Review Article

Creative methods in STEM for secondary school students: Systematic literature review

Nurin Nuha binti Zakeri 1, Riyan Hidayat 1 * , Nur Atikah binti Mohd Sabri 1, Nurul Fashihah binti Yaakub 1, Kayshalini S Balachandran 1, Nurul Izzah binti Azizan 1
More Detail
1 Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science and Mathematics, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Perak, MALAYSIA* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Mathematics and Science Education, 4(1), 2023, ep23003, https://doi.org/10.30935/conmaths/12601
Published Online: 02 November 2022, Published: 01 January 2023
OPEN ACCESS   523 Views   346 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) are recognized as critical subjects that underlie innovation and national prosperity. Through inquiry-based learning, STEM subjects contribute to the development and application of these abilities. Therefore, the main purpose of this research is to explore type of creative methods in STEM for secondary school students. Articles from 2017 till 2021 screened and analyzed using systematic literature review (SLR) and PRISMA protocol. Three online search engines used are Springer, Scopus, and Science Direct. The thematic analysis method is used to analyze the data. A total of 22 articles were chosen for the systematic analysis after being screened using the eligibility requirements. Result showed that the creative teaching methods involving STEM used in the current study were a problem and project-based learning, mathematical modelling, inquiry-based learning, design-based learning, tool-based pedagogy, student-centered learning, 5E instructional model, professional development, board games and role-play, STEM 7E-learning cycle and boundary-crossing. From twenty-two articles chosen, 77% used qualitative approach in existing literature of creative thinking. Our findings indicated that the distribution of STEM education in different countries such as Australia, Germany, Indonesia, Malaysia, Spain, and the US. At the end, STEM in mathematics education gives a positive out-turn overall.

CITATION (APA)

Zakeri, N. N. B., Hidayat, R., Sabri, N. A. B. M., Yaakub, N. F. B., Balachandran, K. S., & Azizan, N. I. B. (2023). Creative methods in STEM for secondary school students: Systematic literature review. Contemporary Mathematics and Science Education, 4(1), ep23003. https://doi.org/10.30935/conmaths/12601

REFERENCES

  1. Attard, C., Berger, N., & Mackenzie, E. (2021). The positive influence of inquiry-based learning teacher professional learning and industry partnerships on student engagement with STEM. Frontiers in Education, 6, 693221. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.693221
  2. Barroso, L. R., Bicer, A., Capraro, M. M., Capraro, R. M., Foran, A. L., Grant, M. R., Lincoln, Y. S., Nite, S. B., Oner, A. T., & Rice, D. (2017). Run! Spot. Run!: Vocabulary development and the evolution of STEM disciplinary language for secondary teachers. ZDM, 49(2), 187-201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0826-4
  3. Bergsten, C., & Frejd, P. (2019). Preparing pre-service mathematics teachers for STEM education: An analysis of lesson proposals. ZDM, 51(6), 941-953.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01071-7
  4. Beswick, K., & Fraser, S. (2019). Developing mathematics teachers’ 21st century competence for teaching in STEM contexts. ZDM, 51(6), 955-965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01084-2
  5. Chen, C.-S., & Lin, J.-W. (2019). A practical action research study of the impact of maker-centered STEM-PjBL on a rural middle school in Taiwan. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(S1), 85-108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09961-8
  6. Chu, H.-E., Martin, S. N., & Park, J. (2018). A theoretical framework for developing an intercultural STEAM program for Australian and Korean students to enhance science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(7), 1251-1266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9922-y
  7. Conradty, C., & Bogner, F. X. (2020). STEAM teaching professional development works: Effects on students’ creativity and motivation. Smart Learning Environments, 7, 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-020-00132-9
  8. Diego-Mantecon, J.-M., Prodromou, T., Lavicza, Z., Blanco, T. F., & Ortiz-Laso, Z. (2021). An attempt to evaluate STEAM project-based instruction from a school mathematics perspective. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 53, 1137-1148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01303-9
  9. Dong, Y., Wang, J., Yang, Y., & Kurup, P. M. (2020). Understanding intrinsic challenges to STEM instructional practices for Chinese teachers based on their beliefs and knowledge base. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00245-0
  10. Hamzah, N. A. H., & Hidayat, R. (2022). The role of Geogebra software in mathematics education: A systematic literature review. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Dan Matematik Malaysia [Malaysian Journal of Science and Mathematics Education], 12(1), 24-38.
  11. Harris, A., & de Bruin, L. R. (2017). Secondary school creativity, teacher practice and STEAM education: An international study. Journal of Educational Change, 19(2), 153-179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-017-9311-2
  12. Hidayat, R., Adnan, M., Abdullah, M. F. N. L. & Safrudiannur. (2022). A systematic literature review of measurement of mathematical modelling in mathematics education context. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(5), em2108. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12007
  13. Kaspersen, E., & Ytterhaug, B. O. (2020). Measuring mathematical identity in lower secondary school. International Journal of Educational Research, 103, 101620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101620
  14. Khaizaar, N. I., & Hidayat, R. (2022). The implementation of dual language programme for mathematics education in secondary schools: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 8(4), 669-686.
  15. Leung, A. (2018). Exploring STEM pedagogy in the mathematics classroom: a tool-based experiment lesson on estimation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(7), 1339-1358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9924-9
  16. Li, Y., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2019). Problematizing teaching and learning mathematics as “given” in STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 6, 44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0197-9
  17. Lin, P. Y., Chai, C. S., & Jong, M. S. (2021). A study of disposition, engagement, efficacy, and vitality of teachers in designing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 661631. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.661631
  18. Maass, K., Geiger, V., Ariza, M. R., & Goos, M. (2019). The role of mathematics in interdisciplinary STEM education. ZDM, 51(6), 869-884. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11858-019-01100-5
  19. Man, M. Z. G., Hidayat, R., Kashmir, M. K., Suhaimi, N. F., Adnan, M., & Saswandila, A. (2022). Design thinking in mathematics education for primary school: A systematic literature review. Alifmatika: Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Pembelajaran Matematika [Alifmatika: Journal of Mathematics Education and Learning], 4(1), 17-36. https://doi.org/10.35316/alifmatika.2022.v4i1.17-36
  20. Mohamed, M. Z., Hidayat, R., binti Suhaizi, N. N., bin Mahmud, M. K. H., & binti Baharuddin, S. N. (2022). Artificial intelligence in mathematics education: A systematic literature review. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 17(3), em0694. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/12132
  21. Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Paul, S., & Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
  22. Morrison, J., Frost, J., Gotch, C., McDuffie, A. R., Austin, B., & French, B. (2020). Teachers’ role in students’ learning at a project-based STEM high school: Implications for teacher education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19(6), 1103-1123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10108-3
  23. Nasri, N. M., Nasri, N., & Talib, M. A. A. (2020). Towards developing Malaysia STEM teacher standard: Early framework. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(7), 3077-3084. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080736
  24. Parno, P., Supriana, E., Yuliati, L., Widarti, A. N., Ali, M., & Azizah, U. (2019). The influence of STEM-based 7E learning cycle on students critical and creative thinking skills in physics. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 8(2S9), 761-769. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijrte.B1158.0982S919
  25. Qudratuddarsi, H., Hidayat, R., Nasir, N., Imami, M. K. W., & bin Mat Nor, R. (2022). Rasch validation of instrument measuring Gen-Z science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) application in teaching during the pandemic. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 21(6), 104-121. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.21.6.7
  26. Rahman, N. A., Rosli, R., Rambely, A. S., & Halim, L. (2021). Mathematics teachers’ practices of STEM education: A systematic literature review. European Journal of Educational Research, 10(3), 1541-1559. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.10.3.1541
  27. Rahman, N. A., Rosli, R., Rambely, A. S., & Halim, L. (2021). Mathematics teachers’ practices of STEM education: A systematic literature review. European Journal of Educational Research, 10(3), 1541-1559. https://doi.org/10.12973/eujer.10.3.1541
  28. Robinson, G. M., Hardman, M., & Matley, R. J. (2021). Using games in geographical and planning-related teaching: Serious games, edutainment, board games and role-play. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 4(1), 100208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ssaho.2021.100208
  29. Sutaphan, S., & Yuenyong, C. (2019). STEM education teaching approach: Inquiry from the context based. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1340(1), 012003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1340/1/012003
  30. Vale, C., Campbell, C., Speldewinde, C., & White, P. (2019). Teaching across subject boundaries in STEM: Continuities in beliefs about learning and teaching. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(3), 463-483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09983-2
  31. Vossen, T. E., Tigelaar, E. H., Henze, I., De Vries, M. J., & Van Driel, J. H. (2019). Student and teacher perceptions of the functions of research in the context of a design-oriented STEM module. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30(4), 657-686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09523-7
  32. Wahono, B., Lin, P.-L., & Chang, C.-Y. (2020). Evidence of STEM enactment effectiveness in Asian student learning outcomes. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00236-1
  33. Wang, H.-H., Charoenmuang, M., Knobloch, N. A., & Tormoehlen, R. L. (2020). Defining interdisciplinary collaboration based on high school teachers’ beliefs and practices of STEM integration using a complex designed system. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0201-4