Dong et al.

International Journal of STEM Education (2020) 7:47

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00245-0
International Journal of
STEM Education

RESEARCH Open Access

Understanding intrinsic challenges to STEM

instructional practices for Chinese teachers
based on their beliefs and knowledge base
Yan Dong1, Jing Wang1, Yunying Yang2* and Premnadh M. Kurup3

Abstract
Background: China has great student participation in STEM education. Chinese society has a progressive and
positive attitude towards STEM as it is considered to provide more opportunities in life. Teachers play a vital role in
the success of any STEM program in K-12 schools. However, teachers are facing instructional challenges because of
the interdisciplinary nature of the STEM curriculum and the current typical school structure. The success of the
STEM programs depends on teachers’ beliefs and their knowledge in adapting to instructional implementation of
STEM concepts.
Results: The data (n = 216) was collected from STEM primary and secondary teachers from 25 provinces in
mainland China. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was applied, and Pearson’s correlation analysis was used to
examine the correlation between Chinese STEM teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, implementation, and the intrinsic
challenges of STEM education; t tests and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were performed to ascertain whether there
were differences. The structural equation model (SEM) was applied to identify interrelationships. The results
indicated that Chinese STEM teachers encounter higher-level intrinsic challenges to instructional implementations
based on their beliefs and knowledge. Teachers who utilize their experience of teaching science as their main
discipline and then attempt to integrate STEM using mathematics and engineering are likely to encounter higher-
level intrinsic challenges in implementation.
Conclusion: The intrinsic challenges perceived by Chinese teachers in the practice of STEM education can be
predicted by their beliefs and knowledge base. Teachers who understand the nature and pedagogy of STEM
education are more likely to encounter lower-level intrinsic challenges of STEM teaching, while teachers who utilize
their main discipline when conducting integrated STEM learning activities through modeling based on science,
technology, engineering, and mathematical problem situations are more likely to encounter higher-level intrinsic
challenges. This study also reveals that there are some significant differences in the level of STEM teachers’ beliefs,
knowledge base, instructional practice, and their intrinsic challenges based on their teaching grade, seniority, and
experience of STEM training and teaching.
Keywords: Intrinsic challenges, STEM education, Integrated STEM teaching and learning, Teachers’ STEM beliefs and
knowledge

* Correspondence: yunyingy@student.unimelb.edu.au
2
Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne,
Parkville, Melbourne, Victoria 3053, Australia
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article

© The Author(s). 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if
changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons
licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons
licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain
permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Dong et al. International Journal of STEM Education (2020) 7:47 Page 2 of 12

Introduction It has drawn worldwide attention in that it has great

The growing role of STEM education does not happen student participation in STEM education, and there
in a vacuum. The STEM philosophy and its approaches are greater opportunities for the next generation be-
in practice play a vital role in improving the economic cause of the promotion of STEM education (Margin-
and technological progress of a nation (Yildirim, 2016). son, Tytler, Freeman, & Roberts, 2013).
However, there is a decline in the number of students
opting for STEM subjects in many countries, due to a Literature review
lack of public awareness and an undervaluing of STEM The Sociocultural Model of Embedded Belief Systems
subjects (NRC, 2012; Tanenbaum, 2016). To respond to (Jones & Carter, 2007) indicates that teachers’ instruc-
this challenge, STEM implementation should be a col- tional practices are directly influenced by a series of
lective venture willingly undertaken, and effectively com- belief systems, prior knowledge, epistemology, atti-
pleted by teachers, students, and society (Freeman, tudes, knowledge, and skills. These factors are essen-
2015). Overall success in STEM education depends on a tially interconnected, and teacher belief systems are
combination of curriculum focus, inclusion, the teacher’s the critical factor influencing practices. In the field of
role, content structure, pedagogy, and accountability in STEM education, STEM teachers’ beliefs have been
teaching and learning (Osborne & Dillon, 2008). defined in many ways (Friedrichsen, Driel, & Abell,
Teachers’ beliefs, knowledge base, and understandings 2011; Jones & Leagon, 2014) and are classified into
are the driving force for overcoming instructional chal- three major orientations. In the field of science, for
lenges in STEM education (McMullin & Reeve, 2014). It instance, the first orientation points to the concep-
is of concern that the integrated nature of the STEM tions of science teaching and learning. Some re-
curriculum is a challenge, and typical school structures searchers regard STEM teachers’ beliefs as being
create a barrier for implementing some of the new prac- about the roles of teachers and students, how stu-
tices which are necessary for STEM education. Most in- dents learn science, and how teachers teach science
novations tend to happen along with the traditional and to make it more attractive and effective (Breslyn &
routine business of teaching and learning, examinations, Mcginnis, 2012; Crippen, 2012; Kurup, Li, Powell, &
and reporting. Teachers also face various issues in devel- Brown, 2019; Luft & Roehrig, 2007). The second
oping STEM strategically in classrooms, such as adopt- orientation refers to the conceptions of the nature of
ing a pedagogical approach based on problem-based science (Lederman, 1992; Sandoval, 2005), which can
learning with an integrated approach connecting typical be generally divided into ontological beliefs and epis-
content from their disciplines (Asghar, Ellington, Rice, temological beliefs. The former is the beliefs about
Johnson, & Prime, 2012). STEM pedagogy also needs a the reality or existence of scientific objects (Kwak,
fundamental shift in the classroom environment and 2001), and the latter is about what knowledge is, and
teachers’ attitudes, and integrating STEM subjects is al- how it is produced, obtained, and justified (Hofer,
ways found by teachers to be a challenging process 2001; Phillips, 1997; Schommer, 1994). The third
(Margot & Kettler, 2019; Tao, 2019). This new pedagogy orientation points to the conceptions of the goals or
is in sharp contrast with traditional single-subject functions of science education (Olafson & Schraw,
teaching. 2006), including learning science or doing science
Teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, and current peda- (Hodson, 1992; Jones & Carter, 2007), teaching sci-
gogical practices could contribute to the intrinsic ence for students’ intellectual development, individual
challenges, such as when they are striving to achieve self-realization, and the realization of social and eco-
student outcomes, are facing new pedagogical chal- nomic benefits (Schulz, 2009).
lenges, or are pursuing professional development (Ry- This study focused on aspects covered in the third
der, 2015). This study was set in the context of K-12 orientation, that is the degree to which STEM teachers
education in China though, STEM reform efforts may believe that they can achieve the goals and functions of
shed light on other countries as different nations teaching and learning through the implementation of
share some significant parallels and similarities, espe- STEM courses, especially in designing coherent and in-
cially the implementation issues faced by teachers tegrated STEM education. This would depend on the
who are used to traditional in approaches (Ayres, overall factors arising from the relationships between
2016; Freeman, 2015; Holmlund, Lesseig, & Slavit, teacher beliefs, their knowledge, and practices, along
2018). China is moving very fast in the field of sci- with the intrinsic challenges faced in integrating STEM
ence and technology, and a large majority of the disciplines. Studies have shown that teachers’ existing
Chinese (more than 82%) hold positive opinions re- knowledge base, beliefs, and instructional practices are
garding the awareness and valuing of STEM subjects based on an inquiry approach in STEM education; how-
as compared to most Western Countries (Gao, 2013). ever, their content knowledge and pedagogical
Dong et al. International Journal of STEM Education (2020) 7:47 Page 3 of 12

knowledge may not correlate (Yang, Kaiser, König, & classrooms through a review of the US state content
Blömeke, 2020). standard documents on STEM education. They include
The definition of STEM teachers’ knowledge base also mathematics and scientific content, adopting a student-
has a broad focus. Shulman (1986, 1987) summarized centered pedagogy, creating an attractive and motivating
three forms of teachers’ knowledge: propositional know- classroom context, arranging learning tasks about engin-
ledge, case knowledge, and strategic knowledge. Propos- eering design challenges, guiding students to learn from
itional knowledge is stored in a statement of teaching their mistakes, and emphasizing cooperative learning.
and learning principles. Case knowledge is a kind of “Intrinsic challenges of STEM teachers” refers to a
knowledge that describes specific teaching and learning situation which presents difficulties for teachers in
events. Strategic knowledge is used to solve problems or achieving goals and pursuing professional development
conflicts encountered in teaching and learning activities. (Schoepp, 2004). It is associated with teachers’ personal
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) has been widely competence and teaching practices (Akuma & Callaghan,
used in the literature about teachers’ knowledge base in 2019), including pedagogical challenges, curriculum chal-
research on science and mathematics education (Kam, lenges, student concerns and challenges from assessment,
Chan, Yeh, & Hsu, 2019). Technological Pedagogical and their time and knowledge (Margot & Kettler, 2019).
Content Knowledge (TPACK) is an extension of PCK to Shernoff, Sinha, Bressler, and Ginsburg (2017) sum-
the domain of technology, which includes teachers’ marized the challenges teachers face in achieving
knowledge of how to use emerging technologies to inte- STEM, through semi-structured interviews with K-12
grate specific subject or topic activities and how to teach STEM teachers. They identified the following six key
specific topical content to promote student learning aspects:
(Cox & Graham, 2009; Koehler & Mishra, 2005, 2009).
According to the TPACK framework theory, teachers’  A lack of understanding of the interdisciplinary
knowledge systems consist of seven components, includ- nature of STEM-based curricula, specifically not
ing content knowledge, technology knowledge, pedagogy knowing how to effectively integrate STEM-related
knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, techno- subject areas:
logical content knowledge, technological pedagogical  A lack of understanding of content and standards in
knowledge, and technological pedagogical content know- other subjects that they do not major in, especially
ledge (Koehler & Mishra, 2005). Content knowledge is not understanding what engineering education is;
about the subject matter of teaching and learning. Tech-  A lack of time, including the time for collaborative
nology knowledge is about modern technologies. Peda- planning, integrating content from different
gogy knowledge is about the practices, strategies, disciplines, developing STEM curriculum activities
processes and procedures, and methods of learning and with other fellow teachers, and implementing STEM
teaching, or about the aims of instruction, assessment, teaching and learning activities;
and student learning. Pedagogical content knowledge is  The influence of school organization and structure;
a kind of pedagogy knowledge focused on teaching a  The impact of traditional exams;
specific subject matter. Technological content know-  Insufficient teaching resources and materials.
ledge is about how applications of technology transform
the formulation and presentation of a specific subject This study adopted the internal factors of all these is-
matter. Technological pedagogical knowledge is about sues concerned with the intrinsic challenges faced by
how technology applications support the realization of STEM teachers in integrating subjects. That is, the core
pedagogical goals. This study mainly adopted the concepts of specific subjects and interdisciplinary con-
TPACK framework to define STEM teachers’ knowledge cepts of STEM, teachers’ pedagogical knowledge of
base and described it as all information related to STEM implementing STEM in the classroom, and the interrela-
education held by STEM teachers (Wahono & Chang, tionships among the different disciplines of STEM.
2019a, 2019b).
The term “STEM teachers’ instructional practices” al- Conceptual framework
ways refers to the performance of STEM teachers in the STEM education deals with complex solutions which re-
classroom (Wahono & Chang, 2019a, 2019b). Although quire a collective responsibility from everyone in society.
there are no well-defined approaches for STEM imple- STEM programs should provide for societal participa-
mentation (English, 2016; Kelley & Knowles, 2016; tion. This would support life-long participation in STEM
Nathan & Pearson, 2014), some key features could be learning, for example, in relation to the need for changes
summarized to guide the design and implementation of in practices to ensure future sustainability (Hoachlander
STEM education. Moore et al. (2014) summarized six & Yanofsky, 2011). Effectively using a suite of the twen-
major ways in which teachers apply STEM education in tyfirst century skills such as adaptability, innovation, and
Dong et al. International Journal of STEM Education (2020) 7:47 Page 4 of 12

complex communication to conceptualize and utilize in- STEM teachers’ challenges are associated with instruc-
formation literacy by means of STEM education via sci- tional materials and the implementation of teaching
ence, mathematics, technology, and engineering practices (Bybee, 2013). Wahono and Chang (2019a,
practices needs an integrated approach and a strong 2019b) summarised the three main challenges teachers
knowledge base (Storksdieck, 2016). In this process, face in implementing STEM practices in their class-
teachers are required to extend their knowledge of inter- rooms: (a) limited knowledge about STEM, (b) difficul-
disciplinary inquiry procedures and connect these to ties in connecting scientific topics and mathematics, and
classroom practices (Fensham, 2015, 2016). Interdiscip- (c) the non-applicability of the STEM approach in some
linary approaches support and provide scope for innova- topics. The conceptual framework formulated in this re-
tive STEM practices in the teaching and learning search focuses on the instructional implementation of
process as well as empower teachers’ effective imple- STEM, based on the beliefs and knowledge about class-
mentation of STEM (Kristin et al., 2017). For instance, room practices among Chinese teachers in relation to
interdisciplinary approaches to innovations (Johnson & the intrinsic challenges they face (see Fig. 1).
Brown, 2011) align with the Next-Generation Science
Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013) and the National Purpose and research questions
Research Council’s (National Research Council, 2013) The purpose of this research was to investigate Chinese
focus on the integration of divergent thinking, which STEM teacher practitioners’ intrinsic challenges to their
lead to a change in practices and scenarios in class- STEM instructional practices based on their beliefs and
rooms. Such approaches involve different ways of think- knowledge base. Most of the time, teachers use their
ing, solving problems, and communicating. main discipline and integrate it with STEM practices to
Teachers’ beliefs about the interdisciplinary nature bridge across science, technology, engineering, and
STEM would likely be connecting teaching to daily mathematics to help their students learn to solve social
life, improving students’ skills for the twentyfirst cen- and technological challenges. More specifically, the fol-
tury, and cultivating their talents for careers related lowing research question was formulated:
to STEM (El-Deghaidy, Mansour, Alzaghibi, & RQ: To what extent are the intrinsic challenges faced
Alhammad, 2017). The beliefs of teachers are consti- by Chinese STEM teachers’ influenced by their beliefs,
tuted by the clarity of the scientific discourse they knowledge base, and instructional practices of STEM
have access to and their assessment of that scientific education?
information and are connected to their knowledge re- This overall research question was broken into three
garding the wide range of challenges concerning sub-questions:
STEM education (Schultz, 2001). The interpretation
of scientific and technological issues associated with RQ 1 Can the intrinsic challenges perceived by Chinese
STEM not only requires a platform of scientific teachers be predicted by their beliefs, knowledge base,
knowledge but also positively held beliefs about the and practice of STEM teaching?
intrinsic challenges and impacts on instructional cap- RQ 2 What are the relationships among Chinese STEM
abilities (Thomm & Bromme, 2012). teachers’ beliefs, knowledge base, instructional

Fig. 1 Intrinsic challenges to STEM instructional practices perceived by teachers based on their beliefs and knowledge base
Dong et al. International Journal of STEM Education (2020) 7:47 Page 5 of 12

practices, and their perceptions of the intrinsic both adapted and translated from the Attitude, Know-
challenges of STEM teaching? ledge, and Application (AKA) questionnaire (Wahono &
RQ 3 How do STEM teachers’ beliefs, knowledge base, Chang, 2019a, 2019b), and included 5 and 4 items, re-
instructional practices, and intrinsic challenges spectively. Five items of the STK subscale were designed
compare, based on teachers’ teaching grade (i.e., the to investigate teachers’ understanding of TPACK know-
grade level that teachers teach at), seniority, and ledge required by STEM education, with good reliability
experience of STEM training and teaching? and validity (α = 0.90, CVI = 0.83). An example of an
item finding information regarding STEM teachers’
Methods knowledge was “I understand the core concepts of
Background STEM-related disciplines.” Four items of the STP sub-
This research focused on obtaining information about scale were used to measure how teachers implement
the beliefs, knowledge base, instructional practices, and STEM courses in the classroom, with good reliability
thus, the intrinsic challenges of STEM education faced and validity (α = 0.86, CVI = 0.83). An example item
by teachers who teach STEM-related subjects in China. was “I usually ask students to design tools or models in
The data, consisting of participants’ demographics in- the STEM classroom.” Finally, the STC subscale was also
cluding gender, seniority, grade, and main subjects adapted by the authors, based on a qualitative study that
taught, and the experience of STEM training and teach- examined the greatest challenges for STEM teachers in
ing, was also collected. Presently, China lacks a system- the USA to effectively implement STEM education
atic admittance system for the certification of new (Shernoff et al., 2017) and included 4 items. These 4
STEM teachers, and a training system is yet to be estab- items were utilized to explore the main challenges
lished. Mostly, STEM teachers are those subject teachers teachers faced in implementing STEM courses in the
who have specialized in disciplinary major varying from classroom. The sample item was “I don’t know how to
mathematics, science-related subjects to information effectively integrate STEM-related subjects, which makes
technology. They have been involved in STEM pro- me find it very difficult to carry out STEM activities.”
grams, activities, or researches such as teaching STEM All 17 items used a five-point Likert scale (1 strongly
lessons as extra-curriculum on-campus, running STEM- disagree to 5 strongly agree). In addition, there were also
related competition, or tutoring students in STEM rele- 7 items measuring respondents’ demographic data.
vant events. They may or may not have attended some
STEM training programs which are specifically launched Participants
for preparing and training subject teachers on how to A total of 216 STEM teachers from 25 provinces in
implement STEM education in schools. The survey has mainland China took part in the survey. Between them,
targeted these teachers and conducted through a Web- they taught STEM-related subjects in primary (n = 146,
based questionnaire system in China. Participating in the 67.6%) and secondary schools (n = 70, 32.4%), consisting
survey was completely voluntary and anonymous. Fi- 63 males (29.2%) and 153 females (70.8%). Their main
nally, the methods were conducted to quantitatively teaching subjects were distributed across traditional dis-
examine the details of how STEM teachers’ beliefs, ciplines, including 94 teachers majoring in science
knowledge base, and instructional practices affected the (43.5%), 43 in technology (19.9%), 15 in mathematics
intrinsic challenges they face in STEM teaching. (6.9%), and 64 in other subjects (29.6%). The number of
years of teaching of the respondents ranged from 1 to
Instruments 38, and 111 of them had fewer than 10 years (51.4%),
A survey instrument was used to measure a group of while 105 had more than 10 years of experience (48.6%).
216 Chinese STEM teachers through random sampling. With regard to the experience of STEM training, 104 of
The instrument consisted of four parts: STEM Teachers’ respondents (48.1%) reported that they had “often” par-
Beliefs (STB), STEM Teachers’ Knowledge (STK), STEM ticipated in training activities related to STEM educa-
Teachers’ Practices (STP), and STEM Teachers’ Intrinsic tion, and 112 (41.9%) reported “rarely.” With regard to
Challenges (STC). The STB subscale was adapted by the the experience of teaching STEM courses, 74 (34.3%) of
authors, based on the descriptive framework of inte- respondents had “more” STEM teaching experience, and
grated STEM education (Nathan & Pearson, 2014), and 142 (65.7%) had “less” experience. All demographic data
included 4 items. These 4 items described STEM of the respondents is shown in Table 1.
teachers’ expectations for the goals and functions of
STEM education. An example of finding information Data analysis
about STEM teachers’ beliefs was: “I believe that STEM Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted using
education can stimulate students’ interest in STEM- SPSS software (version 20.0). EFA was applied to check
related courses.” Next, the subscales STK and STP were whether the questionnaire used in this study was
Dong et al. International Journal of STEM Education (2020) 7:47 Page 6 of 12

Table 1 Demographic statistics

Variables Category Number Percentage (%)
Gender Male 63 29.2
Female 153 70.8
Educational background Bachelor 162 75.0
Master and others 54 25.0
Seniority ≥ 10 years 111 51.4
< 10 years 105 48.6
Grade Primary schools 146 67.6
Secondary schools 70 32.4
Area of specialization Science 94 43.5
Technology 43 19.9
Mathematics 15 6.9
Humanity and other subjects 64 29.6
STEM training experience Often 104 48.1
Rarely 112 51.9
STEM teaching experience More 74 34.3
Less 142 65.7

applicable to these STEM teachers in mainland China. According to EFA, as shown in Table 2, a total of 17
Pearson’s correlation analysis was used to examine the items were extracted with factor loadings 0.6 or above,
correlation between STB, STK, STP, and STC. t tests the total variance explained was 75.27%, and the overall
were performed to ascertain whether there were differ- alpha was 0.83. The four factors, which were labeled as
ences in STB, STK, STP, and STC based on gender, se- STEM Teachers’ Beliefs (STB), STEM Teachers’
niority, grade, and main subjects taught, and experience
of STEM training and teaching. Furthermore, because Table 2 Pattern/structure coefficients for the scale (n = 196)
Pearson’s correlation only describes linear dependencies Factor 1: STB Factor 2: STK Factor 3: STP Factor 4: STC
of the factors, a structural equation model (SEM) was Factor 1: STEM Teachers’ Beliefs (STB), α = 0.91
applied to construct the complex structural model of the STB10 0.77
relationship between STB, STK, STP, and STC, using STB11 0.87
SPSS Amos software (version 21.0).
STB12 0.88
STB13 0.87
Results and discussion
Exploratory factor analysis Factor 2: STEM Teachers’ Knowledge Base (STK), α = 0.91

In order to verify the structural validity of the question- STK16 0.61

naire, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used on the STK18 0.76
sample data of the pilot study (n = 196) in order to iden- STK19 0.87
tify and interpret the latent factors in teachers’ beliefs, STK20 0.87
knowledge, implementation, and the intrinsic challenges STK21 0.89
of STEM teaching. We selected and retained the items
Factor 3: STEM Teachers’ Practices (STP), α = 0.90
with factor loadings higher than 0.60 for the formal
STP27 0.81
study. As Schumacker and Lomax (2016) recommended,
factor loading of all items used for CFA should be higher STP28 0.85

than 0.60; therefore, items with factor loadings less than STP30 0.84
0.60 were omitted from the survey. STP31 0.81
Before the EFA, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value Factor 4: STEM Teachers’ Intrinsic Challenge (STC), α = 0.84
was measured to test whether the sample size was statis- STC33 0.82
tically valid. The resulting KMO value was 0.89, and STC36 0.85
Bartlett’s test measures were all significant (chi-square =
STC37 0.78
2247.57, df = 136, p < 0.001), showing good feasibilities
STC40 0.80
to perform EFA.
Dong et al. International Journal of STEM Education (2020) 7:47 Page 7 of 12

Knowledge Base (STK), STEM Teachers’ Instructional with traditional exams, made them find it very difficult
Practices (STP), and STEM Teachers’ Intrinsic Chal- to carry out STEM activities.
lenges (STC), accounted for the 75.27% of the variance.
The reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) coefficients of these RQ2 What are the relationships among Chinese STEM
four factors were 0.91, 0.91, 0.90, and 0.84, respectively, teachers’ beliefs, knowledge base, instructional practices,
and the overall reliability coefficient was 0.83, suggesting and their perceptions of the intrinsic challenges of STEM
that the reliability of the questionnaire was acceptable. teaching?
The relationships among Chinese STEM teachers’ be-
liefs, knowledge base, instructional practices, and intrin-
RQ1 Can the intrinsic challenges perceived by Chinese sic challenges of STEM teaching are shown in Table 4.
teachers be predicted by their beliefs, knowledge base, The results suggest STB was significantly and positively
and practices of STEM teaching? correlated with STK (r = 0.24) and STP (r = 0.45), STK
The results of Chinese STEM teachers’ beliefs, know- was significantly and positively correlated with STP (r =
ledge base, instructional practices, and intrinsic chal- 0.37) and negatively correlated with STC (r = −0.28),
lenges of STEM teaching are presented in Table 3. The and STP was significantly and negatively correlated with
four subscales’ mean scores varied from 3.34 (SD = 0.92) STC (r = 0.15).
for STK to 4.40 (SD = 0.76) for STB. These results sug- Structural Model and Hypothesis Testing Structural
gest that Chinese STEM teachers held a high level of equation modeling (SEM) and confirmatory factor
positive beliefs about STEM teaching and also had a analysis (CFA) were applied to verify the possible hy-
high level of performance in conducting of STEM potheses mentioned above, and the results are shown
courses. They strongly believed that STEM education in Fig. 2.
could stimulate students’ interest in learning, help them Path analysis results showed that STB had significant
establish interdisciplinary connections, and enhance positive impacts on STP (β = 0.45, t = 5.97, p < 0.001);
their abilities of learning and solving current social prob- STK had significant positive impacts on STP (β = 0.33,
lems, thereby helping to cultivate practitioners in t = 4.53, p < 0.001) and negative impacts on STC (β =
STEM-related fields. These teachers also had a high level − 0.47, t = − 5.61, p < 0.001); and STP had significant
of performance in the conducting of STEM courses. positive impacts on STC (β = 0.39, t = 3.83, p < 0.001).
They usually used their technical, engineering, and The CFA results revealed a moderate model fit (chi-
mathematical backgrounds to explain scientific prob- square = 189.54, df = 114, p < 0.001). The goodness-of-
lems. They asked students to design tools and build fit index is shown in Table 5, indicating that the model
models, and let them adopt mathematical thinking, en- above constructed by four factors was reasonably
gage in engineering & design process planning, and use acceptable.
appropriate technology to support problem posing in
the STEM classroom. RQ3 How do STEM teachers’ beliefs, knowledge base,
However, they may have had only a medium level of instructional practices, and intrinsic challenges compare,
knowledge about STEM teaching. They did not have a based on teachers’ teaching grade, seniority, and
good grasp of the disciplinary core ideas and crosscut- experience of STEM training and teaching?
ting concepts in STEM education, their knowledge of This research also revealed the differences in the level
STEM courses was not sufficient, and they did not of STB, STK, STP, and STC, based on the demo-
understand well how STEM-related disciplines were graphic data of respondents. The results of the ana-
connected. Moreover, these teachers still encountered lysis showed that there were no significant differences
intrinsic challenges at a moderately high level in the im- between STB, STK, STP, and STC based on gender
plementation of STEM courses. Many challenges, such and educational background. In relation to the differ-
as using technical tools, understanding engineering edu- ences based on STEM teachers’ main subjects taught,
cation, integrating STEM-related subjects, and coping the results of the ANOVA analysis showed that there

Table 3 Description statistics and reliability coefficient for each Table 4 Correlation coefficients for variable pairs (n = 216)
subscale (n = 216)
1 2 3
Mean SD Alpha
1 STEM Teachers’ Beliefs (STB)
STEM Teachers’ Beliefs (STB) 4.40 0.76 0.94
2 STEM Teachers’ Knowledge Base (STK) 0.24**
STEM Teachers’ Knowledge Base (STK) 3.34 0.92 0.93
3 STEM Teachers’ Instructional Practices (STP) 0.45** 0.37**
STEM Teachers’ Instructional Practices (STP) 4.17 0.59 0.82
4 STEM Teachers’ Intrinsic Challenges (STC) 0.04 − 0.28** 0.15*
STEM Teachers’ Intrinsic Challenge (STC) 3.64 0.82 0.82
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001
Dong et al. International Journal of STEM Education (2020) 7:47 Page 8 of 12

Fig. 2 Path analysis diagram and standardized path coefficients of the scale

was no significant difference among teachers majoring seniority and experience of STEM training and teaching.
in different subjects. In detail, on the STC subscale STEM teachers working
However, there were some significant differences more than 10 years scored significantly higher than those
based on teaching grade, seniority, and experience of working fewer than 10 years, while STEM teachers with
STEM training and teaching. The results of more experience of STEM training and teaching scored
independent-sample t test are shown in Table 6. significantly lower than teachers with less experience.
In the STB and STP domains, there were significant dif- In order to explore the difference of STEM teachers’
ferences based on teaching grade. STEM teachers who training experience on the structural model of the four
came from primary schools scored significantly higher factors above, the research data was divided into two
than teachers who came from secondary schools on the parts, according to the experience of training. The re-
STB and STP subscales. However, in the STK domain, sults of modeling the two sets of data by SEM are pre-
there were significant differences based on teaching grade, sented in Fig. 3.
seniority, and experience of STEM training and teaching. For a set of data that marked the STEM training ex-
That is to say, on the STK subscale, primary STEM perience as “rarely” (n = 112), the model structure was
teachers scored significantly higher than secondary consistent with that constructed in Fig. 2 using all the
teachers, STEM teachers with more than 10 years of seni- data (n = 216). STB had significant positive impacts on
ority scored significantly higher than teachers with less STP (β = 0.46, t = 4.12, p< 0.001); STK had significant
than 10 years of seniority, and STEM teachers with more positive impacts on STP (β = 0.35, t = 3.30, p < 0.01)
experience of STEM training and teaching scored signifi- and negative impacts on STC (β = − 0.42, t = − 3.60, p <
cantly higher than teachers with less experience. In the 0.001); and STP had significant positive impacts on STC
STC domain, there were significant differences based on (β = 0.46, t = 3.00, p < 0.01). However, the model

Table 5 Goodness-of-fit index of the structural equation model (n = 216)

χ2/df GFI NFI RFI IFI CFI RMR RMSEA
1.66 0.91 0.93 0.91 0.97 0.97 0.07 0.06
Criteria < 3.00 > 0.90 > 0.90 > 0.90 > 0.90 > 0.90 < 0.08 < 0.08
Dong et al. International Journal of STEM Education (2020) 7:47 Page 9 of 12

Table 6 Comparison of STB, STK, STP, and STC based on teachers’ teaching grade, seniority, and the experience STEM training and
teaching (n = 216)
Teaching grade Seniority
Primary school (mean ± SD), Secondary school (mean ± t p < 10 years (mean ± SD), ≥ 10 years (mean ± SD), t p
n = 146 SD), n = 70 n = 111 n = 105
STB 4.47 ± 0.74 3.51 ± 0.82 2.07 0.04* 4.43 ± 0.70 4.36 ± 0.82 0.73 0.47
STK 3.51 ± 0.82 2.98 ± 1.03 3.76 0.00*** 3.10 ± 0.94 3.58 ± 0.84 − 0.00***
3.89
STP 4.27 ± 0.55 3.96 ± 0.62 3.75 0.00*** 4.20 ± 0.56 4.14 ± 0.62 0.72 0.48
STC 3.63 ± 0.83 3.67 ± 0.82 − 0.73 3.77 ± 0.82 3.51 ± 0.81 2.27 0.03*
0.34
Training experience Teaching experience
often rarely t p more less t p
(Mean ± SD), (Mean ± SD), (Mean ± SD), (Mean ± SD),
n = 104 n = 112 n = 74 n = 142
STB 4.49 ± 0.78 4.31 ± 0.73 1.68 0.09 4.53 ± 0.66 4.33 ± 0.80 1.89 0.06
STK 3.65 ± 0.73 3.04 ± 0.99 5.12 0.00*** 3.86 ± 0.68 3.06 ± 0.92 7.30 0.00***
STP 4.17 ± 0.61 4.17 ± 0.57 -0.04 0.97 4.21 ± 0.66 4.15 ± 0.56 0.66 0.51
STC 3.43 ± 0.78 3.84 ± 0.82 -3.82 0.00*** 3.27 ± 0.78 3.84 ± 0.78 -5.13 0.00***
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001

structure was different for the set of data that marked appear to be the lack of understanding of engineering
the STEM training experience as “often” (n = 104). STB education. For Chinese teachers who frequently partici-
had significant positive impacts on STP (β = 0.46, t = pate in professional development training activities,
4.62, p < 0.001); STK had significant positive impacts knowledge may be a key factor negatively affecting in-
on STP (β = 0.37, t = 3.71, p < 0.001) and negative im- trinsic challenges of STEM teaching; however, for
pacts on STC (β = − 0.37, t = − 2.92, p < 0.05); while teachers who rarely participate in them, practice may be
STP had no significant impacts on STC. a key factor positively affecting intrinsic challenges of
STEM teaching. All these facts contributed to the main
Major findings of this study aspects of teachers’ intrinsic challenges.
Chinese teachers encounter high-level intrinsic chal- The intrinsic challenges perceived by Chinese
lenges in implementing STEM programs. The major is- teachers can be predicted by their knowledge base
sues would appear to be the lack of knowledge of how and beliefs, which are mediated by their STEM in-
to effectively integrate STEM-related disciplines and not structional practices. The following are the major as-
being proficient with the technical tools required for pects revealed, based on the analysis, including their
STEM teaching and learning. The major weakness would interrelationships:

Fig. 3 The structural model with standardized coefficients based on the experience of STEM training
Dong et al. International Journal of STEM Education (2020) 7:47 Page 10 of 12

 The intrinsic challenges perceived by Chinese study, with a sample of 216, it is appropriate to use the
teachers can be predicted directly by their SEM model.
knowledge and STEM instructional practices.
 A teacher who understands the nature, key features, Conclusions
and pedagogy of STEM education is more likely to The main findings of this study indicate that the in-
encounter lower-level intrinsic challenges of STEM trinsic challenges perceived by Chinese teachers can
teaching; while a teacher who utilizes their main dis- be predicted by their knowledge base and beliefs
cipline and conducts STEM teaching activities which are mediated by their STEM instructional prac-
through modeling based on technology, engineering, tices. A teacher who understands the nature, key fea-
and mathematical problem situations is more likely tures, and pedagogy of STEM education is more
to encounter higher-level intrinsic challenges. likely to encounter lower-level intrinsic challenges of
 The beliefs held by Chinese teachers can predict STEM teaching compared to a teacher who utilizes
their STEM instructional practices. In other words, their main discipline. There is a strong relationship
a Chinese teacher who believes that STEM shown between beliefs with knowledge and practices
education is conducive to stimulating students’ in the analysis, but a direct relationship between be-
interest in learning, helping students to build bridges liefs and perceived intrinsic challenges seems to be
across different disciplines, and improving students’ not as strong. This is natural as teachers’ beliefs and
ability to respond to and solve current social knowledge influence how they teach STEM (Nadelson
problems, thereby cultivating practitioners in et al., 2013), but the reality of integrating the STEM
STEM-related industry fields, tends to enact STEM curriculum seems to present a challenge to them
instructional practices that align with its interdiscip- (Hofer & Grandgenett, 2012). The demands of a
linary nature. twentyfirst century education include challenges to
 For Chinese teachers who frequently participate in existing practices and need a shift across all educa-
STEM training activities, knowledge may be a key tional levels in integrating STEM disciplines (NRC,
factor negatively affecting (i.e., reducing) the 2012). Teachers’ beliefs and worldviews have a great
intrinsic challenges of STEM teaching; however, for influence on instructional practices in which they en-
teachers who rarely participate in teacher training gage (Davis, 2003); in this study is evident that beliefs
for STEM education, a practice may be a key influence STEM instructional practices very strongly.
positive factor (i.e., increasing the intrinsic There is a gap between beliefs and the intrinsic chal-
challenges of STEM teaching). lenges teachers face, and to bridge this gap, there is a
need for innovative practices in teacher preparation
Limitations of this study and teacher professional development (Barak, 2015;
This research focused on the beliefs, knowledge base, Kurup et al., 2019). Professional development has the
instructional practices, and intrinsic challenges of protentional in different dimensions for providing
STEM teachers who taught STEM related subjects in teachers with the ability to deal with an integrated
China. The survey was conducted through a Web- STEM approach and to improve their knowledge and
based questionnaire system in China and was a pedagogical practices (Heck, Plumley, Stylianou,
quantitative analysis of how STEM teachers’ beliefs, Smith, & Moffett, 2019).
knowledge base, and instructional practices affected The findings of this study also suggest a possible
the perceived intrinsic challenges of STEM teaching. relationship between the level of intrinsic challenges
We have taken extreme care in the analysis of the perceived by STEM teachers and their experience of
data, using appropriate statistical techniques. The STEM training. Teachers need support in STEM
reality is that this is a sample of 216 teachers from teaching and learning with the integration of STEM
25 provinces of mainland China; extreme care should disciplines and appropriate resources for such peda-
be taken in making broader generalizations based on gogical approaches (Estapa & Tank, 2017). Profes-
this study. sional development should provide support to
Regarding the sample size, there is no consensus in teachers’ dynamics in shifting to innovative peda-
the literature as to what would be an appropriate sample gogical practices and integrating the different disci-
size for using SEM. Some evidence exists that simple plines effectively (Du et al., 2019). Professional
SEM models could be meaningfully tested even if the development for teachers can often successfully sup-
sample size is quite small (Hoyle & Kenny, 1999; Marsh port self-efficacy and reduce challenges associated
& Hau, 1999), but usually, n = 100–250 is considered with STEM practices (Seals, Mehta, Berzina-Pitcher,
the minimum sample size for conducting SEM (Ding & Graves-Wolf, 2017). The complexities associated
et al., 1995; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001), and for this with the professional development of teachers to
Dong et al. International Journal of STEM Education (2020) 7:47 Page 11 of 12

achieve the goal of an ideal STEM focus require in- Breslyn, W., & McGinnis, J. R. (2012). A comparison of exemplary biology,
novations and informed decision-making (Fensham, chemistry, earth science, and physics teachers’ conceptions and enactment
of inquiry. Science Education, 96(1), 48–77.
2016). Overall, this study revealed the current status of is- Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: challenges and opportunities.
sues connected with Chinese STEM teachers’ integrating NSTA press.
STEM disciplines based on their current practices and the Cox, S., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Using an elaborated model of the TPACK
framework to analyze and depict teacher knowledge. TechTrends, 53(5),
real need for further professional development. Further re- 60–69.
search is needed to investigate whether professional devel- Crippen, K. J. (2012). Argument as professional development: impacting teacher
opment training can reduce the level of intrinsic knowledge and beliefs about science. Journal of Science Teacher Education,
23(8), 847–866.
challenges perceived by STEM teachers, and whether Davis, A. (2003). Teachers’ and students’ beliefs regarding aspects of language
STEM teachers who have a low level of knowledge base learning, Evaluation and Research in Education, 17(4), 207-222. https://doi.org/
for teaching STEM can be supported by professional de- 10.1080/09500790308668303
Ding, L., Velicer, W., & Harlow, L. (1995). Effects of estimation methods, number of
velopment training: If so, what kind of and content of pro- indicators per factor, and improper solutions on structural equation
fessional development they need. modeling fit indices. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 2(2), 119–143.
Abbreviations Du, W., Liu, D., Johnson, C. C., Sondergeld, T. A., Bolshakova, V. L. J., & Moore, T. J. (2019).
STB: STEM Teachers’ Beliefs; STK: STEM Teachers’ Knowledge Base; STP: STEM The impact of integrated STEM professional development on teacher quality. School
Teachers’ Instructional Practices; STC: STEM Teachers’ Intrinsic Challenges Science and Mathematics, 119(2), 105-114. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12318
El-Deghaidy, H., Mansour, N., Alzaghibi, M., & Alhammad, K. (2017). Context of
STEM integration in schools: views from in-service science teachers. Eurasia
Acknowledgements
Journal of Mathematics Science & Technology Education, 13(6), 2459–2484.
Not applicable.
English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: perspectives on integration. International
Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1
Authors’ contributions Estapa, A. T., & Tank, K. M. (2017). Supporting integrated STEM in the elementary
This research is conducted by a team of researchers. Yan Dong and Jing classroom: a professional development approach centered on an
Wang conducted the investigation and looked at the analysis of data and engineering design challenge. International Journal of STEM Education, 4, 1-
results. Yunying Yang and Premnadh M. Kurup constructed the conceptual 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0058-3
framework, reviewed the paper, and modified the draft. The authors read Fensham, P. J. (2015). Connoisseurs of science: a next goal for science education?.
and approved the final manuscript. In R. F. Gunstone, A. Jones, D. Corrigan & J. Dillon (Eds.), The future in learning
science: what’s in it for the learner? (pp. 35-59). Springer.
Funding Fensham, P. J. (2016). The future curriculum for school science: what can be
This research was funded by the International Centre for Educational learnt from the past? Research in Science Education, 46(2), 165–185.
Research, Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, China, grant Freeman, B. (2015). Federal and state STEM policies and programmes spanning
number [ICER201902]. Australian education, training, science and innovation. In B. Freeman, S.
Marginson & R. Tytler (Eds.), Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics
(pp. 178-200). Routledge.
Availability of data and materials
Friedrichsen, P., Driel, J. H. V., & Abell, S. K. (2011). Taking a closer look at science
The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from
teaching orientations. Science Education, 95(2), 358–376.
the corresponding author on reasonable request. Please contact the author
Gao, Y. (2013). Report on China’s STEM system. Centre for the Study of Higher
for data requests.
Education, University of Melbourne. https://acola.org/wp-content/uploads/2
018/12/Consultant-Report-China.pdf. Accessed 28 Dec 2019
Competing interests Heck, D. J., Plumley, C. L., Stylianou, D. A., Smith, A. A., & Moffett, G. (2019). Scaling
Authors declare that “There is no conflict of interest in this article from any up innovative learning in mathematics: exploring the effect of different
of the authors”. professional development approaches on teacher knowledge, beliefs, and
instructional practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 102, 319–342.
Author details https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-019-09895-6
1
Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China. 2Melbourne Hoachlander, G., & Yanofsky, D. (2011). Making STEM real. Educational Leadership,
Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, 68(6), 60–65.
Melbourne, Victoria 3053, Australia. 3School of Education, La Trobe University, Hodson, D. (1992). In search of a meaningful relationship: an exploration
Melbourne, Australia. of some issues relating to integration in science and science
education. International Journal of Science Education, 14(5), 541–562.
Received: 11 February 2020 Accepted: 3 August 2020 Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: implications for learning and
teaching. Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 353–383.
Hofer, M., & Grandgenett, N. (2012). TPACK development in teacher
References education: a longitudinal study of preservice teachers in a secondary
Akuma, F. V., & Callaghan, R. (2019). A systematic review characterizing and M.A.Ed. program. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
clarifying intrinsic teaching challenges linked to inquiry-based practical work. 45(1), 83-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2012.10782598
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(5), 619–648. Holmlund, T.D., Lesseig, K. & Slavit, D. (2018). Making sense of “STEM education”
Asghar, A., Ellington, R., Rice, E., Johnson, F., & Prime, G. M. (2012). Supporting in K-12 contexts. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(32). https://doi.
STEM education in secondary science contexts. Interdisciplinary Journal of org/10.1186/s40594-018-0127-2
Problem-Based Learning, 6(2), 4. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ijpbl/vol6/iss2/4/. Hoyle, R. H., & Kenny, D. A. (1999). Statistical power and tests of
Ayres, D. C. (2016). A collaborative integrated STEM teaching: Examination of a mediation. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical strategies for small sample
science and math teacher collaboration on an integrated STEM unit (ProQuest research. Sage.
No. 10146270) [Master's thesis, Purdue University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Johnson, L., & Brown, S. (2011). Challenge based learning: the report from the
Theses Global. implementation project (pp. 1-36). The New Media Consortium.
Barak, M. E. M. (2015). Inclusion is the key to diversity management, but what is Jones, M. G., & Carter, G. (2007). Science teacher attitudes and beliefs. In S. K.
inclusion?. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Abell, K. Appleton & D. L. Hanuscin (Eds.), Handbook of research on science
Governance, 39(2), 83-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2015.1035599 education (pp. 1067-1104). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dong et al. International Journal of STEM Education (2020) 7:47 Page 12 of 12

Jones, M. G., & Leagon, M. (2014). Science teacher attitudes and beliefs: reforming Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and
practice. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656.
science education, Volume II (pp. 844-861). Routledge. Schoepp, K.W. (2004). Technology integration barriers in a technology-rich
Kam, K., Chan, H., Yeh, Y., & Hsu, Y. (2019). A framework for examining teachers ’ environment: a CBAM perspective [Master's thesis, University of Calgary].
practical knowledge for STEM teaching. In Y. S. Hsu & Y. F. Yeh (Eds.), Asia- ProQuest. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/116334/
Pacific STEM teaching practices: From theoretical frameworks to practices. Schommer, M. (1994). Synthesizing epistemological belief research: tentative
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0768-7 understandings and provocative confusions. Educational Psychology Review,
Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM 6(4), 293–319.
education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 11. https://doi.org/10. Schultz, P. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: concern for self,
1186/s40594-016-0046-z other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(4),
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content 327–339.
knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Schulz, R. M. (2009). Reforming science education: part I. The search for a
Education, 9(1), 60–70. philosophy of science education. Science & Education, 18(3-4), 225–249.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2016). A beginner’s guide to structural equation
technology? The development of technological pedagogical content modeling, (4th ed., ). Routledge.
knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152. Seals, C., Mehta, S., Berzina-Pitcher, I., & Graves-Wolf, L. (2017). Enhancing teacher
Kurup, P. M., Li, X., Powell, G., & Brown, M. (2019). Building future primary efficacy for urban STEM teachers facing challenges to their teaching. Journal
teachers’ capacity in STEM: based on a platform of beliefs, understandings of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research, 13, 135–146.
and intentions. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 10. https://doi. Shernoff, D. J., Sinha, S., Bressler, D. M., & Ginsburg, L. (2017). Assessing
org/10.1186/s40594-019-0164-5 teacher education and professional development needs for the
Kwak, Y. (2001). Profile change in preservice science teacher's epistemological and implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education.
ontological beliefs about constructivist learning: implications for science International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/
teaching and learning [Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University]. s40594-017-0068-1
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation Science standards: for states, by states. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform.
The National Academies Press. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching.
science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
29(4), 331–359. Storksdieck, M. (2016). Critical information literacy as core skill for lifelong STEM
Luft, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2007). Capturing science teachers’ epistemological learning in the 21st century: reflections on the desirability and feasibility for
beliefs: the development of the teacher beliefs interview. Electronic Journal of widespread science media education. Cultural Studies Of Science Education,
Science Education, 11(2). 11(1), 167–182.
Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: country Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Allyn
comparisons: International comparisons of science, technology, engineering and & Bacon.
mathematics (STEM) education. Final report. Australian Council of Learned Tanenbaum, C. (2016). STEM 2026: a vision for innovation in STEM education. US
Academies. http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30059041. Accessed 28 Dec Department of Education.
2019. Tao, Y. (2019). Kindergarten teachers’ attitudes toward and confidence for
Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and integrated stem education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 2, 154–171.
education: a systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-019-00017-8
Education, 6(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2. Thomm, E., & Bromme, R. (2012). “It should at least seem scientific!” Textual
Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K. T. (1999). Confirmatory factor analysis: Strategies for small features of “scientificness” and their impact on lay assessments of online
sample sizes. Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research, 1, 251–284. information. Science Education, 96(2), 187–211.
McMullin, K., & Reeve, E. (2014). Identifying perceptions that contribute to the Wahono, B., & Chang, C. Y. (2019a). Development and validation of a survey
development of successful project lead the way pre-engineering programs instrument (AKA) towards attitude, knowledge and application of STEM.
in Utah. Journal of Technology Education, 26(1), 22–46. https://doi.org/10. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18, 63–76.
21061/jte.v26i1.a.2 Wahono, B., & Chang, C. Y. (2019b). Assessing teacher’s attitude, knowledge, and
application (AKA) on STEM: an effort to foster the sustainable development
Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M. S., Wang, H. H., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Roehrig, G.
of STEM education. Sustainability, 11(4), 950. https://doi.org/10.3390/
H. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM
su11040950
education. In J. Strobel, M. E. Cardella, & Ş. Purzer (Eds.), Engineering in pre-
Yang, X., Kaiser, G., König, J., & Blömeke, S. (2020). Relationship between pre-
college settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices (pp. 35-60). Purdue
service mathematics teachers’ knowledge, beliefs and instructional practices
University Press.
in China. ZDM Mathematics Education, 52, 281–294. https://doi.org/https://
Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J., Pyke P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013).
doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01145-x
Teacher STEM perception and preparation: Inquiry-based STEM professional
Yildirim, B. (2016). An analyses and meta-synthesis of research on STEM
development for elementary teachers. The Journal of Educational Research,
education. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(34), 23–33. https://doi.org/10.
106(2), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.667014
1166/asl.2016.8111
Nathan, M., & Pearson, G. (2014, June 15-18). Integration in K–12 STEM education:
status, prospects, and an agenda for research [paper presentation]. 2014 ASEE
Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana. https://peer.asee.org/2 Publisher’s Note
0673 Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
National Research Council. (2012). Education for life and work: developing published maps and institutional affiliations.
transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2013). Monitoring progress toward successful K-12
STEM education: a nation advancing?. National Academies Press.
Olafson, L., & Schraw, G. (2006). Teachers’ beliefs and practices within and across
domains. International Journal of Educational Research, 45(1-2), 71–84.
Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections (Vol.
13). The Nuffield Foundation.
Phillips, D. C. (1997). How, why, what, when, and where: perspectives on
constructivism in psychology and education. Issues in Education, 3(2), 151–194.
Ryder, J. (2015). Being professional: accountability and authority in teachers’
responses to science curriculum reform. Studies in Science Education, 51(1),
87–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2014.1001629