applied to subsequent problem challenges. Consideration is first given to STEM-based problem solving with a focus on mathematics. Mathematical and STEM-based problems are viewed here as goal-directed, multifaceted experiences that (1) demand core, facilitative ways of thinking, (2) require the development of productive and adaptive ways to navigate complexity, (3) enable multiple approaches and practices, (4) recruit interdisciplinary solution processes, and (5) facilitate the growth of learning innovation. The nature, role, and contributions of each way of thinking in STEM-based problem solving and learning are then explored, with their interactions highlighted. Examples from classroom-based research are presented, together with teaching implications.

Introduction

With the prevailing emphasis on integrated STEM education, the power of mathematical problem solving has been downplayed. Over two decades we have witnessed a decline in research on mathematical problem solving and thinking, with more questions than answers emerging (English & Gainsburg, 2016 ; Lester & Cai, 2016 ). This is of major concern, especially since work and non-work life increasingly call for resources beyond “textbook” problem solving (Chin et al., 2019 ; Krause et al., 2021 ). Such changing demands could not have been more starkly exposed than in the recent COVID 19 crisis, where mathematics played a crucial role in public and personal discourse, in describing and modelling current and potential scenarios, and in explaining and justifying societal regulations and restrictions. As Krause et al. ( 2021 ) highlighted, “No mathematical task we can create could be a richer application of mathematics than this real situation” (p. 88).

Modelling and statistical analyses that led the search for strategies to “flatten the curve” with minimal social or economic detriment were prominent in the media (Rhodes & Lancaster, 2020 ; Rhodes et al., 2020 ). As nations strive to rebuild their economies including grappling with crippling energy costs, advanced modelling again plays a key role (Aviso et al., 2022 ; Oxford Economics, 2022 ; Teng et al., 2022 ). Unfortunately, the gap between the mathematical modelling applied during the pandemic and how the public interpreted the models has been “palpable and evident” (Aguilar & Castaneda, 2021 ). Sadly, as Di Martino (Krause et al., 2021 ) pointed out regarding his nation:

People’s reactions in this pandemic underlined the spread of a widely negative attitude toward mathematics among the adult population in Italy. We have witnessed the proliferation of strange, unscientific, and dangerous theories but also the risk of refusing to approach facts that involve math and the resulting dependence to fully rely on others when mathematics is used to justify decisions. Also, on this occasion many people showed their own fear of math and their rejection of mathematical arguments as relevant factors in justification (p. 93).

This heightened visibility of mathematics in society coupled with a general lack of mathematical literacy sparked major questions about the repercussions for education and research (Bakker & Wagner, 2020 ; Kollosche & Meyerhöfer, 2021 ). One such repercussion is the need to reconsider perspectives on STEM-based problem solving and how different ways of thinking can enhance or hinder solutions. With reference to engineering education, Dalal et al. ( 2021 ) indicated how numerous calls for a focus on ways of thinking have largely been taken for granted or at least treated at a superficial level. As these authors pointed out, while perceived as a theoretical concept, ways of thinking “can and should be used in practice as a structure for solution-oriented outlooks and innovation” (p. 109).

Given the above points, I propose an interconnected framework, Ways of thinking in STEM-based Problem Solving (Fig.  1 ), which addresses cognitive processes that facilitate learning, problem solving, decision-making, and interdisciplinary concept development (cf. Slavit et al., 2021 ). The framework comprises critical thinking (including critical mathematical modelling and philosophical inquiry), systems thinking, and design-based thinking. Collectively, these thinking skills contribute to adaptive and innovative thinking (McKenna, 2014 ) and ultimately lead to the development of learning innovation (Sect.  3.4 ; English, 2018 ).

These thinking skills have been chosen because of their potential to enhance STEM-based problem solving and interdisciplinary concept development (English et al., 2020 ; Park et al., 2018 ; Slavit et al., 2021 ). Highlighting these ways of thinking, however, is not denying the importance of other thinking skills such as creativity, which is incorporated within the adaptive and innovative thinking component of the proposed framework (Fig.  1 ), and is considered multidimensional in nature (OECD, 2022 ). Other key skills such as communication and collaboration (Stehle & Peters-Burton, 2019 ) are acknowledged but not explored here.

In line with Dalal et al. ( 2021 ), I consider the proposed ways of thinking as providing an organisational structure both individually and interactively when enacted in practice—notwithstanding the contextual and instructional influences that can have an impact here (Slavit et al., 2022 ). Prior to exploring these ideas, I consider STEM-based problem solving with a focus on mathematics.

STEM-based problem solving: a focus on mathematics

Within our STEM-intensive society, we face significant challenges in promoting STEM education from the earliest grades while also maintaining the integrity of the individual disciplines (Tytler, 2016 ). With the increasing need for STEM skills across multiple workforce domains, contrasted with difficulties in STEM implementation in many schools (e.g., Dong et al., 2020 ), the urgency to advance STEM education has never been greater. With the massive disruption caused by COVID-19, coupled with problematic international relations, our school students’ futures have become even more uncertain—we cannot ignore the rapid changes that will continue to impact their lives. Unlike business and industry, where disruption creates a “force-to-innovate” approach (Crittenden, 2017 , p. 14), much of school education seems oblivious to preparing students for these disruptive forces or at least are restricted in doing so by set curricula.

Preparing our students for an increasingly uncertain and complex future requires rethinking the nature of their learning experiences, in particular, the need for more relevant and innovative problems that are challenging but manageable, and importantly, facilitate adaptive learning and problem solving (McKenna, 2014 ). A failure to provide such opportunities may have detrimental effects on young students’ learning and their future achievements (Engel et al., 2016 ). Despite mathematics being cited as the core of STEM education and foundational to the other disciplines (e.g., Larson, 2017 ; Roberts et al., 2022 ; Shaughnessy, 2013 ), it is frequently ignored in integrated STEM activities (English, 2016 ; Maass et al., 2019 ; Mayes, 2019 ; Shaughnessy, 2013 ). For example, quantitative reasoning, which is critical to integrated STEM problem solving, is frequently “misrepresented, underdeveloped, and ignored in STEM classrooms” (Mayes, 2019, p. 113). Likewise, Tytler ( 2016 ) warned that there needs to be an explicit focus on the mathematical concepts and thinking processes that arise in STEM activities. Without this focus, STEM programs run the risk of reducing the valuable contributions of mathematical thinking. If children fail to see meaningful links between their learning in mathematics and the other STEM domains, they can lose interest not only in mathematics but also in the other disciplines (Kelley & Knowles, 2016 ).

Traditional notions of mathematical problem solving (e.g., Charles, 1985 ) are now quite inadequate when applied to our current world. At a time of increasing creative disruption, it is essential for mathematical problem solvers to be adaptive in dealing with unforeseen local, national, and international problems. Increasingly, STEM-based problems in the real world encompass more than just disciplinary content and practices. While not denying the essential nature of these components, issues pertaining to cultural, social, political, and ethical dimensions (Kollosche & Meyerhöfer, 2021 ; Pheasants, 2020) can also impact the solution process, necessitating the application of appropriate thinking skills. As Pheasants stressed, “If STEM education is to prepare students to grapple with complex problems in the real world, then more attention ought to be given to approaches that are inclusive of the non-STEM dimensions that exist in those problems.”

In light of the above arguments, I view mathematical and STEM-based problems as goal-directed experiences that (1) demand STEM-relevant ways of thinking, (2) require the development of productive and adaptive ways to navigate complexity, (3) enable multiple approaches and practices (Roberts et al., 2022 ), (4) recruit interdisciplinary solution processes, and (5) facilitate growth of learning innovation for all students regardless of their background (English, 2018 ). In contrast to traditional expectations, such problems need to embody affordances that facilitate learning innovation, where all students can move beyond their existing competence in standard problem solving and be challenged to generate new knowledge in solving unanticipated problems. Even students who achieve average results on standardised tests display conceptual understanding and advanced mathematical thinking not normally seen in the classroom—especially when current common practices emphasise number skills at the expense of problem solving and reasoning with numbers (Kazemi, 2020 ).

Limited attention, however, has been paid to how problem experiences can be developed that press beyond basic content knowledge (Anderson, 2014; Li, Schoenfeld et al., 2019), encompass the STEM disciplines, and develop important ways of thinking. In their recent article, Slavit et al. ( 2021 ) argued that STEM education should be “grounded in our knowledge of how students think in STEM-focused learning environments” (p. 1), and that fostering twenty-first-century skills is essential. Yet, as these authors highlighted, there is not much research on STEM ways of thinking, with even fewer theoretical perspectives and frameworks on which to draw. In the next section, I consider these ways of thinking, defined in Table ​ Table1, 1 , and provide examples of their applications to STEM-based problem solving.

Critical thinking

Although long recognised as a significant process in a range of fields, research on critical thinking in education, especially in primary education, has been limited (Aktoprak & Hursen, 2022 ). Critical thinking has long been associated with mathematical reasoning and problem solving, but their association remains under-theorized (Jablonka, 2020 ). Likewise, connections between critical thinking and design thinking have had limited attention largely due to their shared conceptual structures not being articulated (Ericson, 2022 ). As a twenty-first century skill, critical thinking is increasingly recognised as essential in STEM and mathematics education (Kollosche & Meyerhöfer, 2021 ) but is sadly lacking in many school curricula (Braund, 2021 ). As applied to STEM-based problem solving, critical thinking builds on inquiry skills (Nichols et al., 2019 ) and entails evaluating and judging problem situations including statements, claims, and propositions made, analysing arguments, inferring, and reflecting on solution approaches and conclusions drawn. Although critical thinking can contribute significantly to each of the other ways of thinking, its application is often neglected. For example, critical thinking is increasingly needed in design and design thinking, which play a key role in product development, environmental projects, and even in forms of social interaction (as discussed in Sect.  3.3 ; Ericson, 2022 ).

Critical mathematical modelling

One rich source of problem experiences that foster critical thinking is that of modelling. The diverse field of mathematical modelling has long been prominent in the secondary years (e.g., Ärlebäck & Doerr, 2018 ) but remains under-researched in the primary years, especially in relation to its everyday applications. Effective engagement with social, political, and environmental issues through modelling and statistics demands critical thinking, yet such aspects are not often considered in school curricula (Jablonka, 2020 ). This is of particular concern, given the pressing need to tackle such issues in today’s world.

As noted in several publications, the interdisciplinary nature of mathematical modelling makes it ideal for STEM-based problem solving (English, 2016 ; Maass et al., 2019 ; Zawojewski et al., 2008 ). Numerous definitions of models and modelling exist in the literature (e.g., Blum & Leiss, 2007 ; Brady et al., 2015 ). For this article, modelling involves developing conceptual innovations in response to real-world needs; effective modelling requires moving beyond the conventional ways of thinking applied in typical school problems (Lesh et al., 2013 ) to include contextual and critical analysis.

Much has been written about the role of modelling during COVID-19. Mathematical models played a major role in grappling with COVID 19, but their projections were a source of controversy (Rhodes & Lancaster, 2020 ). There seems little appreciation of the critical nature of mathematical models in society (Barbosa, 2006 ) and how assumptions in the modelling process can sway decisions. STEM-based problem solving needs to incorporate not just modelling itself, but also critical mathematical modelling. Critiquing what a model yields, and what is learned, is of increasing social importance (Aguilar & Castaneda, 2021 ; Barbosa, 2006 ). Indeed, as Braund ( 2021 ) illustrated, the Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the urgent need for “critical STEM literacy” (p. 339)—an awareness of the complex and problematic interactions of STEM and politics, and a knowledge and understanding of the underlying STEM concepts and representations is essential:

There are two imperatives that emerge: first, that there is sufficient STEM literacy to negotiate the complex COVID-19 information landscape to enable personal decision taking and second, that this is accompanied by a degree of criticality so that politicians and experts are called to account (Braund, 2021 , p. 339).

Kollosche ( 2021 ) shed further light on the lack of critical thinking in the media’s reporting on COVID, with his argument that “most newspaper reports were effective in creating the problems” because of their focus on ideal forms of mathematical concepts and modelling, without discussing the assumptions and methods behind the reported data. Of concern is that “mass media still fail to present scientific models and results in a way that allows for mathematical reflection and a critical evaluation of such information by citizens.”

Modelling experiences that draw on students’ cultural and community contexts (Anhalt et al., 2018 ; English, 2021a , 2021b ; Turner et al., 2009 ) provide rich opportunities for critical thinking from a citizen’s perspective. Such opportunities can also assist students in appreciating that mathematics is not merely a means of calculating answers but is also a vehicle for social justice, where critical thinking plays a key role (Cirillo et al., 2016 ; Greer et al., 2007 ). In their studies of critical thinking in cultural and community contexts, Turner and her colleagues (Turner et al., 2009 , 2021 , 2022 ) explored culturally responsive, community-based approaches to mathematical modelling with elementary teachers and students. Using a range of authentic modelling contexts, Turner and her colleagues illustrated how students’ modelling processes generated a number of issues that required them to think critically about their lives and their lives within their community. In one activity, students were applying design thinking and processes as they redesigned their local park. They generated, for example, mathematical models to estimate how long children would have to wait to use the swings—this informed their decision that the park did not meet the needs of the community. This community-based modelling highlighted “ongoing negotiation between students’ experiences and intentions related to the community park, the constraints of the actual context, and the mathematical issues that arose” (Turner et al., 2009 , p. 148).

Another example of modelling involving critical thinking in cultural and community contexts was implemented in a sixth-grade Cyprus classroom. Students were required to develop a model for their country to purchase water supplies from a choice of nearby nations (English & Mousoulides, 2011 ). Students were to consider travel distances, water price, available supply per week, oil tanker capacity, costs of water and oil, and quality of the port facilities in the neighbouring countries. The targeted model had to select the best option not only for the present but also for the future. Students’ models ranged from a basic form, where port facilities and water supply were ignored, to more sophisticated models, where all factors were integrated, with carbon emissions also considered. One of the student groups who took into account environmental factors commented, “It would be better for the country to spend a little more money and reduce oil consumption. And there are other environmental issues, like pollution of the Mediterranean Sea.” The more sophisticated models reflected systems thinking (Sect.  3.2 ), where the impact of partial factors such as oil consumption on the whole domain (ocean ecosystems and community) was also considered.

Philosophical Inquiry

One underrepresented means of fostering critical thinking in mathematical and STEM-based problem solving is through philosophical inquiry (Calvert et al., 2017 ; English, 2013 , 2022 ; Kennedy, 2012 ; Mukhopadhyay & Greer, 2007 ). Such inquiry encourages a range of thinking skills in identifying hidden assumptions, determining alternative courses of action, and reflecting on conclusions drawn and claims made. Several studies have shown how engaging children in communities of philosophical inquiry nurtures critical thinking dispositions, which become both a goal and a method (Bezençon, 2020 ; Daniel et al., 2017 ; Lipman, 2003 , 2008 ). At the same time, philosophical inquiry can lead to “conceptual deepening” (Bezençon, 2017), where analysis of mathematical and related STEM concepts as they apply beyond the classroom can be fostered. Given the increased societal awareness of mathematics and STEM in recent years, philosophical inquiry can be a powerful tool in enhancing students’ understanding and appreciation of how these disciplines shape societies. At the same time, philosophical inquiry can stimulate consideration of ethical issues in the applications of these disciplines (Bezençon, 2020 ). For example, Mukhopadhyay and Greer ( 2007 ) indicated how mathematics education should “convey the complexity of mathematical modeling social phenomena and a sense of what demarcates questions that can be answered by empirical evidence from those that depend on value systems and world-views” (p. 186).

A comprehensive review by O’Reilly et al. ( 2022 ) identified pedagogical approaches to scaffolding early critical thinking skills including inquiry-based teaching using classroom dialogue or questioning techniques. Such techniques include philosophical inquiry and encouraging children to construct, share, and justify their ideas regarding a task or investigation. Other opportunities for philosophical inquiry include group problem solving, peer sharing of created models, and facilitating critical and constructive peer feedback. For example, Gallagher and Jones ( 2021 ) reported on integrating mathematical modelling and economics, where beginning teachers were presented with a task involving a problematic community issue following a school shooting. In such cases, numerous courses of action are typically proposed for addressing the problem. Not surprisingly, various community opinions exist on such proposals, giving rise to valuable contexts for philosophical inquiry and critical modelling, where data and their sources are carefully analysed. With the escalation of statistical data from the mass media, it is imperative to commence the foundations of critical and philosophical thinking early. Students’ skills in asking critical questions as they work with data in constructing and improving a model, reflect on what their models convey, consider consequences of their models, and justify and communicate their conclusions require nurturing throughout school (Gibbs & Young Park, 2022 ).

Systems thinking

Systems thinking cuts across the STEM disciplines as well as many other fields outside education. It is considered a key component of “critical thinking and problem solving” in 21st Century Learning (P21, 2015 ) and is often cited as a “habit of mind” in engineering education (e.g., Lippard et al., 2018 ; Lucas et al., 2014 ). Numerous definitions exist for systems thinking (e.g., Bielik et al., 2022 ; Damelin et al., 2017 ; Jacobson & Wilenski, 2022 ), with Bielik et al. ( 2022 ) identifying such thinking as the ability to “consider the system boundaries, the components of the system, the interactions between system components and between different subsystems, and emergent properties and behaviour of the system” (p. 219). In more basic terms, Shin et al. ( 2022 ) refer to systems thinking as “the ability to understand a problem or phenomenon as a system of interacting elements that produces emergent behavior” (p. 936).

Systems thinking interacts with the other thinking forms including those displayed in Fig.  1 , as well as computational thinking (Shin et al., 2022), critical thinking (Curwin et al., 2018 ) and mathematical thinking more broadly (Baioa & Carreira, 2022 ). Systems thinking is considered especially important in conceptualizing a problematic situation within a larger context and in perceiving problems in new and different ways (Stroh, 2018 ). Of special relevance to today’s world is the realisation that perfect solutions do not exist and the choices one makes in applying systems thinking will impact on other parts of the system (Meadows, 2008 ). What is often not considered in today’s complex societies—at least not to the extent required—is that we live in a world of intrinsically linked systems, where disruption in one part will reverberate in others. We see so many instances where particular courses of action are advocated or mandated in societal systems, while the impact on sub-components is perilously ignored. Examples are evident in many nations’ responses to COVID-19, where escalating lockdowns impacted economies and communities, whose demands had to be balanced against purely epidemiological factors. The reverberations of such actions stretch far and wide over long periods. Likewise, the various impacts of current climate actions are frequently ignored, such as how the construction of vast areas of renewable resources (e.g., wind turbines) can have deleterious effects on the surrounding environments including wildlife.

Despite its centrality across the STEM domains, systems thinking is almost absent from mathematics education (Curwin et al., 2018 ). This is despite claims by many researchers that modelling, systems thinking, and associated thinking processes should be significant components of students’ education (Bielik et al., 2022 ; Jacobson & Wilenski, 2022 ). Indeed, systems thinking is featured prominently in the US A Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC, 2012 ) and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013 ), and has received considerable attention in science education (e.g., Borge, 2016 ; Hmelo-Silver et al., 2017 ; York et al., 2019 ) and engineering education (e.g., Lippard & Riley, 2018 ; Litzinger, 2016 ).

Given the complexity of systems thinking in today’s world, and the diverse ways in which it is applied, students require opportunities to experience how systems thinking can interact with other forms such as design thinking and critical thinking (Curwin et al., 2018 ; Shin et al., 2022). Such interactions occur in many popular STEM investigations including one in which fifth-grade students designed, constructed, and experimented with a loaded paper plane (paper clips added) in determining how load impacts on the distance travelled (English, 2021b ). Students observed that changing one design feature (e.g., wingspan or load position) unsettles some other features (e.g., fuselage depth decreases wingspan). The investigation yielded an appreciation of the intricacy of interactions among a system’s components, and their scarcely predictable mutual effects.

Other studies have revealed how very young children can engage in basic systems thinking within STEM contexts. For example, Feriver et al. ( 2019 ) administered a story reading session to individual 4- to 6-year-old children in preschools in Turkey and Germany, and then followed this with individual semi-structured interviews about the story. The reading session was based on the story book, “The Water Hole” (Base, 2001 ), which draws on basic concepts of systems within an ecosystem context. Their study found the young children to have some complex understanding of systems thinking in terms of detecting obvious gradual changes and two-step domino and/or multiple one-way causalities, as well as describing the behaviour of a balancing loop (corrective actions that try to reduce the gap between a desired level or goal and the actual lever, such as temperature and plant growth). However, the children understandably experienced difficulties in several areas, in which even adults have problems. For example, detecting a reinforcing loop, identifying unintended consequences, detecting hidden components and processes, adopting a multi-dimensional perspective, and predicting how a system would behave in the future were problematic for them. In another study, Gillmeister ( 2017 ) showed how preschool children have a more complex understanding of systems thinking than previously claimed. Their ability to utilize simple systems thinking tools, such as stock-flow maps, feedback loops and behaviour over time graphs, was evident.

Although the research has not been extensive, current findings indicate how we might capitalise on the seeds of early systems thinking across the STEM fields. With the pervasive nature of systems thinking, it is argued that its connections to other forms of thinking across STEM should be nurtured (cf., Svensson, 2022 ). This includes links to design-based thinking where designed products, for example, operate “within broader systems and systems of systems” (Buchanan, 2019 ).

Design-based thinking and STEM-based problem solving

Design-based thinking plays a major role in complex problem solving, yet its contribution to mathematics learning has been largely ignored, especially at the primary levels. Design is central in technology and engineering practice (English et al., 2020 ; Guzey et al., 2019 ), from bridge construction through to the development of medical tools. Design contributes to all phases of problem solving and drives students toward innovative rather than predetermined outcomes (Goldman & Zielezinski, 2016 ). As applied to STEM education, design thinking is generally viewed as a set of iterative processes of understanding a problem and developing an appropriate solution. It includes problem scoping, idea generation, systems thinking, designing and creating, testing and reflecting, redesigning and recreating, and communicating. Both learning about design and learning through design can help students develop more informed analytical approaches to mathematical and STEM-based problem solving (English et al., 2020 ; Strimel et al., 2018 ).

Learning about design in solving complex problems emphasises design thinking processes per se, that is, students learn about design itself. Design thinking as a means for learning about design is not as prevalent in integrated STEM education. Although learning through and about design should not be divorced during problem solving (van Breukelen et al., 2017 ), one learning goal can take precedence over the other. Both require greater attention, especially in today’s design-focused world (Tornroth & Wikberg Nilsson, 2022 ).

A plurality of solutions of varying levels of sophistication is possible in applying design thinking processes, so students from different achievement levels can devise solutions (Goldman & Kabayadondo, 2017 )—and research suggests that lower-achieving students benefit most (Chin et al., 2019 ). The question of how best to develop design learning across grades K-12, however, has not received adequate attention. This is perhaps not surprising given that comparatively few studies have investigated the design thinking of grades 6–12 and even fewer across the elementary years (Kelley & Sung, 2017 ; Strimel et al., 2018 ).

Also overlooked is how design-based thinking can foster concept development, that is, how it can foster “learning while designing”, or generative learning (English et al., 2020 ). Design-based thinking provides natural opportunities to develop understanding of the required STEM concepts (Hjalmarson et al., 2020 ). As these authors pointed out, when students create designs, they represent models of their thinking. When students have to express their conceptual understanding in the form of design, such as an engineering designed product, their knowledge (e.g., of different material properties) is tested. Studies have revealed such learning occurs when elementary and middle school students design and construct various physical artifacts. For example, in a fifth-grade study involving designing and building an optical instrument that enabled one to see around corners, King and English ( 2017 ) observed how students applied and enriched their understanding of scientific concepts of light and how it travels through a system, together with their mathematical knowledge of geometric properties, angles and measurement.

In a study in the secondary grades (Langman et al. ( 2019 ), student groups completed modules that included a model-eliciting activity (Lesh & Zawojewski, 2007 ) involving iterative design thinking processes. Students were to interpret, assess, and compare images of blood vessel networks grown in scaffolds, develop a procedure or tool for measuring (or scoring) this vessel growth, and demonstrate how to apply their procedure to the images, as well as to any image of a blood vessel network. The results showed how students designed a range of mathematical models of varying levels of sophistication to evaluate the quality of blood vessel networks and developed a knowledge of angiogenesis in doing so.

In another study implemented in a 6th-grade classroom, students were involved in both learning about and learning through design in creating a new sustainable town with the goal of at least 50% renewable energy sources. The students were also engaged in systems thinking, as well as critical thinking, as they planned, developed, and critically analysed the layout and interactions of different components of their town system (e.g., where to place renewable energy sources to minimise impact on the residences and recreational areas; where to situate essential services to reach different town components). Students also had to consider the budgetary constraints in their town designs. Their learning about design was apparent in their iterative processes of problem scoping, idea generation and modification, balancing of benefits and trade-offs (dealing with system subcomponents), critical reflections on their designs, and improvements of the overall town design. Learning though design was evident as students displayed content knowledge pertaining to renewable energy and community needs, applied spatial reasoning in positioning town features, and considered budgetary constraints in reaching their “best” design.

Engineering design processes form a significant component of design thinking and learning, with foundational links across the STEM disciplines including mathematical modelling. Engineering design-based problems help students appreciate how they can apply different ideas and approaches from the STEM disciplines, with more than one outcome possible (Guzey et al., 2019 ). Such design thinking engages students in interpreting problems, developing initial design ideas, selecting and testing a promising design, analysing results from their prototype solution, and revising to improve outcomes.

It is of concern that limited attention has been devoted to engineering design-based thinking in mathematics and the other STEM disciplines in the primary grades. This is despite research indicating how very young children can engage in design-based thinking when provided with appropriate opportunities (e.g., Cunningham, 2018 ; Elkin et al., 2018 ). Elkin et al., for example, used robotics in early childhood classrooms to introduce foundational engineering design thinking processes. Their study illustrated how these young learners used engineering design journals and engaged in design thinking as they engineered creative solutions to challenging problems presented to them. It seems somewhat paradoxical that foundational engineering design thinking is a natural part of young children’s inquiry about their world, yet this important component has been largely ignored in these informative years.

In sum, design-based thinking is a powerful and integrative tool for mathematical and STEM-based problem solving and requires greater focus in school curricula. Both learning about and through design have the potential to improve learning and problem solving well beyond the school years (Chin et al., 2019 ). At the same time, design-based thinking, together with the other ways of thinking, can contribute significantly to learning innovation (English, 2018 ).

Adaptive and innovative thinking for learning innovation

Disruption is rapidly becoming the norm in almost all spheres of life. The recent national and international upheavals have further stimulated disruptive thinking (or disruptive innovation), where perspectives on commonly accepted (and often inefficient) solutions to problems are rejected for more innovative approaches and products. Given the pressing need for problem solvers capable of developing new and adaptable knowledge, rather than applying limited simplistic procedures or strategies, we need to foster what I term, learning innovation (English, 2018 ; Fig.  2 ). Such learning builds on core content to generate more powerful disciplinary knowledge and thinking processes that can, in turn, be adapted and applied to solving subsequent challenging problems.

Learning innovation

Figure  2 (adapted from McKenna, 2014 ) illustrates how learning innovation can be fostered through the growth of mathematical and STEM knowledge, together with STEM ways of thinking. The optimal adaptability corridor represents the growth of mathematical and STEM-based problem solving from novice to adaptable solver . Adaptable problem solvers (Hatano & Oura, 2003 ) have developed the flexibility, curiosity, and creativity to tackle novel problems—skills that are needed in jobs of the future (Denning & Noray, 2020 ; OECD, 2019 ). Without the disciplinary knowledge, ways of thinking, and engagement in challenging but approachable problems, a student risks remaining merely a routine problem solver—one who is skilled solely in applying previously taught procedures to solve sets of familiar well-worn problems, as typically encountered at school. Learning innovation remains a challenging and unresolved issue across curriculum domains and is proposed as central to dealing effectively with disruption.

Particularly rich experiences for developing learning innovation involve interdisciplinary modelling, incorporating critical mathematical modelling (e.g., Hallström and Schönborn, 2019 ; Lesh et al., 2013 ). As noted, a key feature of model-eliciting experiences is the affordances they provide all students to exhibit “extraordinary abilities to remember and transfer their tools to new situations” (Lesh et al., 2013 , p. 54). Modelling enables students to apply more sophisticated STEM concepts and generate solutions that extend beyond their usual classroom problems. Such experiences require different ways of thinking in problem solving as they deal with, for example, conflicting constraints and trade-offs, alternative paths to follow, and various tools and representations to utilise. In essence, interdisciplinary modelling may be regarded as a way of creating STEM concepts, with modeling and concept development being highly interdependent and mutually supportive (cf., Lesh & Caylor, 2007 ).

Concluding points

The ill-defined problems of today, coupled with unexpected disruptions across all walks of life, demand advanced problem-solving by all citizens. The need to update outmoded forms of problem solving, which fail to take into account increasing global challenges, has never been greater (Cowin, 2021 ). The ways-of-thinking framework has been proposed as a powerful means of enhancing problem-solving skills for dealing with today’s unprecedented game-changers. Specifically, critical thinking (including critical mathematical modelling and philosophical inquiry), systems thinking, and design-based thinking are advanced as collectively contributing to the adaptive and innovative skills required for problem success. It is argued that the pinnacle of this framework is learning innovation, which can be within reach of all students. Fostering students’ agency for developing learning innovation is paramount if they are to take some control of their own problem solving and learning (English, 2018 ; Gadanidis et al., 2016 ; Roberts et al., 2022 ).

Establishing a culture of empowerment and equity, with an asset-based approach, where the strengths of all students are recognised, can empower students as learners and achievers in an increasingly uncertain world (Celedón-Pattichis et al., 2018 ). Teacher actions that encourage students to express their ideas, together with a program of future-oriented mathematical and STEM-based problems, can nurture students’ problem-solving confidence and dispositions (Goldman & Zielezinski, 2016 ; Roberts et al., 2022 ). In particular, mathematical and STEM-based modelling has been advocated as a rich means of developing multiple ways of thinking that foster adaptive and innovative learners—learners with a propensity for developing new knowledge and skills, together with a willingness to tackle ill-defined problems of today and the future. Such propensity for dealing effectively with STEM-based problem solving is imperative, beginning in the earliest grades. The skills gained can thus be readily transferred across disciplines, and subsequently across career opportunities.

Acknowledgements

Sentiments expressed in this article have arisen from recent Australian Research Council grants # DP 220100303 and DP 150100120. Views expressed in this article are those of the author and not the Council.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions.

Data availability

Declarations.

There are no financial or non-financial interests that are directly or indirectly related to this submission.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Aguilar MS, Castaneda A. What mathematical competencies does a citizen need to interpret Mexico’s official information about the COVID-19 pandemic? Educational Studies in Mathematics. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s10649-021-10082-9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aktoprak A, Hursen C. A bibliometric and content analysis of critical thinking in primary education. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2022; 44 :101029. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101029. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anhalt CO, Staats S, Cortez R, Civil M. Mathematical modeling and culturally relevant pedagogy. In: Dori YJ, Mevarech ZR, Baker DR, editors. Cognition, metacognition, and culture in STEM education. Springer; 2018. pp. 307–330. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ärlebäck JB, Doerr HM. Students’ interpretations and reasoning about phenomena with negative rates of change throughout a model development sequence. ZDM Mathematics Education. 2018; 50 (1–2):187–200. doi: 10.1007/s11858-017-0881-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aviso KB, Yu CD, Lee J-Y, Tan RR. P-graph optimization of energy crisis response in Leontief systems with partial substitution. Cleaner Energy and Technology. 2022; 9 :100510. doi: 10.1016/j.clet.2022.100510. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baioa, A. M., & Carreira, S. (2022). Mathematical thinking about systems—Students modeling a biometrics identity verification system. Mathematical Thinking and Learning.
• Bakker A, Wagner D. Pandemic: Lessons for today and tomorrow? Educational Studies in Mathematics. 2020; 104 :1–4. doi: 10.1007/s10649-020-09946-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barbosa JC. Mathematical modelling in classroom: A socio-critical and discursive perspective. ZDM Mathematics Education. 2006; 38 :293–301. doi: 10.1007/BF02652812. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Base G. In: The Water Hole. Harry N, editor. Abrs Inc.; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Benessiaa A, De Marchi B. When the earth shakes … and science with it. The management and communication of uncertainty in the L’Aquila earthquake. Futures. 2017; 91 :35–45. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2016.11.011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bezençon, E. (2020). Practising philosophy of mathematics with children: what, why and how? Philosophy of Mathematics Education Journal, 36 .
• Bielik T, Stephens L, McIntyre C, Damelin D, Krajcik JS. Supporting student system modelling practice through curriculum and technology design. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2022; 31 :217–231. doi: 10.1007/s10956-021-09943-y. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blum W, Leiss D. How do students and teachers deal with mathematical modelling problems? In: Haines C, Galbraith PL, Blum W, Khan S, editors. Mathematical modelling (ICTMA12)—Education, engineering and economics. Horwood; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Borge M. Systems thinking as a design problem. In: Duschl RA, Bismack AS, editors. Reconceptualizing STEM education. Routledge; 2016. pp. 68–80. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brady C, Lesh R, Sevis S, et al. Extending the reach of the models and modelling perspective: A course-sized research site. In: Stillman GA, et al., editors. Mathematical modelling in education research and practice. Springer; 2015. pp. 55–66. [ Google Scholar ]
• Braund M. Critical STEM Literacy and the COVID-19 Pandemic. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education. 2021; 21 :39–356. doi: 10.1007/s42330-021-00150-w. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buchanan R. Systems thinking and design thinking: the search for principles in the world we are making. She Ji the Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation. 2019; 5 (2):85–104. doi: 10.1016/j.sheji.2019.04.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Calvert K, Forster M, Hausberg A, et al. Philosophizing with children in science and mathematics classes. In: Rollins Gregory M, Haynes J, Murris K, et al., editors. The Routledge international handbook of philosophy for children. Routledge; 2017. pp. 191–199. [ Google Scholar ]
• Celedón-Pattichis S, Lunney Borden L, Pape SJ, et al. Asset-based approaches to equitable mathematics education research and practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 2018; 49 (4):373–389. doi: 10.5951/jresematheduc.49.4.0373. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Charles R. The role of problem solving. Arithmetic Teacher. 1985; 32 :48–50. doi: 10.5951/AT.32.6.0048. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chin DB, Blair KP, Wolf RC, Conlin LD, Cutumisu M, Pfaffman J, Schwartz DL. Educating and measuring choice: A test of the transfer of design thinking in problem solving and learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences. 2019; 28 (3):337–380. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2019.1570933. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cirillo M, Bartell TG, Wager AA. Teaching mathematics for social justice through mathematical modeling. In: Hirsch CR, RothMcDuffie AR, editors. Mathematical modeling and modeling mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics; 2016. pp. 87–96. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cowin J. The fourth industrial revolution: Technology and education. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics. 2021; 19 (8):53–63. doi: 10.54808/JSCI.19.08.53. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crittenden, AB, Crittenden VI, Crittenden, WF (2017) Industry transformation via channel disruption. Journal of Marketing Channels , 24 (1–2):13–26.
• Cunningham CM. Engineering in elementary STEM education: Curriculum design, instruction, learning, and assessment. Teachers College Press; 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Curwin MS, Ardell A, MacGillivray L, Lambert R. Systems thinking in a second grade curriculum: Students engaged to address a statewide drought. Frontiers in Education. 2018 doi: 10.3389/feduc.2018.00090. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dalal M, Carberry A, Archambault L, et al. Developing a ways of thinking framework for engineering education research. Studies in Engineering Education. 2021; 1 (2):108–125. doi: 10.21061/see.38. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Damelin D, Krajcik J, Mcintyre C, Bielik T. Students making systems models: An accessible approach. Science Scope. 2017; 40 (5):78–82. doi: 10.2505/4/ss17_040_05_78. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Daniel M, Gagnon M, Auriac-Slusarczyk E. Dialogical critical thinking in kindergarten and elementary school: Studies on the impact of philosophical praxis in pupils. In: Gregory MR, Haynes J, Murris K, editors. The Routledge international handbook of philosophy for children. Routledge; 2017. pp. 236–244. [ Google Scholar ]
• Denning DJ, Noray K. Earnings dynamics, changing job skills, and STEM careers. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2020; 135 (4):1965–2005. doi: 10.1093/qje/qjaa021. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dong Y, Wang J, Yang Y, Karup PM. Understanding intrinsic challenges to STEM instructional practices for Chinese teachers based on their beliefs and knowledge base. International Journal of STEM Education. 2020; 7 :47. doi: 10.1186/s40594-020-00245-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eleyyan S. The future of education according to the fourth industrial revolution. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning. 2021; 4 (1):23–30. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elkin M, Sullivan A, Bers MU. Books, butterflies, and ’bots: Integrating engineering and robotics into early childhood curricula. In: English LD, Moore T, editors. Early engineering learning. Springer; 2018. pp. 225–248. [ Google Scholar ]
• Engel M, Claessens A, Watts T, Farkas G. Mathematics content coverage andstudent learning in kindergarten. Educational Researcher. 2016; 45 (5):293–300. doi: 10.3102/0013189X16656841. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• English LD. Modeling as a vehicle for philosophical inquiry in the mathematics classroom. The Journal of Analytic Teaching and Philosophical Praxis. 2013; 34 (1):46–57. [ Google Scholar ]
• English LD. STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education. 2016; 3 (1):1–12. doi: 10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• English, L. D. (2018). Disruption and learning innovation across STEM. Plenary presented at the 5th International Conference of STEM in Education , Brisbane. https://stem-in-ed2018.com.au/proceedings-2/
• English LD. Mathematical and interdisciplinary modeling in optimizing young children’s learning. In: Suh J, Wickstrom M, English LD, editors. Exploring mathematical modeling with young learners. Springer; 2021. pp. 3–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• English LD. Facilitating STEM integration through design. In: Anderson J, Li Y, editors. Integrated approaches to STEM education: An international perspective. Springer; 2021. pp. 45–66. [ Google Scholar ]
• English LD. Mathematical modeling and philosophical inquiry in the elementary school. In: Kennedy N, editor. Dialogical inquiry in mathematics teaching and learning: A philosophical approach. Lit Verlag; 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• English LD, Adams R, King D. Learning by design across STEM education. In: Johnson CJ, Schroeder MM, Moore T, English LD, editors. Handbook of research on STEM education. Routledge; 2020. pp. 76–96. [ Google Scholar ]
• English LD, Gainsburg J. Problem solving in a 21st-century mathematics curriculum. In: English LD, Kirshner D, editors. Handbook of international research in mathematics education. 3. Taylor & Francis; 2016. pp. 313–335. [ Google Scholar ]
• English LD, Mousoulides N. Engineering-based modelling experiences in the elementary classroom. In: Khine MS, Saleh IM, editors. Models and modeling: Cognitive tools for scientific enquiry. Springer; 2011. pp. 173–194. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ericson JD. Mapping the relationship between critical thinking and design thinking.Journal of the. Knowledge Economy. 2022; 13 :406–429. doi: 10.1007/s13132-021-00733-w. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feriver S, Olgan R, Teksöz G, Barth M. Systems thinking skills of preschool children in early childhood education contexts from Turkey and Germany. MDPI: Sustainability. 2019; 11 :1478. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gadanidis G, Hughes JM, Minniti L, White BJ. Computational thinking, Grade 1 students and the binomial theorem. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education. 2016 doi: 10.1007/s40751-016-0019-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gallagher MA, Jones JP. Supporting students’ critical literacy: Mathematical modeling and economic decisions. In: Suh J, Wickstrom M, English LD, editors. Exploring mathematical modeling with young learners. Springer; 2021. pp. 373–388. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibbs AM, Young Park J. Unboxing mathematics: Creating a culture of modeling as critic. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 2022; 110 :167–192. doi: 10.1007/s10649-021-10119-z. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillmeister KM. Development of early conceptions in systems thinking in an environmental context: An exploratory study of preschool students' understanding of stocks and flows. State University of New York; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldman S, Kabayadondo Z, editors. Taking Design Thinking to School: How the technology of design can transform teachers, learners, and classrooms. Routledge; 2017. pp. 3–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldman S, Zielezinski MB. Teaching with design thinking: developing newvision and approaches to twenty-first century learning. In: Annetta L, Minogue J, editors. Connecting science and engineering education practices in meaningful ways. Contemporary trends and issues in science education. Springer; 2016. p. 44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greer B. Estimating Iraqi deaths: A case study with implications for mathematics education. ZDM Mathematics Education. 2009; 41 (1–2):105–116. doi: 10.1007/s11858-008-0147-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greer B, Verschaffel L, Mukhopadhyay S. Modeling for life: Mathematics and children’s experience. In: Blum W, Henne W, Niss M, editors. Applications and modeling in mathematics education (ICMI study 14) Kluwer; 2007. pp. 89–98. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guzey SS, Ring-Whalen EA, Harwell M, Peralta Y. Life STEM: A case study of life science learning through engineering design. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2019; 17 (1):23–42. doi: 10.1007/s10763-017-9860-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hallström J, Schönborn KJ. Models and modelling for authentic STEM education: reinforcing the argument. International Journal of STEM Education. 2019; 6 :22. doi: 10.1186/s40594-019-0178-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hatano G, Oura Y. Commentary: Reconceptualizing school learning using insight from expertise research. Educational Researcher. 2003; 32 (8):26–29. doi: 10.3102/0013189X032008026. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hjalmarson MA, Holincheck N, Baker CK, Galanti TM. Learning models and modeling across the STEM disciplines. In: Johnson CJ, Schroeder MM, Moore T, English LD, editors. Handbook of research on STEM education. Routledge; 2020. pp. 223–233. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hmelo-Silver CE, Jordan R, Eberbach C, Sinha S. Systems learning with a conceptual representation: A quasi-experimental study. Instructional Science. 2017; 45 :53–72. doi: 10.1007/s11251-016-9392-y. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jablonka E. Critical thinking in mathematics education. In: Lerman S, editor. Encyclopedia of mathematics education. Springer; 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jacobson MJ, Wilenski U. Complex systems and the learning sciences: Educational, theoretical, and methodological implications. In: Sawyer K, editor. The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press; 2022. pp. 504–522. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kazemi E. Mathematical modeling with young learners: A commentary. In: Suh J, Wickstrom M, English LD, editors. Exploring mathematical modeming with younglearners. Springer; 2021. pp. 337–342. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelley TR, Sung E. Examining elementary school students’ transfer of learning through engineering design using think-aloud protocol analysis. Journal of Technology Education. 2017; 28 (2):83–108. doi: 10.21061/jte.v28i2.a.5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelley TR, Knowles JG. A conceptual framework for integrated STEMeducation. International Journal of STEM Education. 2016; 3 (1):1–11. doi: 10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kennedy NS. What are you assuming? Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School. 2012; 18 (2):86–91. doi: 10.5951/mathteacmiddscho.18.2.0086. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• King DT, English LD. Engineering design in the primary school: Applying STEM concepts to build an optical instrument. International Journal of Science Education. 2017; 38 :2762–2794. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2016.1262567. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koh JHL, Chai CS, Wong B, Hong H-Y. Design thinking for education: Conceptions and applications in teaching and learning. Springer; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kollosche D. Styles of reasoning for mathematics education. Educational Studies inMathematics. 2021; 107 (3):471–486. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kollosche D, Meyerhöfer W. COVID-19, mathematics education, and the evaluation of expert knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 2021; 108 :401–417. doi: 10.1007/s10649-021-10097-2. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krause CM, Di Martino P, Moschkovich JN. Tales from three countries: Reflections during COVID-19 for mathematical education in the future. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 2021; 108 :87–104. doi: 10.1007/s10649-021-10066-9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Langman C, Zawojewski J, McNicholas P, Cinar A, Brey E, Bilgic M, Mehdizadeh H. Disciplinary learning from an authentic engineering context. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research. 2019; 9 :77–94. [ Google Scholar ]
• Larson M (2017) Math education is STEM education! NCTM president’s message . Retrieved from https://www.nctm.org/News-and-Calendar/Messages-from-the-President/Archive/Matt-Larson/Math-Education-Is-STEM-Education .
• Lesh R, Caylor B. Introduction to the special issue: Modeling as application versus modeling as a way to create mathematics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning. 2007; 12 (3):173–194. doi: 10.1007/s10758-007-9121-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lesh R, English LD, Riggs C, Sevis S. Problem solving in the primary school (K-2) Mathematics Enthusiast. 2013; 10 (1):35–60. doi: 10.54870/1551-3440.1259. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lesh R, Zawojewski JS. Problem solving and modeling. In: Lester F, editor. Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. Information Age Publishing; 2007. pp. 763–804. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lester F, Cai F. Can mathematical problem solving be taught? In: Felmer P, Pehkonen E, Kilpatrick J, editors. Posing and solving mathematical problems. Springer; 2016. pp. 117–136. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, Y, Schoenfeld A H (2019) Problematizing teaching and learning mathematics as ‘given’ in STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 6 , 44. 10.1186/s40594-019-0197-9.
• Lipman M. Thinking in education. 2. Cambridge University Press; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lipman M. A life teaching thinking. The Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lippard CN, Riley KL, Mann MH. Encouraging the development of engineering habits of mind in prekindergarten learners. In: English LD, Moore TJ, editors. Early engineering learning. Springer; 2018. pp. 19–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Litzinger TA. Thinking about a system and systems thinking in engineering. In: Duschl RA, Bismack AS, editors. Reconceptualizing STEM education. Routledge; 2016. pp. 35–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lucas, B., Claxton, G., & Hanson, J. (2014). Thinking like an engineer: Implications for the education system. A report for the Royal Academy of Engineering Standing Committee for Education and Training.
• Maass K, Geiger V, Romero Ariza M, Goos M. The role of mathematics in interdisciplinary STEM education. ZDM Mathematics Education. 2019; 51 :869–884. doi: 10.1007/s11858-019-01100-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayes R. Quantitative reasoning and its role in interdisciplinarity. In: Doig B, Williams J, Swanson D, Borromeo Ferri R, Drake P, editors. Interdisciplinary Mathematics Education. ICME-13 Monographs. Springer; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• McKenna AF. Adaptive expertise and knowledge fluency in design and innovation. In: Johri A, Olds BM, editors. Cambridge handbook of engineering education research. Cambridge University Press; 2014. pp. 227–242. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meadows, D. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer (Chelsea Green Publishing). https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/thinking-in-systems .
• Mukhopadhyay S, Greer B. How many deaths? Education for statistical empathy. In: Sriraman B, editor. International perspectives on social justice in mathematics education. Information Age Publishing; 2007. pp. 169–189. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Research Council (NRC) A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Science and Technological Council. (2018). Charting a course for success: America’s strategy for STEM education. Committee on STEM Education of the National Science and Technological Council . https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/STEM-Education-Strategic-Plan-2018.pdf .
• NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states (The National Academic Press). http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards .
• Nichols RK, Burgh G, Fynes-Clinton L. Reconstruction of thinking across the curriculum through the community of inquiry. In: Rollins Gregory M, Haynes J, Murris K, editors. The Routledge international handbook of philosophy for children. Routledge; 2019. pp. 245–252. [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD (2019). PISA 2022 Mathematics Framework . https://pisa2022-maths.oecd.org/ca/index.html .
• O’Reilly C, Devitt A, Hayes N. Critical thinking in the preschool classroom—A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2022 doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101110. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Education at a glance 2019: OECD indicators. OECD; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Thinking Outside the box: The PISA 2022 Creative Thinking Assessment. OECD; 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• Oxford Economics (2022). Global economic model . https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/service/subscription-services/macro/global-economic-model/ .
• P21 Partnership for 21st Century Learning (2015). http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework .
• Park D-Y, Park M-H, Bates AB. Exploring young children’s understanding about the concept of volume through engineering design in a STEM activity: A case study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2018; 16 (2):275–294. doi: 10.1007/s10763-016-9776-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rhodes T, Lancaster K. Mathematical models as public troubles in COVID-19 infection control. Health Sociology Review. 2020; 29 :177–194. doi: 10.1080/14461242.2020.1764376. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rhodes T, Lancaster K, Rosengarten M. A model society: Maths, models and expertise in viral outbreaks. Critical Public Health. 2020; 30 (3):253–256. doi: 10.1080/09581596.2020.1748310. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts T, Maiorca C, Jackson C, Mohr-Schroeder M. Integrated STEM as problem-solving practices. Investigations in Mathematics Learning. 2022 doi: 10.1080/19477503.2021.2024721. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rollins Gregory M, Haynes J, Murris K, editors. The Routledge international handbook of philosophy for children. Routledge; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shaughnessy, M. (2013). By way of introduction: Mathematics in a STEM context. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School , 18 (6):324.
• Shin N, Bowers J, Roderick S, McIntyre C, Stephens AL, Eidin E, Krajcik J, Damelin D. A framework for supporting systems thinking and computationalthinking through constructing models. Instructional Science. 2022; 50 (6):933–960. doi: 10.1007/s11251-022-09590-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Slavit D, Grace E, Lesseig K. Student ways of thinking in STEM contexts: A focus on claim making and reasoning. School Science and Mathematics. 2021; 21 (8):466–480. doi: 10.1111/ssm.12501. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Slavit D, Lesseig K, Simpson A. An analytic framework for understanding student thinking in STEM contexts. Journal of Pedagogical Research. 2022; 6 (2):132–148. doi: 10.33902/JPR.202213536. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stehle SM, Peters-Burton EE. Developing student 21st century skills in selected exemplary inclusive STEM high schools. International Journal of STEM Education. 2019; 6 :39. doi: 10.1186/s40594-019-0192-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Strimel GJ, Bartholomew SR, Kim E, Zhang L. An investigation of engineering design cognition and achievement in primary school. Journal for STEM Education Research. 2018 doi: 10.1007/s41979-018-0008-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stroh, D. P. (2018). The systems orientation: From curiosity to courage . https://thesystemsthinker.com/the-systems-orientation-from-curiosity-to-courage/
• Svensson M. Cross-curriculum system concepts and models. In: Hallström J, Williams PJ, editors. Teaching and learning about technological systems. Springer; 2022. pp. 53–72. [ Google Scholar ]
• Teng B, Wang S, Shi Y, Sun Y, Wang W, Hu W, Shi C. Economic recovery forecasts under impacts of COVID-19. Economic Modelling. 2022; 110 :105821. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2022.105821. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tornroth S, WikbergNilsson A. Design thinking for the everyday aestheticisation of urban renewable energy. Design Studies. 2022; 79 :101096. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2022.101096. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Turner E, Bennett A, Granillo M, et al. Authenticity of elementary teacher designed and implemented mathematical modeling tasks. Mathematical Thinking and Learning: an International Journal. 2022; 2022 :1–24. doi: 10.1080/10986065.2022.2028225. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Turner E, Roth McDuffie A, Aguirre J, Foote MQ, Chapelle C, Bennett A, Granillo M, Ponnuru N. Upcycling plastic bags to make jump ropes: Elementary students leverage experiences and funds of knowledge as they engage in a relevant, community oriented mathematical modeling task. In: Suh J, Wickstram M, English L, editors. Exploring mathematical modeling with young learners. Springer; 2021. pp. 235–266. [ Google Scholar ]
• Turner E, Varley M, Simic K, Diaz-Palomar J. “Everything is math in the Whole World!”: Integrating critical and community knowledge in authentic mathematical investigations with elementary latina/o students. Mathematical Thinking and Learning: An International Journal. 2009; 11 (3):136–157. doi: 10.1080/10986060903013382. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tytler R (2016) Drawing to learn in STEM. Proceedings of the ACER Research Conference: Improving STEM learning: What will it take? (pp. 45-50). Australian Council for Educational Research.
• van Breukelen DHJ, de Vries MJ, Schure FA. Concept learning by direct current design challenges in secondary education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 2017; 27 :407–430. doi: 10.1007/s10798-016-9357-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• York S, Lavi R, Dori YJ, Orgill M. Applications of systems thinking in STEM education. Journal of Chemical Education. 2019; 96 :2742–2751. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00261. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zawojewski J, Hjalmarson M, Bowman KJ, Lesh R, editors. Models and modeling in engineering education. Brill; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]

What is STEM? What You Need to Know

Krystal DeVille

March 21, 2024

STEM, which stands for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, is more than just a group of subjects. It’s a way of integrating these crucial areas into a holistic approach to learning and problem-solving.

As I explore STEM, I envision it as a fusion recipe that blends four basic ingredients to prepare students for the jobs of tomorrow. This educational framework aims to develop not only knowledge but also the ability to apply that knowledge in real-world scenarios.

Table of Contents

Key Takeaways:

• STEM intertwines science, tech, engineering, and math for integrated learning.
• A quality STEM education encourages problem-solving and real-world application.
• STEM fields are known for their significant growth and lucrative job opportunities.

Fundamentals of STEM

STEM education is genuinely at the forefront of preparing students for the tech-savvy job market that awaits them, or really, any job they would like to pursue.

Definitions and Components of STEM

STEM, the acronym, rolls off the tongue a bit easier than saying science, technology, engineering, and math each time, right? These four pillars are more pivotal than they have ever been. You see how fast the world changes.

I don’t think I’m that old, but I do remeber my teacher telling me I won’t always have a cacular in my pocket, (jokes on her right!?)

STEM is not just a collection of subjects, but an interdisciplinary approach. That’s really what sets it apart from “just learning.” It’s about interconnecting these fields to solve real-world problems rather than studying them in isolation.

Science explores the natural world, from atoms to ecosystems. Technology is all about gadgets and software – basically anything to make our lives easier and more connected.

Engineering is where design and utility meet, crafting everything from bridges to circuit boards. And let’s not forget math, the language that underlies it all, where we crunch numbers and patterns to predict outcomes. Where we have to prove it on paper to show that the “math works.”

History and Evolution of STEM

Back in the early 2000s, educators coined the term “SMET” but let’s be honest, it wasn’t catchy. Thankfully, Winona State University President Judith Ramaley had a lightbulb moment and switched the letters around to STEM — score one for marketing!

This idea wasn’t just a fresh coat of paint on an old concept; it signified a shift in thinking. Educators recognized the need for students to engage with these subjects cooperatively.

They revamped curricula to reflect this, realizing that the challenges of tomorrow require people who don’t just memorize facts but understand how to apply knowledge creatively and collaboratively. Facts don’t matter; if there is nothing practical, you get out of them.

This shift also led to the introduction of STEAM, where the ‘A’ stands for the Arts, acknowledging that creativity is just as crucial in innovation.

If you’d like to read more about STEAM, please take a look at our article: STEM vs. STEAM , Making Room for The Arts.

STEM Education

STEM education isn’t just a bunch of subjects thrown together; it’s about blending science, technology, engineering, and math in a way that gets students ready for a future where these skills will be in high demand.

Let’s get into what makes STEM education so important in schools and how it’s taught beyond the classroom walls.

Importance of STEM in Schools

STEM education is critical for young minds in elementary, middle, and high school. It’s not just about prepping U.S. students for the workforce. It’s about building literacy in STEM fields that sets a foundation for any career path they might choose later on.

I see firsthand how essential STEM skills are for development. When students get a taste of project-based learning, they’re building bridges to the future.

Curriculum and Learning Models

At its best, it incorporates a variety of learning models.

Blended learning is an excellent example, where students spin their gears online and hands-on. Doing research online or on the computer is fine, but students need to get away from the screen and get their hands on something to understand it fully.

Special shout-out to the interdisciplinary nature of STEM that bonds different subjects coherently.

Imagine it: A high school programming task suddenly throws in a curveball from physics, sparking a lightbulb moment for a student. It’s all about making connections, much like piecing together a puzzle that reveals a bigger picture.

STEM Beyond the Classroom

The magic of STEM doesn’t vanish when the school bell rings and the kids leave.

STEM literacy is an ongoing journey that extends to after-school programs, coding boot camps, and DIY science kits at home . High school students often roll up their sleeves in science fairs or internships that provide hands-on experience with real-world applications.

Seeing K-12 students approach everyday problems with a STEM mindset proves how valuable these skills are outside the traditional learning environment.

It’s a testament to the adaptability and relevance of STEM education that it doesn’t restrict itself to classroom corners.

It spills out, influencing how young minds perceive and interact with the world around them.

Understanding the basics of stem is just the beginning. Let’s go a little deeper and read our article on ‘ How can STEM education shape the future ’ and discover its pivotal role in molding tomorrow’s leaders.

Key Areas of Focus in STEM

Let’s get into the core components of STEM.

Science and Mathematics

Science is where curiosity meets experimentation. From physics to biology and chemistry , science encompasses various disciplines that allow us to understand the natural world.

Think of biology as studying life, chemistry as exploring substances, and physics as the foundation of natural phenomena.

It’s the blend of these natural sciences that provides us the canvas to paint our understanding of life, matter, and the forces that bind them.

Then there’s mathematics . The language of logic, it runs through the veins of STEM like a binding melody.

From basic algebra and geometry to brain-bending calculus and statistics , math provides tools for solving problems big and small.

Whether you find yourself calculating the area of complex shapes or crunching big data through statistical analysis, mathematics is the trusty sidekick to the sciences, making sense of patterns and quantifying our discoveries.

Technology and Engineering

Now, for technology and engineering – they’re the builders of our modern world that we always see.

Both fields rely on applying what we learn from science and math to create tangible solutions. Engineering is the practical application of those disciplines to design everything from bridges and gadgets to the device you’re using right now, with subdivisions like electronics and robotics .

Speaking of gadgets, Technology is the umbrella under which those gadgets dance in the rain of progress.

It includes information systems like computer science , which basically allows us to chat, share, and store information instantly.

Engineering and tech are the forces driving us forward, and they’re constantly evolving, so staying on top of the latest developments is as exciting as essential.

With each area interlacing closely with the others, STEM creates an intricate dance of knowledge that pushes the boundaries of what we can achieve.

It’s not just about individual brilliance, like that of mathematicians or scientists, but about collective progress in these interdependent fields.

Career Perspectives in STEM

In STEM fields, the job landscape is vibrant, with plenty of room for newcomers like me to hop in.

Job Market and Demand

Isn’t it something? Data points to a 79% employment growth in STEM fields over three decades. What’s more, they peg an 11% boom from 2020 to 2030.

It’s not just IT and computer science; areas like electrical and mechanical engineering are also on fire.

As a STEM enthusiast, I can barely contain my excitement over these spirited demands in the job market.

STEM Professions and Skills

I’ve seen how STEM majors queue up to get into roles that require not just technical prowess but also an analytical mindset and the agility to navigate an economy fueled by continuous research and development.

The National Science Foundation says we STEM professionals are the backbone of innovation and economic growth, and who am I to argue?

High salary prospects sweeten the deal, especially in roles like systems managers where numbers can bubble up to six figures.

Here’s what’s trending in skills and roles:

• Computer Science & IT : Coding, cybersecurity, and data analytics are gold.
• Engineering : Both electrical and mechanical engineering demand creative problem-solving.
• Mathematics : Skills in analysis and modeling can weave through various sectors.

Broadening Participation

Diversity and Inclusion in STEM

Initiatives: Bold steps are being taken by organizations like the National Science Foundation (NSF) to involve a more diverse population in the sciences.

They recognize the importance of nurturing talent from underrepresented groups such as black and hispanic communities, and have developed initiatives aimed at encouraging their participation in STEM.

The numbers: Surprisingly, only a sliver of NSF funding goes towards such initiatives, but it’s a growing priority.

With schemes like the INCLUDES program , the goal is to dramatically shift the needle on this.

Education: Let’s not forget the folks standing in front of the classroom.

STEM teachers hail from all different backgrounds and are critical in shaping young minds.

The U.S. Department of Education understands this; hence, it pours resources into training a workforce of educators that mirrors the diversity of their students.

It’s about relatability and the light bulb moments that happen when students see themselves in their mentors.

Women and Minorities in STEM

Statistics today: Fasten your seatbelts because the stats are in, and they might rattle you.

Women and minorities are still vastly underrepresented in STEM careers.

Change is on the horizon: But change doesn’t come from just sitting back.

Groups like the Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers (SHPE) and initiatives from the White House aim to rewrite this stale narrative by creating environments where everyone gets a fair shot at success.

Community and Support: It’s all about building a community now, isn’t it?

For women and minorities, this is a game changer.

These initiatives provide both a shoulder to lean on and a springboard to soar from – figuratively speaking. They’re creating a sense of belonging in places where it was scarce – that’s the magic ingredient for a thriving career in STEM.

International Perspective

Stem around the world.

In Australia , students are embracing STEM to become pivotal players in the global economy.

Their education system focuses on innovation and practical applications, pushing students to think beyond the textbook.

On the other hand, China is sprinting forward in STEM.

With a considerable push from the government, Chinese students often outshine others in international rankings like PISA. This shows that they aren’t just good at taking tests — they’re also becoming champions of innovation.

France and the United Kingdom are no slouches either.

They link STEM closely to economics, ensuring their citizens are equipped for future markets. Both nations believe in starting STEM education early, fostering a sense of intrigue and creativity in young minds.

Comparative Education Systems

Let’s get down to the nitty-gritty. How do education systems stack up?

The U.S. government has been a formidable force in promoting STEM, yet there’s room for improvement.

This is especially true when I peek at PISA scores , which show that American students often lag behind their peers in places like East Asia.

Comparing these systems feels like flipping through a kaleidoscope of methodologies.

Some countries stress rote learning, while places like the United Kingdom emphasize a more hands-on approach.

Every country I look at has its way of doing things, but no matter the method, the aim is the same: to equip students with the skills needed for a tech-driven future.

Advancements and Future of STEM

I’m about to walk you through a maze of brainy breakthroughs and a sneak peek at the skills you’ll need to thrive in the fast-moving STEM job market.

Innovations in STEM Education

In my journey through the world of STEM, I’ve seen some real game-changers in education.

We’re not just talking about learning science and math anymore. It’s how these subjects swirl together with technology and engineering that really spices things up.

We’ve moved beyond the classroom walls, with long-distance learning making a serious splash.

And you bet, arts are getting into the mix too—hello, STEAM! This creative buddy brings a whole new layer of imagination and innovation .

• Integration : Subjects are interlocking like pieces of a puzzle, making learning a whole scene and not just scattered bits.
• Creativity : Ditch the yawn-worthy lectures. Educators are crafting courses that light fires under our seats with exciting projects.
• Communication : It’s not a one-way street anymore. Students talk back, brainstorm, and swap ideas like Pokémon cards.

Industry Growth and Future Skills

Move over, old-school careers; the STEM industry’s growth is like popcorn at the movies—fast and massive.

My best guess is a rise in jobs across computer science , health , medicine , and robotics .

But wait, there’s more. We can’t ignore the hefty role of computing across other sectors, like economics , spurring on development and fattening up the economy .

• Computing : From writing code to cybersecurity—basically anything that makes you feel like a wizard.
• Data Analysis : It’s all the rage, like the avocado on toast of skills.
• Adaptability : Tech’s sprinting, not strolling, and keeping up means lacing up those flexible thinking shoes.

STEM’s trajectory is clear: innovate, integrate, and keep learning fun while polishing up the skills that’ll keep you ahead of the game.

From quantum computing to bionic limbs, the advancements we’re seeing are just the trailer of what’s to come. I’m stoked to see where it all leads—aren’t you?

Frequently Asked Questions

Let’s unravel some common curiosities about STEM education that might be buzzing in your head.

How does STEM education impact high school students?

I’ve noticed high schoolers who get into STEM programs often get a leg-up on critical thinking, problem-solving, and team collaboration.

It’s not just homework; they’re solving real-world puzzles.

What are the key skills developed in STEM programs?

In my experience, STEM hones in on problem-solving and innovation. You learn to tackle challenges with creativity, which is sort of like flexing your brain muscles in new ways.

Can you tell me about the career paths for STEM graduates?

STEM grads often land in diverse fields, from app development to renewable energy. There’s a ton of options, whether you fancy coding or crafting things.

What types of activities are included in STEM for younger kids?

Let me paint you a picture: it’s less about the ‘sit still and listen’ and more ‘let’s build a volcano!’ Kids get their hands dirty with experiments and interactive projects that make learning a blast.

Author: Krystal DeVille

Title: stem education guide founder, expertise: homeschooling, kids education, parenting.

Krystal DeVille is an accomplished journalist and homeschooling mother who created STEM Education Guide, a site that revolutionizes learning in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) for children. It makes complex subjects engaging and understandable with innovative, hands-on approaches.

2 thoughts on “What is STEM? What You Need to Know”

This is so interesting!!. How can one be a part of the STEM movement, especially one in the design and manufacturing industry?

To get involved in the STEM movement, especially in design and manufacturing, you can start by taking courses in STEM subjects online or somewhere local to you. Joining organizations like the Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME) can help with networking and resources you might have thought of. Participating in workshops and conferences will keep you updated with industry professionals.

Keep me updated and let me know how it’s going!

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

most recent

Activities and Games , Toy Gift Guides

Best stem subscription boxes for kids: hands-on reviews.

Engineering

6 projects for learning about simple machines.

Amplify Your Outdoor Living Space with Garden Décor

35 Must-Know Stats & Facts About Natural Latex Mattresses

Easy Gardening Shortcuts for Beginners

Why Buying a New Couch is Harder Than You Think

Cat Years to Human Years: Decoding the Aging Process of Your Furry Friend

STEM Education Guide

[email protected] STEM Education Guide 9125 SVL BOX Victorville, CA 92395

Your Compass for STEM Discovery

© 2024 STEM Education Guide

• NAEYC Login
• Member Profile
• Hello Community
• Accreditation Portal
• Online Learning
• Online Store

Popular Searches:   DAP ;  Coping with COVID-19 ;  E-books ;  Anti-Bias Education ;  Online Store

More Than a Foundation: Young Children Are Capable STEM Learners

You are here

Two second-graders sit on their knees with quiet intensity, stacking unit blocks on a wide tower, higher and higher. A casual observer might think they’re simply enjoying the scale of their project and looking forward to knocking it down. Their teacher might see more, understanding that their activities are setting the stage for important spatial skills and physics concepts. Reaching as high as she can, one of the children drops a marble into the top of the tower, which is now over five feet high. Both children observe the tower intently. They hear a click, click, click, click, but no marble is in sight. The marble finally emerges from the bottom of the tower, rolling down a ramp and onto the carpet. The two children jump up and down, clapping and exclaiming, “Yay!” (The opening vignette is drawn from a video embedded in Revealing the Work of Young Engineers in Early Childhood, by Beth Van Meeteren and Betty Zan, available at http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/beyond/seed/zan.html .) 

What is easy to miss in this scenario is the engineering capacity already present in these two young children. The children had hidden in their tower a series of zig-zagging ramps—like the ramps in a parking garage—each placed at a precise distance from the previous one and stacked with care at alternating heights. In fact, the children had built and tested several smaller prototypes of the tower to determine the appropriate ramp distances. One of their key discoveries was that putting the ramps too close together resulted in too much marble speed (the marble would shoot out the sides of the tower), but putting the ramps too far apart resulted in the marble dropping straight down through the center of the tower. They worked collaboratively to get the design right, then they built the deceptively simple-looking tower on a larger scale with a complex, invisible inner structure (Van Meeteren & Zan 2010).

In the minds of these children, too, there was a complex inner process—one that is hard to see, which often results in adults underestimating young children’s current capacities. As new research shows, many people believe that “real” science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) learning doesn’t occur until children are older, and that exposure to STEM concepts in early childhood (birth to 8 years) is only about laying a foundation for the serious STEM learning that takes place later (McClure et al. 2017).

Many people believe that "real" STEM learning doesn't occur until children are older.

This couldn’t be further from the truth. A recent two-year research analysis found that young children are capable of engaging in, at developmentally appropriate levels, the scientific practices that high school students carry out (McClure et al. 2017). As one researcher explained, young children “can make observations and predictions, carry out simple experiments and investigations, collect data, and begin to make sense of what they found” (16). Even in the first year of life, babies systematically test physical hypotheses when they see something that doesn’t conform to their expectations (McClure et al. 2017). For example, researchers showed 11-month-olds a toy car going off the side of a table and appearing to float; the babies were more likely to observe the strange car for longer than normally behaving toy cars and to try exploring and dropping the car themselves (Stahl & Feigenson 2015). And, as the children building the tower demonstrated, young children are capable of using engineering habits of mind (e.g., systems thinking, creativity, optimism, communication, collaboration, supported persistence, and attention to ethical thinking) in their free-play activities (Van Meeteren & Zan 2010).

The research is clear: when we say children are “born scientists,” we’re not just being cute; they really are active scientists, right now, systematically and intentionally exploring their environments, even from the day they are born.

Never too young for STEM

The misconception about STEM being more meaningful for older students is important for several reasons. First, early STEM exposure is critical for later educational outcomes; when adults downplay its importance in the early years, they also diminish young children’s current and future potential. Research shows that among preschool-aged children, knowledge of math is a better predictor of later academic achievement than early reading or attention skills (Duncan et al. 2007). Some argue that early STEM is as critical today as early literacy exposure (McClure et al. 2017). STEM habits of mind—such as critical thinking, persistence, and systematic experimentation—are important across all subject areas and may be essential to how children learn to learn (Duncan & Magnuson 2011). This development is not just about the basics like counting and vocabulary, although these skills and background knowledge are important too; it’s about problem solving and other higher-level skills that transfer across many domains.

Think of it this way: as we learn new skills, our brains weave skill strands into ropes we use to solve problems, meet challenges, and, in turn, acquire new skills. When children have opportunities to practice framing questioning, collecting data, and solving scientific problems, they build strong ropes that can be used in many ways, now and throughout life (McClure et al. 2017).

Take, for example, the profound ties between STEM learning and language learning. Early STEM instruction leads to better language and literacy outcomes (Sarama et al. 2012), and exposure to more spatial language during block play in infancy and early childhood leads to improved spatial thinking abilities (Pruden, Levine, & Huttenlocher 2011). Furthermore, math skills and reading skills at kindergarten entry are equally predictive of reading skills in eighth grade (Business Roundtable 2016), and background knowledge about the world and how it works (much of which falls within the realm of STEM concepts) is critical for listening comprehension throughout life and for reading comprehension once children are able to sound out words (Guernsey & Levine 2015). So when adults do not fully appreciate the importance of STEM learning in early childhood, they do children a serious disservice, weakening their potential development across many other domains such as literacy and executive function.

But just because children are born scientists doesn’t mean they can do all this alone; they need adults to help them realize and expand their STEM capacities (Early Childhood STEM Working Group 2017). This leads to the second reason this misconception is so important: adults’ attitudes and beliefs about STEM learning often transfer to children. For example, one recent study found that the strongest predictor of preschoolers’ math learning was their teachers’ belief that math education was appropriate for their age (Seker & Alisinanoglu 2015). These beliefs also lead to concrete changes in the methods and amount of time teachers spend on STEM topics: when teachers hold negative attitudes toward early mathematics, for example, these feelings lead to avoiding math instruction, and teaching math in ineffective ways (McClure et al. 2017).

When we say children are “born scientists,” we’re not just being cute. Children really are intentionally exploring their environments.

Teachers come by these feelings honestly and may even be passing on what they themselves were taught. A recent study of teacher-preparation faculty members in California and Nebraska reported that they considered including early mathematics less important than other domains in the preparation of early childhood teachers. And the cycle may not end there—the faculty members also said that they themselves feel less prepared to teach math than they do other subjects (Austin, Sakai, et al. 2015; Austin, Whitebook, et al. 2015). In other words, there is a misconception about the suitability of STEM topics for young children that is passed from one generation of teachers and teacher educators to the next. It is time to break the cycle.

Parents’ beliefs also play a critical role in their children’s STEM success. For example, parents’ beliefs about their child’s ability in math are a stronger predictor of the child’s self-perception in math than the child’s previous math scores (Gunderson et al. 2012). In other words, when teachers and parents don’t think that young children are capable of real STEM learning, children believe them . This results in a self-fulfilling and detrimental STEM prophecy. But there is reason for hope: when the adults in a child’s life believe in and support a child’s STEM capacity, the child’s natural abilities are both acknowledged and then expanded (McClure et al. 2017).

Incorporating STEM into early learning

To appropriately bring STEM into early learning, teachers need support, including high-quality, proper preservice training and ongoing professional development. This will require an enormous investment from universities, school systems, funders, and society at large. Adults at every level of a child’s complex ecosystem will need to commit to the importance of early learning generally, and of early STEM learning in particular (for a framework describing the commitments necessary at each level, see McClure et al. 2017).

The role of a good STEM teacher is often to resist directly answering children's questions.

In the meantime, what can teachers do, without having to wait for systemic changes in the broader systems in which they work? Realizing that young children have enormous capacity for STEM learning now can go a long way. Understanding that supporting children’s growth is about encouraging STEM habits of mind, educators can incorporate engaging STEM practices in their classrooms in simple ways. Educators can start by recognizing three research-supported facts, each of which is explained in the following sections: you don’t have to be an expert; you’re not alone; and teaching STEM is not an either/or exercise.

You don’t have to be an expert

Many people believe that supporting STEM learning means having STEM expertise to offer students. This makes sense, given other common misconceptions: when adults are not aware of young children’s capacity to engage in real STEM practices, they tend to focus on expanding children’s content knowledge. But, as in other academic domains, STEM knowledge and skills grow together. Through experiential learning (combining hands-on investigations with informative read-alouds and discussions), young children develop their conceptual understanding, acquire new facts, and engage in essential skills such as observing, forming hypotheses, collecting evidence, revising hypotheses, devising experiments, and so on (NSTA 2014). They also develop STEM understandings and habits of mind from interacting with their everyday environments in curiosity-driven ways with support from teachers and other adults.

The role of a good STEM teacher is often to resist directly answering children’s questions. Teachers can encourage STEM habits of mind and facilitate learning by asking purposeful questions and then supporting children as they investigate for themselves. Classrooms that rely primarily on lecture-based instruction, in which teachers control decision making and discussion, are the least effective at fostering self-reliance and resilience, two characteristics that are foundational to STEM inquiry and practices (Van Meeteren & Zan 2010).

You are not alone

Some adults have the misconception that real STEM learning only happens inside classrooms, which may leave teachers feeling isolated and unsupported. But when adults recognize that even very young children are capable of meaningfully engaging in STEM inquiries anytime, anywhere, they can extend that STEM learning in multiple ways to many aspects of children’s lives. As with learning a new language, children become fluent  in STEM habits and more knowledgeable about STEM topics when they are immersed in them (McClure et al. 2017). The more opportunities they have to explore STEM—at museums, at libraries, and at home—the more fluent they will become.

Children become more knowledgeable about STEM topics when they are immersed in them.

Understood in this way, early STEM learning is a communitywide effort, with many individuals outside of schools who can be tapped for guidance and ideas. Ideally, the community forms a network of learning, engaging young children in a variety of STEM experiences and, as needed, offering teachers and parents reviews of concepts as varied as the attributes of levers and pulleys, why mold forms, or why rainbows appear. Informal learning environments like museums are very effective at helping adults engage children’s interest in STEM with thoughtful questions and conversations (Haden et al. 2014). In fact, many museums and libraries offer free resources for teachers, sometimes even including STEM professional development programs.

Teachers can encourage family engagement by sharing local STEM resources with parents. Since parents may feel anxious about supporting their child’s STEM learning, it is important to communicate to them the enormous capacity of their child for STEM inquiry and the impact parents can have by modeling curiosity and asking wh questions— who , what , when , where , and why —throughout the day. Technology can be a powerful partner when extending children’s learning at home. For example, teachers can encourage parents to use the Bedtime Math app ( http://bedtimemath.org/apps/ ), which aims to make math part of families’ everyday routines, just like a bedtime story. Using the app at home, even as little as once a week, has been shown to put children ahead by the equivalent of three months in math achievement by the end of the school year; and it is most effective for children whose parents are anxious about math (Berkowitz et al. 2015).

Teaching STEM is not an either/or exercise

Many teachers feel burdened by overwhelming curricular requirements and are skeptical about adding instructional blocks to their days. But recall that STEM habits of mind are transferable and that STEM knowledge encompases essential concepts and vocabulary; they strengthen all kinds of skills ropes, including literacy and attention development. When early STEM learning is understood as the development of both knowledge and inquiry-based habits of mind, teachers can begin to discover ways to infuse STEM practices and concepts into their existing curriculum. For example, a teacher may notice that many of the books she reads aloud include these STEM-like features: a problem to be solved, an evidence-driven solution that is attempted (and often iterated and reattempted), and the discovery of a method that works. Even simple books, like the lift-the-flaps board book Where’s Spot? , by Eric Hill, contain this progression: the mother dog looks in many locations for her puppy, and to the delight of children who search along with her, she finds other silly creatures hidden along the way—a bear behind the door, a monkey in the closet. By noticing and emphasizing the mother dog’s use of the scientific method, the teacher can show that STEM is everywhere and that there is an inherent drama to STEM exploration. She can also highlight the mother dog’s persistence in her systematic search, the joy in the error of the trial-and-error-laden journey (children love finding the wrong animal behind each door), and the evidence the mother collects and uses to eventually find Spot.

Teachers can begin to discover ways to infuse STEM practices and concepts into their existing curriculum.

Explicit STEM-based activities can be used to enhance other curriculum blocks as well. For example, one preschool class was engaged in a segment on the book Lost and Found, by Oliver Jeffers, about a lost penguin finding his way home on a boat. Teachers asked the 3-year-olds to build and test boats made from aluminum foil to transport a small penguin figure across the water table. The children were deeply engaged in the activity, which enhanced their experience with the book and encouraged them to talk at length about the story, while providing an immersive and meaningful STEM experience (Draper & Wood 2017). 

Fully embracing the enormous capacity of young children to engage in real STEM learning will take time and focused effort. Early childhood program directors and elementary school principals will need to provide space and flexibility for their educators to experiment with new ways of investigating STEM concepts together with young children. But once early educators start to embed these approaches to teaching, they will be in a prime position to help each other—and the wide public—see the remarkably sophisticated, and often hidden, STEM capacity of young children in the present, and to see how powerful early STEM experiences can be in shaping the minds of the next generation. 

Professional development information

• Foundations of Science Literacy http://foundationsofscienceliteracy.org
• Early Childhood STEM Conference (annual) www.ecstem.org
• PBS STEM Alive https://whut.pbslearningmedia.org/collection/stemalive/#.WYR8odPyui4

Curriculum information and STEM activities

• Ramps and Pathways https://regentsctr.uni.edu/ramps-pathways
• STEM from the Start http://stemfromthestart.org
• PEEP and the Big Wide World www.peepandthebigwideworld.com/en
• Boston Children’s Museum, STEM Sprouts (Teaching Guide and Parent Tip Sheets) www.bostonchildrensmuseum.org/stem-sprouts
• National Science Teachers Association blog “Early Years” http://nstacommunities.org/blog/category/earlyyears/
• Science Is Simple: Over 250 Activities for Preschoolers, by Peggy Ashbrook (Gryphon House)
• Young Scientist Series curriculum guides: Exploring Water with Young Children, Discovering Nature with Young Children, and Building Structures with Young Children (Redleaf)
• Making and Tinkering with STEM: Solving Design Challenges with Young Children, by Cate Heroman (NAEYC)
• Ramps and Pathways: A Constructivist Approach to Physics with Young Children, by Rheta DeVries and Christina Sales (NAEYC)

Austin, L.J.E., L. Sakai, M. Whitebook, O. Bloechliger, F. Amanta, & E. Montoya. 2015. “Teaching the Teachers of Our Youngest Children: The State of Early Childhood Higher Education in Nebraska, 2015.” Berkeley: CSCCE (Center for the Study of Child Care Employment), University of California, Berkeley. www.irle.berkeley.edu/cscce/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/NebraskaHighlight... .

Austin, L.J.E., M. Whitebook, F. Kipnis, L. Sakai, F. Abbasi, & F. Amanta. 2015. “Teaching the Teachers of Our Youngest Children: The State of Early Childhood Higher Education in California, 2015.” Berkeley: CSCCE. http://cscce.berkeley.edu/files/2015/California-HEI-Narrative-Report.pdf .

Berkowitz, T., M.W. Schaeffer, E.A. Maloney, L. Peterson, C. Gregor, S.C. Levine, & S.L. Beilock. 2015. “Math at Home Adds Up to Achievement in School.” Science 350 (6257): 196–98.

Business Roundtable. 2016. Why Reading Matters and What to Do About It: A CEO Action Plan to Support Improved US Literacy Rates . Washington, DC: Business Roundtable. http://businessroundtable.org/sites/default/files/BRT_Why_Reading_Matter... .

Draper, C.L., & S. Wood. 2017. “From Stumble to STEM: One School’s Journey to Explore STEM with its Youngest Students.” Exchange (Infants and Toddlers) January/February 2017, 61–65.

Duncan, G.J., C.J. Dowsett, A. Claessens, K. Magnuson, A.C. Huston, P. Klebanov, L.S. Pagani, L. Feinstein, M. Engel, J. Brooks-Gunn, H. Sexton, K. Duckworth, & C. Japel. 2007. “School Readiness and Later Achievement.” Developmental Psychology 43 (6): 1428–46.

Duncan, G.J., & K. Magnuson. 2011. “The Nature and Impact of Early Achievement Skills, Attention Skills, and Behavior Problems.” Chap. 3 in Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances , eds. G.J. Duncan & R.J. Murnane, 47–69. New York: Russell Sage.

Early Childhood STEM Working Group. 2017. Early STEM Matters: Providing High-Quality STEM Experiences for All Young Learners . Policy report. Chicago, IL: UChicago STEM Education; Chicago: Erikson Institute. http://d3lwefg3pyezlb.cloudfront.net/docs/Early_STEM_Matters_FINAL.pdf .

Guernsey, L., & M.H. Levine. 2015. Tap, Click, Read: Growing Readers in a World of Screens . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gunderson, E.A., G. Ramirez, S.C. Levine, & S.L. Beilock. 2012. “The Role of Parents and Teachers in the Development of GenderRelated Math Attitudes.” Sex Roles 66 (3–4): 153–66.

Haden, C.A., E.A. Jant, P.C. Hoffman, M. Marcus, J.R. Geddes, & S. Gaskins. 2014. “Supporting Family Conversations and Children’s STEM Learning in a Children’s Museum.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 29 (3): 333–44.

Hoisington, C. 2010. “Picturing What’s Possible—Portraits of Science Inquiry in Early Childhood Classrooms.” ECRP: Beyond This Issue , Collected Papers from the SEED (STEM in Early Education and Development) Conference. http://ecrp.illinois.edu/beyond/seed/Hoisington.html .

McClure, E.R., L. Guernsey, D.H. Clements, S.N. Bales, J. Nichols, N. Kendall-Taylor, & M.H. Levine. 2017. STEM Starts Early: Grounding Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education in Early Childhood. New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/01/jgcc_stemstartsea... .

NSTA (National Science Teachers Association). 2014. “Early Childhood Science Education.” Position statement. www.nsta.org/about/positions/earlychildhood.aspx .

Pruden, S.M., S.C. Levine, & J. Huttenlocher. 2011. “Children’s Spatial Thinking: Does Talk About the Spatial World Matter?” Developmental Science 14 (6): 1417–30.

Sarama, J., A.A. Lange, D.H. Clements, & C.B. Wolfe. 2012. “The Impacts of an Early Mathematics Curriculum on Oral Language and Literacy.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 27 (3): 489–502.

Seker, P.T., & F. Alisinanoglu. 2015. “A Survey Study of the Effects of Preschool Teachers’ Beliefs and Self-Efficacy Toward Mathematics Education and Their Demographic Features on 48- to 60-MonthOld Preschool Children’s Mathematic Skills.” Creative Education 6 (3): 405–14.

Stahl, A.E., & L. Feigenson. 2015. “Observing the Unexpected Enhances Infants’ Learning and Exploration.” Science 348 (6230): 91–94.

Van Meeteren, B., & B. Zan. 2010. “Revealing the Work of Young Engineers in Early Childhood Education.” ECRP: Beyond This Issue , Collected Papers from the SEED (STEM in Early Education and Development) Conference. http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/beyond/seed/zan.html .  

Photographs: p. 83, 84, 85, 87, courtesy of Beth D. Van Meeteren

Elisabeth McClure, PhD, is a research specialist in creativity and learning at the LEGO Foundation. She is a former research fellow at the Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop and the lead author of the 2017 report STEM Starts Early: Grounding Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education in Early Childhood. Elisabeth conducts research on families, young children, and digital media. [email protected]

Vol. 72, No. 5

Print this article

• Our Mission

Building Critical Thinkers by Combining STEM With History

By asking students to explore the history of scientific discoveries, we get them to view their world with more wonder—and more skepticism—and condition their minds to think about causes and effects.

For many science teachers, the night before a lesson is often filled with anxiety as they look for ways to make the next day’s class more engaging. But the tools that teachers have access to are not all the same.

Some teachers have maker spaces fitted with 3D printers; some do not. Some teachers have a strong science background, while others do not. Some schools have supply rooms stocked with Erlenmeyer flasks and high-powered microscopes, but many more do not. All students need to become critical thinkers, which great STEM instruction can foster. But the development of critical thinking does not hinge solely on a fancy maker space, a prestigious science degree, or an abundance of resources.

One innovative way to foster critical thinking in STEM is to add a bit of history. STEM was born from the desire to emulate how life actually operates by merging four core disciplines: science, technology, engineering, and math. In the real world, these disciplines often work together seamlessly, and with little fanfare.

But if we want to prepare children to be future scientists, we need to inform them about the past. By doing so, we demystify scientific advancements by revealing their messy historical reality; we show students how science is actually conducted; and we have the opportunity to spotlight scientists who have been written out of history—and thus invite more students into the world of science.

The Power of Science Stories

One of the best ways to share science from a historical point of view is to tell great science stories. Stories are sticky: The research shows that humans are hardwired for them, and that scaffolding information—by bundling scientific discoveries with a compelling narrative, for example—helps the brain incorporate new concepts. In this way, stories act like conveyor belts, making lessons more exciting and carrying crucial information along with them.

But good stories can serve another purpose, too. By seeing how an invention of the past impacts life in the present, students learn to think holistically. For example, if they are shown how clocks accelerated life, or how computers changed how humans think, then they can see how technology shapes culture or even changes our sense of time. In this way, STEM expands beyond its typical limits and becomes interconnected in students’ minds—not just to other technologies, but to all disciplines and fields of inquiry.

Uncovering the Unintended Consequences of Inventions

For over a decade, I looked for a book to provide both the historical and societal context of inventions—to tell the stories of science—but didn’t have much luck. I felt so strongly about this missing approach to nurture critical thinkers that I decided to write The Alchemy of Us , which is a book about inventions and how they changed life and society. In it, the lives of a diverse cast of little-known inventors—from pastor Hannibal Goodwin to housewife Bessie Littleton—are unfolded, and the many ways in which those everyday inventions changed life are highlighted.

Sometimes the outcomes of these inventions were intended, and in many more cases they were not. For example, students will see that the telegraph used electricity to shuttle messages over long distances quickly. But they will also come to realize that the telegraph had a shortcoming: It could not handle many messages at a time. Customers at the telegraph office were encouraged to keep their messages brief. Soon, newspapers used telegraphs in their newsrooms, and editors told reporters to write succinctly. The use of short declarative sentences was a newspaper style that was embraced by one reporter who went on to write many famous books—his name was Ernest Hemingway.

Here, then, is a case of how a technology, the telegraph, altered language and led to one of the world’s most celebrated literary styles—and this lesson of cascading and unpredictable outcomes can be extended to how Twitter and text messages are altering language now. When history is included in STEM, students learn science, but they also learn about the much broader impact of science.

Shaping the Future by Using the Past: An Exercise

One way that we can build critical thinking skills is to put technology under the microscope. Have students think about inventions, like their cell phones or Instagram or the internet, and consider how they make an impact on life more broadly. Students can create lists of all the changes—ask them to think about not only changes to the material world, but changes to less tangible ideas and concepts, like human psychology and belief systems—and break students into small groups to discuss and share out their findings. Alternatively, you can pose a counterfactual: Ask students to create a timeline of the invention’s history, along with a second timeline as if that invention never happened. What happens if the cell phone was never invented?

Obviously, there are no right or wrong answers, but the tasks require your students to observe the world with more wonder—and more skepticism—and condition their minds to think about causes and effects.

To take a deeper look: Let’s say you asked your students to examine the effect of the internet on modern life. The internet has certainly changed life significantly. For starters, we can listen to music, watch videos, access information, and contact each other easily. Have your students discuss life before and after the internet in groups and then create a drawing or write a short essay. They could answer questions like these: How did people get their news? How did they hear from each other? How did people listen to music? Where was information about different topics stored before the internet? The next step might be to look at the pros and cons of the internet, specifically social media. Does being more connected help or hurt us? Does the internet bring us together or divide us? Does the internet make it easier or harder to find the truth?

Once students are warmed up to thinking about technology in this way, you might have them try on the role of futurists. Ask them to consider thought-provoking questions like: If social media is based on “likes” and “follows,” what kind of society will we be in the future? Will we listen to popular celebrities with millions of followers, or will we listen to experts with fewer followers? Will it be easier to spread false information? Students can then draw a picture, write an essay, or create a video reflecting on the societal impact of the internet and what life could be like in the future with or without their proposed solutions.

Engaging Future Citizens

While STEM skills are themselves increasingly important in our technologically rich world, STEM is also a pathway to engage students as critical thinkers, and even as future citizens. By placing science in the broader context of history and culture, we can remind students of how scientific inventions play a role in our evolving cultural and even moral belief systems. And by giving students the space to critique inventions, we give them the skills to shape the future.

To get kids asking hard questions, however, the key first step is to give them good science stories. Once students are more engaged with how STEM is part of a larger fabric, they will have the skills to see the world more clearly and the lens they need to start posing tough questions. This approach aligns with the wisdom of William Shakespeare, who said centuries ago, “What’s past is prologue.” He was absolutely right, because if we’re attentive observers, the old stories provide us with a good map to what lies ahead.

Ainissa Ramirez is a materials scientist and the author of “ The Alchemy of Us: How Humans and Matter Transformed One Another (MIT Press).

• Extended University
• UTEP Connect
• December 2021

You’ve probably heard about STEM. The integration of science, technology, engineering and mathematics has been a central focus both within and well outside of education. 

In fact, it’s such a powerful concept that it has been hailed as critical to the future — for children, diversity, the workforce and the economy, among other areas. That’s why STEM education has received hundreds of millions of dollars in support from the U.S. government and remains one of the biggest priorities at all levels of the educational system. UTEP also offers a master's degree and a graduate certificate in STEM Education.

But what actually is STEM education, and why is it so important? Here’s what you need to know and how you can help.

What Is STEM Education?

It would be inaccurate to assume that STEM education is merely instruction in the STEM subjects of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Rather, the idea is taken a step further.  

STEM education refers to the integration of the four subjects into a cohesive, interdisciplinary and applied learning approach. This isn’t academic theory—STEM education includes the appropriate real-world application and teaching methods. 

As a result, students in any subject can benefit from STEM education. That’s exactly why some educators and organizations refer to it as STEAM, which adds in arts or other creative subjects. They recognize just how powerful the philosophy behind STEM education can be for students.  

Why Is STEM Education Important?

There are several layers to explore in discovering why STEM education is so important. 

In 2018, the White House released the “Charting a Course for Success” report that illustrated how far the United States was behind other countries in STEM education.  

It found that only 20% of high school grads were ready for the rigors of STEM majors. And how over the previous 15 years, the U.S. had produced only 10% of the world’s science and engineering grads. 

Since the founding of the Nation, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) have been a source of inspirational discoveries and transformative technological advances, helping the United States develop the world's most competitive economy and preserving peace through strength. The pace of innovation is accelerating globally, and with it the competition for scientific and technical talent. Now more than ever the innovation capacity of the United States — and its prosperity and securit  — depends on an effective and inclusive STEM education ecosystem. - Charting a Course for Success

 That was one of the most news-worthy developments in recent years. It set the stage for many arguments behind STEM in the context of the global economy and supporting it through education. 

Job Outlook and Salary

One of the most direct and powerful arguments for the importance of STEM education is how relevant STEM is in the workforce. In 2018, the Pew Research Center found that STEM employment had grown 79% since 1990 (computer jobs increased 338%).  

What about now? All occupations are projected to increase 7.7% by 2030, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Non-STEM occupations will increase 7.5% while STEM occupations will increase 10.5% .  

The findings are even more pronounced in terms of salary. The median annual wage for all occupations is $41, 950. Those in non-STEM occupations earn $40,020 and those in STEM occupations earn $89,780.  

Even areas like entrepreneurship see the same types of results. A report from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) found that tech-based startups pay more than double the national average wage and nearly three times the average overall startup wage. They only make up 3.8% of businesses but capture a much larger share of business research and development investment (70.1%), research and development jobs (58.7%) and wages (8.1%), among other areas.  

Diversity and Skills

An important detail in the passage from “Charting a Course for Success” comes toward the end of the final sentence: “Now more than ever the innovation capacity of the United States—and its prosperity and security—depends on an effective and inclusive STEM education ecosystem.”  

Being inclusive is incredibly important once you understand how STEM occupations are such high-demand, high-paying positions. Unfortunately, however, diversity is a significant issue here.  

• The Pew Research Center noted how women account for the majority of healthcare practitioners and technicians but are underrepresented across many other STEM fields, especially in computer jobs and engineering. Black and Hispanic workers are also underrepresented in the STEM workforce.
• In the International Journal of STEM Education, authors noted how women are significantly underrepresented in STEM occupations. They make up less than a quarter of those working in STEM occupations and for women of color, representation is much lower — Hispanic, Asian and Black women receive less than 5% of STEM bachelor’s degrees in the U.S. Authors also pointed out how people of color overall are underrepresented in U.S.-based STEM leadership positions across industry, academia and the federal workforce.  

These issues are troubling when you consider how it undermines students’ opportunities to pursue high-demand, high-paying roles. Yet, it’s more than that. STEM education is about a teaching philosophy that naturally integrates critical thinking and language skills in a way that enriches any subject. Perhaps you’ve experienced or can imagine an education that integrates problem solving and engineering practices into any subject, where technology is seamlessly integrated throughout. Any subject—art, language, social studies, health—can benefit.  

So when students don’t receive an effective STEM education, they’re not only receiving less instruction in STEM subjects. They miss out on the universal application that high-level skills in STEM subjects can bring.  

How You Can Make a Difference

Take the opportunity to encourage young minds in STEM education. Whether that means volunteering a little bit of your time at a local school or finding age-appropriate STEM literature and activities for your children, you can have an impact.  

You can also consider pursuing a career or enhancing your career as a teacher or leader in STEM education, which represents a major problem right now in education. Researchers in Economic Development Quarterly noted how the current shortage of teachers in the U.S. is “ especially acute ” among STEM educators.  

In just five courses, you can earn an online graduate certificate in STEM education and learn how you can increase STEM literacy through formal and informal learning opportunities across a variety of settings. Or there’s the 100% online M.A. in Education with a Concentration in STEM Education , which helps you to be a leader in STEM education. You’ll be prepared for advancement in roles across public and private schools, community-based organizations, research, nonprofits and nongovernmental organizations.  

UTEP’s programs are focused on preparing today and tomorrow’s educators for working with modern students in multicultural settings who need to find motivation and engagement in their learning. And again, this is especially important. A study in Education Journal found that while students of all races enter into STEM majors at equal rates, minority students leave their major at nearly twice the rate of white students.  

UTEP is one of only 17 Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) in the country to be designated as an R1 top tier research university. Interested in learning more about how you can engage and inspire students in STEM education? You can discuss that and more with a one-on-one consultation with an enrollment counselor.

LEARN MORE GET STARTED

Connect With Us

The University of Texas at El Paso Extended University UTEP Connect Online Programs 500 W University Ave. El Paso, Texas 79968

E: [email protected] P: 1-800-684-UTEP

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Stem-based curriculum and creative thinking in high school students.

1. Introduction

2. literature review, 2.1. theoretical framework, 2.2. studies on creative thinking and stem, 2.3. studies on stem-based curriculum implementation in the uae, 3. methodology, 3.1. context of the study, 3.2. research design, 3.3. participants and sampling, 3.4. stem-based learning activities, 3.5. instrument, 3.6. data analysis, 4. findings, stem-based education and creative thinking, 5. discussion, 6. recommendations.

• A STEM-based curriculum needs to be implemented from elementary to high school because the early implementation of STEM-based curricula sharpens students’ creative thinking skills and broadens their interest in careers in STEM, increasing the pool of people considering careers in STEM fields who can contribute to research, development, and innovation.
• Future research must focus on developing curriculum materials and instructional models for STEM integration that are primarily concerned with developing students’ creative thinking. Few studies focus on STEM education models that can enhance students’ creative thinking abilities.
• Future research should use larger sample sizes and mixed methods to obtain in-depth results that can be generalized to the entire population and maximize the benefits of implementing STEM education at higher educational levels.

Author Contributions

Institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest, appendix a. sample of stem-based lesson plan and worksheets (smart car design lesson plan).

• Target Grade:10th
• Time Required: 3 days, 50-min lessons
• HS-PS1-4. Develop a model to illustrate that the release or absorption of energy from a chemical reaction system depends upon the changes in total bond energy.
• HS-PS3-2. Develop and use models to illustrate that energy at the macroscopic scale can be accounted for as a combination of energy associated with the motion of particles (objects) and energy associated with the relative positions of particles (objects).
• HS-PS2-6. Communicate scientific and technical information about why the molecular-level structure is important in designing materials.
• Identify how friction generates heat.
• Quantify the energy released to the environment as heat to mathematically prove that the energy put into a system equals the energy that comes out of the system.
• Computers/tablets
• Simulation software (e.g., MATLAB, Simulink)
• Computer with modeling tools
• Data collection tools for real-world comparison
• Small solar panel
• Power management circuit
• Battery storage
• Wiring and connectors
• Various materials for wheels (rubber, plastic, metal)
• Prototyping materials (3D printing materials, modeling clay)
• Testing surfaces with different friction characteristics
• Computer with data analysis software (e.g., Excel, Python)
• Sensors for data collection
• Graphing tools
• Emergency braking system components (sensors, actuators)
• Microcontroller for control logic
• Obstacle objects
• Simulated urban environment materials (miniature road markings, obstacles)
• Smart car prototype
• Power source (battery)
• Testing area setup with various road conditions
• Microcontroller (e.g., Arduino)
• Testing apparatus with adjustable surfaces
• Force sensor
• Smart car prototype with adjustable wheels
• Inclined surfaces.
• Computer Model for Friction and Motion
• Simulator for Frictional forces
• Friction & Work Activities worksheet
• Before class, the teacher will need to set up five stations around the room.
• The five stations are the following: ○ PhET Simulation: The teacher will need to put one or two laptops/tablets at a table. ○ Simulate Your Ideas—Use the Simulator of Collision Lab model your physics knowledge ○ Sand Jar: Set up a jar with either sand or gravel inside. The students will need a thermometer to record temperature and a jar lid. ○ Rubber Band: Place a bag of rubber bands and a trashcan on the table. ○ Hot Wheels: Students will need some type of recording devise (can be cellphone, ipad, etc.), a ruler, track, and a hot wheel’s car. ○ Bow Drill: Students will need some type of device to watch the given YouTube video.
• When the students arrive in the class, the teacher should split them into five groups. ○ Each student will need a copy of the Friction & Work Activities worksheet.
• On the student’s worksheet, they will conduct an inquiry-based task to create their project of smart cars. The students will gather photos, video, and/or numeric evidence from the following activities to support their claim conclusions.
• The possible questions the students can investigate about:
• How can you design a smart car that maximizes energy efficiency and minimizes friction for optimal motion?
• What are the key components and materials that can be used to reduce friction in the car’s movement?
• How does friction impact the motion of a vehicle, and how can it be both advantageous and disadvantageous in a smart car design?
• Can you identify specific areas in a smart car where friction is most critical, and propose innovative solutions to minimize it?
• What role does friction play in energy consumption within a smart car, and how can students optimize the car’s design for energy efficiency?
• Can you explore renewable energy sources or regenerative braking systems to enhance the smart car’s sustainability?
• How can sensors be integrated into a smart car to detect and respond to changes in friction and motion?
• What types of sensors would be most effective, and how would they contribute to the overall performance of the smart car?
• What control systems can be implemented to adjust the smart car’s motion based on real-time friction data?
• How can machine learning algorithms be utilized to enhance the smart car’s ability to adapt to varying friction conditions?
• How can the principles of motion and friction be applied to real-world scenarios, such as urban traffic, to improve the efficiency and safety of smart cars?
• Can you design a smart car that addresses specific challenges in transportation, such as reducing traffic congestion or minimizing environmental impact?
• How do motion and friction affect the safety of a smart car, and what safety features can be incorporated into the design to mitigate risks?
• Can you explore the balance between speed and safety in a smart car, taking into account factors like braking distance and reaction time?
• How can different materials be used in the construction of a smart car to optimize friction and motion characteristics?
• What are the trade-offs between using traditional materials and newer, advanced materials in the context of motion and friction?
• How can data collected from the smart car’s sensors be analyzed to make informed decisions about optimizing its motion and friction?
• What insights can be gained from the data to continually improve the smart car’s performance?
• How can the design of a smart car contribute to reducing its environmental impact in terms of energy consumption and friction-related wear and tear?
• Can you propose sustainable practices in the manufacturing and use of smart cars to minimize their ecological footprint? The station descriptions are the following: ○ PhET Simulation: Students will open a simulation that explores fiction by Forces and Motion” or “The Moving Man” simulations can be adapted to understand acceleration, velocity, and the forces acting on an object. ○ Groups will travel to the Computer Model station to study all the factors -Variables related to their Design Raspberry Pi. The Raspberry Pi is a versatile, low-cost, credit-card-sized computer that is widely used for educational purposes, including STEM education. It can serve as the brain of a smart car prototype, allowing students to program and control the car’s behavior.
• Groups will conduct a deep investigation to answer the previous questions and record them in their Journals.
• After the students have completed the stations, their group will devise their own experiment to collect at least three pieces of photo/video evidence to support their conclusion to their Science Project.
• Students will brainstorm what materials their group will need to collect their data.
• They will end the lesson by reflecting on what they learned that day and ideas for their Science-Project.

Appendix B. Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking

• Q1. List solid things that sink in water.
• Q2. List recyclable materials.
• Q3. List measuring tools.
• Q4. List things attracted by magnets.
• Q1. Write as many scientific words starting with the letter K as possible.
• Q2. Write as many scientific words starting with the letter C as possible.
• Q3. Write as many scientific words starting with the letter A as possible.
• Q1. Write as many scientific words ending with the letter N as possible.
• Q2. Write as many scientific words ending with the letter D as possible.
• Q3. Write as many scientific words ending with the letter K as possible.
• Q1. What would happen if a person lost the ability to balance and became unable to stand upright for more than a minute?
• Q2. What would happen if the Earth’s gravitational force was halved?
• Q3. Suppose you could walk on air or fly without being in an airplane or similar vehicle.
• Q4. Suppose you could be invisible for a day.
• Q5. What would happen if we suddenly lost the ability to move our hands?
• Abdulla, A.; Paek, S.H.; Cramond, B.; Runco, M.A. Problem finding and creativity: A meta-analytic review. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 2020 , 14 , 3–14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mansoori, A.A.; Taani, O.; Aghar, T.A.; McMinn, M. Faculty perceptions of Blackboard Learn as the main platform for teaching and learning. In Proceedings of the 2022 International Arab Conference on Information Technology (ACIT), Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 22–24 November 2022. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wahono, B.; Lin, P.L.; Chang, C.Y. Evidence of STEM enactment effectiveness in Asian student learning outcomes. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2020 , 7 , 36. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Apriyani, R.; Ramalis, T.R.; Suwarma, I.R. Analyzing student’s problem solving abilities of direct current electricity in STEM-based learning. J. Sci. Learn. 2019 , 2 , 85–91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hamad, S.; Tairab, H.; Wardat, Y.; Rabbani, L.; AlArabi, K.; Yousif, M.; Abu-Al-Aish, A.; Stoica, G. Understanding Science Teachers’ Implementations of Integrated STEM: Teacher perceptions and practice. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 3594. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bambang, S.A. The Comparison of STEM approach and SSCS Learning Model for Secondary School-Based on K-13 Curriculum: The Impact on Creative and Critical Thinking Ability. Rev. Educ. Distancia 2022 , 22 , 1–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Han, J.; Kelley, T.; Mentzer, N.; Knowles, J. Community of practice in integrated STEM Education: A systematic literature review. J. STEM Teach. Educ. 2021 , 56 , 5. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hassan, M.; Fouad, J.; ALRikabi, H. The Impact of teaching by using STEM approach in the development of creative thinking and mathematical achievement among the students of The Fourth Scientific Class. Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol. 2021 , 15 , 172–188. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Le, H.C.; Nguyen, V.H.; Nguyen, T.L. Integrated STEM Approaches and Associated Outcomes of K-12 Student Learning: A Systematic Review. Educ. Sci. 2023 , 13 , 297. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rasul, M.; Zahriman, N.; Halim, L.; Rauf, R. Impact of integrated STEM smart communities program on student scientific creativity. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2018 , 13 , 80–89. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guzey, S.S.; Harwell, M.R.; Moore, T.J. Development of an Instrument to Assess Attitudes Toward Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). Sch. Sci. Math. 2014 , 114 , 271–279. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Al Murshidi, G. Stem education in the United Arab Emirates: Challenges and possibilities. Int. J. Learn. Teach. Educ. Res. 2019 , 18 , 316–332. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sarı, U.; Alıcı, M.; Şen, Ö.F. The effect of STEM instruction on attitude, career perception and career interest in a Problem-Based Learning environment and student opinions. Electron. J. Sci. Educ. 2018 , 22 , 1–21. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1187992.pdf (accessed on 19 February 2018).
• Fadlelmula, F.K.; Sellami, A.; Abdelkader, N.; Umer, S. A systematic review of STEM education research in the GCC countries: Trends, gaps and barriers. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2022 , 9 , 2. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kasza, P.; Slater, T.F. A Survey Of Best Practices And Key Learning Objectives For Successful Secondary School STEM Academy Settings. Contemp. Issues Educ. Res. 2016 , 10 , 53–66. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Elyas, T.; Alghofaili, N.M. Native English speakers versus non-native English speakers: The impact of language teachers on EFL learner’s English proficiency. Engl. Rev. J. Engl. Educ. 2019 , 7 , 27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hsu, Y.S.; Fang, S.C. Opportunities and Challenges of STEM Education ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 1–16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lynch, S.J.; Peters-Burton, E.E.; Behrend, T.S.; House, A.; Ford, M.T.; Spillane, N.; Matray, S.; Han, E.; Means, B. Understanding inclusive STEM high schools as opportunity structures for underrepresented students: Critical components. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2017 , 55 , 712–748. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Asghar, A.; Ellington, R.; Rice, E.; Johnson, F.W.; Prime, G. Supporting STEM education in secondary science contexts. Interdiscip. J. Probl. Based Learn. 2012 , 6 , 4. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Adams, A.; Miller, B.G.; Saul, M.; Pegg, J. Supporting Elementary Pre-Service teachers to teach STEM through Place-Based Teaching and Learning experiences. Electron. J. Sci. Educ. 2014 , 18 , 1–22. Available online: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1188278.pdf (accessed on 19 August 2014).
• Fang, Z. Review and Prospect of Research on Innovation Thinking at Home and Abroad. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020 , 1549 , 032044. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Di, C.; Zhou, Q.; Shen, J.; Li, L.; Zhou, R.; Lin, J. Innovation event model for STEM education: A constructivism perspective. STEM Educ. 2021 , 1 , 60–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Torrance, E.P.; Haensly, P.A. Assessment of creativity in children and adolescents. In Handbook of Psychological and Educational Assessment of Children: Intelligence, Aptitude and Achievement ; Reynoolds, C.R., Kamphaus, R.W., Eds.; The Guildford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003; pp. 584–607. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bart, W.M.; Hokanson, B.; Can, İ. An investigation of the factor structure of the Torrance tests of creative thinking. Kuram Uygulamada Egit. Bilim. 2017 , 17 , 15–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Agopian, T. Inductive grammar, student-centered reading, and interactive poetry: The effects of teaching English with fun in schools of two villages in Lebanon. Int. J. Educ. Pedagog. Sci. 2019 , 13 , 315–323. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alarabi, K.; Tairab, H.; Wardat, Y.; Belbase, S.; Alabidi, S. Enhancing the learning of newton’s second law of motion using computer simulations. J. Balt. Sci. Educ. 2022 , 21 , 946–966. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, S.; Carpenter, R. Creative Thinking for 21st Century Composing Practices: Creativity Pedagogies across Disciplines. Across Discip. 2015 , 12 , 1–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Seifert, T. Fostering collaborative and constructivist learning through the flipped classroom during COVID-19. J. Educ. Online 2023 , 20 , 171–184. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Devi, K.S. Constructivist Approach to Learning based on the Concepts of Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky. NCERT No Matter May Be Reprod. Any Form Without Prior Permis. NCERT 2019 , 44 , 5–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Asunda, P.A. A conceptual framework for STEM integration into curriculum through career and technical education. J. Stem Teach. Educ. 2014 , 49 , 4. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shernoff, D.J.; Sinha, S.; Bressler, D.M.; Ginsburg, L. Assessing teacher education and professional development needs for the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2017 , 4 , 13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Millar, V. Trends, Issues and Possibilities for an Interdisciplinary STEM Curriculum. Sci. Educ. 2020 , 29 , 929–948. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Morrison, J.; Roth McDuffie, A.; French, B. Identifying key components of teaching and learning in a STEM school. Sch. Sci. Math. 2015 , 115 , 244–255. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Belbase, S.; Mainali, B.R.; Kasemsukpipat, W.; Tairab, H.; Gochoo, M.; Jarrah, A. At the dawn of science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEAM) education: Prospects, priorities, processes, and problems. Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 2022 , 53 , 2919–2955. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ahmar, D.S.; Ramlawaty, M.M.; Ahmar, A.S. Relationship between prior knowledge and creative thinking ability in chemistry. Educ. Process Int. J. 2017 , 6 , 18–25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Leonard, J.; Buss, A.; Gamboa, R.; Mitchell, M.; Fashola, O.S.; Hubert, T.; Almughyirah, S. Using robotics and game design to enhance children’s Self-Efficacy, STEM attitudes, and computational thinking skills. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2016 , 25 , 860–876. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Oberle, E.; Schonert-Reichl, K.A.; Lawlor, M.S.; Thomson, K. Mindfulness and inhibitory control in early adolescence. J. Early Adolesc. 2011 , 32 , 565–588. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Toraman, Ç.; Özdemir, H.F.; Koşan, A.M.A.; Orakçi, Ş. Relationships between Cognitive Flexibility, Perceived Quality of Faculty Life, Learning Approaches, and Academic Achievement. Int. J. Instr. 2020 , 13 , 85–100. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Constantine, N.A.; Jerman, P.; Berglas, N.F.; Angulo-Olaiz, F.; Chou, C.P.; Rohrbach, L.A. Short-term effects of a rights-based sexuality education curriculum for high-school students: A cluster-randomized trial. BMC Public Health 2015 , 15 , 293. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hidayat, T.; Susilaningsih, E.; Kurniawan, C. The effectiveness of enrichment test instruments design to measure students’ creative thinking skills and problem-solving. Think. Ski. Creat. 2018 , 29 , 161–169. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bart, W.M.; Hokanson, B.; Sahin, I.; Abdelsamea, M.A. An investigation of the gender differences in creative thinking abilities among 8th and 11th grade students. Think. Ski. Creat. 2015 , 17 , 17–24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hirnstein, M.; Hugdahl, K.; Hausmann, M. Cognitive sex differences and hemispheric asymmetry: A critical review of 40 years of research. Laterality 2018 , 24 , 204–252. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kousoulas, F.; Mega, G. Students’ divergent thinking and teachers’ ratings of creativity: Does gender play a role? J. Creat. Behav. 2009 , 43 , 209–222. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abraham, A. Gender and creativity: An overview of psychological and neuroscientific literature. Brain Imaging Behav. 2015 , 10 , 609–618. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Reilly, D.; Neumann, D.L.; Andrews, G. Sex differences in the creativity of children’s divergent thinking vary with age and parental education. Intelligence 2018 , 68 , 47–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Suwandari, S.; Ibrahim, M.; Widodo, W. Application of discovery learning to train the creative thinking skills of elementary school student. Int. J. Innov. Sci. Res. Technol. 2019 , 4 , 410–417. [ Google Scholar ]
• Runco, M.A.; Jaeger, G. The standard definition of creativity. Creat. Res. J. 2012 , 24 , 92–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alabbasi, A.M.A.; Thompson, T.L.; Runco, M.A.; Alansari, L.A.; Ayoub, A.E.A. Gender differences in creative potential: A meta-analysis of mean differences and variability. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 2022 , 4 , 1–14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, K.H. The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on the torrance tests of creative thinking. Creat. Res. J. 2011 , 23 , 285–295. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ren, F.; Li, X.; Zhang, H.; Wang, L. Progression of Chinese Students’ Creative Imagination from Elementary Through High School. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2012 , 34 , 2043–2059. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Martín-Páez, T.; Aguilera, D.; Palacios, F.J.P.; Vílchez-González, J.M. What are we talking about when we talk about STEM education? A review of literature. Sci. Educ. 2019 , 103 , 799–822. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Eltanahy, M.; Forawi, S.; Mansour, N. Incorporating Entrepreneurial Practices into STEM Education: Development of Interdisciplinary E-STEM Model in High School in the United Arab Emirates. Think. Ski. Creat. 2020 , 37 , 100697. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alabbasi, A.M.A.; Paek, S.H.; Kim, D.H.; Cramond, B. What do educators need to know about the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: A comprehensive review. Front. Psychol. 2022 , 13 , 1000385. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Özkan, G.; Topsakal, Ü.U. Exploring the effectiveness of STEAM design processes on middle school students’ creativity. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2019 , 31 , 95–116. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Smyrnaiou, Z.; Georgakopoulou, E.A.; Sotiriou, S. Promoting a mixed-design model of scientific creativity through digital storytelling—The CCQ model for creativity. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2020 , 7 , 25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Baker, C.K.; Galanti, T.M. Integrating STEM in elementary classrooms using model-eliciting activities: Responsive professional development for mathematics coaches and teachers. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2017 , 4 , 10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wilson, H.E.; Song, H.; Johnson, J.; Presley, L.; Olson, K. Effects of transdisciplinary STEAM lessons on student critical and creative thinking. J. Educ. Res. 2021 , 114 , 445–457. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Share and Cite

Khalil, R.Y.; Tairab, H.; Qablan, A.; Alarabi, K.; Mansour, Y. STEM-Based Curriculum and Creative Thinking in High School Students. Educ. Sci. 2023 , 13 , 1195. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13121195

Khalil RY, Tairab H, Qablan A, Alarabi K, Mansour Y. STEM-Based Curriculum and Creative Thinking in High School Students. Education Sciences . 2023; 13(12):1195. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13121195

Khalil, Rana Y., Hassan Tairab, Ahmad Qablan, Khaleel Alarabi, and Yousef Mansour. 2023. "STEM-Based Curriculum and Creative Thinking in High School Students" Education Sciences 13, no. 12: 1195. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13121195

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

How to help urban young people progress? Nurture hope.

‘I hope they take their time in their recovery’

Worried about violence, threats as election nears? Just say no.

Employment in STEM occupations has grown 79 percent in the past three decades, according to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

iStock by Getty Images

Growing gap in STEM supply and demand

Brigid O’Rourke

Harvard Correspondent

Experts cite online learning, digital tools as ways to build inclusive and equitable STEM workforce

The evolution and impact of STEM education and its accompanying career opportunities reflect a positive in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. But as the need grows for a specialized STEM-focused workforce, it’s becoming clear that not everyone has an equal opportunity.

During the Harvard-sponsored talk, “New Pathways to STEM,” panelists cited a large subset of students who are not being fully prepared for STEM careers. They then discussed ways the gap could be closed, pointing to online learning and the rapid advancement of new digital tools as ways to make STEM education more readily available. These new ways of learning, they said, can ultimately expand access to STEM education and create a more inclusive and equitable STEM workforce.

The need for a vast, talented workforce in STEM-related fields has never been more necessary, said Bridget Long, dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Long cited the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which shows employment in STEM occupations has grown 79 percent in the past three decades. In addition, STEM jobs are projected to grow an additional 11 percent from 2020 to 2030. In Massachusetts alone, “40 percent of all employment revolves around innovation industries, such as clean energy, information technology, defense and advanced manufacturing,” said Long.

But, she added, “the importance of STEM education is about so much more than just jobs. STEM fields demand curious individuals eager to solve the world’s most pressing problems.”

“We need to have a new vision of how we prepare students to think critically about the world … as well as educating a society such that it has scientific literacy,” said Joseph L. Graves Jr., (upper left). Joining Graves were Brigid Long, Mike Edmonson, Amanda Dillingham, and Martin West.

The study of STEM subjects, she continued, teaches critical-thinking skills, and instills a mindset that will help students find success across numerous areas and disciplines. However, Long said, “too often the opportunity to learn and to be inspired by STEM is not available.

“Only 20 percent of high school graduates are prepared for college-level coursework in STEM majors,” she cited, adding, “fewer than half of high schools in the United States even offer computer science classes. So that begs the question — are kids going to be ready to meet the evolving and growing landscape of STEM professions?”

While STEM education opportunities are often scarce for high school students across the board, it’s even more pervasive when you consider how inequitably access is distributed by income, race, ethnicity, or gender. For example, Long said, “Native American, Black and Latinx students are the least likely to attend schools that teach computer science, as are students from rural areas, and [those with] economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

“It’s not surprising that these differences in educational opportunities lead to very large differences in what we see in the labor force. We are shutting students out of opportunity,” she said.

So what can be done to ensure more students from all backgrounds are exposed to a wide variety of opportunities? According to Graduate School of Education Academic Dean Martin West, who is also a member of the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, a concerted effort is being made at the state level to work with — and through — teachers to convey to students the breadth of STEM opportunities and to assure them that “it’s not all sitting in front of a computer, or being in a science lab, but showing them that there are STEM opportunities in a wide range of fields.”

The relatively recent emergence of digital platforms, such as LabXchange, are helping to bridge the gap. LabXchange is a free online learning tool for science education that allows students, educators, scientists, and researchers to collaborate in a virtual community. The initiative was developed by  Harvard University’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences and the  Amgen Foundation . It offers a library of diverse content, includes a  biotechnology learning resource available in 13 languages, and applies science to real-world issues. Teachers and students from across the country and around the world can access the free content and learn from wherever they are.

Many of the panelists also pointed to the need for steady funding in helping to address the inequities.

“Bottom line, if this nation wants to be a competitive leader in STEM, it has to revitalize its vision of what it needs to do, particularly in the public schools where most Black and brown people are, with regard to producing the human and physical infrastructure to teach STEM,” said Joseph L. Graves Jr., professor of biological sciences, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University. Graves is also a member of the Faculty Steering Committee, LabXchange’s Racial Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Science Education Initiative.

The panel noted how LabXchange is partnering  with scholars from several historically Black colleges and universities to develop new digital learning resources on antiracism in education, science, and public health. The content, which will be freely available and translated into Spanish, is being funded by a $1.2 million grant from the Amgen Foundation. Aside from the highly successful LabXchange program, Mike Edmondson, vice president, Global Field Excellence and Commercial, Diversity Inclusion & Belonging at Amgen, noted the Amgen Biotech Experience and the Amgen Scholars program — both of which help to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to engage in science and to see themselves in a STEM career.

We also have to do a better job at helping people understand that that we cannot afford to fall behind in STEM education, Graves argued. “That means it’s going to cost us some money. So, America needs to be willing to pay … to build out STEM education infrastructure, so that we can produce the number of STEM professionals we need going forward,” he said. “We need to have a new vision of how we prepare students to think critically about the world … as well as educating a society such that it has scientific literacy.”

Amanda Dillingham, the program director of science and biology at East Boston High School, is on the front lines of this challenge, and says she believes that supporting teachers is one of the most critical steps that can be taken to address the issue in the immediate future.

When more funding is brought to the table, teachers “are able to coordinate networks … and build biotech labs in our classrooms and build robotics labs in our classrooms …. and are actually able to introduce students to [these fields and these careers] at a very early age,” said Dillingham.

Long and the panel also paid tribute to Rob Lue, the brainchild behind LabXchange, who passed away a year ago.

“Rob challenged science learners, scientists and educators to commit to ending racial inequity,” Long said. “Access was at the core of all of Rob’s many contributions to education at Harvard and beyond. He envisioned a world without barriers and where opportunity was available to anyone, especially in science. In everything that he did, he created an environment in which learners of all ages of diverse backgrounds could come together to imagine, learn, and achieve live exchange. Rob’s free online learning platform for science was his most expansive vision, and one that continues to inspire educators and learners around the world.”

Share this article

You might like.

Youth development specialist promotes holistic approach to healing, growth of individuals, communities amid poverty, drugs, trauma

Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian, held for 544 by Iran, offers advice to three Americans just released by Russia

Key is for leaders, voters to stand in solidarity against it, political scientists say 

Garber to serve as president through 2026-27 academic year

Search for successor will launch in 2026

Finding right mix on campus speech policies

Legal, political scholars discuss balancing personal safety, constitutional rights, academic freedom amid roiling protests, cultural shifts

Good genes are nice, but joy is better

Harvard study, almost 80 years old, has proved that embracing community helps us live longer, and be happier

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 01 March 2021

Skill levels and gains in university STEM education in China, India, Russia and the United States

• Prashant Loyalka   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0640-6074 1 , 2 ,
• Ou Lydia Liu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6296-5092 3 ,
• Guirong Li 4 ,
• Elena Kardanova   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2280-1258 5 ,
• Igor Chirikov   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0542-9888 5 , 6 ,
• Shangfeng Hu 7 ,
• Ningning Yu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7619-7300 8 ,
• Liping Ma 9 ,
• Fei Guo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0934-696X 10 ,
• Tara Beteille 11 ,
• Namrata Tognatta 11 ,
• Lin Gu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7283-0749 3 ,
• Guangming Ling   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1185-6384 3 ,
• Denis Federiakin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0993-5315 5 ,
• Huan Wang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3219-7226 2 ,
• Saurabh Khanna   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9346-4896 2 ,
• Ashutosh Bhuradia   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6925-0962 2 ,
• Zhaolei Shi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0010-2096 1 &
• Yanyan Li 4  

Nature Human Behaviour volume  5 ,  pages 892–904 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

15k Accesses

44 Citations

122 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

An Author Correction to this article was published on 06 April 2021

This article has been updated

Universities contribute to economic growth and national competitiveness by equipping students with higher-order thinking and academic skills. Despite large investments in university science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education, little is known about how the skills of STEM undergraduates compare across countries and by institutional selectivity. Here, we provide direct evidence on these issues by collecting and analysing longitudinal data on tens of thousands of computer science and electrical engineering students in China, India, Russia and the United States. We find stark differences in skill levels and gains among countries and by institutional selectivity. Compared with the United States, students in China, India and Russia do not gain critical thinking skills over four years. Furthermore, while students in India and Russia gain academic skills during the first two years, students in China do not. These gaps in skill levels and gains provide insights into the global competitiveness of STEM university students across nations and institutional types.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Applying the Rasch model to analyze the effectiveness of education reform in order to decrease computer science students’ dropout

Japan’s R&D capabilities have been decimated by reduced class hours for science and math subjects

Subject integration and theme evolution of STEM education in K-12 and higher education research

Data availability.

Data have been deposited at the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/4t8cu/ ).

Code availability

Stata do-files used to perform the analyses have been deposited at the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/4t8cu/ ).

Change history

06 april 2021.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01102-y

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Indicators for Monitoring Undergraduate STEM Education (National Academies Press, 2017).

Mayhew, M. J. et al. How College Affects Students Volume 3: 21st Century Evidence that Higher Education Works (Jossey-Bass, 2016).

Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Technology Programs (ABET, 2015); www.abet.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/T001-16-17-ETAC-Criteria-10-16-15.pdf

Passow, H. J. Which ABET competencies do engineering graduates find most important in their work? J. Eng. Educ. 101 , 95–118 (2012).

Article   Google Scholar  

National Research Council. Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the Twenty-First Century (National Academies Press, 2012).

Arum, R. & Roksa, J. Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses (Univ. Chicago Press, 2011).

AAC&U. How Should Colleges Assess and Improve Student Learning? Employers’ Views on the Accountability Challenge (AAC&U, 2008).

National Academy of Science. Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future (National Academy of Science, 2005).

Goldin, C. D. & Katz, L. F. The Race Between Education and Technology (Harvard Univ. Press, 2009).

Autor, D. H., Levy, F. & Murnane, R. J. The skill content of recent technological change: an empirical exploration. Q. J. Econ. 118 , 1279–1333 (2003).

Bresnahan, T. F., Brynjolfsson, E. & Hitt, L. M. Information technology, workplace organization, and the demand for skilled labor: firm-level evidence. Q. J. Econ. 117 , 339–376 (2002).

Katz, L. F. & Krueger, A. B. Computer science inequality: have computers changed the labor market? Q. J. Econ. 113 , 1169–1213 (1998).

Lucas, R. E. On the mechanics of economic development. J. Monetary Econ. 22 , 3–42 (1988).

Romer, P. M. Endogenous technological change. J. Polit. Econ. 98 , S71–S102 (1990).

Mankiw, N. G., Romer, D. & Weil, D. N. A contribution to the empirics of economic growth. Q. J. Econ. 107 , 407–437 (1992).

Murnane, R. J., Willett, J. B. & Levy, F. The growing importance of cognitive skills in wage determination. Rev. Econ. Stat. 77 , 251–266 (1995).

Hanushek, E. A. & Kimko, D. D. Schooling, labor-force quality, and the growth of nations. Am. Econ. Rev. 90 , 1184–1208 (2000).

Hanushek, E. A. & Woessmann, L. The role of cognitive skills in economic development. J. Econ. Lit. 46 , 607–668 (2008).

Hanushek, E. & Woessmann, L. Do better schools lead to more growth? Cognitive skills, economic outcomes, and causation. J. Econ. Growth 17 , 267–321 (2012).

Hanushek, E. & Woessmann, L. Schooling, educational achievement, and the Latin American growth puzzle. J. Dev. Econ. 99 , 497–512 (2012).

Kaarsen, N. Cross-country differences in the quality of schooling. J. Dev. Econ. 107 , 215–224 (2014).

Heckman, J., Stixrud, J. & Urzua, S. The effects of cognitive and noncognitive abilities on labor market outcomes and social behavior. J. Labor Econ. 24 , 411–482 (2006).

Deming, D. & Kahn, L. B. Skill requirements across firms and labor markets: evidence from job postings for professionals. J. Labor Econ. 36 , S337–S369 (2018).

World Bank. World Development Report 2018: Learning to Realize Education’s Promise (World Bank, 2018).

Loyalka, P. et al. Factors affecting the quality of engineering education in the four largest emerging economies. High. Educ. 68 , 977–1004 (2014).

Musekamp, F. & Pearce, J. Assessing engineering competencies: the conditions for educational improvement. Stud. High. Educ. 40 , 505–524 (2015).

Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Shavelson, R. J. & Kuhn, C. The international state of research on measurement of competency in higher education. Stud. High. Educ. 40 , 393–411 (2015).

OECD. Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes (AHELO) Feasibility Study Report—Volume 2 Data Analysis and National Experiences (OECD, 2012).

Loyalka, P. et al. Computer science skills across China, India, Russia, and the United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116 , 6732–6736 (2019).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

OECD. Education at a Glance 2018 (OECD, 2018).

Montenegro, C. E. & Patrinos, H. A. Comparable Estimates of Returns to Schooling Around the World (World Bank, 2014).

Spence, M. Job market signaling. Q. J. Econ. 87 , 355–374 (1973).

Moretti, E. Estimating the social return to higher education: evidence from longitudinal and repeated cross-sectional data. J. Econ. 121 , 175–212 (2004).

Aghion, P., Howitt, P., Howitt, P. W., Brant-Collett, M. & García-Peñalosa, C. Endogenous Growth Theory (MIT press, 1998).

Nelson, R. R. & Phelps, E. S. Investment in humans, technological diffusion, and economic growth. Am. Econ. Rev. 56 , 69–75 (1966).

Google Scholar  

Benhabib, J. & Spiegel, M. M. Human capital and technology diffusion. Handb. Econ. Growth 1 , 935–966 (2005).

Katz, L. F. & Murphy, K. M. Changes in relative wages, 1963–1987: supply and demand factors. Q. J. Econ. 107 , 35–78 (1992).

Autor, D. H., Katz, L. F. & Krueger, A. B. Computing inequality: have computers changed the labor market? Q. J. Econ. 113 , 1169–1213 (1998).

National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators 2016 (National Science Foundation, 2016).

Bourdieu, P. Homo Academicus (Stanford Univ. Press, 1988)

Shavit, Y., Arum, R. & Gamoran, A. (eds) Stratification in Higher Education: A Comparative Study . (Stanford Univ. Press, 2007).

Altbach, P. G. & Salmi, J. (eds) The Road to Academic Excellence: The Making of World-Class Research Universities (The World Bank, 2011).

Carnoy, M. et al. University Expansion in a Changing Global Economy: Triumph of the BRICs? (Stanford Univ. Press, 2013).

World Bank. World Development Indicators 2018 (World Bank, 2018); http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=world-development-indicators

Muralidharan, K., Das, J., Holla, A. & Mohpal, A. The fiscal cost of weak governance: evidence from teacher absence in India. J. Publ. Econ. 145 , 116–135 (2017).

Burdett, N. Review of High Stakes Examination Instruments in Primary and Secondary School in Developing Countries Research on Improving Systems of Education (RISE) Working Paper 17/018 (RISE Programme, 2017).

Cheney, G. R., Ruzzi, B. B. & Muralidharan, K. A Profile of the Indian Education System (National Center on Education and Economy, 2005).

Guo, C. B., Tsang, M. & Ding, X. H. Gender difference in the education and employment of science & engineering students in HEIs. J. High. Educ. 11 , 89–101 (2007).

Dobryakova, M. & Froumin, I. Higher engineering education in Russia: incentives for real change. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 26 , 1032–1041 (2010).

Pal, Y. Report of the Committee to Advise on Renovation and Rejuvenation of Higher Education (Department of Human Resources, Government of India, 2009).

Zha, Q., Hu, L. & Wang, Y. The characteristics of university students’ extracurricular time assignment and its impact on learning outcome: based on China college student survey in J University in 2016. High. Educ. Explor. 7 , 44–49 (2017).

Lv, L. & Zhang, H. The characteristics of undergraduates’ learning engagement of Chinese research-oriented university: based on the comparison of 12 research-oriented universities in the world. Educ. Res. 36 , 51–63 (2015).

Mandel, H. & Semyonov, M. Gender pay gap and employment sector: sources of earnings disparities in the United States, 1970-2010. Demography 51 , 1597–1618 (2014).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bound, J., Lovenheim, M. F. & Turner, S. Why have college completion rates declined? An analysis of changing student preparation and collegiate resources. Am. Economic J. Appl. Econ. 2 , 129–157 (2010).

Bettinger, E. P., Long, B. T., Oreopoulos, P. & Sanbonmatsu, L. The role of application assistance and information in college decisions: results from the H&R Block FAFSA experiment. Q. J. Econ. 127 , 1205–1242 (2012).

Stinebrickner, T. & Stinebrickner, R. Learning about academic ability and the college dropout decision. J. Labor Econ. 30 , 707–748 (2012).

Glewwe, P. & Kremer, M. Schools, teachers, and education outcomes in developing countries. Handb. Econ. Educ. 2 , 945–1017 (2006).

McEwan, P. Improving learning in primary schools of developing countries: a meta-analysis of randomized experiments. Rev. Educ. Res. 85 , 353–394 (2013).

Hanushek, E. A. Will more higher education improve economic growth? Oxford Rev. Econ. Pol. 32 , 538–552 (2016).

Clark, D. & Martorell, P. The signaling value of a high school diploma. J. Polit. Econ. 122 , 282–318 (2014).

Li, H., Meng, L., Shi, X. & Wu, B. Does attending elite colleges pay in China? J. Comp. Econ. 40 , 78–88 (2012).

Muralidharan, K. Priorities for Primary Education Policy in India’s 12th Five-Year Plan India Policy Forum Vol. 9, 1–61 (National Council of Applied Economic Research and Brookings Institution, 2013).

Li, H., Loyalka, P., Rozelle, S. & Wu, B. Human capital and China’s future growth. J. Econ. Perspect. 31 , 25–48 (2017).

Kouzminov, Y., Ovcharova, L. & Yakobson, L. (eds) How to Increase Human Capital and its Impact on Economic and Social Development (HSE Publishing House, 2018).

Bound, J., Braga, B., Golden, J. & Khanna, G. Recruitment of foreigners in the market for computer scientists in the United States. J. Labor Econ. 33 , S187–S223 (2015).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bound, J., Khanna, G. & Morales, N. Reservoir of foreign talent. Science 356 , 697 (2017).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hanson, G. H. & Slaughter, M. J. in Education, Skills, and Technical Change: Implications for Future US GDP Growth (eds Hulten, C. R. & Ramey, V. A.) 465–494 (Univ. Chicago Press, 2017).

Liu, O. L., Frankel, L. & Roohr K. C. Assessing Critical Thinking in Higher Education: Current State and Directions for Next‐Generation Assessment ETS Research Report Series (ETS, 2014).

Kardanova, E. et al. Developing instruments to assess and compare the quality of engineering education: the case of China and Russia. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 41 , 770–786 (2016).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank M. Carnoy, J. Cohen, T. Dee, B. Domingue, A. Eble, R. Fairlie, E. Hanushek, B. Kim, S. Loeb, K. Muralidharan, S. Reardon, S. Rozelle, D. Schwartz, S. Sylvia and C. Wieman, and participants at the demography workshop at the University of Chicago, the economics of education workshop at the Teachers College, the South Asia Region Knowledge Exchange Group at the World Bank, KDI School and technical reviewers at ETS for their feedback. We appreciate research funding from E. Li, the Basic Research Program of the National Research University Higher School of Economics and Russian Academic Excellence Project 5–100, and the All India Council for Technical Education. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Graduate School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Prashant Loyalka & Zhaolei Shi

Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Prashant Loyalka, Huan Wang, Saurabh Khanna & Ashutosh Bhuradia

Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ, USA

Ou Lydia Liu, Lin Gu & Guangming Ling

International Center for Action Research on Education, School of Education, Henan University, Henan, China

Guirong Li & Yanyan Li

Institute of Education, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia

Elena Kardanova, Igor Chirikov & Denis Federiakin

Center for Studies in Higher Education, Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA

Igor Chirikov

Faculty of Education, Sichuan Normal University, Sichuan, China

Shangfeng Hu

Institute of Higher Education Research, University of Jinan, Jinan, China

Ningning Yu

Graduate School of Education, Peking University, Beijing, China

Institute of Education, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

World Bank, Washington, DC, USA

Tara Beteille & Namrata Tognatta

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

P.L., O.L.L., G.Li, I.C., E.K., N.Y., F.G., L.M., S.H., A.B., T.B. and N.T. designed research. P.L., O.L.L., G.Li, I.C., E.K., N.Y., F.G., L.M., S.H., H.W., Y.L., A.B. and S.K. performed research. P.L., O.L.L., E.K., D.F., L.G., G.Ling, S.K. and Z.S. analysed data. P.L., O.L.L. and I.C. wrote the paper.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Prashant Loyalka or Igor Chirikov .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Human Behaviour thanks Alex Eble, Thomas Luschei and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available. Primary Handling Editor: Charlotte Payne.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary Methods, Supplementary References and Supplementary Tables 1–7.

Reporting Summary

Peer review information, rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Loyalka, P., Liu, O.L., Li, G. et al. Skill levels and gains in university STEM education in China, India, Russia and the United States. Nat Hum Behav 5 , 892–904 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01062-3

Download citation

Received : 06 June 2020

Accepted : 27 January 2021

Published : 01 March 2021

Issue Date : July 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01062-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

An integrative review with word cloud analysis of stem education.

• Wen-Song Su
• Ching-Yi Chang

Journal of Science Education and Technology (2024)

Frontier Development and Insights of International Educational Science Research in the journals Nature and Science: a Systematic Literature Review over 40 Years

Science & Education (2024)

The Development of School Satisfaction in Chinese Early Adolescents: The Contributions of Peer Liking and Academic Performance

• Mengting Li
• Qinglin Bian
• Xinyin Chen

Journal of Youth and Adolescence (2023)

Encouraging Young Women into STEM Careers: A Study Comparing Career Intention of Female STEM Students in China and Scotland

• Fiona McNeill

Journal for STEM Education Research (2023)

On Intellectual Independence: The Principal Aim of Universities in New Zealand

• Kerry Shephard

New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies (2022)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Accessibility Links

• Skip to content
• Skip to search IOPscience
• Skip to Journals list
• Accessibility help
• Accessibility Help

Click here to close this panel.

Purpose-led Publishing is a coalition of three not-for-profit publishers in the field of physical sciences: AIP Publishing, the American Physical Society and IOP Publishing.

Together, as publishers that will always put purpose above profit, we have defined a set of industry standards that underpin high-quality, ethical scholarly communications.

We are proudly declaring that science is our only shareholder.

STEM education to fulfil the 21 st century demand: a literature review

Widya 1 , Ronal Rifandi 1 and Yosi Laila Rahmi 2

Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd Journal of Physics: Conference Series , Volume 1317 , The 3rd International Conference on Mathematics, Sciences, Education, and Technology 4–5 October 2018, Padang, Indonesia Citation Widya et al 2019 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1317 012208 DOI 10.1088/1742-6596/1317/1/012208

Article metrics

12741 Total downloads

Share this article

Author e-mails.

[email protected]

Author affiliations

1 STKIP Adzkia, Jl. Taratak Paneh No. 7, Korong Gadang, Kalumbuk, Padang, Indonesia

2 Universitas Negeri Padang, Jl Prof. Dokter Hamka, Air Tawar Barat, Padang, Indonesia

Buy this article in print

STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) was developed to answer challenges in the 21st century; where students are not only smart in terms of cognitive, but also skilled. STEM in education has the aim of preparing students to be competitive and ready to work according to their preferred fields. The benefits of applying STEM Education are to improve critical thinking skills and be creative, logical, innovative, productive and directly related to real conditions. The purpose of this study is to review the implementation of STEM Education models in the early 21st century. Technique of collecting data was through literature study. The results of this study: 1) STEM has been applied in various countries and in various branches of science; 2) History of STEM Education, 3) Implementation of STEM in non western country, 4) Skill that required in 21 st century, 5) STEM to face 21 st challenge.

Export citation and abstract BibTeX RIS

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence . Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.

• Open access
• Published: 09 March 2020

Rubrics to assess critical thinking and information processing in undergraduate STEM courses

• Gil Reynders 1 , 2 ,
• Juliette Lantz 3 ,
• Suzanne M. Ruder 2 ,
• Courtney L. Stanford 4 &
• Renée S. Cole   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2807-1500 1  

International Journal of STEM Education volume  7 , Article number:  9 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

71k Accesses

62 Citations

4 Altmetric

Metrics details

Process skills such as critical thinking and information processing are commonly stated outcomes for STEM undergraduate degree programs, but instructors often do not explicitly assess these skills in their courses. Students are more likely to develop these crucial skills if there is constructive alignment between an instructor’s intended learning outcomes, the tasks that the instructor and students perform, and the assessment tools that the instructor uses. Rubrics for each process skill can enhance this alignment by creating a shared understanding of process skills between instructors and students. Rubrics can also enable instructors to reflect on their teaching practices with regard to developing their students’ process skills and facilitating feedback to students to identify areas for improvement.

Here, we provide rubrics that can be used to assess critical thinking and information processing in STEM undergraduate classrooms and to provide students with formative feedback. As part of the Enhancing Learning by Improving Process Skills in STEM (ELIPSS) Project, rubrics were developed to assess these two skills in STEM undergraduate students’ written work. The rubrics were implemented in multiple STEM disciplines, class sizes, course levels, and institution types to ensure they were practical for everyday classroom use. Instructors reported via surveys that the rubrics supported assessment of students’ written work in multiple STEM learning environments. Graduate teaching assistants also indicated that they could effectively use the rubrics to assess student work and that the rubrics clarified the instructor’s expectations for how they should assess students. Students reported that they understood the content of the rubrics and could use the feedback provided by the rubric to change their future performance.

The ELIPSS rubrics allowed instructors to explicitly assess the critical thinking and information processing skills that they wanted their students to develop in their courses. The instructors were able to clarify their expectations for both their teaching assistants and students and provide consistent feedback to students about their performance. Supporting the adoption of active-learning pedagogies should also include changes to assessment strategies to measure the skills that are developed as students engage in more meaningful learning experiences. Tools such as the ELIPSS rubrics provide a resource for instructors to better align assessments with intended learning outcomes.

Introduction

Why assess process skills.

Process skills, also known as professional skills (ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission, 2012 ), transferable skills (Danczak et al., 2017 ), or cognitive competencies (National Research Council, 2012 ), are commonly cited as critical for students to develop during their undergraduate education (ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission, 2012 ; American Chemical Society Committee on Professional Training, 2015 ; National Research Council, 2012 ; Singer et al., 2012 ; The Royal Society, 2014 ). Process skills such as problem-solving, critical thinking, information processing, and communication are widely applicable to many academic disciplines and careers, and they are receiving increased attention in undergraduate curricula (ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission, 2012 ; American Chemical Society Committee on Professional Training, 2015 ) and workplace hiring decisions (Gray & Koncz, 2018 ; Pearl et al., 2019 ). Recent reports from multiple countries (Brewer & Smith, 2011 ; National Research Council, 2012 ; Singer et al., 2012 ; The Royal Society, 2014 ) indicate that these skills are emphasized in multiple undergraduate academic disciplines, and annual polls of about 200 hiring managers indicate that employers may place more importance on these skills than in applicants’ content knowledge when making hiring decisions (Deloitte Access Economics, 2014 ; Gray & Koncz, 2018 ). The assessment of process skills can provide a benchmark for achievement at the end of an undergraduate program and act as an indicator of student readiness to enter the workforce. Assessing these skills may also enable instructors and researchers to more fully understand the impact of active learning pedagogies on students.

A recent meta-analysis of 225 studies by Freeman et al. ( 2014 ) showed that students in active learning environments may achieve higher content learning gains than students in traditional lectures in multiple STEM fields when comparing scores on equivalent examinations. Active learning environments can have many different attributes, but they are commonly characterized by students “physically manipulating objects, producing new ideas, and discussing ideas with others” (Rau et al., 2017 ) in contrast to students sitting and listening to a lecture. Examples of active learning pedagogies include POGIL (Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning) (Moog & Spencer, 2008 ; Simonson, 2019 ) and PLTL (Peer-led Team Learning) (Gafney & Varma-Nelson, 2008 ; Gosser et al., 2001 ) in which students work in groups to complete activities with varying levels of guidance from an instructor. Despite the clear content learning gains that students can achieve from active learning environments (Freeman et al., 2014 ), the non-content-gains (including improvements in process skills) in these learning environments have not been explored to a significant degree. Active learning pedagogies such as POGIL and PLTL place an emphasis on students developing non-content skills in addition to content learning gains, but typically only the content learning is assessed on quizzes and exams, and process skills are not often explicitly assessed (National Research Council, 2012 ). In order to fully understand the effects of active learning pedagogies on all aspects of an undergraduate course, evidence-based tools must be used to assess students’ process skill development. The goal of this work was to develop resources that could enable instructors to explicitly assess process skills in STEM undergraduate classrooms in order to provide feedback to themselves and their students about the students’ process skills development.

Theoretical frameworks

The incorporation of these rubrics and other currently available tools for use in STEM undergraduate classrooms can be viewed through the lenses of constructive alignment (Biggs, 1996 ) and self-regulated learning (Zimmerman, 2002 ). The theory of constructivism posits that students learn by constructing their own understanding of knowledge rather than acquiring the meaning from their instructor (Bodner, 1986 ), and constructive alignment extends the constructivist model to consider how the alignment between a course’s intended learning outcomes, tasks, and assessments affects the knowledge and skills that students develop (Biggs, 2003 ). Students are more likely to develop the intended knowledge and skills if there is alignment between the instructor’s intended learning outcomes that are stated at the beginning of a course, the tasks that the instructor and students perform, and the assessment strategies that the instructor uses (Biggs, 1996 , 2003 , 2014 ). The nature of the tasks and assessments indicates what the instructor values and where students should focus their effort when studying. According to Biggs ( 2003 ) and Ramsden ( 1997 ), students see assessments as defining what they should learn, and a misalignment between the outcomes, tasks, and assessments may hinder students from achieving the intended learning outcomes. In the case of this work, the intended outcomes are improved process skills. In addition to aligning the components of a course, it is also critical that students receive feedback on their performance in order to improve their skills. Zimmerman’s theory of self-regulated learning (Zimmerman, 2002 ) provides a rationale for tailoring assessments to provide feedback to both students and instructors.

Zimmerman’s theory of self-regulated learning defines three phases of learning: forethought/planning, performance, and self-reflection. According to Zimmerman, individuals ideally should progress through these three phases in a cycle: they plan a task, perform the task, and reflect on their performance, then they restart the cycle on a new task. If a student is unable to adequately progress through the phases of self-regulated learning on their own, then feedback provided by an instructor may enable the students to do so (Butler & Winne, 1995 ). Thus, one of our criteria when creating rubrics to assess process skills was to make the rubrics suitable for faculty members to use to provide feedback to their students. Additionally, instructors can use the results from assessments to give themselves feedback regarding their students’ learning in order to regulate their teaching. This theory is called self-regulated learning because the goal is for learners to ultimately reflect on their actions to find ways to improve. We assert that, ideally, both students and instructors should be “learners” and use assessment data to reflect on their actions, although with different aims. Students need consistent feedback from an instructor and/or self-assessment throughout a course to provide a benchmark for their current performance and identify what they can do to improve their process skills (Black & Wiliam, 1998 ; Butler & Winne, 1995 ; Hattie & Gan, 2011 ; Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006 ). Instructors need feedback on the extent to which their efforts are achieving their intended goals in order to improve their instruction and better facilitate the development of process skills through course experiences.

In accordance with the aforementioned theoretical frameworks, tools used to assess undergraduate STEM student process skills should be tailored to fit the outcomes that are expected for undergraduate students and be able to provide formative assessment and feedback to both students and faculty about the students’ skills. These tools should also be designed for everyday classroom use to enable students to regularly self-assess and faculty to provide consistent feedback throughout a semester. Additionally, it is desirable for assessment tools to be broadly generalizable to measure process skills in multiple STEM disciplines and institutions in order to increase the rubrics’ impact on student learning. Current tools exist to assess these process skills, but they each lack at least one of the desired characteristics for providing regular feedback to STEM students.

Current tools to assess process skills

Current tests available to assess critical thinking include the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) (Stein & Haynes, 2011 ), California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione, 1990a , 1990b ), and Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson & Glaser, 1964 ). These commercially available, multiple-choice tests are not designed to provide regular, formative feedback throughout a course and have not been implemented for this purpose. Instead, they are designed to provide summative feedback with a focus on assessing this skill at a programmatic or university level rather than for use in the classroom to provide formative feedback to students. Rather than using tests to assess process skills, rubrics could be used instead. Rubrics are effective assessment tools because they can be quick and easy to use, they provide feedback to both students and instructors, and they can evaluate individual aspects of a skill to give more specific feedback (Brookhart & Chen, 2014 ; Smit & Birri, 2014 ). Rubrics for assessing critical thinking are available, but they have not been used to provide feedback to undergraduate STEM students nor were they designed to do so (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2019 ; Saxton et al., 2012 ). The Critical Thinking Analytic Rubric is designed specifically to assess K-12 students to enhance college readiness and has not been broadly tested in collegiate STEM courses (Saxton et al., 2012 ). The critical thinking rubric developed by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) as part its Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education (VALUE) Institute and Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP) initiative (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2019 ) is intended for programmatic assessment rather than specifically giving feedback to students throughout a course. As with tests for assessing critical thinking, current rubrics to assess critical thinking are not designed to act as formative assessments and give feedback to STEM faculty and undergraduates at the course or task level. Another issue with the assessment of critical thinking is the degree to which the construct is measurable. A National Research Council report (National Research Council, 2011 ) has suggested that there is little evidence of a consistent, measurable definition for critical thinking and that it may not be different from one’s general cognitive ability. Despite this issue, we have found that critical thinking is consistently listed as a programmatic outcome in STEM disciplines (American Chemical Society Committee on Professional Training, 2015 ; The Royal Society, 2014 ), so we argue that it is necessary to support instructors as they attempt to assess this skill.

Current methods for evaluating students’ information processing include discipline-specific tools such as a rubric to assess physics students’ use of graphs and equations to solve work-energy problems (Nguyen et al., 2010 ) and assessments of organic chemistry students’ ability to “[manipulate] and [translate] between various representational forms” including 2D and 3D representations of chemical structures (Kumi et al., 2013 ). Although these assessment tools can be effectively used for their intended context, they were not designed for use in a wide range of STEM disciplines or for a variety of tasks.

Despite the many tools that exist to measure process skills, none has been designed and tested to facilitate frequent, formative feedback to STEM undergraduate students and faculty throughout a semester. The rubrics described here have been designed by the Enhancing Learning by Improving Process Skills in STEM (ELIPSS) Project (Cole et al., 2016 ) to assess undergraduate STEM students’ process skills and to facilitate feedback at the classroom level with the potential to track growth throughout a semester or degree program. The rubrics described here are designed to assess critical thinking and information processing in student written work. Rubrics were chosen as the format for our process skill assessment tools because the highest level of each category in rubrics can serve as an explicit learning outcome that the student is expected to achieve (Panadero & Jonsson, 2013 ). Rubrics that are generalizable to multiple disciplines and institutions can enable the assessment of student learning outcomes and active learning pedagogies throughout a program of study and provide useful tools for a greater number of potential users.

Research questions

This work sought to answer the following research questions for each rubric:

Does the rubric adequately measure relevant aspects of the skill?

How well can the rubrics provide feedback to instructors and students?

Can multiple raters use the rubrics to give consistent scores?

This work received Institutional Review Board approval prior to any data collection involving human subjects. The sources of data used to construct the process skill rubrics and answer these research questions were (1) peer-reviewed literature on how each skill is defined, (2) feedback from content experts in multiple STEM disciplines via surveys and in-person, group discussions regarding the appropriateness of the rubrics for each discipline, (3) interviews with students whose work was scored with the rubrics and teaching assistants who scored the student work, and (4) results of applying the rubrics to samples of student work.

Defining the scope of the rubrics

The rubrics described here and the other rubrics in development by the ELIPSS Project are intended to measure process skills, which are desired learning outcomes identified by the STEM community in recent reports (National Research Council, 2012 ; Singer et al., 2012 ). In order to measure these skills in multiple STEM disciplines, operationalized definitions of each skill were needed. These definitions specify which aspects of student work (operations) would be considered evidence for the student using that skill and establish a shared understanding of each skill by members of each STEM discipline. The starting point for this work was the process skill definitions developed as part of the POGIL project (Cole et al., 2019a ). The POGIL community includes instructors from a variety of disciplines and institutions and represented the intended audience for the rubrics: faculty who value process skills and want to more explicitly assess them. The process skills discussed in this work were defined as follows:

Critical thinking is analyzing, evaluating, or synthesizing relevant information to form an argument or reach a conclusion supported with evidence.

Information processing is evaluating, interpreting, and manipulating or transforming information.

Examples of critical thinking include the tasks that students are asked to perform in a laboratory course. When students are asked to analyze the data they collected, combine data from different sources, and generate arguments or conclusions about their data, we see this as critical thinking. However, when students simply follow the so-called “cookbook” laboratory instructions that require them to confirm pre-determined conclusions, we do not think students are engaging in critical thinking. One example of information processing is when organic chemistry students are required to re-draw molecules in different formats. The students must evaluate and interpret various pieces of one representation, and then they recreate the molecule in another representation. However, if students are asked to simply memorize facts or algorithms to solve problems, we do not see this as information processing.

Iterative rubric development

The development process was the same for the information processing rubric and the critical thinking rubric. After defining the scope of the rubric, an initial version was drafted based upon the definition of the target process skill and how each aspect of the skill is defined in the literature. A more detailed discussion of the literature that informed each rubric category is included in the “Results and Discussion” section. This initial version then underwent iterative testing in which the rubric was reviewed by researchers, practitioners, and students. The rubric was first evaluated by the authors and a group of eight faculty from multiple STEM disciplines who made up the ELIPSS Project’s primary collaborative team (PCT). The PCT was a group of faculty members with experience in discipline-based education research who employ active-learning pedagogies in their classrooms. This initial round of evaluation was intended to ensure that the rubric measured relevant aspects of the skill and was appropriate for each PCT member’s discipline. This evaluation determined how well the rubrics were aligned with each instructor’s understanding of the process skill including both in-person and email discussions that continued until the group came to consensus that each rubric category could be applied to student work in courses within their disciplines. There has been an ongoing debate regarding the role of disciplinary knowledge in critical thinking and the extent to which critical thinking is subject-specific (Davies, 2013 ; Ennis, 1990 ). This work focuses on the creation of rubrics to measure process skills in different domains, but we have not performed cross-discipline comparisons. This initial round of review was also intended to ensure that the rubrics were ready for classroom testing by instructors in each discipline. Next, each rubric was tested over three semesters in multiple classroom environments, illustrated in Table 1 . The rubrics were applied to student work chosen by each PCT member. The PCT members chose the student work based on their views of how the assignments required students to engage in process skills and show evidence of those skills. The information processing and critical thinking rubrics shown in this work were each tested in at least three disciplines, course levels, and institutions.

After each semester, the feedback was collected from the faculty testing the rubric, and further changes to the rubric were made. Feedback was collected in the form of survey responses along with in-person group discussions at annual project meetings. After the first iteration of completing the survey, the PCT members met with the authors to discuss how they were interpreting each survey question. This meeting helped ensure that the surveys were gathering valid data regarding how well the rubrics were measuring the desired process skill. Questions in the survey such as “What aspects of the student work provided evidence for the indicated process skill?” and “Are there edits to the rubric/descriptors that would improve your ability to assess the process skill?” allowed the authors to determine how well the rubric scores were matching the student work and identify necessary changes to the rubric. Further questions asked about the nature and timing of the feedback given to students in order to address the question of how well the rubrics provide feedback to instructors and students. The survey questions are included in the Supporting Information . The survey responses were analyzed qualitatively to determine themes related to each research question.

In addition to the surveys given to faculty rubric testers, twelve students were interviewed in fall 2016 and fall 2017. In the United States of America, the fall semester typically runs from August to December and is the first semester of the academic year. Each student participated in one interview which lasted about 30 min. These interviews were intended to gather further data to answer questions about how well the rubrics were measuring the identified process skills that students were using when they completed their assignments and to ensure that the information provided by the rubrics made sense to students. The protocol for these interviews is included in the Supporting Information . In fall 2016, the students interviewed were enrolled in an organic chemistry laboratory course for non-majors at a large, research-intensive university in the United States. Thirty students agreed to have their work analyzed by the research team, and nine students were interviewed. However, the rubrics were not a component of the laboratory course grading. Instead, the first author assessed the students’ reports for critical thinking and information processing, and then the students were provided electronic copies of their laboratory reports and scored rubrics in advance of the interview. The first author had recently been a graduate teaching assistant for the course and was familiar with the instructor’s expectations for the laboratory reports. During the interview, the students were given time to review their reports and the completed rubrics, and then they were asked about how well they understood the content of the rubrics and how accurately each category score represented their work.

In fall 2017, students enrolled in a physical chemistry thermodynamics course for majors were interviewed. The physical chemistry course took place at the same university as the organic laboratory course, but there was no overlap between participants. Three students and two graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) were interviewed. The course included daily group work, and process skill assessment was an explicit part of the instructor’s curriculum. At the end of each class period, students assessed their groups using portions of ELIPSS rubrics, including the two process skill rubrics included in this paper. About every 2 weeks, the GTAs assessed the student groups with a complete ELIPSS rubric for a particular skill, then gave the groups their scored rubrics with written comments. The students’ individual homework problem sets were assessed once with rubrics for three skills: critical thinking, information processing, and problem-solving. The students received the scored rubric with written comments when the graded problem set was returned to them. In the last third of the semester, the students and GTAs were interviewed about how rubrics were implemented in the course, how well the rubric scores reflected the students’ written work, and how the use of rubrics affected the teaching assistants’ ability to assess the student skills. The protocols for these interviews are included in the Supporting Information .

Gathering evidence for utility, validity, and reliability

The utility, validity, and reliability of the rubrics were measured throughout the development process. The utility is the degree to which the rubrics are perceived as practical to experts and practitioners in the field. Through multiple meetings, the PCT faculty determined that early drafts of the rubric seemed appropriate for use in their classrooms, which represented multiple STEM disciplines. Rubric utility was reexamined multiple times throughout the development process to ensure that the rubrics would remain practical for classroom use. Validity can be defined in multiple ways. For example, the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Psychological Testing, 2014 ) defines validity as “the degree to which all the accumulated evidence supports the intended interpretation of test scores for the proposed use.” For the purposes of this work, we drew on the ways in which two distinct types of validity were examined in the rubric literature: content validity and construct validity. Content validity is the degree to which the rubrics cover relevant aspects of each process skill (Moskal & Leydens, 2000 ). In this case, the process skill definition and a review of the literature determined which categories were included in each rubric. The literature review was finished once the data was saturated: when no more new aspects were found. Construct validity is the degree to which the levels of each rubric category accurately reflect the process that students performed (Moskal & Leydens, 2000 ). Evidence of construct validity was gathered via the faculty surveys, teaching assistant interviews, and student interviews. In the student interviews, students were given one of their completed assignments and asked to explain how they completed the task. Students were then asked to explain how well each category applied to their work and if any changes were needed to the rubric to more accurately reflect their process. Due to logistical challenges, we were not able to obtain evidence for convergent validity, and this is further discussed in the “Limitations” section.

Adjacent agreement, also known as “interrater agreement within one,” was chosen as the measure of interrater reliability due to its common use in rubric development projects (Jonsson & Svingby, 2007 ). The adjacent agreement is the percentage of cases in which two raters agree on a rating or are different by one level (i.e., they give adjacent ratings to the same work). Jonsson and Svingby ( 2007 ) found that most of the rubrics they reviewed had adjacent agreement scores of 90% or greater. However, they noted that the agreement threshold varied based on the number of possible levels of performance for each category in the rubric, with three and four being the most common numbers of levels. Since the rubrics discussed in this report have six levels (scores of zero through five) and are intended for low-stakes assessment and feedback, the goal of 80% adjacent agreement was selected. To calculate agreement for the critical thinking and information processing rubrics, two researchers discussed the scoring criteria for each rubric and then independently assessed the organic chemistry laboratory reports.

Results and discussion

The process skill rubrics to assess critical thinking and information processing in student written work were completed after multiple rounds of revision based on feedback from various sources. These sources include feedback from instructors who tested the rubrics in their classrooms, TAs who scored student work with the rubrics, and students who were assessed with the rubrics. The categories for each rubric will be discussed in terms of the evidence that the rubrics measure the relevant aspects of the skill and how they can be used to assess STEM undergraduate student work. Each category discussion will begin with a general explanation of the category followed by more specific examples from the organic chemistry laboratory course and physical chemistry lecture course to demonstrate how the rubrics can be used to assess student work.

Information processing rubric

The definition of information processing and the focus of the rubric presented here (Fig. 1 ) are distinct from cognitive information processing as defined by the educational psychology literature (Driscoll, 2005 ). The rubric shown here is more aligned with the STEM education construct of representational competency (Daniel et al., 2018 ).

Rubric for assessing information processing

When solving a problem or completing a task, students must evaluate the provided information for relevance or importance to the task (Hanson, 2008 ; Swanson et al., 1990 ). All the information provided in a prompt (e.g., homework or exam questions) may not be relevant for addressing all parts of the prompt. Students should ideally show evidence of their evaluation process by identifying what information is present in the prompt/model, indicating what information is relevant or not relevant, and indicating why information is relevant. Responses with these characteristics would earn high rubric scores for this category. Although students may not explicitly state what information is necessary to address a task, the information they do use can act as indirect evidence of the degree to which they have evaluated all of the available information in the prompt. Evidence for students inaccurately evaluating information for relevance includes the inclusion of irrelevant information or the omission of relevant information in an analysis or in completing a task. When evaluating the organic chemistry laboratory reports, the focus for the evaluating category was the information students presented when identifying the chemical structure of their products. For students who received a high score, this information included their measured value for the product’s melting point, the literature (expected) value for the melting point, and the peaks in a nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectrum. NMR spectroscopy is a commonly used technique in chemistry to obtain structural information about a compound. Lower scores were given if students omitted any of the necessary information or if they included unnecessary information. For example, if a student discussed their reaction yield when discussing the identity of their product, they would receive a low Evaluating score because the yield does not help them determine the identity of their product; the yield, in this case, would be unnecessary information. In the physical chemistry course, students often did not show evidence that they determined which information was relevant to answer the homework questions and thus earned low evaluating scores. These omissions will be further addressed in the “Interpreting” section.

Interpreting

In addition to evaluating, students must often interpret information using their prior knowledge to explain the meaning of something, make inferences, match data to predictions, and extract patterns from data (Hanson, 2008 ; Nakhleh, 1992 ; Schmidt et al., 1989 ; Swanson et al., 1990 ). Students earn high scores for this category if they assign correct meaning to labeled information (e.g., text, tables, graphs, diagrams), extract specific details from information, explain information in their own words, and determine patterns in information. For the organic chemistry laboratory reports, students received high scores if they accurately interpreted their measured values and NMR peaks. Almost every student obtained melting point values that were different than what was expected due to measurement error or impurities in their products, so they needed to describe what types of impurities could cause such discrepancies. Also, each NMR spectrum contained one peak that corresponded to the solvent used to dissolve the students’ product, so the students needed to use their prior knowledge of NMR spectroscopy to recognize that peak did not correspond to part of their product.

In physical chemistry, the graduate teaching assistant often gave students low scores for inaccurately explaining changes to chemical systems such as changes in pressure or entropy. The graduate teaching assistant who assessed the student work used the rubric to identify both the evaluating and interpreting categories as weaknesses in many of the students’ homework submissions. However, the students often earned high scores for the manipulating and transforming categories, so the GTA was able to give students specific feedback on their areas for improvement while also highlighting their strengths.

Manipulating and transforming (extent and accuracy)

In addition to evaluating and interpreting information, students may be asked to manipulate and transform information from one form to another. These transformations should be complete and accurate (Kumi et al., 2013 ; Nguyen et al., 2010 ). Students may be required to construct a figure based on written information, or conversely, they may transform information in a figure into words or mathematical expressions. Two categories for manipulating and transforming (i.e., extent and accuracy) were included to allow instructors to give more specific feedback. It was often found that students would either transform little information but do so accurately, or transform much information and do so inaccurately; the two categories allowed for differentiated feedback to be provided. As stated above, the organic chemistry students were expected to transform their NMR spectral data into a table and provide a labeled structure of their final product. Students were given high scores if they converted all of the relevant peaks from their spectrum into the table format and were able to correctly match the peaks to the hydrogen atoms in their products. Students received lower scores if they were only able to convert the information for a few peaks or if they incorrectly matched the peaks to the hydrogen atoms.

Critical thinking rubric

Critical thinking can be broadly defined in different contexts, but we found that the categories included in the rubric (Fig. 2 ) represented commonly accepted aspects of critical thinking (Danczak et al., 2017 ) and suited the needs of the faculty collaborators who tested the rubric in their classrooms.

Rubric for assessing critical thinking

When completing a task, students must evaluate the relevance of information that they will ultimately use to support a claim or conclusions (Miri et al., 2007 ; Zohar et al., 1994 ). An evaluating category is included in both critical thinking and information processing rubrics because evaluation is a key aspect of both skills. From our previous work developing a problem-solving rubric (manuscript in preparation) and our review of the literature for this work (Danczak et al., 2017 ; Lewis & Smith, 1993 ), the overlap was seen between information processing, critical thinking, and problem-solving. Additionally, while the Evaluating category in the information processing rubric assesses a student’s ability to determine the importance of information to complete a task, the evaluating category in the critical thinking rubric places a heavier emphasis on using the information to support a conclusion or argument.

When scoring student work with the evaluating category, students receive high scores if they indicate what information is likely to be most relevant to the argument they need to make, determine the reliability of the source of their information, and determine the quality and accuracy of the information itself. The information used to assess this category can be indirect as with the Evaluating category in the information processing rubric. In the organic chemistry laboratory reports, students needed to make an argument about whether they successfully produced the desired product, so they needed to discuss which information was relevant to their claims about the product’s identity and purity. Students received high scores for the evaluating category when they accurately determined that the melting point and nearly all peaks except the solvent peak in the NMR spectrum indicated the identity of their product. Students received lower scores for evaluating when they left out relevant information because this was seen as evidence that the student inaccurately evaluated the information’s relevance in supporting their conclusion. They also received lower scores when they incorrectly stated that a high yield indicated a pure product. Students were given the opportunity to demonstrate their ability to evaluate the quality of information when discussing their melting point. Students sometimes struggled to obtain reliable melting point data due to their inexperience in the laboratory, so the rubric provided a way to assess the student’s ability to critique their own data.

In tandem with evaluating information, students also need to analyze that same information to extract meaningful evidence to support their conclusions (Bailin, 2002 ; Lai, 2011 ; Miri et al., 2007 ). The analyzing category provides an assessment of a student’s ability to discuss information and explore the possible meaning of that information, extract patterns from data/information that could be used as evidence for their claims, and summarize information that could be used as evidence. For example, in the organic chemistry laboratory reports, students needed to compare the information they obtained to the expected values for a product. Students received high scores for the analyzing category if they could extract meaningful structural information from the NMR spectrum and their two melting points (observed and expected) for each reaction step.

Synthesizing

Often, students are asked to synthesize or connect multiple pieces of information in order to draw a conclusion or make a claim (Huitt, 1998 ; Lai, 2011 ). Synthesizing involves identifying the relationships between different pieces of information or concepts, identifying ways that different pieces of information or concepts can be combined, and explaining how the newly synthesized information can be used to reach a conclusion and/or support an argument. While performing the organic chemistry laboratory experiments, students obtained multiple types of information such as the melting point and NMR spectrum in addition to other spectroscopic data such as an infrared (IR) spectrum. Students received high scores for this category when they accurately synthesized these multiple data types by showing how the NMR and IR spectra could each reveal different parts of a molecule in order to determine the molecule’s entire structure.

Forming arguments (structure and validity)

The final key aspect of critical thinking is forming a well-structured and valid argument (Facione, 1984 ; Glassner & Schwarz, 2007 ; Lai, 2011 ; Lewis & Smith, 1993 ). It was observed that students can earn high scores for evaluating, analyzing, and synthesizing, but still struggle to form arguments. This was particularly common in assessing problem sets in the physical chemistry course.

As with the manipulating and transforming categories in the information processing rubric, two forming arguments categories were included to allow instructors to give more specific feedback. Some students may be able to include all of the expected structural elements of their arguments but use faulty information or reasoning. Conversely, some students may be able to make scientifically valid claims but not necessarily support them with evidence. The two forming arguments categories are intended to accurately assess both of these scenarios. For the forming arguments (structure) category, students earn high scores if they explicitly state their claim or conclusion, list the evidence used to support the argument, and provide reasoning to link the evidence to their claim/conclusion. Students who do not make a claim or who provide little evidence or reasoning receive lower scores.

For the forming arguments (validity) category, students earn high scores if their claim is accurate and their reasoning is logical and clearly supports the claim with provided evidence. Organic chemistry students earned high scores for the forms and supports arguments categories if they made explicit claims about the identity and purity of their product and provided complete and accurate evidence for their claim(s) such as the melting point values and positions of NMR peaks that correspond to their product. Additionally, the students provided evidence for the purity of their products by pointing to the presence or absence of peaks in their NMR spectrum that would match other potential side products. They also needed to provide logical reasoning for why the peaks indicated the presence or absence of a compound. As previously mentioned, the physical chemistry students received lower scores for the forming arguments categories than for the other aspects of critical thinking. These students were asked to make claims about the relationships between entropy and heat and then provide relevant evidence to justify these claims. Often, the students would make clearly articulated claims but would provide little evidence to support them. As with the information processing rubric, the critical thinking rubric allowed the GTAs to assess aspects of these skills independently and identify specific areas for student improvement.

Validity and reliability

The goal of this work was to create rubrics that can accurately assess student work (validity) and be consistently implemented by instructors or researchers within multiple STEM fields (reliability). The evidence for validity includes the alignment of the rubrics with literature-based descriptions of each skill, review of the rubrics by content experts from multiple STEM disciplines, interviews with undergraduate students whose work was scored using the rubrics, and interviews of the GTAs who scored the student work.

The definitions for each skill, along with multiple iterations of the rubrics, underwent review by STEM content experts. As noted earlier, the instructors who were testing the rubrics were given a survey at the end of each semester and were invited to offer suggested changes to the rubric to better help them assess their students. After multiple rubric revisions, survey responses from the instructors indicated that the rubrics accurately represented the breadth of each process skill as seen in each expert’s content area and that each category could be used to measure multiple levels of student work. By the end of the rubrics’ development, instructors were writing responses such as “N/A” or “no suggestions” to indicate that the rubrics did not need further changes.

Feedback from the faculty also indicated that the rubrics were measuring the intended constructs by the ways they responded to the survey item “What aspects of the student work provided evidence for the indicated process skill?” For example, one instructor noted that for information processing, she saw evidence of the manipulating and transforming categories when “students had to transform their written/mathematical relationships into an energy diagram.” Another instructor elicited evidence of information processing during an in-class group quiz: “A question on the group quiz was written to illicit [sic] IP [information processing]. Students had to transform a structure into three new structures and then interpret/manipulate the structures to compare the pKa values [acidity] of the new structures.” For this instructor, the structures written by the students revealed evidence of their information processing by showing what information they omitted in the new structures or inaccurately transformed. For critical thinking, an instructor assessed short research reports with the critical thinking rubric and “looked for [the students’] ability to use evidence to support their conclusions, to evaluate the literature studies, and to develop their own judgements by synthesizing the information.” Another instructor used the critical thinking rubric to assess their students’ abilities to choose an instrument to perform a chemical analysis. According to the instructor, the students provided evidence of their critical thinking because “in their papers, they needed to justify their choice of instrument. This justification required them to evaluate information and synthesize a new understanding for this specific chemical analysis.”

Analysis of student work indicates multiple levels of achievement for each rubric category (illustrated in Fig. 3 ), although there may have been a ceiling effect for the evaluating and the manipulating and transforming (extent) categories in information processing for organic chemistry laboratory reports because many students earned the highest possible score (five) for those categories. However, other implementations of the ELIPSS rubrics (Reynders et al., 2019 ) have shown more variation in student scores for the two process skills.

Student rubric scores from an organic chemistry laboratory course. The two rubrics were used to evaluate different laboratory reports. Thirty students were assessed for information processing and 28 were assessed for critical thinking

To provide further evidence that the rubrics were measuring the intended skills, students in the physical chemistry course were interviewed about their thought processes and how well the rubric scores reflected the work they performed. During these interviews, students described how they used various aspects of information processing and critical thinking skills. The students first described how they used information processing during a problem set where they had to answer questions about a diagram of systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Students described how they evaluated and interpreted the graph to make statements such as “diastolic [pressure] is our y-intercept” and “volume is the independent variable.” The students then demonstrated their ability to transform information from one form to another, from a graph to a mathematic equation, by recognizing “it’s a linear relationship so I used Y equals M X plus B ” and “integrated it cause it’s the change, the change in V [volume]. For critical thinking, students described their process on a different problem set. In this problem set, the students had to explain why the change of Helmholtz energy and the change in Gibbs free energy were equivalent under a certain given condition. Students first demonstrated how they evaluated the relevant information and analyzed what would and would not change in their system. One student said, “So to calculate the final pressure, I think I just immediately went to the ideal gas law because we know the final volume and the number of moles won’t change and neither will the temperature in this case. Well, I assume that it wouldn’t.” Another student showed evidence of their evaluation by writing out all the necessary information in one place and stating, “Whenever I do these types of problems, I always write what I start with which is why I always have this line of information I’m given.” After evaluating and analyzing, students had to form an argument by claiming that the two energy values were equal and then defending that claim. Students explained that they were not always as clear as they could be when justifying their claim. For instance, one student said, “Usually I just write out equations and then hope people understand what I’m doing mathematically” but they “probably could have explained it a little more.”

Student feedback throughout the organic chemistry course and near the end of the physical chemistry course indicated that the rubric scores were accurate representations of the students’ work with a few exceptions. For example, some students felt like they should have received either a lower or higher score for certain categories, but they did say that the categories themselves applied well to their work. Most notably, one student reported that the forms and supports arguments categories in the critical thinking rubric did not apply to her work because she “wasn’t making an argument” when she was demonstrating that the Helmholtz and Gibbs energy values were equal in her thermodynamics assignment. We see this as an instance where some students and instructors may define argument in different ways. The process skill definitions and the rubric categories are meant to articulate intended learning outcomes from faculty members to their students, so if a student defines the skills or categories differently than the faculty member, then the rubrics can serve to promote a shared understanding of the skill.

As previously mentioned, reliability was measured by two researchers assessing ten laboratory reports independently to ensure that multiple raters could use the rubrics consistently. The average adjacent agreement scores were 92% for critical thinking and 93% for information processing. The exact agreement scores were 86% for critical thinking and 88% for information processing. Additionally, two different raters assessed a statistics assignment that was given to sixteen first-year undergraduates. The average pairwise adjacent agreement scores were 89% for critical thinking and 92% for information processing for this assignment. However, the exact agreement scores were much lower: 34% for critical thinking and 36% for information processing. In this case, neither rater was an expert in the content area. While the exact agreement scores for the statistics assignment are much lower than desirable, the adjacent agreement scores do meet the threshold for reliability as seen in other rubrics (Jonsson & Svingby, 2007 ) despite the disparity in expertise. Based on these results, it may be difficult for multiple raters to give exactly the same scores to the same work if they have varying levels of content knowledge, but it is important to note that the rubrics are primarily intended for formative assessment that can facilitate discussions between instructors and students about the ways for students to improve. The high level of adjacent agreement scores indicates that multiple raters can identify the same areas to improve in examples of student work.

Instructor and teaching assistant reflections

The survey responses from faculty members determined the utility of the rubrics. Faculty members reported that when they used the rubrics to define their expectations and be more specific about their assessment criteria, the students seemed to be better able to articulate the areas in which they needed improvement. As one instructor put it, “having the rubrics helped open conversations and discussions” that were not happening before the rubrics were implemented. We see this as evidence of the clear intended learning outcomes that are an integral aspect of achieving constructive alignment within a course. The instructors’ specific feedback to the students, and the students’ increased awareness of their areas for improvement, may enable the students to better regulate their learning throughout a course. Additionally, the survey responses indicated that the faculty members were changing their teaching practices and becoming more cognizant of how assignments did or did not elicit the process skill evidence that they desired. After using the rubrics, one instructor said, “I realize I need to revise many of my activities to more thoughtfully induce process skill development.” We see this as evidence that the faculty members were using the rubrics to regulate their teaching by reflecting on the outcomes of their practices and then planning for future teaching. These activities represent the reflection and forethought/planning aspects of self-regulated learning on the part of the instructors. Graduate teaching assistants in the physical chemistry course indicated that the rubrics gave them a way to clarify the instructor’s expectations when they were interacting with the students. As one GTA said, “It’s giving [the students] feedback on direct work that they have instead of just right or wrong. It helps them to understand like ‘Okay how can I improve? What areas am I lacking in?’” A more detailed account of how the instructors and teaching assistants implemented the rubrics has been reported elsewhere (Cole et al., 2019a ).

Student reflections

Students in both the organic and physical chemistry courses reported that they could use the rubrics to engage in the three phases of self-regulated learning: forethought/planning, performing, and reflecting. In an organic chemistry interview, one student was discussing how they could improve their low score for the synthesizing category of critical thinking by saying “I could use the data together instead of trying to use them separately,” thus demonstrating forethought/planning for their later work. Another student described how they could use the rubric while performing a task: “I could go through [the rubric] as I’m writing a report…and self-grade.” Finally, one student demonstrated how they could use the rubrics to reflect on their areas for improvement by saying that “When you have the five column [earn a score of five], I can understand that I’m doing something right” but “I really need to work on revising my reports.” We see this as evidence that students can use the rubrics to regulate their own learning, although classroom facilitation can have an effect on the ways in which students use the rubric feedback (Cole et al., 2019b ).

Limitations

The process skill definitions presented here represent a consensus understanding among members of the POGIL community and the instructors who participated in this study, but these skills are often defined in multiple ways by various STEM instructors, employers, and students (Danczak et al., 2017 ). One issue with critical thinking, in particular, is the broadness of how the skill is defined in the literature. Through this work, we have evidence via expert review to indicate that our definitions represent common understandings among a set of STEM faculty. Nonetheless, we cannot claim that all STEM instructors or researchers will share the skill definitions presented here.

There is currently a debate in the STEM literature (National Research Council, 2011 ) about whether the critical thinking construct is domain-general or domain-specific, that is, whether or not one’s critical thinking ability in one discipline can be applied to another discipline. We cannot make claims about the generalness of the construct based on the data presented here because the same students were not tested across multiple disciplines or courses. Additionally, we did not gather evidence for convergent validity, which is “the degree to which an operationalized construct is similar to other operationalized constructs that it theoretically should be similar to” (National Research Council, 2011 ). In other words, evidence for convergent validity would be the comparison of multiple measures of information processing or critical thinking. However, none of the instructors who used the ELIPSS rubrics also used a secondary measure of the constructs. Although the rubrics were examined by a multidisciplinary group of collaborators, this group was primarily chemists and included eight faculties from other disciplines, so the content validity of the rubrics may be somewhat limited.

Finally, the generalizability of the rubrics is limited by the relatively small number of students who were interviewed about their work. During their interviews, the students in the organic and physical chemistry courses each said that they could use the rubric scores as feedback to improve their skills. Additionally, as discussed in the “Validity and Reliability” section, the processes described by the students aligned with the content of the rubric and provided evidence of the rubric scores’ validity. However, the data gathered from the student interviews only represents the views of a subset of students in the courses, and further study is needed to determine the most appropriate contexts in which the rubrics can be implemented.

Conclusions and implications

Two rubrics were developed to assess and provide feedback on undergraduate STEM students’ critical thinking and information processing. Faculty survey responses indicated that the rubrics measured the relevant aspects of each process skill in the disciplines that were examined. Faculty survey responses, TA interviews, and student interviews over multiple semesters indicated that the rubric scores accurately reflected the evidence of process skills that the instructors wanted to see and the processes that the students performed when they were completing their assignments. The rubrics showed high inter-rater agreement scores, indicating that multiple raters could identify the same areas for improvement in student work.

In terms of constructive alignment, courses should ideally have alignment between their intended learning outcomes, student and instructor activities, and assessments. By using the ELIPSS rubrics, instructors were able to explicitly articulate the intended learning outcomes of their courses to their students. The instructors were then able to assess and provide feedback to students on different aspects of their process skills. Future efforts will be focused on modifying student assignments to enable instructors to better elicit evidence of these skills. In terms of self-regulated learning, students indicated in the interviews that the rubric scores were accurate representations of their work (performances), could help them reflect on their previous work (self-reflection), and the feedback they received could be used to inform their future work (forethought). Not only did the students indicate that the rubrics could help them regulate their learning, but the faculty members indicated that the rubrics had helped them regulate their teaching. With the individual categories on each rubric, the faculty members were better able to observe their students’ strengths and areas for improvement and then tailor their instruction to meet those needs. Our results indicated that the rubrics helped instructors in multiple STEM disciplines and at multiple institutions reflect on their teaching and then make changes to better align their teaching with their desired outcomes.

Overall, the rubrics can be used in a number of different ways to modify courses or for programmatic assessment. As previously stated, instructors can use the rubrics to define expectations for their students and provide them with feedback on desired skills throughout a course. The rubric categories can be used to give feedback on individual aspects of student process skills to provide specific feedback to each student. If an instructor or department wants to change from didactic lecture-based courses to active learning ones, the rubrics can be used to measure non-content learning gains that stem from the adoption of such pedagogies. Although the examples provided here for each rubric were situated in chemistry contexts, the rubrics were tested in multiple disciplines and institution types. The rubrics have the potential for wide applicability to assess not only laboratory reports but also homework assignments, quizzes, and exams. Assessing these tasks provides a way for instructors to achieve constructive alignment between their intended outcomes and their assessments, and the rubrics are intended to enhance this alignment to improve student process skills that are valued in the classroom and beyond.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

American Association of Colleges and Universities

Critical Thinking Assessment Test

Comprehensive University

Enhancing Learning by Improving Process Skills in STEM

Liberal Education and America’s Promise

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance

Primary Collaborative Team

Peer-led Team Learning

Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning

Primarily Undergraduate Institution

Research University

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education

ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission. (2012). Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs . Retrieved from http://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineering-programs-2016-2017/ .

American Chemical Society Committee on Professional Training. (2015). Unergraduate Professional Education in Chemistry: ACS Guidelines and Evaluation Procedures for Bachelor's Degree Programs . Retrieved from https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/about/governance/committees/training/2015-acs-guidelines-for-bachelors-degree-programs.pdf

Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2019). VALUE Rubric Development Project. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics .

Bailin, S. (2002). Critical Thinking and Science Education. Science and Education, 11 , 361–375.

Article   Google Scholar  

Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32 (3), 347–364.

Biggs, J. (2003). Aligning teaching and assessing to course objectives. Teaching and learning in higher education: New trends and innovations, 2 , 13–17.

Google Scholar  

Biggs, J. (2014). Constructive alignment in university teaching. HERDSA Review of higher education, 1 (1), 5–22.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5 (1), 7–74.

Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63 (10), 873–878.

Brewer, C. A., & Smith, D. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: a call to action. American Association for the Advancement of Science . DC : Washington .

Brookhart, S. M., & Chen, F. (2014). The quality and effectiveness of descriptive rubrics. Educational Review , 1–26.

Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and Self-Regulated Learning: A Theoretical Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65 (3), 245–281.

Cole, R., Lantz, J., & Ruder, S. (2016). Enhancing Learning by Improving Process Skills in STEM. Retrieved from http://www.elipss.com .

Cole, R., Lantz, J., & Ruder, S. (2019a). PO: The Process. In S. R. Simonson (Ed.), POGIL: An Introduction to Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning for Those Who Wish to Empower Learners (pp. 42–68). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Cole, R., Reynders, G., Ruder, S., Stanford, C., & Lantz, J. (2019b). Constructive Alignment Beyond Content: Assessing Professional Skills in Student Group Interactions and Written Work. In M. Schultz, S. Schmid, & G. A. Lawrie (Eds.), Research and Practice in Chemistry Education: Advances from the 25 th IUPAC International Conference on Chemistry Education 2018 (pp. 203–222). Singapore: Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Danczak, S., Thompson, C., & Overton, T. (2017). ‘What does the term Critical Thinking mean to you?’A qualitative analysis of chemistry undergraduate, teaching staff and employers' views of critical thinking. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18 , 420–434.

Daniel, K. L., Bucklin, C. J., Leone, E. A., & Idema, J. (2018). Towards a Definition of Representational Competence. In Towards a Framework for Representational Competence in Science Education (pp. 3–11). Switzerland: Springer.

Davies, M. (2013). Critical thinking and the disciplines reconsidered. Higher Education Research & Development, 32 (4), 529–544.

Deloitte Access Economics. (2014). Australia's STEM Workforce: a survey of employers. Retrieved from https://www2.deloitte.com/au/en/pages/economics/articles/australias-stem-workforce-survey.html .

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction . Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Ennis, R. H. (1990). The extent to which critical thinking is subject-specific: Further clarification. Educational researcher, 19 (4), 13–16.

Facione, P. A. (1984). Toward a theory of critical thinking. Liberal Education, 70 (3), 253–261.

Facione, P. A. (1990a). The California Critical Thinking Skills Test--College Level . In Technical Report #1 . Experimental Validation and Content : Validity .

Facione, P. A. (1990b). The California critical thinking skills test—college level . In Technical Report #2 . Factors Predictive of CT : Skills .

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111 (23), 8410–8415.

Gafney, L., & Varma-Nelson, P. (2008). Peer-led team learning: evaluation, dissemination, and institutionalization of a college level initiative (Vol. 16): Springer Science & Business Media, Netherlands.

Glassner, A., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). What stands and develops between creative and critical thinking? Argumentation? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2 (1), 10–18.

Gosser, D. K., Cracolice, M. S., Kampmeier, J. A., Roth, V., Strozak, V. S., & Varma-Nelson, P. (2001). Peer-led team learning: A guidebook: Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ .

Gray, K., & Koncz, A. (2018). The key attributes employers seek on students' resumes. Retrieved from http://www.naceweb.org/about-us/press/2017/the-key-attributes-employers-seek-on-students-resumes/ .

Hanson, D. M. (2008). A cognitive model for learning chemistry and solving problems: implications for curriculum design and classroom instruction. In R. S. Moog & J. N. Spencer (Eds.), Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (pp. 15–19). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.

Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. Handbook of research on learning and instruction , 249-271.

Huitt, W. (1998). Critical thinking: an overview. In Educational psychology interactive Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/critthnk.html .

Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Psychological Testing. (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing : American Educational Research Association.

Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2 (2), 130–144.

Kumi, B. C., Olimpo, J. T., Bartlett, F., & Dixon, B. L. (2013). Evaluating the effectiveness of organic chemistry textbooks in promoting representational fluency and understanding of 2D-3D diagrammatic relationships. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14 , 177–187.

Lai, E. R. (2011). Critical thinking: a literature review. Pearson's Research Reports, 6 , 40–41.

Lewis, A., & Smith, D. (1993). Defining higher order thinking. Theory into Practice, 32 , 131–137.

Miri, B., David, B., & Uri, Z. (2007). Purposely teaching for the promotion of higher-order thinking skills: a case of critical thinking. Research in Science Education, 37 , 353–369.

Moog, R. S., & Spencer, J. N. (Eds.). (2008). Process oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL) . Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.

Moskal, B. M., & Leydens, J. A. (2000). Scoring rubric development: validity and reliability. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 7 , 1–11.

Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don't learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69 (3), 191.

National Research Council. (2011). Assessing 21st Century Skills: Summary of a Workshop . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2012). Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Nguyen, D. H., Gire, E., & Rebello, N. S. (2010). Facilitating Strategies for Solving Work-Energy Problems in Graphical and Equational Representations. 2010 Physics Education Research Conference, 1289 , 241–244.

Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31 (2), 199–218.

Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: a review. Educational Research Review, 9 , 129–144.

Pearl, A. O., Rayner, G., Larson, I., & Orlando, L. (2019). Thinking about critical thinking: An industry perspective. Industry & Higher Education, 33 (2), 116–126.

Ramsden, P. (1997). The context of learning in academic departments. The experience of learning, 2 , 198–216.

Rau, M. A., Kennedy, K., Oxtoby, L., Bollom, M., & Moore, J. W. (2017). Unpacking “Active Learning”: A Combination of Flipped Classroom and Collaboration Support Is More Effective but Collaboration Support Alone Is Not. Journal of Chemical Education, 94 (10), 1406–1414.

Reynders, G., Suh, E., Cole, R. S., & Sansom, R. L. (2019). Developing student process skills in a general chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education , 96 (10), 2109–2119.

Saxton, E., Belanger, S., & Becker, W. (2012). The Critical Thinking Analytic Rubric (CTAR): Investigating intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of a scoring mechanism for critical thinking performance assessments. Assessing Writing, 17 , 251–270.

Schmidt, H. G., De Volder, M. L., De Grave, W. S., Moust, J. H. C., & Patel, V. L. (1989). Explanatory Models in the Processing of Science Text: The Role of Prior Knowledge Activation Through Small-Group Discussion. J. Educ. Psychol., 81 , 610–619.

Simonson, S. R. (Ed.). (2019). POGIL: An Introduction to Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning for Those Who Wish to Empower Learners . Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., & Schweingruber, H. A. (Eds.). (2012). Discipline-Based education research: understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering . Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press.

Smit, R., & Birri, T. (2014). Assuring the quality of standards-oriented classroom assessment with rubrics for complex competencies. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 43 , 5–13.

Stein, B., & Haynes, A. (2011). Engaging Faculty in the Assessment and Improvement of Students' Critical Thinking Using the Critical Thinking Assessment Test. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 43 , 44–49.

Swanson, H. L., Oconnor, J. E., & Cooney, J. B. (1990). An Information-Processing Analysis of Expert and Novice Teachers Problem-Solving. American Educational Research Journal, 27 (3), 533–556.

The Royal Society. (2014). Vision for science and mathematics education: The Royal Society Science Policy Centre . London: England.

Watson, G., & Glaser, E. M. (1964). Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Manual . New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace, and World.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41 (2), 64–70.

Zohar, A., Weinberger, Y., & Tamir, P. (1994). The Effect of the Biology Critical Thinking Project on the Development of Critical Thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31 , 183–196.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank members of our Primary Collaboration Team and Implementation Cohorts for collecting and sharing data. We also thank all the students who have allowed us to examine their work and provided feedback.

Supporting information

• Product rubric survey

• Initial implementation survey

• Continuing implementation survey

This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under collaborative grants #1524399, #1524936, and #1524965. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Chemistry, University of Iowa, W331 Chemistry Building, Iowa City, Iowa, 52242, USA

Gil Reynders & Renée S. Cole

Department of Chemistry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, 23284, USA

Gil Reynders & Suzanne M. Ruder

Department of Chemistry, Drew University, Madison, New Jersey, 07940, USA

Juliette Lantz

Department of Chemistry, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, 47306, USA

Courtney L. Stanford

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

RC, JL, and SR performed an initial literature review that was expanded by GR. All authors designed the survey instruments. GR collected and analyzed the survey and interview data with guidance from RC. GR revised the rubrics with extensive input from all other authors. All authors contributed to reliability measurements. GR drafted all manuscript sections. RC provided extensive comments during manuscript revisions; JL, SR, and CS also offered comments. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Renée S. Cole .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1..

Supporting Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Reynders, G., Lantz, J., Ruder, S.M. et al. Rubrics to assess critical thinking and information processing in undergraduate STEM courses. IJ STEM Ed 7 , 9 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00208-5

Download citation

Received : 01 October 2019

Accepted : 20 February 2020

Published : 09 March 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00208-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Constructive alignment
• Self-regulated learning
• Process skills
• Professional skills
• Critical thinking
• Information processing

• Curriculum Theory
• STEM Education

The Effects of STEM Education on the Students' Critical Thinking Skills and STEM Perceptions

• February 2021
• Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health 7(2):139-155
• 7(2):139-155
• CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

• Giresun University

• Marmara University

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Tulio Sulbaran

• Veysel Karakaya

• Mohammad Masykuri

• Sutarno Sutarno
• I Ketut Sukarma

• Saifullah Jamali
• Sehrash Arif
• Khawar Hussain

• Murni Ramli
• Astrid Dyah Novalya

• Patcharee Rompayom Wichaidit

• Asep Awaludin
• Yayat Ruhiat
• Nurul Anriani

• Katerina Gabrovska-Evstatieva

• Kathleen Connolly

• Brandon Reynante
• Megan Selbach-Allen

• RES SCI EDUC

• Kadir Kozan

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Jump to main content

Explore the latest news from the university of Northern Colorado.

Student Researcher Examines Effectiveness of 'Systems Thinking' Teaching Approach in Chemical Education

New approach aims to amplify students' critical thinking powers and tie learning to real-world applications.

August 8, 2024 | By Brenda Gillen

In his second semester in the University of Northern Colorado's Chemical Education Ph.D. program , Navid Ahmed Sadman has already discovered his passion. He's researching the effectiveness of educating future chemists differently using a "systems thinking" approach. Systems thinking is both a philosophical and practical method that views problems holistically and considers the interconnectedness of a system's components.

It's far from the culture of rote memorization method Sadman experienced as a chemistry undergraduate in Bangladesh.

"...in systems thinking, instead of discrete components, it's looking at our whole world and how all its parts work together. The next generation of policymakers or scientists need that more complex picture." — Navid Ahmed Sadman

"The focus was on memorizing the answers to the questions that would repeat year after year in the examination. I think that despite being taught by well-trained faculty, only the top students in my country can get the mental scope of understanding the concepts after they have memorized them. For most others, perhaps cramming before an examination is only as far as they could or would go. Don't get me wrong, students emerging from this culture are still pursuing higher studies in droves, but still, our education policymakers should critically appraise and improve the country’s education system while being aware of the current culture, students' accessibility to resources, and their financial capabilities.

"This emphasis on memorization bothered me as a student; and now, as an instructor, I see that memorization makes students question chemistry's relevance. We need to train chemistry students better at the undergraduate level. That's why I am more and more invested in the chemistry education field," he said.

He believes a systems thinking approach to teaching chemistry will amplify students' critical thinking powers and tie learning to real-world applications.

"If students are learning about global warming, in general chemistry they are taught about carbon dioxide and its environmental implications. In industrial chemistry, carbon capture and human interventions are covered. In environmental chemistry, topics finally include climate change and its impacts. But in systems thinking, instead of discrete components, it's looking at our whole world and how all its parts work together. The next generation of policymakers or scientists need that more complex picture," Sadman said.

He offered the example of electric vehicles (EVs). While EVs are a promising solution to reducing carbon emissions, he noted that mining for metals like cobalt and rare earth elements, essential for EV batteries, can have significant social and environmental impacts if not properly monitored. A systems thinking approach will enable scientists to address these issues adequately, ensuring EVs' benefits are realized while mitigating negative consequences.

Such changes to chemical education would have a wide-ranging impact because different fields, e.g., pre-med, pre-nursing, health, biology and physics majors all take chemistry courses. As part of a graduate-level introduction to qualitative research course at UNC, he completed a mini-project to better understand student perceptions of systems thinking in chemistry education (STICE), which is an identified research gap. Next, he'll test the premises for incorporating STICE using a mixed-methods approach that includes quantitative and qualitative data.

"I'm also planning a systematic review of the literature on STICE. This will be a more comprehensive study, which would add depth to the growing body of literature," he said.

Sadman received feedback from his peers when he shared his early findings on this systematic review at the December 2023 Graduate Research Symposium. He believes the statistics, psychology and science education courses required for his Ph.D. will shape his understanding and development of his doctoral research project.

He's working as a research assistant this summer. For most of the year, he's a teaching assistant in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry for Assistant Professor Corina Brown .

"I'm learning a lot from working with Dr. Brown. She's kind and personable," he said.

Brown said Sadman's enthusiasm, motivation and sincere desire to learn have made mentoring enjoyable

"Even though Navid is in the beginning stages of his doctoral studies, he's working on a cutting-edge topic. The interdisciplinary nature of the systems thinking approach could allow students to comprehend and apply chemical concepts in novel ways. His research contributes to expanding the understanding, application and assessment of systems thinking in chemical education. I think he has a promising journey ahead with the potential to make significant contributions to research and education," Brown said.

After he graduates in 2027, Sadman hopes to pursue a post-doctoral degree. Eventually, he'd like to join academia as a chemistry education researcher or work at a research institute focused on chemistry education.

"I also feel I owe it to my country to return with the knowledge I have gathered here and contribute there. Ask me again in three years about my future plans," he said.

More Stories

Student Researcher Aims to Bring Joy Back to Classroom Teachers

Este artículo no está en español..

Teacher Burnout Addressed in Research Project Investigating Yoga as an Intervention Strategy

Research in Cognition and Metacognition Aims to Improve Mathematical Communication

Measuring School Performance: Looking Beyond Standardized Testing and Scores

Follow unc social.

Contact UNC

Social media.

• UNC Overview
• Awards & Accolades
• Organizational Chart
• Strategic Plan
• Accreditation
• Student Consumer Information
• Sustainability
• Accessibility Statement
• UNC Newsroom
• Events Calendar
• UNC Magazine
• Submit News
• Submit an Event
• Marketing and Communications
• University Advancement

Page Last Updated: Today | Contact for this Page: Deanna Herbert

Privacy Policy | Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity/Title IX Policy & Coordinator

STEM, Creativity and Critical Thinking: How Do Teachers Address Multiple Learning Demands?

• First Online: 31 January 2022

Cite this chapter

• Deborah Corrigan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8324-8217 6 ,
• Debra Panizzon 6 &
• Kathy Smith 6  

945 Accesses

1 Citations

This chapter provides real examples that highlight how teachers must translate the concepts of creativity, critical thinking and the integrated nature of STEM in their practical realities. Such practical realities also require teachers to think about pedagogical approaches and their behaviours such as standing back with a clear pedagogical purpose, using questions to prompt student thinking and actively valuing student ideas become essential aspects of teaching practice to enhance student critical and creative thinking. Teachers also need opportunities to focus on their own thinking around these concepts by sharing and developing cumulative thinking around the nature of knowledge which defines disciplines and how to integrate this thinking with critical and creative thinking in STEM education. There is benefit in understanding creativity as a process of producing new ideas and critical thinking as evaluating and making value judgements in relation to evidence and arguments. In translating these concepts of creativity, critical thinking and STEM into practical realities, teachers need to consider the contexts in which they operate and look for opportunities and manage the risks that will arise. Such translations and considerations are not only difficult but are also often highly problematic in education traditions and structures that are already well-established.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Developing mathematics teachers’ 21st century competence for teaching in STEM contexts

Reaching for the Star: A Model for Integrating Creativity in Education

ICT as defined by the Australian Office of the Chief Scientist, 2016 , p.2, and so the heading “ICT” was used; see Table 6.1 .

All teacher participants were Australian.

Mat time refers to the time when children sit together on a mat on the floor and attend to what their teacher is saying/doing.

ACARA. (2017). General capabilities in the Australian Curriculum: Science . Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/critical-and-creative-thinking/

ACARA. (2018). International comparative study: The Australian Curriculum and the Finnish National Core Curriculum . Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/media/3922/ac-fncc-international-comparative-study-final.pdf

Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organisations. Research in Organisational Behaviour, 10 , 123–167.

Google Scholar  

Appleton, K. (2002). Science activities that work: Perceptions of primary school teachers. Research in Science Education, 32 (3), 393–410.

Article   Google Scholar  

Council for Aid to Education. (n.d.). Collegiate learning assessment (CLA) critical thinking, analytic reasoning, problem solving, and writing skills: Definitions and scoring criteria . Author.

Corrigan, D., & Smith, K. (2020). Complexity, intellectual challenge and ongoing support: Key learning conditions to enhance students’ engagement in STEM education. In I. Parchmann, S. Simon, & J. Apotheker (Eds.), Engaging learners with chemistry: Projects to stimulate interest and participation (pp. 16–45). Royal Chemical Society.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2010). Critical thinking: Competency standards essential for the cultivation of intellectual skills, part 1. Journal of Developmental Education, 34 (2), 38–39.

Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations . Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED315423

Gallagher, C., Hipkins, R., & Zohar, A. (2012). Positioning thinking within national curriculum and assessment systems: Perspectives from Israel, New Zealand and Northern Ireland. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7 (2), 134–143.

Halinen, I. (2018). The new educational curriculum in Finland. In M. Matthes, L. Pulkkinen, C. Clouder, & B. Heys (Eds.), Improving the quality of childhood in Europe (pp. 75–89). Alliance for Childhood European Network Foundation.

Higgins, S. (2014). Critical thinking for 21st century education: A cyber-tooth curriculum? Prospects, 44 (4), 559–574.

Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2007). How computerized work and globalization shape human skill demands. In M. M. Suarez-Orozco (Ed.), Learning in the global era: International perspectives on globalization and education (pp. 158–176). University of California.

Loughran, J. (2008). Cases: Building professional knowledge of practice. In J. Loughran & A. Berry (Eds.), Looking into practice: Cases of science teaching and learning (Vol. 3, pp. 7–10). Monash Print.

Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: The discipline of noticing . Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Panizzon, D., Smith, K., & Carabot, K. (2019). Critical and creative thinking collaborative inquiry project. Final report . Monash University.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2019). The nature and functions of critical & creative thinking . Rowman & Littlefield.

Office of the Chief Scientist. (2016). Australia’s STEM workforce . Australian Government.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2005). The definition and selection of key competencies: Executive summary . Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/definitionandselectionofcompetenciesdeseco.htm

Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation . Oxford University.

Shepard, L. A. (2013). Validity for what purpose? Teachers College Record, 115 (9), 1–12.

Shulman, J. H. (1992). Case methods in teacher education . Teachers College.

Silva, E. (2009). Measuring skills for 21st century learning. The Phi Delta Kappan, 90 (9), 630–634.

Sternberg, R. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18 (1), 87–98.

Willingham, D. T. (2007, Summer). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator, 31 (2), 8–19.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The researchers acknowledge the support from the Department for Education South Australia in funding the project discussed and permitting teacher contributions. We specifically acknowledge the Case Studies written by Ginny McTaggart, Roxanne Ware and Heather Brooks who agreed to the inclusion of identified excerpts in our chapter.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia

Deborah Corrigan, Debra Panizzon & Kathy Smith

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deborah Corrigan .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia

Amanda Berry

University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

Cathy Buntting

Deborah Corrigan

Richard Gunstone

Alister Jones

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Corrigan, D., Panizzon, D., Smith, K. (2021). STEM, Creativity and Critical Thinking: How Do Teachers Address Multiple Learning Demands?. In: Berry, A., Buntting, C., Corrigan, D., Gunstone, R., Jones, A. (eds) Education in the 21st Century. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85300-6_6

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85300-6_6

Published : 31 January 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-85299-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-85300-6

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Advertisement

Walz Has Faced Criticism for His Response to George Floyd Protests

Some believe that Gov. Tim Walz should have deployed the Minnesota National Guard sooner when riots broke out following the police murder of George Floyd.

• Share full article

By Mitch Smith

• Published Aug. 6, 2024 Updated Aug. 8, 2024, 9:44 a.m. ET

A little more than a year into Tim Walz’s first term as governor, he faced his biggest test.

His state, already in the throes of the Covid-19 pandemic, was suddenly in the international spotlight after a Minneapolis police officer was filmed murdering George Floyd in May 2020.

Looting, arson and violence followed, quickly overwhelming the local authorities , and some faulted Mr. Walz for not doing more and not moving faster to bring the situation under control with Minnesota National Guard troops and other state officials.

Two days after Mr. Floyd’s death, with protests in Minneapolis turning increasingly violent, the city’s mayor, Jacob Frey, asked Mr. Walz to deploy the National Guard. Hours later, the city’s police chief submitted a written request for 600 troops. But it was not until the next afternoon that Mr. Walz signed an executive order allowing the Guard to assist cities.

“It was obvious to me that he froze under pressure, under a calamity, as people’s properties were being burned down,” said State Senator Warren Limmer, a Republican who helped lead a committee that investigated the response to the unrest. He suggested that Mr. Walz’s personal sympathies toward protesters might have delayed a muscular response.

Mr. Walz, a Democrat who has been chosen as Vice President Kamala Harris’s running mate, has since defended his actions during those days, saying he and others in state government were acting in good faith amid unimaginable circumstances.

“I simply believe that we try to do the best we can ,” Mr. Walz said recently at a news conference when asked about his response to the riots.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .