International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 2834-7919   |  e-ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2022, Vol. 18(2) 119-135

The Effect of STEM Education Integrated into Teaching-Learning Approaches (SEITLA) on Learning Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis Study

Mustafa Çevik & Büşra Bakioğlu

pp. 119 - 135   |  DOI:   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2110-19-0002.R3

Published online: April 01, 2022  |   Number of Views: 134  |  Number of Download: 201


STEM education is an educational approach whose popularity has increased in recent years. Although numerous efforts have been made to make STEM education more effective, educators face great difficulties in finding appropriate teaching methods and strategies. Within this framework, the aim of this research is to examine the results of studies that investigate the effect of STEM education integrated into teaching-learning approaches (SEITLA) on learning outcomes and to evaluate the results obtained from these studies. For this purpose, the meta-analysis method was used in this study. In line with the aim of the study, 33 experimental studies made between the years 2015-2021 were included in the meta-analysis, and the effect sizes of these studies were calculated. It was found that the effect of these activities on individuals’ learning outcomes had an effect size ranging between 0.13 and 2.09. As a result of the meta-analysis, it was determined that among the studies examined in the research, the effect of STEM education carried out with a mastery learning approach on students’ learning outcomes was considerably large. Another interesting result determined in the study was that the effect of a technology-supported STEM approach on learning outcomes was very small. In conclusion, STEM education integrated into teaching-learning approaches such as mastery learning, evidence-based education, and blended learning can be more effective on students’ learning outcomes. At the end of the study, discussions related to the findings are also included.

Keywords: Teaching Approaches, Learning Approaches, STEM, Meta-Analysis, Learning Outcomes

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Cevik, M. & Bakioglu, B. (2022). The Effect of STEM Education Integrated into Teaching-Learning Approaches (SEITLA) on Learning Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis Study . International Journal of Progressive Education, 18(2), 119-135. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2022.431.8

Cevik, M. and Bakioglu, B. (2022). The Effect of STEM Education Integrated into Teaching-Learning Approaches (SEITLA) on Learning Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis Study . International Journal of Progressive Education, 18(2), pp. 119-135.

Chicago 16th edition
Cevik, Mustafa and Busra Bakioglu (2022). "The Effect of STEM Education Integrated into Teaching-Learning Approaches (SEITLA) on Learning Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis Study ". International Journal of Progressive Education 18 (2):119-135. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2022.431.8.

  1. Angwal, Y. A., Saat, R. M., & Sathasivam, R.V. (2019). Preparation and validation of an integrated STEM instructional material for genetic instruction among year 11 science students. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(2) ,41-56. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education (6th ed.). Belmont Publications. [Google Scholar]
  3. Atman, C. J., Adams, R. S., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J., Mosborg, S., & Saleem, J. (2007). Engineering design processes: A comparison of students and expert practitioners. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 359–379. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ayaz, M., Gülen, S., & Gök, B. (2020). Examination of the effect of electronic portfolio use on the academic achievement and STEM attitude of eighth grade students in the application process of stem activities. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(1), 1153-1179. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  5. Bahşi, A., & Açıkgül Fırat, E. (2020). The effects of STEM activities on 8th grade students’ science process skills, scientific epistemological beliefs and science achievements. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 39(1), 1-22. [Google Scholar]
  6. Batdi, V., Talan, T., & Semerci, C. (2019). Meta-analytic and meta-thematic analysis of STEM education. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology (IJEMST), 7(4), 382-399. [Google Scholar]
  7. Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education, 12(5- 6), 23-37. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bender, W. N. (2016). 20 Strategies for STEM Instruction. Learning Science International. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1(2), 1-11. Retrieved from  [Google Scholar]
  10. Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  11. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2009). Comprehensive meta-analysis (Version 3) [Computer software]. Biostat. [Google Scholar]
  12. Brown, R., Brown, J., Reardon, K., & Merrill, C. (2011). Understanding STEM: Current perceptions. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(6), 5–9. [Google Scholar]
  13. Burrows, A., Lockwood, M., Borowczak, M., Janak, E., & Barber, B. (2018). Integrated STEM: Focus on informal education and community collaboration through engineering. Education Sciences, 8(1), 1-15. [Google Scholar]
  14. Büyükdede, M. (2018). Effect of the STEM activities related to work-energy and impulse-momentum topics on academic achievement and conceptual understanding level [Master’s thesis]. Dokuz Eylül University. Retrieved from [Google Scholar]
  15. 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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  16. Bybee, R. W. (2010). What is STEM education? Science, 329(5995), 996. 10.1126/science.1194998 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  17. Chang, C. C., & Chen, Y. (2020). Using mastery learning theory to develop task-centered hands-on STEM learning of Arduino-based educational robotics: Psychomotor performance and perception by a convergent parallel mixed method. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-16. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  18. Chien, Y. H. (2016).  Developing a pre-engineering curriculum for 3d printing skills for high school technology education. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(7), 2941-2958. [Google Scholar]
  19. Cloutier, A., Dwyer, J., & Sherrod, S. E. (2016). Exploration of hands-on/minds-on learning in an active STEM outreach program. ASEE’s 123nd Annual Conf. & Expo., New Orleans, LA, Paper ID #16121 [Google Scholar]
  20. 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. [Google Scholar]
  21. Craig, T. T., & Marshall, J. (2019).  Effect of project-based learning on high school students’ state-mandated, standardized math and science exam performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(10), 1461-1488. [Google Scholar]
  22. Cooper, H. (2010). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach (4th ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  23. Çevik, M. (2018). Impacts of the project based (PBL) science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education on academic achievement and career interests of vocational high school students. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 8(2), 281–306. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  24. Çevik, M. (2020). Applied STEM education with teaching-learning approaches in the construction of lesson plans. Nobel Publications. [Google Scholar]
  25. Çevik, M., & Abdioğlu, C. (2018). An investigation of the effects of a science camp on the STEM achievements, science motivations and metacognitive awareness of 8th grade students. Journal of the Human and Social Science Researches, 7(5), 304-327. [Google Scholar]
  26. Çevik, M., & Azkın, Z. (2020). The role of the STEM with project-based learning approach in relating STEM perspective and visualization with the intelligence domains. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Research, 14(34), 1-44. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  27. Çorlu, M. A., & Aydın, E. (2016).  Evaluation of learning gains through integrated STEM projects. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 4(1), 21-29. [Google Scholar]
  28. D’Angelo, C., Rutstein, D., Harris, C., Bernard, R., Borokhovski, E., & Haertel, G. (2013). Simulations for STEM learning: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SRI International. [Google Scholar]
  29. Dasgupta, C., Magana, A.J., & Vieira, C. (2019). Investigating the affordances of a CAD enabled learning environment for promoting integrated STEM learning. Computers & Education, 129, 122-142. https://doi.or/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.014  [Google Scholar]
  30. Dedetürk, A., Saylan Kırmızıgül, A., & Kaya, H. (2019). The effect of STEM activities on students’ achievement in “sound” Subject. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (PAU Journal of Education) 49, 134-161. [Google Scholar]
  31. Dugger, W. E. (2010, December). Evolution of STEM in the United States. Paper presented at the 6th Biennial International Conference on Technology Education Research, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia. Retrieved from [Google Scholar]
  32. Eichler, J. F., & Peeples, J. (2015). Flipped classroom modules for large enrollment general chemistry courses: a low barrier approach to increase active learning and improve student grades. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1, 1-14. [Google Scholar]
  33. English L. D. & King D. T. (2015). STEM learning through aerospace. International Journal of STEM Education, 2, 14. [Google Scholar]
  34. Ergün, A., & Balçın, M. D. (2019). The effects of problem-based STEM applications on academic success. The Journal of Limitless Education and Research, 4(1), 40 – 63. [Google Scholar]
  35. Erickson, M. G.., Erasmus, M. A., Karcher, D. M., Knobloch, N. A., & Karcher, E. L. (2019). Poultry in the classroom: effectiveness of an online poultry-science-based education program for high school STEM instruction, Poultry Science, 98(12), 6593-6601. [Google Scholar]
  36. Fan, S. C., & Yu, K. C. (2017). How an integrative STEM curriculum can benefit students in engineering design practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27, 107–129. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  37. Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300-329. [Google Scholar]
  38. Geiger, R., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., & Clay-Chambers, J. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in ınquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 922-939. [Google Scholar]
  39. Guskey, T. R., & Gates, S. L. (1986). Synthesis of research on the effects of mastery learning in elementary and secondary classrooms. Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology Faculty Publications. 23. Retrieved from: [Google Scholar]
  40. Gülen, S. (2019). The effect of STEM education roles on the solution of daily life problems. Participatory Educational Research, 6(2),37-50, [Google Scholar]
  41. Güven, Ç., Selvi, M., & Benzer, S. (2018). Teaching applications’ based on 7E learning model centered stem activity effect on academic achievement. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6, 73-80. 10.18506/anemon.463812. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  42. Groen, L., Coupland, M., Langtry, T., Memar, J., Moore, B., & Stanley, J. (2015). The mathematics problem and mastery learning for first-year, undergraduate STEM students. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 11(1). [Google Scholar]
  43. Guzey, S. S., Harwell, M., & Moore, T. (2014). Development of an instrument to assess attitudes toward science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). School Science and Mathematics, 114(6), 271–279. [Google Scholar]
  44. Guzey, S. S., Moore, T. J., Harwell, M., & Moreno, M. (2016). STEM integration in middle school life science: Student learning and attitudes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(4), 550-560. [Google Scholar]
  45. Han, S., Capraro, R., & Capraro, M. M. (2014). How science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) project-based learning (PBL) affects high, middle, and low achievers differently: The impact of student factors on achievement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(5), 1089-1113. [Google Scholar]
  46. Han, S., Rosli, R., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2016). The effect of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) project based learning (PBL) on students’ achievement in four mathematics topics. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 13, 3-29. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  47. Hanif, S., Wijaya, A. F. C., Winarno, N., & Salsabila, E. R. (2019, November). The use of STEM project-based learning toward students’ concept mastery in learning light and optics. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1280(3), p. 032051. IOP Publishing.  [Google Scholar]
  48. Hannah, R., Joshi, S., & Summers, J. D. (2012). A user study of interpretability of engineering design representation. Journal of Engineering Design, 23(6), 443–468. [Google Scholar]
  49. Hansen, M. (2014). Characteristics of schools successful in STEM evidence from two states’ longitudinal data. The Journal of Educational Research, 107(5), 374- 391. [Google Scholar]
  50. Hoachlander, G., & Yanofsky, D. (2011). Making STEM real: by infusing core academics with rigorous real-world work, linked learning pathways prepare students for both college and career. Educational Leadership, 68(3), 60–65.  [Google Scholar]
  51. Huri, N. H. D., & Karpudewan, M. (2019). Evaluating the effectiveness of Integrated STEM-lab activities in improving secondary school ’students’ ‘understanding of electrolysis. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20(3), 495-508. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  52. Judson, E. (2014). Effects of transferring to STEM-focused charter and magnet schools on student achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 107(4), 255-266. [Google Scholar]
  53. Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education 3(11). [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  54. Khoiri, A. (2016). Meta-analysis study: Effect of STEM (science technology engineering and mathematic) towards achievement. Formatif: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan MIPA, 9(1), 71-82. [Google Scholar]
  55. Korkmaz, Ö., Acar, B., Çakır, R., Uğur Erdoğmuş, F., & Çakır, E. (2019). Educational robot sets with science and technology course basic machi1nery of the secondary school 7th class students’ STEM skill levels and the effect of the lesson attitudes. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 9(2), 372-391. https://doi.or/ 10.17943/etku.518215. [Google Scholar]
  56. Kuo, H. C., Tseng, Y. C., & Yang, Y. T. C. (2019). Promoting college student’s learning motivation and creativity through a stem interdisciplinary PBL human-computer interaction system design and development course. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 1-10. [Google Scholar]
  57. Lee, Y., Capraro, R. M., & Bicer, A. (2019). Affective mathematics engagement: a comparison of STEM PBL versus non-STEM PBL Instruction. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 19, 270–289. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  58. Levin, I., & Tsybulsky, D. (2017). Digital tools and solutions for inquiry-based STEM learning.  IGI Global.  [Google Scholar]
  59. 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, 19. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  60. 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, 11. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  61. 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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  62. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  63. 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. [Google Scholar]
  64. Lou, A. J., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2019). Reducing the prior knowledge achievement gap by using technology assisted guided learning in an undergraduate chemistry course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57, 368–392. [Google Scholar]
  65. Louis S. N., & Anne L. S. (2017) Integrated STEM defined: Contexts, challenges, and the future, The Journal of Educational Research, 110(3), 221-223. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  66. Mayo, M. J. (2009). Video games: A route to large-scale STEM education? Science, 323, 79-82. [Google Scholar]
  67. Meyrick, K. M. (2011). How STEM education improves student learning. Meridian K-12 School Computer Technologies Journal, 14(1), 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  68. Miller, E. R., Fairweather, J. S., Slakey, L., Smith, T., & King, T. (2017). Catalyzing institutional transformation: insights from the AAU STEM Initiative. Change, 49, 36–45. 10.1080/00091383.2017.1366810. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  69. Milner-Bolotin, M. (2017). “Modeling PeerWise and CLAS technologies in secondary physics teacher education,” in American Association of Physics Teachers Winter 2017 Meeting, ed. G. Ramsey (Atlanta, GA: AIP). [Google Scholar]
  70. Milner-Bolotin, M. (2018) Evidence-based research in STEM teacher education: from theory to practice. Front. Educ. 3, 92. 10.3389/feduc.2018.00092. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  71. Moore, B. (2009). Emotional intelligence for school administrators: A priority for school reform? American Secondary Education, 37(3), 20-28. [Google Scholar]
  72. Mustafa, N., Ismail, Z., Tasir, Z., Said, M. & Haruzuan, M. N. (2016). A meta-analysis on effective strategies for integrated STEM education. Advanced Science Letters, 22(12), 4225-4228. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  73. National Academy of Science (2014). STEM Integration in K-12 Education: Status, Prospects, and an Agenda for Research. [Google Scholar]
  74. Orwin, R. G. (1983). A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8(2), 157e159. [Google Scholar]
  75. Özcan, H., & Koca, E. (2019). the ımpact 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, 201-227. [Google Scholar]
  76. Ridlo, Z. R., Nuha, U., Terra, I. W. A., & Afafa, L. (2019). The implementation of project-based learning in STEM activity (water filtration system) in improving creative thinking skill. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1563, 1-11. [Google Scholar]
  77. Roberts, A. S. (2013). Preferred Instructional Design Strategies for Preparation of Pre-Service Teachers of Integrated STEM Education. Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), dissertation, STEM and Professional Studies, Old Dominion University. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  78. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638-641. [Google Scholar]
  79. Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEM mania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20-26. [Google Scholar]
  80. Seage, S.J., & Türegün, M. (2020). The effects of blended learning on STEM achievement of elementary school students. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 6(1), 133-140. [Google Scholar]
  81. Smith, K., Douglas, T. C., & Cox, M. F. (2009). Supportive Teaching and Learning Strategies in STEM Education. Book chapter in New Directions in Teaching and Learning: Creating Culture/Climate that Supports Undergraduate Teaching and Learning in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 117, 19-32. [Google Scholar]
  82. Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M. K., Chasteen, S. V., Cole, R., DeChenne-Peters, S. E., et al. (2018). Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities. Science, 359, 1468–1470. 10.1126/science.aap8892. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  83. Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 2(1), 4. [Google Scholar]
  84. Sutaphan, S., & Yuenyong, C. (2018). STEM education teaching approach: Inquiry from the Context Based. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1340, International Annual Meeting on STEM Education (I AM STEM). 13–15 August 2018, Avani Khon Kaen Hotel, Thailand. [Google Scholar]
  85. Thomas, J., & Williams, C. (2009). The history of specialized STEM schools and the formation and role of the NCSSSMST, Roeper Review, 32(1), 17-24. 10.1080/02783190903386561 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  86. Vallera, F. L., & Bodzin, A. M. (2020). Integrating STEM with AgLIT (Agricultural Literacy Through Innovative Technology): The efficacy of a project-based curriculum for upper-primary students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,18, 419–439. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  87. Vu, P., & Feinstein, S. (2017). An exploratory multiple case study about using game-based learning in STEM classrooms. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 3(2), 582-588. [Google Scholar]
  88. Wang, H. (2012). A new era of science education: Science teachers’ perceptions and classroom practices of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) integration [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Minnesota University. [Google Scholar]
  89. Williams, P. J. (2019). The principles of teaching and learning in STEM education. AIP Proceeding, 2081: 020001-1 - 020001-7. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  90. Wolf, V., Hsiao, V., Rodriguez, B. et al. (2019). Utilization of Remote Access Electron Microscopes to Enhance Technology Education and Foster STEM Interest in Preteen Students. Research in Science Education, 1, 1-18. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  91. Yaki, A. A., Saat, M. R., Sathasivam, V. R., & Zulnaidi, H. (2019). Enhancing science achievement utilising an integrated STEM approach. Malaysian. Journal of Learning and Instruction, 16(1), 181-205. [Google Scholar]
  92. Yıldırım, B., & Selvi, M. (2017). An experimental research on effects of STEM applications and mastery learning. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 13(2), 183-210. [Google Scholar]
  93. Yıldırım, B. (2020). STEM Education with mastery learning modeling. Çevik, M. (Ed). Applied STEM education with teaching-learning approaches in imagine of course plans (303-316 pp). Nobel Publications. [Google Scholar]
  94. Zahara, M., Abdurrahman, A., Ertikanto, C., & Suyatna, A. (2018); Implementation of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) learning approach to reduce gender disparity in science learning achievement. International Journal of Advanced Research, 6, 308-316. [Google Scholar]