Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sustaining STEM: A Framework for Effective STEM Education Across the Learning Continuum

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
STEM Education Across the Learning Continuum

Abstract

This chapter introduces the Sustaining STEM conceptual framework for effective STEM education that spans early childhood to senior secondary education. The framework represents three key interacting components: 1. Knowledge: the nature of STEM knowing and knowledge (for example, accessing STEM knowledge, dealing with uncertainty), rather than what should be known; 2. Skills: transdisciplinary skills beyond those of the individual STEM disciplines (for example, problem-solving, creativity, critical thinking); and 3. Engagement: the affective domain of STEM education (for example, academic emotions, motivation). Additionally, the framework highlights the need to address critical issues in STEM education, for example, transitions and trajectories, gender, rurality, socioeconomic status and cultural diversity. The chapter draws upon the available research evidence to present an informed and critical stance in relation to each of these elements of STEM education.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Akcaoglu, M. (2016). Design and implementation of the game-design and learning program. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 60(2), 114–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0022-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, L., Osborne, J., DeWitt, J., & Dillon, J. (2013). Young people’s science and career aspirations, age 10–14. Retrieved from London, https://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/education/research/aspires/aspires-final-report-december-2013.pdf.

  • Ardito, G., Mosley, P., & Scollins, L. (2014). We, robot: Using robotics to promote collaborative and mathematics learning in a middle school classroom. Middle Grades Research Journal, 9(3), 73–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asunda, P. A. (2014). A conceptual framework for STEM integration into curriculum through career and technical education. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 49(1), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Industry Group. (2015). Progressing STEM skills in Australia. Retrieved from http://cdn.aigroup.com.au/Reports/2015/14571_STEM_Skills_Report_Final_-.pdf.

  • Bagiati, A., & Evangelou, D. (2016). Practicing engineering while building with blocks: Identifying engineering thinking. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 24(1), 67–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, K. H., & Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 12(5–6), 23–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bevan, B. (2017). The promise and the promises of making in science education. Studies in Science Education, 53(1), 75–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blums, A., Belsky, J., Grimm, K., & Chen, Z. (2017). Building links between early socioeconomic status, cognitive ability, and math and science achievement. Journal of Cognition and Development, 18(1), 16–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2016.1228652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bubnick, L., Enneking, K., & Egbers, J. (2016). Engineering encounters: Designing healthy ice pops. A STEM enrichment project for second graders incorporates nutrition and design principles. Science and Children, 54(1), 70–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, Virginia: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capraro, R., & Slough, S. (2013). Why PBL? Why STEM? Why now? An introduction to STEM project-based learning. In R. Capraro, M. Capraro, & J. Morgan (Eds.), STEM project-based learning (2nd ed.). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Carmichael, C., Muir, T., & Callingham, R. (2017). The impact of within-school autonomy on students’ goal orientations and engagement with mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-017-0200-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CEDEFOP. (2014). EU skills panorama STEM skills analytical highlights. Retrieved from Brussels, http://skillspanorama.cedefop.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EUSP_AH_STEM_0.pdf.

  • Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation. (2013). Rural and remote education: Literature review. Retrieved from Sydney, NSW, https://www.cese.nsw.gov.au/component/k2/item/42-rural-and-remote-education-literature-review.

  • Christenson, L. A., & James, J. (2015). Building bridges to understanding in a preschool classroom: A morning in the block center. (Cover story). YC: Young Children, 70(1), 26–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, G., Berry, A., & Baglin, J. (2018). Demographic predictors of students’ science participation over the age of 16: An Australian case study. Research in Science Education, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9692-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Csapó, B., & Funke, J. (2017). The nature of problem solving: Using research to inspire 21st century learning. Retrieved from Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264273955-en.

  • Dejonckheere, P. J. N., De Wit, N., Van de Keere, K., & Vervaet, S. (2016). Exploring the classroom: Teaching science in early childhood. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 8(4), 537–558.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeWitt, J., Archer, L., & Osborne, J. (2013). Nerdy, brainy and normal: Children’s and parents’ constructions of those who are highly engaged with science. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1455–1476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9315-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, R. A., & Brown, R. A. (2012). Transfer of learning: Connecting concepts during problem solving. Journal of Technology Education, 24(1), 2–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dooren, E., Boshuizen, E., Merriënboer, J., Asselbergs, T., & Dorst, M. (2014). Making explicit in design education: Generic elements in the design process. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(1), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-013-9246-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunaway, M. (2011). Connectivism. Reference Services Review, 39(4), 675–685. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907321111186686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C., & Leggett, E. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task values and the Eccles et al. model of achievement related choices. In: A. J. Elliott & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 105–121). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J., et al. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmonds-Wathen, C. (2014). Influences of indigenous language on spatial frames of reference in aboriginal english. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26(2), 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-013-0085-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellison, T. L., Evans, J. N., & Pike, J. (2016). Minecraft, teachers, parents, and learning: what they need to know and understand. School Community Journal, 26(2), 25–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1.

  • English, L. D., King, D., & Smeed, J. (2017). Advancing integrated STEM learning through engineering design: Sixth-grade students’ design and construction of earthquake resistant buildings. Journal of Educational Research, 110(3), 255–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1264053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • English, L. D., & Mousoulides, N. G. (2015). Bridging STEM in a real world problem. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 20(9), 532–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ewing, B. (2014). Rich and purposeful mathematical knowledge of mothers and children in a Torres Strait Islander community. SpringerPlus, 3(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-3-42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fielding-Wells, J., O’Brien, M., & Makar, K. (2017). Using expectancy-value theory to explore aspects of motivation and engagement in inquiry-based learning in primary mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 29(2), 237–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-017-0201-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, A., & Skamp, K. (2016). Secondary science teachers’ and students’ involvement in a primary school community of science practice: How it changed their practices and interest in science. Research in Science Education, 46(1), 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9457-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fragkiadaki, G., Fleer, M., & Ravanis, K. (2017). A cultural-historical study of the development of children’s scientific thinking about clouds in everyday life. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9665-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., & Watt, H. M. G. (2010). Development of mathematics interest in adolescence: Influences of gender, family, and school context. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(2), 507–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gee, K. A., & Wong, K. K. (2012). A cross national examination of inquiry and its relationship to student performance in science: Evidence from the program for international student assessment (PISA) 2006. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 303–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehrke, S., & Kezar, A. (2016). STEM reform outcomes through communities of transformation. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 48(1), 30–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grootenboer, P., & Sullivan, P. (2013). Remote indigenous students’ understandings of measurement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(1), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9383-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, J., Parker, P. D., Marsh, H. W., & Morin, A. J. S. (2015). Achievement, motivation, and educational choices: A longitudinal study of expectancy and value using a multiplicative perspective. Developmental Psychology, 51(8), 1163–1176. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hathcock, S., Dickerson, D., Eckhoff, A., & Katsioloudis, P. (2015). Scaffolding for creative product possibilities in a design-based stem activity. Research in Science Education, 45(5), 727–748. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9437-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hefty, L. J. (2015). STEM gives meaning to mathematics. Teaching Children Mathematics, 21(7), 422–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Retrieved from Washington, DC, https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18612/stem-integration-in-k-12-education-status-prospects-and-an.

  • Hulleman, C., Durik, A., Schweigert, S., & Harackiewicz, J. (2008). Task values, achievement goals, and interest: An integrative analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 398–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jang, H. (2016). Identifying 21st century STEM competencies using workplace data. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(2), 284–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen, R. (2015). Language, culture and access to mathematics: A case of one remote aboriginal community. Intercultural Education, 26(4), 313–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2015.1072302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T. (2010). Staking the claim for the “T” in STEM. Journal of Technology Studies, 36(1), 2–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T. R., Brenner, D. C., & Pieper, J. T. (2010). Two approaches to engineering design: Observations in STEM education. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 47(2), 5–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, J., Quinn, F., & Lyons, T. (2018). The keys to STEM: Australian year 7 students’ attitudes and intentions towards science, mathematics and technology courses. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9754-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keskitalo, P., Uusiautti, S., & Maatta, K. (2012). How to make the small indigenous cultures bloom? Special traits of Sami education in Finland. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 15(1), 52–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knezek, G., Christensen, R., Tyler-Wood, T., & Periathiruvadi, S. (2013). Impact of environmental power monitoring activities on middle school student perceptions of STEM. Science Education International, 24(1), 98–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, K., & Jorgensen, R. (2016). “I hate maths: Why do we need to do maths?” Using iPad video diaries to investigate attitudes and emotions towards mathematics in year 3 and year 6 students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(5), 925–944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. Y. (2014). iSTEM: Tinkering with buoyancy. Teaching Children Mathematics, 20(9), 574–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Llewellyn, D., Pray, S., DeRose, R., & Ottman, W. (2016). Engineering encounters: Building a spaghetti structure. Science and Children, 54(2), 70–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lochmiller, C. R., Huggins, K. S., & Acker-Hocevar, M. A. (2012). Preparing leaders for math and science: Three alternatives to traditional preparation. Planning & Changing, 43(1/2), 198–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lou, S.-J., Tsai, H.-Y., Tseng, K.-H., & Shih, R.-C. (2014). Effects of Implementing STEM-I project-based learning activities for female high school students. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 12(1), 52–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louca, L., Elby, A., Hammer, D., & Kagey, T. (2004). Epistemological resources: Applying a new epistemological framework to science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3901_6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowrie, T., Downes, N., & Leonard, S. (2018). STEM education for all young Australians. A bright spots STEM learning hub foundation paper for SVA, in partnership with Samsung. Retrieved from Canberra, https://www.socialventures.com.au/assets/STEM-education-for-all-young-Australians-Smaller.pdf.

  • Lyons, T., & Quinn, F. (2010). Choosing science: Understanding the declines in senior high school science. Retrieved from Armidale, NSW, https://simerr.une.edu.au/pages/projects/131choosingscience.pdf.

  • MacDonald, A. (2015). Investigating mathematics, science and technology in early childhood. Australia: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, A., Danaia, L., Sikder, S., & Huser, C. (2019). Little scientists evaluation: Final report. Report prepared for the Australian Government Department of Education and Training.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magiera, M. T. (2013). Model eliciting activities: A home run. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 18(6), 348–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makar, K., & Fielding-Wells, J. (2018). Shifting more than the goal posts: Developing classroom norms of inquiry-based learning in mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 30(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-017-0215-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, S. P., McGee, G. W., McLaren, E., & Veal, C. C. (2011). Discovering and developing diverse STEM talent: Enabling academically talented urban youth to flourish. Gifted Child Today, 34(1), 16–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, A. J., Way, J., Bobis, J., & Anderson, J. (2015). Exploring the ups and downs of mathematics engagement in the middle years of school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 35(2), 199–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, R., & Slater, R. (2010). Beyond smash and crash: Part two. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(4), 25–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, S., & Howell, J. (2012). Watching, creating and achieving: Creative technologies as a conduit for learning in the early years. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 641–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, C. V. (2016). STEM education: a review of the contribution of the disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Science Education International, 27(4), 530–569.

    Google Scholar 

  • McPhan, G., Morony, W., Pegg, J., Cooksey, R., & Lynch, T. (2008). Maths? Why Not? Retrieved from http://www.gsu.uts.edu.au/academicboard/cabs/082/papers/082-item6-1.pdf.

  • Moore, T. J., Glancy, A. W., Tank, K. M., Kersten, J. A., Smith, K. A., & Stohlmann, M. S. (2014). A framework for quality k-12 engineering education: Research and development. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 4(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R., & Kirby, C. (2016). The UK STEM education landscape: A report for the Lloyd’s register foundation from the royal academy of engineering education and skills committee. Retrieved from https://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/uk-stem-education-landscape.

  • Morrison, J., Roth McDuffie, A., & French, B. (2015). Identifying key components of teaching and learning in a STEM school. School Science and Mathematics, 115(5), 244–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosley, P., Ardito, G., & Scollins, L. (2016). Robotic cooperative learning promotes student STEM interest. American Journal of Engineering Education, 7(2), 117–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, S. (2018a). The impact of school disadvantage on senior secondary science: A study of patterns of participation and achievement in government secondary schools in Victoria, Australia. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9745-4.

  • Murphy, S. (2018b). School location and socioeconomic status and patterns of participation and achievement in senior secondary mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-018-0251-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, S. (2019). Participation and achievement in technology education: The impact of school location and socioeconomic status on senior secondary technology studies. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09499-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, S., MacDonald, A., Danaia, L., & Wang, A. (2018). An analysis of Australian STEM education strategies. Policy Futures in Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210318774190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, S., MacDonald, A., Wang, C., & Danaia, L. (2019). Towards an understanding of STEM engagement: A review of the literature on motivation and academic emotions. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-019-00054-w.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, A. P., & Berkowicz, J. (2015). The STEM shift. Thousand Oaks, United States: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemiro, J., Larriva, C., & Jawaharlal, M. (2017). Developing creative behavior in elementary school students with robotics. Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(1), 70–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2018). How do primary and secondary teachers compare? Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/535e7f54-en.

  • OECD Global Science Forum. (2006). Evolution of student interest in science and technology studies policy report. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/science/sci-tech/36645825.pdf.

  • Office of the Chief Scientist. (2013). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics in the national interest: A strategic approach. Canberra: Australian Government. Retrieved from http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/STEMstrategy290713FINALweb.pdf.

  • Owens, K. (2015). Powerful reforms in mathematics education: The perspective of developing countries on visuospatial reasoning in mathematics education. South Pacific Journal of Pure and Applied Mathamatics., 2(3), 104–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, M.-H., Dimitrov, D. M., Patterson, L. G., & Park, D.-Y. (2017). Early childhood teachers’ beliefs about readiness for teaching science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 15(3), 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X15614040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, P. D., Marsh, H. W., Ciarrochi, J., Marshall, S., & Abduljabbar, A. S. (2014). Juxtaposing math self-efficacy and self-concept as predictors of long-term achievement outcomes. Educational Psychology, 34(1), 29–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prinsley, R., & Baranyai, K. (2015). STEM skills in the workforce. Retrieved from Canberra http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/OPS09_02Mar2015_Web.pdf.

  • Quigley, C. F., & Herro, D. (2016). “Finding the joy in the unknown”: Implementation of STEAM teaching practices in middle school science and math classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(3), 410–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redmond, A., Thomas, J., High, K., Scott, M., Jordan, P., & Dockers, J. (2011). Enriching science and math through engineering. School Science and Mathematics, 111(8), 399–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M., & van Eijck, M. (2010). Fullness of life as minimal unit: Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) learning across the life span. Science Education, 94(6), 1027–1048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuchardt, A. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2016). Modeling scientific processes with mathematics equations enhances student qualitative conceptual understanding and quantitative problem solving. Science Education, 100(2), 290–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selmer, S. J., Rye, J. A., Malone, E., Fernandez, D., & Trebino, K. (2014). What should we grow in our school garden to sell at the farmers’ market? Initiating statistical literacy through science and mathematics integration. Science Activities, 51(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368121.2013.860418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, M.-C., Burke, L. E., & Francis, K. (2016). Using a boundary object perspective to reconsider the meaning of STEM in a canadian context. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 16(2), 129–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheffield, R., Koul, R., Blackley, S., & Maynard, N. (2017). Makerspace in STEM for girls: A physical space to develop twenty-first-century skills. Educational Media International, 54(2), 148–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2017.1362812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheldrake, R., Mujtaba, T., & Reiss, M. J. (2017). Students’ changing attitudes and aspirations towards physics during secondary school. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9676-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22(Supplement C), 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skamp, K., & Preston, C. (2018). Teaching primary science constructively (K. Skamp & C. Preston Eds. 6th ed.). South Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Cengage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solis, S. L., Curtis, K. N., & Hayes-Messinger, A. (2017). Children’s exploration of physical phenomena during object play. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 31(1), 122–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, K., Vincent, J., Stephens, M., & Holton, D. (2015). Desktop review of mathematics school education and pedagogical approaches and learning materials. Retrieved from Canberra, https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/trim_review_paper_2_-_aas_-_final.pdf.

  • Starkey, L. (2012). Teaching and learning in the digital age. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Strimel, G. (2014). Authentic education by providing a situation for student-selected problem-based learning. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 73(7), 8–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, S., De Bortoli, L., & Underwood, C. (2017). PISA 2015: Reporting Australia’s results. Retrieved from Camberwell, Victoria, https://research.acer.edu.au/ozpisa/22/.

  • Torres-Crespo, M. N., Kraatz, E., & Pallansch, L. (2014). From fearing STEM to playing with it: The natural integration of STEM into the preschool classroom. SRATE Journal, 23(2), 8–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Secker, C. (2002). Effects of inquiry-based teacher practices on science excellence and equity. Journal of Educational Research, 95(3), 151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M.-T., Chow, A., Degol, J., & Eccles, J. (2017). Does everyone’s motivational beliefs about physical science decline in secondary school?: Heterogeneity of adolescents’ achievement motivation trajectories in physics and chemistry. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(8), 1821–1838. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0620-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using expectancy–value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM fields. Developmental Review, 33, 304–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yanyan, L., Zhinan, H., Menglu, J., & Ting-Wen, C. (2016). The effect on pupils’ science performance and problem-solving ability through lego: An engineering design-based modeling approach. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 143–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yildirim, B. (2016). An analyses and meta-synthesis of research on STEM education. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(34), 23–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zoller, U. (2011). Science and technology education in the STES context in primary schools: What should it take? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(5), 444–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zollman, A. (2012). Learning for STEM literacy: STEM literacy for learning. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00101.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, Australia

    Steve Murphy

  2. Charles Sturt University, Albury-Wodonga, Australia

    Amy MacDonald

  3. Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, Australia

    Lena Danaia

Authors
  1. Steve Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amy MacDonald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lena Danaia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steve Murphy .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW, Australia

    Amy MacDonald

  2. School of Teacher Education, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, NSW, Australia

    Lena Danaia

  3. School of Education, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW, Australia

    Steve Murphy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Murphy, S., MacDonald, A., Danaia, L. (2020). Sustaining STEM: A Framework for Effective STEM Education Across the Learning Continuum. In: MacDonald, A., Danaia, L., Murphy, S. (eds) STEM Education Across the Learning Continuum. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2821-7_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2821-7_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-15-2820-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-15-2821-7

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation