www.jeseh.

net

A Systematic Review of Experimental

Studies on STEM Education

Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci

Necmettin Erbakan University

ISSN: 2149-214X

To cite this article:

Hebebci, M. T. (2023). A systematic review of experimental studies on STEM education.

Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health (JESEH), 9(1), 56-73.
https://doi.org/ 10.55549/jeseh.1239074

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.

Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,

systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

Authors alone are responsible for the contents of their articles. The journal owns the
copyright of the articles.

The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or
costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of the research material.
 Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health
Volume 9, Issue 1, 2023 https://doi.org/10.55549/jeseh.1239074

A Systematic Review of Experimental Studies on STEM Education

Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci

Article Info Abstract

Article History This research systematically examines the experimental articles on STEM
education (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education). In this
Published: direction, experimental articles with the Social Sciences Citation Index on the
01 January 2023 Web of Science were analyzed within the scope of research questions, taking
into account the guidelines of PRISMA. The research was carried out using the
Received:
20 October 2022
systematic review method. In the first search made in this line, the results listed
17,482 studies. Then, this number was reduced to 34 by applying the inclusion
Accepted: and exclusion criteria. Finally, the studies were examined in detail, and 12
31 December 2022 articles that were not suitable were excluded from the scope. Thus, this research
was carried out on 22 articles. In line with research problems, articles were
Keywords categorized by publication year, country, method, study group and number, data
collection tools, data analysis methods, topics covered, and experimental
Systematic review, methods. The research results infer that the number of articles increases every
STEM education, year, and Turkey and China are the pioneering countries in this sense. It is
Experimental studies noteworthy that mixed methods and quasi-experimental methods are generally
preferred in the literature. Contrary to the literature, another result obtained from
the research is that teachers are preferred in variable numbers as the study group.
Scales, tests, and interviews are the most frequently used measurement tools by
researchers. Besides, t-tests and content analysis are used in data analysis.
Additionally, various topics are covered in the articles. One of the results
obtained from the research is that the effect of STEM education on various skills
and achievements is examined more. In line with these results, some suggestions
were made by discussing the studies in the literature.

Introduction
Scientific and technological changes affect societies. Changes are inevitable as a result of this interaction. There
is a need for a workforce that can use science and technology effectively for many countries that compete with
one another (Kennedy & Odell, 2014). Countries that want to develop by adapting to this change make
innovations and reforms in various fields to ensure that their workforce has the knowledge and skills required by
age (Bybee, 2010). As a matter of fact, developing science and technology, decreasing energy resources, and
global economic competition have changed the knowledge and skills that today’s people must have (Roehrig et
al., 2012). One of the key roles in acquiring this knowledge and skills is education.

Being a country that makes a difference in many fields today is possible with the 21st-century skills of the
people of that country, such as critical thinking, innovation, cooperation, communication, problem-solving,
creativity, and technology literacy (Partnership for 21st Century Learning [P21], 2015). One of the ambitious
educational approaches to gaining these skills is STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics)
education (Bybee, 2010). STEM education is an innovative educational approach aimed at raising individuals
equipped with the competencies of the age and ready for the world of the future (Güllü & Akçay, 2022). Today,
STEM education is on the agenda of countries leading the world in many fields, and significant investments are
being made (Banks & Barlex, 2014; Caprile et al., 2015; Corlu et al., 2014; So et al., 2018; US Department of
Education, 2018).

The interest in STEM education in the world started in the 2000s and through the 2010s; however, it gained
momentum and continued to increase (Yager & Brunkhorst, 2014). The importance of studies in the literature
that report the general situation of studies on STEM education, which many researchers have been working on
and which has a significant impact on education systems, is of great importance. There are studies conducted in
this context in the literature (Arshad, 2021; Irwanto et al., 2022; Li et al., 2020; Martín‐Páez et al., 2019;
Matsuura & Nakamura, 2021; Wan et al., 2021). These studies are mainly carried out as traditional and
systematic reviews. Hence, this study systematically examines the SSCI-indexed articles on STEM education.
 J Educ Sci Environ Health 57

Theoretical Framework
STEM Education

STEM education is an up-to-date approach that places students at the center from preschool to higher education,
prioritizes collaborative learning, covers formal and informal education, emphasizes 21st-century skills, and
ensures the realization of multidimensional learning by integrating science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics disciplines. (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012; Herschbach, 2011; Israel et al., 2013; Sainsbury, 2007;
Smith & Karr-Kidwell, 2000). The main objective of STEM education is to educate individuals with the skills
required by the age (Thomas, 2014). Although the aims of STEM education differ in various research and
reports, they have some common goals. Some of those contribute to a country’s economy by raising individuals
with STEM literacy and those who can work in future business areas. STEM education also aims to keep a
country’s economy strong as well as skills and success (Deming & Noray, 2020; McGunagle & Zizka, 2020).

STEM education is an educational approach that encourages, motivates students, makes them achieve their
dreams, has ethical values, can think systematically, and mediates them to transfer their knowledge and skills to
different and new problem situations (Bybee, 2010; Dugger, 2010; Morrison, 2006). This allows STEM students
to make plans, comments, and evaluations on ideas as well as solve the problems they encounter in daily life
(Tseng et al., 2013). It is only possible for countries to achieve such developments with well-equipped
individuals trained in STEM disciplines who are innovative and have science and technology literacy (Miaoulis,
2009).

Systematic Review

Systematic reviews are scientific studies in which the findings are analyzed by scanning the original scientific
research on a particular subject in detail and using exclusion and inclusion criteria (Aslan, 2018). This concept is
used as a systematic review, systematic compilation, review, and literature review in the literature. This research
uses the “systematic review” term. Systematic reviews (Yılmaz, 2021), which are frequently encountered in
studies in the field of health sciences (Medicine, nursing, etc.), are also used in fields such as business
administration, psychology, sociology, educational sciences, and educational administration (Zawacki-Richter,
2020).

Karaçam (2013) suggests that review studies are in three different forms (Moule & Goodman, 2009; Gerrish &
Lacey, 2010): (1) Traditional / narrative / literature / descriptive review, (2) Systematic review, (3) Meta-
analysis. Yılmaz (2021) also states that systematic review and similar studies are basically content analysis
studies. The most important guide to guide systematic reviews is PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). PRISMA has a detailed checklist and flow diagram for systematic
review studies (Liberati et al., 2009).

Since certain criteria determine the studies to be used in systematic reviews, they are more objective than
traditional reviews. Other researchers can repeat systematic reviews as they are carried out according to a certain
protocol and have a clear method. However, this is not the case in traditional reviews, which prevents possible
prejudices (Yılmaz, 2021).

Reviews on STEM Education

The literature on STEM education shows that there are traditional reviews (Brown, 2012; Hasanah, 2020;
Martín‐Páez et al., 2019; Mizell & Brown, 2017; Minichiello et al., 2018) and systematic reviews (Arshad et al.,
2021; Ibáñez, & Delgado-Kloos, 2018; Irwanto et al., 2022; Jin, 2021; Kayan-Fadlelmula et al., 2022 Li et al.,
2020) on this topic. There is also content analysis (Kaya & Ayar, 2020; London, 2018), meta-analysis (Jeong et
al., 2019; Wang et al., 2022), and bibliometric analysis (Ha et al., 2020; Marín-Marín et al., 2021; Talan, 2021)
studies.

The number of review and systematic review studies on STEM education in the international literature is
gradually increasing. The widespread use of systematic review studies in educational sciences has attracted the
attention of many researchers. In the literature, systematic review studies that deal with STEM education from
various perspectives generally intensified in 2018 and beyond.
58 Hebebci

Systematic reviews of STEM education generally focus on augmented reality (Ibáñez & Delgado-Kloos, 2018;
Yu et al., 2022), distance education (Alangari, 2022; Gamage et al., 2022), engineering design processes (Hafiz
& Ayop, 2019), game-based learning (Gao et al., 2020), robotics (Ferrada-Ferrada et al., 2020; Hussin et al.,
2019), special education (Ehsan et al., 2018; Kolne & Lindsay, 2020; Schreffler et al., 2019), computational
thinking (Wang et al., 2021), mobile learning (Khaokhajorn et al., 2020), project-based learning (Imaduddin et
al., 2021), measurement and evaluation (Mahanan et al., 2021), and artificial intelligence (Zawacki-Richter et
al., 2019).

Some of the systematic review studies on STEM education are summarized below. Li et al. (2020)
systematically analyzed 798 articles published in 36 journals between 2000 and 2018. (Gao et al. (2020))
systematically examined 30 articles between 2010 and 2019 within the scope of mobile game-based learning in
STEM education. Wan et al. (2020) researched 24 experimental studies on STEM education in early childhood.
Articles published in (Irwanto, 2022) and (Journal of Science Education and Technology, Research in Science
Education, Journal of Science Teacher Education, International Journal of Science Education, Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, and Science Education) journals were analyzed in another study. Arshad et al.
(2021) systematically examined the remaining 17 articles after search strategies out of 1480 articles reached
using Scopus, Wiley, and Google Scholar. Jin (2021) reviewed 24 experimental studies to support indigenous
students in STEM education between 2011 and 2020. Ibáñez & Delgado-Kloos (2018) analyzed 28 articles they
accessed using ERIC, Scopus, and Springer databases. Gamage (2022) used the 4-step PRISMA-P process to
identify 155 eligible journal articles from 104 journals in 55 countries from 2015 to 2021.

Purpose of the Research

Experimental design is frequently used in studies on STEM education (Lin et al., 2019). To this end, reviews on
STEM education are carried out with a general perspective (Arshad et al., 2021; Li et al., 2020). Considering the
application dimension of STEM education, it is thought that the importance of experimental studies in this field
is great. This research can accelerate researchers who want to conduct a meta-analysis. As a matter of fact,
giving a general view of experimental studies facilitates the work of researchers. Studies in this direction in the
literature are quite limited (Jin, 2021; Kalemkuş, 2019; Wan et al., 2020). Additionally, examining these studies
in distinguished indexes such as WoS is significant in guiding current studies in this field. In this context, this
research systematically examines the experimental studies on STEM education in the SSCI category on WoS. In
this direction, the study seeks answers to the following research questions:

1. What is the distribution of studies on STEM education by year and country?

2. What are the methods and designs used in studies on STEM education?
3. What are the sample group and sample size in studies on STEM education?
4. What are the types of data collection tools and data analysis methods in studies on STEM education?
5. What are the trends in the topics covered in studies on STEM education and applied STEM activities?

Method
This research was carried out through the systematic review method. The systematic review method of the
research was structured according to the PRISMA decision principles. With a checklist of over 20 items and a
flow diagram, PRISMA principles ensure that literature review studies are carried out transparently (Liberati et
al., 2009).

Search Strategy

All the data within the scope of the research were taken from the official website of the Web of Science (WoS).
In the first search made with “Advanced Search,” some keywords containing the research topic were used
(Table 1).

Table 1. Search strategy

(TI=(STEM OR STEAM OR science, technology, engineering, and mathematics)
WoS Query
AND TS=(EXPERIMENTAL OR PRE-TEST OR POST TEST))
Last Retrieved 13.08.2022
 J Educ Sci Environ Health 59

The last search was done on 13.08.2022. As a result of the search, 17,482 studies were reached. Research data
were obtained from articles on this date. All articles that met the criteria determined by the expert opinions
collected by the researcher were included in the research.

Database and Selection Criteria

WoS index is frequently preferred in meta-analysis, bibliometric analysis, and systematic reviews. The criteria
for inclusion and exclusion of studies were formulated and applied to ensure that the included studies were
closely related and of high reliability. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Selection criteria

Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria
 Published in the WoS  Not published in the WoS
 Article  Review article, book chapter / review,
 Written in the English proceeding paper, etc.
 Open Access  Not written in the English
 Research areas: Education, Educational  Descriptive, Correlational, Comparison,
Research Historical method
 WoS categories: Education, Educational  Duplicate studies
Research  ESCI, SCI-EXPANDED, CPCI-S, etc.
 SSCI  Research areas outside of education and
 Experimental method WoS categories
 Article unavailable in full text

The articles in the field of education, which were written in English with the SSCI index and adopted the open-
access experimental method, were evaluated by taking them into the scope of the research. Unlike many studies,
no year range was given in this study.

Publication Selection

PRISMA Flow Diagram was used to determine the studies within the scope of the research (Figure 1). Firstly,
17,482 studies were reached by using the search terms in Table 1. Then, studies that were not suitable were
excluded using the inclusion and exclusion criteria (For example, the term STEM has a different meaning in the
medical literature, types of studies other than the article, etc.).

Table 3. Filter strategies of articles

Category Category
Access Type Open Access
Document Type Article
Research Area Education Educational Research
Language English
WoS Categories Education Educational Research
WoS Index SSCI
*https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/summary/b3e501c0-4419-4bb1-81b8-
e59439b7cdd6-4d5448da/relevance/1

As a result of the filtering process in Table 3, the studies to be examined were collected in a folder. Then, it was
checked whether there were repeated search results. At this stage, the number of articles decreased to 34. Then,
data were collected through the “Article Classification Form,” which was created to examine the articles easily.
At this stage, 12 more articles that were not the focus of this research were excluded (due to scale development,
use of STEM expression outside of education, etc.). Thus, the final number of articles to be analyzed in the
systematic review was obtained (Appendix). The PRISMA Flow Diagram showing the process is shown in
Figure 1.
60 Hebebci

Identification
Records identified through database searching
n=17.482

Records after duplicates removed

n=0
Screening

Records screened Records excluded

n=17.482 n=17.448
Eligibility

Full-text articles excluded,

Full-text articles assessed for eligibility
with reasons
n=34
n=12
Included

Studies included in qualitative synthesis

n=22

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram (Liberati et al., 2009)

Data Analysis and Coding

22 articles that were reached as a result of the literature review and that met the research criteria were examined
(Appendix 1). An online article analysis table was created to avoid subjectivity during the analysis stage.
Categories included in the table, excluding the article information: (1) Year of publication, (2) Method, (3)
Experimental method, (4) Sample group, (5) Sample size, (6) Data collection tools, (7) Data analysis method,
(8) Research topic, (9) Activity duration and number, and (10) Country. Findings are presented in tables and
graphs with frequency and percentage values.

Validity and Reliability

For the validity of the research, a data search and filtering protocol was created during the data collection stage,
where the search term can reach the studies suitable for the purpose of the research. Expert opinion was often
used at this stage. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are clearly defined (54). Besides, the researcher explains each
step of the process in detail.

The articles within the scope of the research were coded into the online article analysis table by another
researcher who completed her Ph.D. Then, the percentage of agreement between the two codings was examined.
The percentage of intercoder agreement was calculated as 98% (Miles & Huberman, 1994). This ratio shows an
acceptable level of reliability.
 J Educ Sci Environ Health 61

Findings
Distribution of Studies by Year and Country

Figure 2 shows the distribution of the articles analyzed in line with the research problem by country.

Denmark

Indonesia

Finland

USA

Taiwan

China

Turkiye

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Figure 2. Distribution of articles by country

Figure 2 suggests that the articles were published in 7 different countries. Among these countries, most articles
were conducted in Turkey (f=7) and China (f=4), followed by Taiwan, the USA, Finland, Indonesia, and
Denmark.

The analysis results of the experimental articles covered in the research by year are shown in Figure 3.

8
7
7

6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1

0
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Figure 3. Distribution of articles by year

SSCI-indexed articles in this study were conducted between 2017 and 2022. Most articles were published in
2021 (f=7). Notably, four articles were published in 2019 and 2022. The articles generally tend to increase.
However, there is a decrease only in 2020 and 2022 compared to the previous year.
62 Hebebci

Methods and Designs Used in Research

In line with the research’s second sub-problem, the experimental articles’ methods and designs were discussed
(Figure 4).

f=3
f=[DEĞER] Quantitative
f=11 Qualitative
f=1 Mix
Unspecified

Figure 4. Distribution of articles by the methods used

As a result of the analysis, the experimental articles are generally conducted with a mixed method in which
quantitative and qualitative methods are used together (f=11). While the number of articles using the
quantitative method was 7, 1 article was designed with qualitative methods. In the remaining three articles, no
clear information was given about the method used. When the articles are evaluated in terms of the experimental
design they use, a total of 11 articles clearly indicate that they use the experimental design. No information was
given about the experimental design used in the remaining articles. While the quasi-experimental design is used
in 9 of the articles, the weak-experimental design is used in 2 articles.

Sample Group and Sample Size of Articles

Sample groups of experimental articles examined in the context of STEM education were examined. Descriptive
data for these groups are shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Distribution of articles by the sample group

Figure 5 reflects that university students are the sample group most in the experimental articles on STEM
education (f=6). 2 of these 6 articles were conducted with prospective teachers, followed by primary school
students (f=5) and middle school students (f=5) sample groups, respectively.

The number of participants in the experimental and control groups of the experimental articles was also
analyzed. Figure 6 shows the number of participants in the experimental and control groups.
 J Educ Sci Environ Health 63

450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22
Exp. Gr. 242 40 19 36 109 20 31 54 20 14 306 392 30 41 17 20 34 113 50 60 46 28
Cont. Gr. 0 29 0 54 0 13 31 0 27 14 0 0 30 38 0 20 0 0 19 0 46 0

Figure 6. Distribution of the number of participants in the experimental and control groups

Figure 6 points out that half of the articles (f=11) were carried out by including control groups. This means that
at least two different groups represent the sample of these articles. The experimental groups consisted of at least
14 and at most 382 people. This is a remarkable finding, given that experimental articles are usually carried out
in small groups. In the control groups, the number consists of at least 14 and at most 54 people.

Data Collection Tool and Data Analysis Techniques of Articles

The findings regarding the data collection tools used in the SSCI-indexed experimental articles on STEM
education are shown in Figure 7. A total of 57 data collection tools, 36 of which were quantitative and 17 were
qualitative, were used in the articles.

Field notes 1
Observation 1
Recordings 1
Rubric 2
Student diaries 2
Questionnaire 4
Interview 10
Test 12
Scale 20

0 5 10 15 20 25

Figure 7. Distribution of data collection tools used in articles

Figure 7 reveals that scale, test, and interview are generally used as data collection tools. Creativity and skills
(f=4), attitude (f=3), motivation (f=3), and career interest (f=3) scales are frequently used. In addition to these,
self-efficacy (f=2), literacy (f=1), and computational thinking (f=1) are other scales used in research. However,
not as much as scales, tests (f=12) and interviews (f=10) are frequently used in experimental articles.
Considering the tests, it is among the findings obtained from the research that the achievement (f=6) and
knowledge (f=3) tests were used the most. Besides, creativity (f=1) and problem-solving (f=1) tests are also
used, albeit not very often. Another measurement tool that is frequently used in experimental articles within the
scope of the research is interviews (f=10). Almost all the interviewed articles were conducted with semi-
64 Hebebci

structured interviews (f=8). In some articles, structured interviews and focus group interviews were used. Other
data collection tools used in the articles are questionnaires (f=4), diaries (f=2), and rubrics (f=2).

The analysis methods used by the experimental articles were examined under two headings as qualitative and
quantitative (Figure 8).

GLM 1

MANCOVA 1
f=3; Correlation 1
[YÜZDE]
Structural Equation… 1

MANOVA 1

Mann-Whitney U test 2

Chi-square 2
f=10; ANOVA 4
[YÜZDE]
Wilcoxon Signed-rank… 4

ANCOVA 4

T-test 13
Content Analysis Descriptive Analysis 0 5 10 15

Figure 8. Distribution of qualitative and quantitative analysis methods used in articles

Content analysis (f=10) is used more than descriptive analysis (f=3) in the qualitative dimensions of
experimental articles. In one of the articles, both content analysis and descriptive analysis were used together. In
the quantitative analysis methods used in the articles, the number of t-tests (f=13) is more than the others,
followed by ANCOVA (f=4), Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test (f=4), ANOVA (f=4), Chi-Square (f=2), and Mann-
Whitney U Test (f=2).

Topic and Application Process of Articles

The topics on which the effect of STEM education was investigated in the experimental articles analyzed within
the scope of the research are shown in Table 5. In some articles, more than one topic is examined.

Table 5. Topics examining the effect of STEM education in the articles

Subject f % Subject f %
Skills 5 11.26 Professional development 1 2.32
Achievement 4 9.30 Gender 1 2.32
Attitude 3 6.97 Autonomy 1 2.32
Learning 3 6.97 Visual reasoning 1 2.32
Creativity 3 6.97 Abstract thinking 1 2.32
Career interest 3 6.97 Self-explanation 1 2.32
Self-efficacy 2 4.65 Cognitive load 1 2.32
Project-based learning 2 4.65 Conceptual understanding 1 2.32
Motivation 2 4.65 Computational thinking 1 2.32
Cognitive learning 2 4.65 Task value 1 2.32
Flow experience 1 2.32 Socio-scientific issue-based
1 2.32
Opinion 1 2.32 instruction
Total 43 100

Table 5 indicates that the experimental articles deal with quite wide and different topics. To this end, 24
different topics were examined by researchers in 22 experimental articles. Experimental articles are mostly
 J Educ Sci Environ Health 65

focused on skills (f=5), achievement (f=4), attitude (f=3;), learning (f=3), creativity (f=3), and professional
interest (f=3).

The word cloud consisting of the titles of all the articles within the scope of the research is shown in Figure 9.
Conjunctions and meaningless expressions were excluded while creating the word cloud. In this sense, the
concepts of STEM, effect, and learning are prioritized in the word cloud.

Figure 9. Word cloud of titles of experimental articles

The articles conducted on STEM education and the distribution of the experimental application processes of
these articles are shown in Figure 10. The figure gives information about how many weeks the application
covers, how many hours it is completed, and the number of activities implemented. If there is no information
about the application in the article, the relevant fields are left blank.

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22
Week 12 2 15 2 4 12 10 2 6 6 24 12 52 2 9 1 52 6 6
Hour 12 8 30 20 6 1 9 7 3 6 4 20 9 27 7 70 25
Activity 12 1 8 4 1 2 1 2 6 4

Figure 10. Distribution of the experimental application process in the context of week, hour, and activity

Figure 10 shows that STEM activities within the scope of experimental articles are carried out between 1 and 52
weeks. There are three articles that do not provide information on how many weeks STEM activities last. Time
information is provided for activities in two of these articles. Additionally, the activities are carried out between
1 and 70 hours. In total, five articles did not provide information about the time allocated for the activities.
66 Hebebci

Besides, there are 1 to 12 STEM activities in the experimental articles within the scope of the research. The
number of studies without information about the number of STEM activities applied is 12.

Discussion
As a result of the use of systematic review studies in education fields, the number of systematic review studies
on various perspectives of STEM education has rapidly increased. Systematic reviews are important in giving a
general idea about the researched area. As a matter of fact, through systematic reviews, topics that need to be
researched in the future, gaps, and insufficient areas in the literature can be identified (Çınar, 2021). In this
research, a systematic review of experimental articles on STEM education on WoS was made. Thus, a profile of
experimental articles for STEM education is thought to be created.

When evaluated in terms of countries, the experimental articles in Turkey and China are notable, which can be
explained by the high interest in STEM education in these two. Thus, there are many initiatives for STEM
education in Turkey (Integrated Teaching Project, Scientix Project, etc.). This also signifies that qualified
researchers are producing quality publications on STEM education in these countries. There are studies in the
literature that infer different results (Sawangmek, 2019; Talan, 2021). It is significant that in some of these
studies, the USA is in the leadership position (Le Thi Thu et al., 2021; Marín-Marín et al., 2021; Yu et al.,
2016). Indeed, the USA is far ahead in the Wilson et al. (2022) study. In another study, South Korea, the USA,
and Indonesia were the most productive countries (Santi et al., 2020). The contrast encountered here is thought
to be related to the keyword, search strategies, and database used.

Experimental articles on STEM education generally tend to increase. It was concluded that there was a decrease
only in 2020 and 2022 compared to the previous year. Since this research was carried out in 2022, the studies in
2022 are expected to be lower than in the previous year. A similar finding was obtained by Talan (2021). Many
studies in the literature also show a similar trend (Ha et al., 2020; Li et al., 2019; Marín-Marín et al., 2021;
Wilson et al., 2022; Yu et al., 2016). Irwanto et al. (2022) reported that the number of articles between 2011 and
2020 is in regular increase. Chomphuphra et al. (2019) also have similar results.

The studies examined within the scope of the research mainly use mixed research methods. The main reason for
combining quantitative and qualitative methods in mixed methods is to reveal their strengths by compensating
for the weaknesses of both approaches (Merriam, 2013). According to Kurniati et al. (2022) concluded that the
qualitative method is preferred in studies on STEM education. Irwanto et al. (2022), on the other hand, found
that the quantitative method was used more frequently. The emergence of different results is thought to be a
result of search strategies. Besides, Kalemkus (2019) concluded that the experimental research on STEM
education that he examined used the mixed method more often.

This research proposes that university students are frequently involved as participants in experimental articles.
Additionally, experimental articles are conducted with an average of 20 to 40 people. In contrast to this
research, Kalemkus (2019) found that studies on STEM education are generally conducted with secondary
school students. There are studies in the literature showing that studies on STEM education are frequently
carried out at the level of K-12 (Mizell & Brown, 2016), graduates (Jayarah et al., 2014), preschool
(Sawangmek, 2019), high school (Farwati et al., 2021), and middle school (Gao et al., 2020). This difference
can be explained by conducting the relevant study on a national scale. According to Çavaş et al. (2020),
university students are preferred more than other groups. University students often take part in scientific
research as a study group, which can be explained by the desire of researchers to access data quickly and easily.
Scales and tests are prominent as data collection tools in experimental articles. They are frequently used in
experimental studies. This case can be explained as a result of the design of the studies with a mixed method.
Having conducted a study on STEM education trends in Turkey, Çavaş et al. (2020) have reached a similar
conclusion. A similar conclusion was also obtained in another study examining studies on augmented reality in
STEM education (Sırakaya & Alsancak Sırakaya (2022). Some studies show that the interview is more
prominent (Wilson et al., 2022). When experimental articles are analyzed in terms of data analysis, qualitative
data are analyzed using content analysis, and quantitative data are generally analyzed using a t-test. There are
studies with similar results in the literature (Çavaş et al., 2020; Gül et al., 2022).

As a result of the research, the experimental articles mostly focus on subjects such as skills, success, attitude,
learning, creativity, and professional interest. When the titles of the examined articles are transformed into a
word cloud, the concepts of “STEM,” “effect,” and “learning” are the most repeated ones. The reason for this
can be explained by the nature of experimental studies, covering the effect of something on something and the
 J Educ Sci Environ Health 67

topic area. This finding is supported by similar results in the literature (Aseffa & Rorissa, 2013; Novia et al.,
2021; Tas & Bolat, 2022; Wilson et al., 2022; Yu et al., 2016). Gülhan (2022), on the other hand, stated that the
most examined variables are attitudes and skills.

It is seen that the implementation processes of the experimental articles examined within the scope of the
research last up to 52 weeks, and some activities total 70 hours. The number of activities was found to be at
most 12. Günbatar and Tabar (2019) report that STEM activities last 1-2 months in their studies. Kalemkuş
(2019), on the other hand, noted that STEM activities were carried out intensively between 6 and 10 weeks.
Sufficient time and the number of activities for STEM education may vary in line with the content of the subject
and the knowledge and skills targeted to be gained. For example, an experimental process that aims to determine
the effect of STEM activities on attitudes needs to be designed comprehensively.

Conclusion
Although there are systematic review studies on STEM education in the literature, studies examining
experimental studies are limited. The current studies cover certain education periods. In this research,
experimental articles with SSCI on STEM education were examined. As a result of the research, which
examines the experimental articles on STEM education, the countries with the highest number of articles are
Turkey and China. One of the research results is that the number of experimental articles regularly increase
yearly, and most articles were published in 2021. In experimental articles, mixed method design was most
preferred. It was noted that some articles did not provide any information about the method. Another result of
the research is that the study group usually consists of university students. One of the research results is that half
of the experimental studies were designed with a control group. It is indicated that scale, test, and interview are
frequently used as data collection tools. Due to the intensive use of mixed methods in the research, data analyzes
were collected in two groups. Content analysis in qualitative data analysis and t-test in quantitative data analysis
are the most preferred analysis methods. Another result is that the researchers covered subjects such as skills,
achievement, and attitudes towards STEM education more. It is seen that experimental applications are carried
out with an average of 1 to 10 weeks and 1 to 10 activities. Besides, it was observed that many articles did not
explain the implementation process in detail.

Recommendations
The number of systematic review studies on STEM education can be further increased. Investigations can be
made on the sample of countries. Studies with experimental and control groups, which have an important place
in experimental studies, can be carried out more. Studies can be conducted with more than one experimental and
control group. Studies can be conducted on how long and with how many activities the skills of STEM
applications, such as problem-solving and scientific creativity, can be learned.

References
Alangari, T. S. (2022). Online STEM education during COVID-19 period: A systematic review of perceptions
in higher education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(5),
em2105. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11986
Arshad, A. Y. M. (2021). A systematic review: Issues in implementation of integrated STEM education. Turkish
Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 12(9), 1124-1133.
https://doi.org/10.17762/turcomat.v12i9.3418
Aslan, A. (2018). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Acta Medica Alanya, 2(2), 62-63.
https://doi.org/10.30565/medalanya.439541
Assefa, S. G., & Rorissa, A. (2013). A bibliometric mapping of the structure of STEM education using co‐word
analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(12), 2513-2536.
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22917
Assefa, S. G., & Rorissa, A. (2013). A bibliometric mapping of the structure of STEM education using co‐word
analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(12), 2513-2536.
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22917
Banks, F., & Barlex, D. (2014). Teaching STEM in the secondary school: Helping teachers meet the challenge.
Routledge.
68 Hebebci

Brown, J. (2012). The current status of STEM education research. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and
Research, 13(5), 7-11.
Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM Education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher,
70(1), 30-35.
Calvo-Morata, A., Alonso-Fernández, C., Freire, M., Martínez-Ortiz, I., & Fernández-Manjón, B. (2020).
Serious games to prevent and detect bullying and cyberbullying: A systematic serious games and
literature review. Computers & Education, 157, 103958.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103958
Caprile, M., Palmén, R., Sanz, P., & Dente, G. (2015). Encouraging STEM studies for the labour market.
Directorate General for Internal Policies, European Union.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/542199/IPOL_STU(2015)542199_EN.pdf
Çavaş, P., Ayar, A., & Gürcan, G. (2020). Türkiye’de STEM eğitimi üzerine yapılan araştırmaların durumu
üzerine bir çalışma [A study on the status of STEM education research in Turkey]. YYU Journal of
Education Faculty, 17(1), 823-854. https://doi.org/10.33711/yyuefd.751853
Chomphuphra, P., Chaipidech, P., & Yuenyong, C. (2019, October). Trends and research issues of STEM
education: A review of academic publications from 2007 to 2017. In Journal of Physics: Conference
Series (Vol. 1340, No. 1, p. 012069). IOP Publishing.
Çınar, N. (2021). İyi bir sistematik derleme nasıl yazılmalı? [How should a good systematic review be
written?]. Online Türk Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 6(2), 310-314.
Corlu, M. S., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2014). Introducing STEM education: implications for
educating our teachers for the age of innovation. Education and Science, 39(171), 74-85.
Deming, D. J., & Noray, K. (2020). Earnings dynamics, changing job skills, and STEM careers. The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 135(4), 1965-2005. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjaa021
Dugger, W. E. (2010). Evolution of STEM in the United States. In 6th bienal international conference on
technology education research. https://www.academia.edu/download/47244343/AustraliaPaper.pdf
Ehsan, H., Rispoli, M., Lory, C., & Gregori, E. (2018). A systematic review of STEM instruction with students
with autism spectrum disorders. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 5(4), 327-
348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-018-0142-8
Farwati, R., Metafisika, K., Sari, I., Sitinjak, D. S., Solikha, D. F., & Solfarina, S. (2021). STEM education
implementation in Indonesia: a scoping review. International Journal of STEM Education for
Sustainability, 1(1), 11-32. https://doi.org/10.53889/ijses.v1i1.2
Ferrada-Ferrada, C., Carrillo-Rosúa, J., Díaz-Levicoy, D., & Silva Díaz, F. (2020). Robotics from STEM areas
in primary school: A systematic review. Education in the Knowledge Society, 21, 1-18.
https://doi.org/10.14201/eks.22036
Gamage, S. H., Ayres, J. R., & Behrend, M. B. (2022). A systematic review on trends in using Moodle for
teaching and learning. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 1-24.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00323-x
Gao, F., Li, L., & Sun, Y. (2020). A systematic review of mobile game-based learning in STEM
education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(4), 1791-1827.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09787-0
Gerrish, K., & Lacey, A. (2010). The research process in nursing. Wiley-Blackwell.
Gonzalez, H. B., & Kuenzi, J. J. (2012, August). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
education: A primer. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
Gül, K. S., Kırmızıgül, A. S., & Ateş, H. (2022) Temel eğitim ve ortaöğretimde STEM eğitimi üzerine alan
yazın incelemesi: Türkiye örneği [Review of STEM Education in K-12 Education in Turkey]. The
Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Sciences, 13(1), 544-568.
https://doi.org/10.51460/baebd.931501
Gülhan, F. (2022) Türkiye’de yapılmış STEAM/[STEM+ A (Sanat)] araştırmalarındaki eğilimlerin analizi
[Analysis of Trends in Researches on STEAM (STEM + Art) Made in Turkey]. Turkish Journal of
Educational Studies, 9(1), 23-46. https://doi.org/10.33907/turkjes.737496
Güllü, H., & Akçay, A. O. (2022). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin 21. Yüzyıl becerileri ile FeTeMM farkındalıkları
arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi [Investigation of the relationship between 21st century skills and
STEM awareness of primary school teachers]. Uşak University Journal of Social Sciences, 15(1), 1-15.
Günbatar, S. A., & Tabar, V. (2019). Türkiye’de gerçekleştirilen STEM araştırmalarının içerik analizi [Content
analysis of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) research conducted in
Turkey]. YYU Journal of Education Faculty, 16(1), 1054-1083.
Ha, C. T., Thao, T. T. P., Trung, N. T., Van Dinh, N., & Trung, T. (2020). A bibliometric review of research on
STEM education in ASEAN: Science mapping the literature in Scopus database, 2000 to
2019. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(10), em1889.
https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/8500
 J Educ Sci Environ Health 69

Hafiz, N. R. M., & Ayop, S. K. (2019). Engineering design process in STEM education: A
systematic. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 9(5), 676-
697. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v9-i5/5998
Hasanah, U. (2020). Key definitions of STEM education: Literature review. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Environmental and Science Education, 16(3), e2217. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/8336
Herschbach, D. R. (2011). The STEM initiative: Constraints and challenges. Journal of STEM Teacher
Education, 48(1), 96-122.
Hussin, H., Jiea, P. Y., Rosly, R. N. R., & Omar, S. R. (2019). Integrated 21st century science, technology,
engineering, mathematics (STEM) education through robotics project-based learning. Humanities &
Social Sciences Reviews, 7(2), 204-211. https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2019.7222
Ibáñez, M. B., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2018). Augmented reality for STEM learning: A systematic review.
Computers & Education, 123, 109-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.002
Imaduddin, M., Sholikhati, S., & In’ami, M. (2021). STEM education research in Indonesian elementary
schools: A systematic review of project-based learning. Elementary: Islamic Teacher Journal, 9(2),
201-228. http://dx.doi.org/10.21043/elementary.v9i2.11552
Irwanto, I., Saputro, A. D., Ramadhan, M. F., & Lukman, I. R. (2022). Research trends in STEM education
from 2011 to 2020: A systematic review of publications in selected journals. International Journal of
Interactive Mobile Technologies, 16(5), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v16i05.27003
Israel, M., Maynard, K., & Williamson, P. (2013). Promoting literacy-embedded, authentic STEM instruction
for students with disabilities and other struggling learners. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(4), 18-
25. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991304500402
Jayarajah, K., Saat, R. M., & Rauf, R. A. A. (2014). A review of science, technology, engineering &
mathematics (STEM) education research from 1999–2013: A Malaysian perspective. Eurasia Journal
of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(3), 155-163.
https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1072a
Jeong, H., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Jo, K. (2019). Ten years of computer-supported collaborative learning: A
meta-analysis of CSCL in STEM education during 2005–2014. Educational research review, 28,
100284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100284
Jin, Q. (2021). Supporting indigenous students in science and STEM education: A systematic review. Education
Sciences, 11(9), 555. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090555
Kalemkuş, J. (2019). STEM tendency in experimental researches. Journal of Ziya Gökalp Faculty of
Education, 36, 78-90.
Karaçam, Z. (2013). Sistematik derleme metodolojisi: Sistematik derleme hazırlamak için bir rehber [Systematic
review methodology: A guide for preparation of systematic review]. E-Journal of Dokuz Eylul
University Nursing Faculty, 6(1), 26-33.
Kaya, A., & Ayar, M. C. (2020). Türkiye örnekleminde STEM eğitimi alanında yapılan çalışmaların içerik
analizi [Content analysis of STEM education studies in Turkey]. İstanbul Aydın University Journal of
Education Faculty, 6(2), 275-306.
Kayan-Fadlelmula, F., Sellami, A., Abdelkader, N., & Umer, S. (2022). A systematic review of STEM
education research in the GCC countries: trends, gaps and barriers. International Journal of STEM
Education, 9(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00319-7
Kennedy, T., & Odell, M. (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science Education International,
25(3), 246–258.
Khaokhajorn, W., Thongsri, P., Panjaburee, P., & Srisawasdi, N. (2020). Mobile learning technology in STEM
education: A systematic review from 2010 to 2019. In Proceedings of the 28th International
Conference on Computers in Education (pp. 432-437).
Kolne, K., & Lindsay, S. (2020). A systematic review of programs and interventions for increasing the interest
and participation of children and youth with disabilities in STEM education or careers. Journal of
Occupational Science, 27(4), 525-546. https://doi.org/10.1080/14427591.2019.1692692
Kurniati, E., Suwono, H., Ibrohim, I., Suryadi, A., & Saefi, M. (2022). International scientific collaboration and
research topics on STEM education: a systematic review. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science
and Technology Education, 18(4), em2095. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11903
Lacey, T. A., & Wright, B. (2009). Occupational employment projections to 2018. Monthly Labor Review,
132(11), 82-123.
Le Thi Thu, H., Tran, T., Trinh Thi Phuong, T., Le Thi Tuyet, T., Le Huy, H., & Vu Thi, T. (2021). Two
decades of STEM education research in middle school: A bibliometrics analysis in Scopus database
(2000–2020). Education Sciences, 11(7), 353. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11070353
Li, Y., Froyd, J. E., & Wang, K. (2019). Learning about research and readership development in STEM
education: A systematic analysis of the journal’s publications from 2014 to 2018. International Journal
of STEM Education, 6(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0176-1
70 Hebebci

Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y., & Froyd, J. E. (2020). Research and trends in STEM education: A systematic review
of journal publications. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1-16.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00207-6
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P.
J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and
meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS
Medicine, 6(7), e1-e34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006
London, J. (2018). A content analysis of how STEM education researchers discuss the impact of their publicly-
supported research. International Journal of Engineering Education, 34(3), 1120-1137.
Mahanan, M. S., Talib, C. A., & Ibrahim, N. H. (2021). Online Formative assessment in higher STEM
education; A systematic literature review. Asian Journal of Assessment in Teaching and
Learning, 11(1), 47-62. https://doi.org/10.37134/ajatel.vol11.1.5.2021
Marín-Marín, J. A., Moreno-Guerrero, A. J., Dúo-Terrón, P., & López-Belmonte, J. (2021). STEAM in
education: a bibliometric analysis of performance and co-words in Web of Science. International
Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00296-x
Martín‐Páez, T., Aguilera, D., Perales‐Palacios, F. J., & Vílchez‐González, J. M. (2019). What are we talking
about when we talk about STEM education? A review of literature. Science Education, 103(4), 799-
822. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21522
Matsuura, T., & Nakamura, D. (2021). Trends in STEM/STEAM education and students’ perceptions in
Japan. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 7(1), 7-33. https://doi.org/10.1163/23641177-bja10022
McGunagle, D., & Zizka, L. (2020). Employability skills for 21st-century STEM students: the employers’
perspective. Higher Education, Skills and Work-based Learning. 10(3), 591-606.
https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-10-2019-0148
Merriam, S. B. (2013). Nitel araştırma desen ve uygulama için bir rehber [A guide to qualitative research
design and practice]. Nobel Publishing.
Miaoulis, I. N. (2009). Engineering the K-12 curriculum for technological innovation IEEE-USA Today’s
Engineer. http://legacy.mos.org/NCTL/docs/MOS_NCTL_ White_Paper.pdf
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage Publication
Minichiello, A., Hood, J. R., & Harkness, D. S. (2018). Bringing user experience design to bear on STEM
education: A narrative literature review. Journal for STEM Education Research, 1(1), 7-33.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-018-0005-3
Mizell, S., & Brown, S. (2017). The current status of STEM education research 2013-2015. Journal of STEM
Education, 17(4), 52-56.
Morrison, J. (2006). Attributes of STEM education: The student, the school, the classroom. TIES - Teaching
Institute for Excellence in STEM, 20, 2-7.
Moula, P., & Goodman M. (2009). Nursing research. Sage Publication.
Novia, N., Permanasari, A., & Riandi, R. (2021, March). Research on educational games in STEM area 2010-
2020: a bibliometric analysis of literature. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1806, No. 1,
p. 012209). IOP Publishing.
NRC [National Research Council] (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting
concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
P21 [Partnership for 21st Century Learning] (2015). Partnership for 21st century learning 2015.
http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/P21_framework_0515 .pdf
Roehrig, G. H., Moore, T. J., Wang, H. H., & Park, M. S. (2012). Is adding the E enough? Investigating the
impact of K-12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM integration. School Science and
Mathematics, 112, 31-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00112.x
Sainsbury, D. (2007). The Race to the top: A review of the government’s science and innovation policies. HM
Treasury
Santi, K., Sholeh, S. M., Alatas, F., Rahmayanti, H., Ichsan, I. Z., & Rahman, M. M. (2021, February). STEAM
in environment and science education: Analysis and bibliometric mapping of the research literature
(2013-2020). In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1796, No. 1, p. 012097). IOP Publishing
Sawangmek, S. (2019). Trends and issues on STEM and STEAM education in early childhood. Képzés És
Gyakorlat: Training and Practice, 17(3-4), 97-106.
Schreffler, J., Vasquez III, E., Chini, J., & James, W. (2019). Universal design for learning in postsecondary
STEM education for students with disabilities: A systematic literature review. International Journal of
STEM Education, 6(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0161-8
Sırakaya, M., & Alsancak Sırakaya, D. (2022). Augmented reality in STEM education: A systematic
review. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(8), 1556-1569.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1722713
 J Educ Sci Environ Health 71

Smith, J., & Karr-Kidwell, P. (2000). The interdisciplinary curriculum: A literary review and a manual for
administrators and teachers. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED443172.pdf
So, W., So, M. W., Zhan, Y., Chow, C. F., & Leung, C. F. (2018). Analysis of STEM activities in primary
students’ science projects in an informal learning environment. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 16(6), 1003–1023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9828–0
Talan, T. (2021). Augmented reality in STEM education: Bibliometric analysis. International Journal of
Technology in Education (IJTE), 4(4), 605-623. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.136
Tas, N., & Bolat, Y. I. (2022). An examination of the studies on STEM in education: A bibliometric mapping
analysis. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science, 6(3), 477-494.
https://doi.org/10.46328/ijtes.401
Thomas, T. A. (2014). Elementary teachers’ receptivity to integrated science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education in the elementary grades (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Nevada
Tseng, K. H., Chang, C. C., Lou, S. J., & Chen, W. P. (2013). Attitudes towards science, technology,
engineering and mathematics (STEM) in a project-based learning (PjBL) environment. International
Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(1), 87-102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9160-
x
US Department of Education. (2018). US Department of Education fulfills administration promise to invest
$200 million in STEM education. https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-
fulfillsadministration-promise-invest-200-million-stem-education
Wan, Z. H., Jiang, Y., & Zhan, Y. (2021). STEM education in early childhood: A review of empirical
studies. Early Education and Development, 32(7), 940-962.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1814986
Wang, C., Shen, J., & Chao, J. (2021). Integrating computational thinking in stem education: A literature
review. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1-24.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10227-5
Wang, L. H., Chen, B., Hwang, G. J., Guan, J. Q., & Wang, Y. Q. (2022). Effects of digital game-based STEM
education on students’ learning achievement: A meta-analysis. International Journal of STEM
Education, 9(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00344-0
Wilson, C., Pérez, M., England, M. P., Anthony, H. G., & Campbell-Gulley, B. (2022). STEM education trends:
A content analysis of three international STEM journals. Journal of Higher Education Theory and
Practice, 22(8), 1-11.
Yager, R. E., & Brunkhorst, H. (2014). Exemplary STEM programs: Designs for success. NSTA Press, National
Science Teachers Association.
Yılmaz, K. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde ve eğitim bilimlerinde sistematik derleme, meta değerlendirme ve
bibliyometrik analizler [Systematic review, meta evaluation, and bibliometric analysis in social
sciences and educational sciences]. MANAS Journal of Social Studies, 10(2), 1457-1490.
Yu, J., Denham, A. R., & Searight, E. (2022). A systematic review of augmented reality game-based Learning
in STEM education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70, 1169–1194.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10122-y
Yu, Y. C., Chang, S. H., & Yu, L. C. (2016). An academic trend in STEM education from bibliometric and co-
citation method. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(2), 113-116.
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on
artificial intelligence applications in higher education–where are the educators? International Journal
of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-
0171-0
72 Hebebci

Appendix
Articles reviewed by including systematic review

Alan, B., Zengin, F. K., & Keçeci, G. (2019). Using STEM applications for supporting ıntegrated teaching
knowledge of pre-service science teachers. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(2), 158-170.
https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/19.18.158
Bircan, M. A., & Calisici, H. (2022). The effects of STEM education activities on fourth grade students'
attitudes to stem, 21st-century skills and mathematics success. Education and Science, 47(211), 87-
119. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2022.10710
Büyükdede, M., & Tanel, R. (2019). Effect of the STEM Activities related to work-energy topics on academic
achievement and prospective teachers' opinions on STEM activities. Journal of Baltic Science
Education, 18(4), 507-518. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/19.18.507
Chiang, F. K., Zhang, Y., Zhu, D., Shang, X., & Jiang, Z. (2022). The ınfluence of online STEM education
camps on students’ self-efficacy, computational thinking, and task value. Journal of science education
and technology, 31(4), 461-472.
Dedetürk, A., Kirmizigül, A. S., & Kaya, H. (2021). The effects of STEM activities on 6th grade Students'
conceptual development of sound. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 20(1), 21-37.
https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.21
Elme, L., Jørgensen, M. L., Dandanell, G., Mottelson, A., & Makransky, G. (2022). Immersive virtual reality in
STEM: is IVR an effective learning medium and does adding self-explanation after a lesson improve
learning outcomes?. Educational Technology Research and Development.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10139-3
Habig, B., & Gupta, P. (2021). Authentic STEM research, practices of science, and interest development in an
informal science education program. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 1-18.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00314-y
Huang, X., Erduran, S., Zhang, P., Luo, K., & Li, C. (2022). Enhancing teachers’ STEM understanding through
observation, discussion and reflection. Journal of Education for Teaching.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2021.2006571
Karahan, E., Kara, A., & Akçay, A. O. (2021). Designing and implementing a STEM career maturity program
for prospective counselors. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 1-16.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00281-4
Kelley, T. R., Knowles, J. G., Holland, J. D., & Han, J. (2020). Increasing high school teachers self-efficacy for
integrated STEM instruction through a collaborative community of practice. International Journal of
STEM Education, 7(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00211-w
Lin, K. Y., Wu, Y. T., Hsu, Y. T., & Williams, P. J. (2021). Effects of infusing the engineering design process
into STEM project-based learning to develop preservice technology teachers’ engineering design
thinking. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00258-9
Lou, S. J., Chou, Y. C., Shih, R. C., & Chung, C. C. (2017). A study of creativity in CaC2 steamship-derived
STEM project-based learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology
Education, 13(6), 2387-2404. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.01231a
Ou, C. Y., Lu, C. T., Zhou, S. N., & Xiao, H. (2021). The effects of autonomy-supportive and controlling
teaching behaviors on primary students' stem learning performance and flow experience. Journal of
Baltic Science Education, 20(6), 942-955. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.942
Ozkul, H., & Ozden, M. (2020). Investigation of the effects of engineering-oriented STEM ıntegration activities
on scientific process skills and stem career ınterests: A mixed methods study. Education and
Science, 45(204), 41-64. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2020.8870
Özcan, H., & Koca, E. (2019). The impact of teaching the subject “pressure” with STEM approach on the
academic achievements of the secondary school 7th grade students and their attitudes towards
STEM. Education and Science, 44(198). https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2019.7902
Salmi, H. S., Thuneberg, H., & Bogner, F. X. (2020). Is there deep learning on Mars? STEAM education in an
inquiry-based out-of-school setting. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1823856
Schwortz, A. C., & Burrows, A. C. (2021). Authentic science experiences with STEM datasets: Post-secondary
results and potential gender influences. Research in Science & Technological Education, 39(3), 347-
367. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2020.1761783
Siew, N. M., & Ambo, N. (2018). Development and evaluation of an ıntegrated project-based and STEM
Teaching and learning module on enhancing scientific creativity among fifth graders. Journal of Baltic
Science Education, 17(6), 1017-1033.
 J Educ Sci Environ Health 73

Thuneberg, H. M., Salmi, H. S., & Bogner, F. X. (2018). How creativity, autonomy and visual reasoning
contribute to cognitive learning in a STEAM hands-on inquiry-based math module. Thinking Skills and
Creativity, 29, 153-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.07.003
Tsai, L. T., Chang, C. C., & Cheng, H. T. (2021). Effect of a STEM-oriented course on students' marine science
motivation, ınterest, and achievements. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 20(1), 134-145.
https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.134
Wahono, B., Chang, C. Y., & Khuyen, N. T. T. (2021). Teaching socio-scientific issues through integrated
STEM education: an effective practical averment from Indonesian science lessons. International
Journal of Science Education, 43(16), 2663-2683. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1983226
Zhou, S. N., Zeng, H., Xu, S. R., Chen, L. C., & Xiao, H. (2019). Exploring changes in primary students'
attitudes towards science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) across genders and grade
levels. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(3), 466-480. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/19.18.466

Author(s) Information
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci
Necmettin Erbakan University
Konya, Turkiye
Contact e-mail: mhebebci@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2337-5345