journal research papers in education

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

Research in Education

Preview this book.

• Description
• Aims and Scope
• Editorial Board
• Abstracting / Indexing
• Submission Guidelines

• Clarivate Analytics: Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)
• ERIC (Education Resources Information Center)
• ProQuest Education

Manuscript submission guidelines can be accessed on Sage Journals .

• Read Online
• Sample Issues
• Current Issue
• Email Alert
• Permissions
• Foreign rights
• Reprints and sponsorship
• Advertising

Individual Subscription, Print Only

Institutional Subscription, E-access

Institutional Subscription & Backfile Lease, E-access Plus Backfile (All Online Content)

Institutional Subscription, Print Only

Institutional Subscription, Combined (Print & E-access)

Institutional Subscription & Backfile Lease, Combined Plus Backfile (Current Volume Print & All Online Content)

Institutional Backfile Purchase, E-access (Content through 1998)

Individual, Single Print Issue

Institutional, Single Print Issue

To order single issues of this journal, please contact SAGE Customer Services at 1-800-818-7243 / 1-805-583-9774 with details of the volume and issue you would like to purchase.

On The Site

Harvard educational review.

Edited by Maya Alkateb-Chami, Jane Choi, Jeannette Garcia Coppersmith, Ron Grady, Phoebe A. Grant-Robinson, Pennie M. Gregory, Jennifer Ha, Woohee Kim, Catherine E. Pitcher, Elizabeth Salinas, Caroline Tucker, Kemeyawi Q. Wahpepah

Individuals

Institutions.

• Read the journal here

Journal Information

• ISSN: 0017-8055
• eISSN: 1943-5045
• Keywords: scholarly journal, education research
• First Issue: 1930
• Frequency: Quarterly

Description

The Harvard Educational Review (HER) is a scholarly journal of opinion and research in education. The Editorial Board aims to publish pieces from interdisciplinary and wide-ranging fields that advance our understanding of educational theory, equity, and practice. HER encourages submissions from established and emerging scholars, as well as from practitioners working in the field of education. Since its founding in 1930, HER has been central to elevating pieces and debates that tackle various dimensions of educational justice, with circulation to researchers, policymakers, teachers, and administrators.

Our Editorial Board is composed entirely of doctoral students from the Harvard Graduate School of Education who review all manuscripts considered for publication. For more information on the current Editorial Board, please see here.

A subscription to the Review includes access to the full-text electronic archives at our Subscribers-Only-Website .

Editorial Board

2023-2024 Harvard Educational Review Editorial Board Members

Maya Alkateb-Chami Development and Partnerships Editor, 2023-2024 Editor, 2022-2024 [email protected]

Maya Alkateb-Chami is a PhD student at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Her research focuses on the role of schooling in fostering just futures—specifically in relation to language of instruction policies in multilingual contexts and with a focus on epistemic injustice. Prior to starting doctoral studies, she was the Managing Director of Columbia University’s Human Rights Institute, where she supported and co-led a team of lawyers working to advance human rights through research, education, and advocacy. Prior to that, she was the Executive Director of Jusoor, a nonprofit organization that helps conflict-affected Syrian youth and children pursue their education in four countries. Alkateb-Chami is a Fulbright Scholar and UNESCO cultural heritage expert. She holds an MEd in Language and Literacy from Harvard University; an MSc in Education from Indiana University, Bloomington; and a BA in Political Science from Damascus University, and her research on arts-based youth empowerment won the annual Master’s Thesis Award of the U.S. Society for Education Through Art.

Jane Choi Editor, 2023-2025

Jane Choi is a second-year PhD student in Sociology with broad interests in culture, education, and inequality. Her research examines intra-racial and interracial boundaries in US educational contexts. She has researched legacy and first-generation students at Ivy League colleges, families served by Head Start and Early Head Start programs, and parents of pre-K and kindergarten-age children in the New York City School District. Previously, Jane worked as a Research Assistant in the Family Well-Being and Children’s Development policy area at MDRC and received a BA in Sociology from Columbia University.

Jeannette Garcia Coppersmith Content Editor, 2023-2024 Editor, 2022-2024 [email protected]

Jeannette Garcia Coppersmith is a fourth-year Education PhD student in the Human Development, Learning and Teaching concentration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. A former public middle and high school mathematics teacher and department chair, she is interested in understanding the mechanisms that contribute to disparities in secondary mathematics education, particularly how teacher beliefs and biases intersect with the social-psychological processes and pedagogical choices involved in math teaching. Jeannette holds an EdM in Learning and Teaching from the Harvard Graduate School of Education where she studied as an Urban Scholar and a BA in Environmental Sciences from the University of California, Berkeley.

Ron Grady Editor, 2023-2025

Ron Grady is a second-year doctoral student in the Human Development, Learning, and Teaching concentration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. His central curiosities involve the social worlds and peer cultures of young children, wondering how lived experience is both constructed within and revealed throughout play, the creation of art and narrative, and through interaction with/production of visual artifacts such as photography and film. Ron also works extensively with educators interested in developing and deepening practices rooted in reflection on, inquiry into, and translation of the social, emotional, and aesthetic aspects of their classroom ecosystems. Prior to his doctoral studies, Ron worked as a preschool teacher in New Orleans. He holds a MS in Early Childhood Education from the Erikson Institute and a BA in Psychology with Honors in Education from Stanford University.

Phoebe A. Grant-Robinson Editor, 2023-2024

Phoebe A. Grant-Robinson is a first year student in the Doctor of Education Leadership(EdLD) program at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Her ultimate quest is to position all students as drivers of their destiny. Phoebe is passionate about early learning and literacy. She is committed to ensuring that districts and school leaders, have the necessary tools to create equitable learning organizations that facilitate the academic and social well-being of all students. Phoebe is particularly interested in the intersection of homeless students and literacy. Prior to her doctoral studies, Phoebe was a Special Education Instructional Specialist. Supporting a portfolio of more than thirty schools, she facilitated the rollout of New York City’s Special Education Reform. Phoebe also served as an elementary school principal. She holds a BS in Inclusive Education from Syracuse University, and an MS in Curriculum and Instruction from Pace University.

Pennie M. Gregory Editor, 2023-2024

Pennie M. Gregory is a second-year student in the Doctor of Education Leadership (EdLD) program at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Pennie was born in Incheon, South Korea and raised in Gary, Indiana. She has decades of experience leading efforts to improve outcomes for students with disabilities first as a special education teacher and then as a school district special education administrator. Prior to her doctoral studies, Pennie helped to create Indiana’s first Aspiring Special Education Leadership Institute (ASELI) and served as its Director. She was also the Capacity Events Director for MelanatED Leaders, an organization created to support educational leaders of color in Indianapolis. Pennie has a unique perspective, having worked with members of the school community, with advocacy organizations, and supporting state special education leaders. Pennie holds an EdM in Education Leadership from Marian University.

Jennifer Ha Editor, 2023-2025

Jen Ha is a second-year PhD student in the Culture, Institutions, and Society concentration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Her research explores how high school students learn to write personal narratives for school applications, scholarships, and professional opportunities amidst changing landscapes in college access and admissions. Prior to doctoral studies, Jen served as the Coordinator of Public Humanities at Bard Graduate Center and worked in several roles organizing academic enrichment opportunities and supporting postsecondary planning for students in New Haven and New York City. Jen holds a BA in Humanities from Yale University, where she was an Education Studies Scholar.

Woohee Kim Editor, 2023-2025

Woohee Kim is a PhD student studying youth activists’ civic and pedagogical practices. She is a scholar-activist dedicated to creating spaces for pedagogies of resistance and transformative possibilities. Shaped by her activism and research across South Korea, the US, and the UK, Woohee seeks to interrogate how educational spaces are shaped as cultural and political sites and reshaped by activists as sites of struggle. She hopes to continue exploring the intersections of education, knowledge, power, and resistance.

Catherine E. Pitcher Editor, 2023-2025

Catherine is a second-year doctoral student at Harvard Graduate School of Education in the Culture, Institutions, and Society program. She has over 10 years of experience in education in the US in roles that range from special education teacher to instructional coach to department head to educational game designer. She started working in Palestine in 2017, first teaching, and then designing and implementing educational programming. Currently, she is working on research to understand how Palestinian youth think about and build their futures and continues to lead programming in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. She holds an EdM from Harvard in International Education Policy.

Elizabeth Salinas Editor, 2023-2025

Elizabeth Salinas is a doctoral student in the Education Policy and Program Evaluation concentration at HGSE. She is interested in the intersection of higher education and the social safety net and hopes to examine policies that address basic needs insecurity among college students. Before her doctoral studies, Liz was a research director at a public policy consulting firm. There, she supported government, education, and philanthropy leaders by conducting and translating research into clear and actionable information. Previously, Liz served as a high school physics teacher in her hometown in Texas and as a STEM outreach program director at her alma mater. She currently sits on the Board of Directors at Leadership Enterprise for a Diverse America, a nonprofit organization working to diversify the leadership pipeline in the United States. Liz holds a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a master’s degree in higher education from the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Caroline Tucker Co-Chair, 2023-2024 Editor, 2022-2024 [email protected]

Caroline Tucker is a fourth-year doctoral student in the Culture, Institutions, and Society concentration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Her research focuses on the history and organizational dynamics of women’s colleges as women gained entry into the professions and coeducation took root in the United States. She is also a research assistant for the Harvard and the Legacy of Slavery Initiative’s Subcommittee on Curriculum and the editorial assistant for Into Practice, the pedagogy newsletter distributed by Harvard University’s Office of the Vice Provost for Advances in Learning. Prior to her doctoral studies, Caroline served as an American politics and English teaching fellow in London and worked in college advising. Caroline holds a BA in History from Princeton University, an MA in the Social Sciences from the University of Chicago, and an EdM in Higher Education from the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Kemeyawi Q. Wahpepah Co-Chair, 2023-2024 Editor, 2022-2024 [email protected]

Kemeyawi Q. Wahpepah (Kickapoo, Sac & Fox) is a fourth-year doctoral student in the Culture, Institutions, and Society concentration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Their research explores how settler colonialism is addressed in K-12 history and social studies classrooms in the United States. Prior to their doctoral studies, Kemeyawi taught middle and high school English and history for eleven years in Boston and New York City. They hold an MS in Middle Childhood Education from Hunter College and an AB in Social Studies from Harvard University.

Submission Information

Click here to view submission guidelines .

Contact Information

Click here to view contact information for the editorial board and customer service .

Subscriber Support

Individual subscriptions must have an individual name in the given address for shipment. Individual copies are not for multiple readers or libraries. Individual accounts come with a personal username and password for access to online archives. Online access instructions will be attached to your order confirmation e-mail.

Institutional rates apply to libraries and organizations with multiple readers. Institutions receive digital access to content on Meridian from IP addresses via theIPregistry.org (by sending HER your PSI Org ID).

Online access instructions will be attached to your order confirmation e-mail. If you have questions about using theIPregistry.org you may find the answers in their FAQs. Otherwise please let us know at [email protected] .

How to Subscribe

To order online via credit card, please use the subscribe button at the top of this page.

To order by phone, please call 888-437-1437.

Checks can be mailed to Harvard Educational Review C/O Fulco, 30 Broad Street, Suite 6, Denville, NJ 07834. (Please include reference to your subscriber number if you are renewing. Institutions must include their PSI Org ID or follow up with this information via email to [email protected] .)

Permissions

Click here to view permissions information.

Article Submission FAQ

Submissions, question: “what manuscripts are a good fit for her ”.

Answer: As a generalist scholarly journal, HER publishes on a wide range of topics within the field of education and related disciplines. We receive many articles that deserve publication, but due to the restrictions of print publication, we are only able to publish very few in the journal. The originality and import of the findings, as well as the accessibility of a piece to HER’s interdisciplinary, international audience which includes education practitioners, are key criteria in determining if an article will be selected for publication.

We strongly recommend that prospective authors review the current and past issues of HER to see the types of articles we have published recently. If you are unsure whether your manuscript is a good fit, please reach out to the Content Editor at [email protected] .

Question: “What makes HER a developmental journal?”

Answer: Supporting the development of high-quality education research is a key tenet of HER’s mission. HER promotes this development through offering comprehensive feedback to authors. All manuscripts that pass the first stage of our review process (see below) receive detailed feedback. For accepted manuscripts, HER also has a unique feedback process called casting whereby two editors carefully read a manuscript and offer overarching suggestions to strengthen and clarify the argument.

Question: “What is a Voices piece and how does it differ from an essay?”

Answer: Voices pieces are first-person reflections about an education-related topic rather than empirical or theoretical essays. Our strongest pieces have often come from educators and policy makers who draw on their personal experiences in the education field. Although they may not present data or generate theory, Voices pieces should still advance a cogent argument, drawing on appropriate literature to support any claims asserted. For examples of Voices pieces, please see Alvarez et al. (2021) and Snow (2021).

Question: “Does HER accept Book Note or book review submissions?”

Answer: No, all Book Notes are written internally by members of the Editorial Board.

Question: “If I want to submit a book for review consideration, who do I contact?”

Answer: Please send details about your book to the Content Editor at [email protected].

Manuscript Formatting

Question: “the submission guidelines state that manuscripts should be a maximum of 9,000 words – including abstract, appendices, and references. is this applicable only for research articles, or should the word count limit be followed for other manuscripts, such as essays”.

Answer: The 9,000-word limit is the same for all categories of manuscripts.

Question: “We are trying to figure out the best way to mask our names in the references. Is it OK if we do not cite any of our references in the reference list? Our names have been removed in the in-text citations. We just cite Author (date).”

Answer: Any references that identify the author/s in the text must be masked or made anonymous (e.g., instead of citing “Field & Bloom, 2007,” cite “Author/s, 2007”). For the reference list, place the citations alphabetically as “Author/s. (2007)” You can also indicate that details are omitted for blind review. Articles can also be blinded effectively by use of the third person in the manuscript. For example, rather than “in an earlier article, we showed that” substitute something like “as has been shown in Field & Bloom, 2007.” In this case, there is no need to mask the reference in the list. Please do not submit a title page as part of your manuscript. We will capture the contact information and any author statement about the fit and scope of the work in the submission form. Finally, please save the uploaded manuscript as the title of the manuscript and do not include the author/s name/s.

Invitations

Question: “can i be invited to submit a manuscript how”.

Answer: If you think your manuscript is a strong fit for HER, we welcome a request for invitation. Invited manuscripts receive one round of feedback from Editors before the piece enters the formal review process. To submit information about your manuscript, please complete the Invitation Request Form . Please provide as many details as possible. The decision to invite a manuscript largely depends on the capacity of current Board members and on how closely the proposed manuscript reflects HER publication scope and criteria. Once you submit the form, We hope to update you in about 2–3 weeks, and will let you know whether there are Editors who are available to invite the manuscript.

Review Timeline

Question: “who reviews manuscripts”.

Answer: All manuscripts are reviewed by the Editorial Board composed of doctoral students at Harvard University.

Question: “What is the HER evaluation process as a student-run journal?”

Answer: HER does not utilize the traditional external peer review process and instead has an internal, two-stage review procedure.

Upon submission, every manuscript receives a preliminary assessment by the Content Editor to confirm that the formatting requirements have been carefully followed in preparation of the manuscript, and that the manuscript is in accord with the scope and aim of the journal. The manuscript then formally enters the review process.

In the first stage of review, all manuscripts are read by a minimum of two Editorial Board members. During the second stage of review, manuscripts are read by the full Editorial Board at a weekly meeting.

Question: “How long after submission can I expect a decision on my manuscript?”

Answer: It usually takes 6 to 10 weeks for a manuscript to complete the first stage of review and an additional 12 weeks for a manuscript to complete the second stage. Due to time constraints and the large volume of manuscripts received, HER only provides detailed comments on manuscripts that complete the second stage of review.

Question: “How soon are accepted pieces published?”

Answer: The date of publication depends entirely on how many manuscripts are already in the queue for an issue. Typically, however, it takes about 6 months post-acceptance for a piece to be published.

Submission Process

Question: “how do i submit a manuscript for publication in her”.

Answer: Manuscripts are submitted through HER’s Submittable platform, accessible here. All first-time submitters must create an account to access the platform. You can find details on our submission guidelines on our Submissions page.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals

Education articles from across Nature Portfolio

Latest research and reviews.

The VRF-L and VRF-GL IOL power calculation methods after radial keratotomy

• Oleksiy V. Voytsekhivskyy

Pronunciation instruction in the context of world English: exploring university EFL instructors’ perceptions and practices

• Asma Almusharraf

Deconstructing synthetic biology across scales: a conceptual approach for training synthetic biologists

Developing biotechnologies to address society’s challenges requires integrating concepts across disciplines, posing challenges to educating students with diverse expertise. In this Perspective the authors create a framework for synthetic biology training that deconstructs biotechnologies across spatial scales.

• Ashty S. Karim
• Dylan M. Brown
• Julius B. Lucks

Students’ structured conceptualizations of teamwork in multidisciplinary student teams using concept maps

• Roosmarijn van Woerden
• Merel M. van Goch
• Sandra G. L. Schruijer

Chinization of social education: a lifelong exploration of Ma Zongrong’s educational theory and practice

• Jinrong Liu
• Xiaoxuan Wang

Online training programs for adults with disabilities: a systematic review

• Desirée González
• Annachiara Del Prete

News and Comment

Securing your science: the researcher’s guide to financial management

Lab money management is an important, yet overlooked, professional skill for researchers.

Advancing computational sustainability in higher education

• Mayank Kejriwal
• Victoria Petryshyn

Why female students at an inner London school are seeing scientists in a different light

Julie Gould describes what happened after showing 50 images of working scientists to a bunch of 12–13 year-olds.

• Julie Gould

Improving academic mentorship practices

Mentorship from experienced peers critically improves individual career development and satisfaction in academia, but we have little information on how researchers are supported. We identify and recommend strategies for faculty members, departments, institutions and funders to ensure sustained excellence in academic mentorship.

• Sarvenaz Sarabipour
• Paul Macklin
• Natalie M. Niemi

Need a policy for using ChatGPT in the classroom? Try asking students

Students are the key users of AI chatbots in university settings, but their opinions are rarely solicited when crafting policies. That needs to change, says Maja Zonjić.

• Maja Zonjić

Chromatic inclusivity in chemistry

Reliance on colour-based experiments in the undergraduate laboratory is a considerable hurdle for those with colour vision deficiency. Designing course material that relies on interpretation and not perception creates a more accessible environment for all.

• Nicholas J. Roberts
• Jennifer L. MacDonald

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Research Papers in Education

Subject Area and Category

Taylor and Francis Ltd.

Publication type

02671522, 14701146

Information

How to publish in this journal

The set of journals have been ranked according to their SJR and divided into four equal groups, four quartiles. Q1 (green) comprises the quarter of the journals with the highest values, Q2 (yellow) the second highest values, Q3 (orange) the third highest values and Q4 (red) the lowest values.

The SJR is a size-independent prestige indicator that ranks journals by their 'average prestige per article'. It is based on the idea that 'all citations are not created equal'. SJR is a measure of scientific influence of journals that accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance or prestige of the journals where such citations come from It measures the scientific influence of the average article in a journal, it expresses how central to the global scientific discussion an average article of the journal is.

Evolution of the number of published documents. All types of documents are considered, including citable and non citable documents.

This indicator counts the number of citations received by documents from a journal and divides them by the total number of documents published in that journal. The chart shows the evolution of the average number of times documents published in a journal in the past two, three and four years have been cited in the current year. The two years line is equivalent to journal impact factor ™ (Thomson Reuters) metric.

Evolution of the total number of citations and journal's self-citations received by a journal's published documents during the three previous years. Journal Self-citation is defined as the number of citation from a journal citing article to articles published by the same journal.

Evolution of the number of total citation per document and external citation per document (i.e. journal self-citations removed) received by a journal's published documents during the three previous years. External citations are calculated by subtracting the number of self-citations from the total number of citations received by the journal’s documents.

International Collaboration accounts for the articles that have been produced by researchers from several countries. The chart shows the ratio of a journal's documents signed by researchers from more than one country; that is including more than one country address.

Not every article in a journal is considered primary research and therefore "citable", this chart shows the ratio of a journal's articles including substantial research (research articles, conference papers and reviews) in three year windows vs. those documents other than research articles, reviews and conference papers.

Ratio of a journal's items, grouped in three years windows, that have been cited at least once vs. those not cited during the following year.

Evolution of the percentage of female authors.

Evolution of the number of documents cited by public policy documents according to Overton database.

Evoution of the number of documents related to Sustainable Development Goals defined by United Nations. Available from 2018 onwards.

Leave a comment

Name * Required

Email (will not be published) * Required

* Required Cancel

The users of Scimago Journal & Country Rank have the possibility to dialogue through comments linked to a specific journal. The purpose is to have a forum in which general doubts about the processes of publication in the journal, experiences and other issues derived from the publication of papers are resolved. For topics on particular articles, maintain the dialogue through the usual channels with your editor.

Follow us on @ScimagoJR Scimago Lab , Copyright 2007-2024. Data Source: Scopus®

Cookie settings

Cookie Policy

Legal Notice

Privacy Policy

STEM Integration in Primary Schools: Theory, Implementation and Impact

• Published: 20 June 2023
• Volume 21 , pages 1–9, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Zhi Hong Wan 1 ,
• Lyn English 2 ,
• Winnie Wing Mui So 1 &
• Karen Skilling   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0619-4083 3  

4221 Accesses

3 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

STEM can be simply a collective name for four primary disciplines of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. However, when the term STEM is used for addressing education policy and curriculum, it typically refers to an integrative approach to teaching and learning (Bybee, 2010 ; English, 2017 ; Kelley & Knowles, 2016 ; Skilling, 2019 ; Wan et al.,  2021a ). Integration in STEM education has been emphasized in government policies worldwide to differentiate the current trend of STEM education from traditional discipline-based STEM education (Cheng & So, 2020 ; Hoeg & Bencze, 2017 ; Wan et al., 2022 ).

Although the significance of promoting integrative STEM education has been widely recognized and a considerable number of studies have been conducted in recent years, the research on the integration in STEM education as a distinct field of study is still in its embryonic stages (English, 2016 ; Honey et al., 2014 ; Perignat & Katz-Buonincontro, 2019 ). For example, the meaning and epistemic underpinning of the integration in STEM education is under discussion and development. Some scholars (e.g. Moore et al., 2014 ) propose that integrated STEM education requires an effort to combine some or all of the four STEM disciplines in one lesson to reflect the connections between the disciplines and real-world problems while others argue that total integration might not be necessary (Kloser et al., 2018 ). The integration between a STEM discipline and one or more other disciplines (outside STEM) can also represent integrated STEM (Sanders, 2009 ). For example, Erduran ( 2020 ) called for a closer examination of the foundation of STEM integration by exploring the commonalities and differences in STEM practice and epistemologies. As for the implementation of integrative STEM education, a major concern is inequitable disciplinary representation (Zhan et al., 2021 ). As alerted by English ( 2017 ) and Stohlmann ( 2019 ), science often receives the main focus in the practices of carrying out integrative STEM learning. On the contrary, at a school level, engineering is considered a silent member of STEM education (English, 2017 ) and a recent study by Park et al. ( 2020 ) found that mathematics is underrepresented in the four STEM disciplines when scrutinizing science education standards documents published in the USA, Korea and Taiwan.

Another concern for implementing integrative STEM education is how to consider the relationship between disciplinary and cross-disciplinary STEM education. Although boundary crossing is a key issue, the existing school curricula are normally disciplinary-based. Given the constraints in time and teaching resources for school teachers, to successfully implement integrative STEM education in schools, efforts should be made to restructure the existing curriculum system to achieve a balance between disciplinary and cross-disciplinary STEM learning. Supporting students by making connections explicit is important because it may be difficult for students to connect knowledge and skills across disciplines when they are weak in the relevant knowledge and skills in the individual disciplines (Honey et al., 2014 ). Until now, existing studies on implementing integrative STEM education normally focus on a specific strategy, such as robotic programming (e.g. Lamptey et al., 2021 ), project-based learning (e.g. Han et al.,  2015 ; Kang & Kim, 2014 ) and environmental inquiry (e.g. Helvaci & Helvaci, 2019 ). There is still a lack of theoretical discussion and empirical research adopting a holistic perspective for STEM curriculum design.

The impacts of integrative STEM learning may be the most frequently studied area in the literature. A good number of studies have investigated the effects on motivation and engagement (e.g. Bedar & Al-Shboul, 2020 ; Gallant et al., 2020 ; Julià & Antolí, 2019 ; Master et al., 2017 ; Zhou et al., 2019 ) and career interest (e.g. Duran et al., 2014 ; Friedman et al., 2017 ; Han, 2017 ; Lamptey et al., 2021 ; Mohr-Schroeder et al., 2014 ). However, several researchers have lamented (e.g. Barrett et al., 2014 ; Honey et al., 2014 ) that the effectiveness of integrated STEM education in developing knowledge of core content is relatively under-researched. The study of the impacts on higher-order thinking skills is also scarce although they have been highlighted as significant goals of STEM education. Yet, models for integration beyond STEM content areas have been proposed. For example, Thibaut et al. ( 2018 ) developed a framework where STEM content was one of five aspects: the other four being different approaches to learning (problem-centred learning, inquiry-based learning, design-based learning and cooperative learning). Latterly, Skilling ( 2020 ) adapted the framework of Thibaut et al. ( 2018 ) to include three types of engagement and underlying motivational factors, which were reported by the secondary students involved in a Robot Construction Project. The student participants reported the benefits of developing self-regulation strategies, as well as affective factors such as interest, valuing, positive attitudes and benefits of collaborative learning settings. However, comparison between different integrative learning activities and ways of working in terms of their impacts on both generic skills and subject core content warrants more research (Wan et al., 2021b ). The lack of investigating both the short-term and long-term effects (English, 2016 ) and comparing the effects of different integrative strategies in terms of different learning outcomes will also comprise our future endeavors to generate a holistic curriculum design for STEM education and prepare programs to train teachers to implement it in the authentic classroom.

The above paragraphs illustrate that, on the one hand, the vision of integrative STEM education is extremely meaningful and significant; on the other, successfully realizing the integration in authentic STEM classrooms is complex and challenging. Many theoretical and practical issues have yet to be explored. Considering the complexity of STEM integration, this special issue constrained its scope within primary schools. This decision was also based on three major reasons. Firstly, compared with the secondary curriculum, the primary curriculum is normally more integrated. Therefore, there will be more opportunities to incorporate integrative STEM learning activities into the existing primary curriculum structure (Irish Department of Education [IDoE], 2020 ). Secondly, most primary teachers are generalist teachers. Compared with secondary teachers who are specialists in one discipline, primary teachers might get more accustomed to implementing cross-disciplinary curriculum than secondary teachers and at the same time are more limited in the disciplinary STEM content knowledge (Lesseig et al., 2016 ; Park et al., 2017 ; Ring et al., 2017 ). Therefore, it is still a challenge to develop primary teachers’ professional competency to design and implement integrated STEM learning activities. Thirdly, the necessity of early implementation of integrative STEM teaching and learning has been commonly emphasized (e.g. Bybee & Fuchs, 2006 ; English & Moore, 2018 ). Young students are naturally curious, creative and collaborative, which are the same dispositions needed for integrative learning (Banko et al., 2013 ). Moreover, students’ foundational STEM abilities and dispositions are formed in their primary education, which is crucial for their development of such abilities and dispositions in the later stages (Nadelson et al., 2013 ). Of course, there are also challenges in conducting STEM learning with primary students, such as their STEM knowledge and skills, self-learning ability and capacity to integrate and apply knowledge and skills from different disciplines. Given these strengths and challenges, it is meaningful to have a platform to encourage in-depth investigation into STEM integration in such a special context.

Given the gaps discussed in the preceding paragraph, this special issue was accepted by the International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. A total of eight papers are finally included in it. Among these papers, one is a review of teaching approaches for STEM integration in pre- and primary school, four investigated the process and outcomes of primary students during integrated STEM learning and the other three explored primary STEM teachers.

Overview of the Eight Studies

This special issue starts with the review paper by Larkin and Lowrie, which synthesized 60 peer-reviewed English journal articles between 2000 and 2022 that reported empirical research conducted in schools. Three key questions guided this review, i.e. the level of integration reflected in the studies, the role of engineering in STEM integration and teaching approaches adopted in STEM activities. Driven by the process of reviewing research, they added two new levels of integration (i.e. intradisciplinary and quasidisciplinary) into Vasquez et al.’s ( 2013 ) original 4-level framework of STEM integration (i.e. disciplinary, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary). It was found that STEM integration in most of the reviewed studies was at the intradisciplinary, quasidisciplinary, disciplinary and multidisciplinary levels. At the same time, 25 studies had incorporated engineering elements in STEM learning and students were not provided with an opportunity to have agency in integrated STEM learning carried out in about half of these studies.

Modelling, inquiry and design are three major kinds of learning activities used to realize STEM integration, and various combinations among them can be found when they are implemented in the classroom. The second paper by English is an example of the combination between modelling and inquiry. Fifty grade 6 Australian students were required to independently investigate the factors influencing the inundation distance of the Tsunami using a specially designed water tub. The students worked in groups, gave group reports and were not given prior instruction on how to do the activity. The analysis of the qualitative data (including audio and video recording of small group interaction and whole class discussion) indicated that (i) students applied mathematics, science and statistical knowledge to justify their inundation predictions; (ii) the most common representation was a vertical bar graph; (iii) students were generally able to identify and explain the variation and covariation in their models and (iv) students could apply their learning from the investigation and their prior knowledge about tsunamis to make suggestions.

The third paper by Lin and Chen provides an example of combining modelling with design. This study engaged 24 Taiwan upper primary students in 4-round activities of designing highway routes, lasting more than 5 h. The analysis of students’ modelling practice revealed that with the increase in the complexity of the modelling activities, the levels of students’ modelling practice rose from the single factor level to the relational level. The difference in modelling practice between students with higher and lower spatial abilities decreased in the later stages of the modelling curriculum. The interview and observation data indicated that low-spatial ability students benefited from hands-on practices and digital tools during the modelling selection phase while high-spatial ability students benefited from analogies and experimental thinking during the model construction phase.

The fourth and fifth papers feature design-based STEM learning. Wan, So and Zhan adopted a pretest-and-posttest design to investigate the impacts of a 6-month design-based STEM learning event on STEM creativity and epistemic beliefs of 155 Hong Kong upper primary students. In this event, the application of information technologies was required. The findings indicate a significant increase in the fluency and flexibility dimensions of STEM creativity and a significant decrease in the source, certainty and justification dimensions of epistemic beliefs. Regression analysis of the pretest, posttest and change data revealed negative correlations between STEM creativity and the source, certainty and justification dimensions of epistemic beliefs. Significant and positive correlations were found between STEM creativity and the complexity dimension of epistemic beliefs.

In addition to investigating the overall impacts of design-based STEM learning, the fifth paper by Chiu, Ismailov, Zhou, Xia, Au and Chai compared the community-engaged (CE) STEM design projects with the non-CE STEM design projects. The subjects were 141 Primary 6 Hong Kong students. For the CE group, communication with the community was a required step for each phase of design-based STEM learning, including empathizing, defining, ideating, prototyping and testing. ANCONA results revealed that both groups had significant impacts on STEM interest and STEM identity; however, the CE groups had a more statistically significant influence. Moreover, this study adopted the self-determined theory to explain the impacts of CE STEM design projects on STEM interest and identity in terms of needs satisfaction. Survey data and interviews with students showed that CE STEM design projects brought about better needs satisfaction, which in turn positively predicted higher STEM interest and identity.

Teachers are one of the key elements determining the implementation of integrated STEM education. The last three papers of this special issue dealt with this topic. The sixth paper by O’Dwyer, Hourigan, Leavy and Corry adopted Bandura’s ( 1977 ) theory about the sources of efficacy as the analytic lens to analyze the impact of a 3-phase STEM professional development program on the efficacy of 17 Ireland primary teachers in STEM education. Both survey data and interviews with teachers indicated the positive impacts of this professional development program on teacher efficacy. An in-depth analysis of the interviews with teachers, principals and facilitators illustrated how the features of the 3 phases (i.e. science, STEM and peer-teach) of the program respectively influence the 4 sources of teacher efficacy in STEM teaching (i.e. performance accomplishment, emotional arousal, vicarious experiences and verbal persuasion).

Teaching integrated STEM always means a cross-boundary adventure for a teacher since few teachers have been trained to teach the four STEM disciplines. Therefore, teachers’ adaptive expertise may be a critical factor influencing teachers’ attitudes towards integrated STEM teaching and their subsequent practice. Saleh, Ibrahim and Afari, in the seventh paper, conducted a multivariate regression analysis to investigate the relationship between 91 Bahrain preservice science teachers’ adaptive expertise and their attitude towards integrated STEM teaching. Both correlation and regression analysis results indicated a significant relationship between teachers’ adaptive expertise and their self-efficacy, perceived relevance and anxiety related to integrated STEM teaching.

Rather than focusing on the integration of all four STEM disciplines, the final paper by Zhu, Tian and Wang investigated how 453 Chinese primary science and mathematics teachers’ views and practice of integrating mathematics and science (IMS) in the classroom. The survey and interview results indicated that although they had sometimes implemented the IMS, they did not provide a complete picture of different ways of realizing the IMS. Lack of resources, school support and time were the major challenges that they perceived for IMS.

Directions for Future Research and Practice of Integrated STEM Education in Primary Schools

Considerable diversity can be found in the eight papers included in this special issue. The authors are from a number of regions of the world (including Australia, Ireland, Bahrein, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Mainland China) and reflect that integrated STEM education is a worldwide trend in education reform. Both literature review and empirical research are included. Among the seven empirical studies, the participants of the research include both students and teachers. One study adopted qualitative methods (e.g. observation and document analysis), two employed quantitative methods (featured by statistical analysis of survey and test data) and the other four used mixed methods. Based on summarizing their major contributions, this section will discuss the directions for future research and practice of integrated STEM education in primary schools.

Although the study of the epistemic underpinning of the integration in primary STEM education is missing in this special issue, driven by their efforts to synthesize different types of integration embedded in 60 empirical studies, the first paper by Larkin and Lowrie expanded the commonly used four-level framework of STEM integration proposed by Vasquez et al. ( 2013 ). Of course, the example (an engineering design approach to teaching STEM without identifying any disciplines) provided by Larkin and Lowrie about quasidiciplinary integration may be an example of an implicit way to realize STEM integration since engineering design may require students to apply mathematical, science, technological knowledge even if teachers had not explicitly asked them to do. In fact, when learning activities become more unstructured, such as authentic problem-solving, it is increasingly difficult to anticipate the specific subject knowledge and skills that will be applied or further learned in the learning process. Given this consideration, the differentiation between explicit and implicit STEM integration may be needed in the future analysis of STEM learning observed in the classroom and reported in the papers. It may also be necessary to adopt a multidimensional (rather than unidimensional) framework to conceptualize STEM integration in further research.

The second paper by English and the third paper by Lin and Chen provided two vivid examples to illustrate how modelling-based STEM learning could be implemented in the combination of inquiry and design in different contexts. Both studies indicated that even primary students could successfully engage in cross-disciplinary STEM learning. Although developing primary students’ modelling experiences can significantly influence their later learning in mathematics, science, engineering, geography and technology, research on modelling-based STEM learning is still scarce in the literature. It is meaningful to investigate its impacts on different learning outcomes and design a series of interrelated modelling activities for students so as to more systematically realize STEM integration through experiencing the modelling process and using modelling to solve problems.

The investigation of the impacts of different types of STEM learning activities on students is another way to consolidate the theoretical foundation of STEM education. The fourth paper by Wan, So and Zhan filled one research gap, i.e. the impacts of STEM learning on STEM creativity and epistemic beliefs. The fifth paper by Chiu, Ismailov, Zhou, Xia, Au and Chai provides a good example of how to adopt the quasi-experimental design to investigate the role played by a specific design element of a specific STEM learning strategy. In further research, a stricter experiment design is needed to draw more vigorous conclusions on the impacts of STEM learning on students’ higher-order thinking and STEM identity. Efforts will also be made to compare different STEM learning strategies in terms of both general skills and the subject core content. This can be done by either experimental research or meta-analysis of existing studies. The study of the long-term effects of STEM learning is still lacking in the literature.

The findings of the seventh paper by Saleh, Ibrahim and Afari and the eighth paper by Zhu, Tiam and Wang indicated primary teachers had positive attitudes towards integrated STEM teaching, which supports the hypothesis raised in the background section that primary teachers might get more accustomed to implementing the cross-disciplinary curriculum. Of course, to facilitate teachers to more efficiently implement integrated STEM activities to their students, effective professional development is especially needed to develop their competency in designing specific integrated STEM activities, connecting disciplinary STEM learning with cross-disciplinary STEM learning, and formatively assessing students’ learning, assessment literacy in STEM context. The extended professional development model generated in the sixth paper by O’Dwyer, Hourigan, Leavy and Corry provided a from-theory-to-practice framework for the future design of professional development programs for STEM teachers. More importantly, their research may inspire researchers on how to incorporate a mature theory to systematically plan, monitor, reflect on and investigate professional development programs for primary STEM teachers for different objectives.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84 (2), 117–128.

Article   Google Scholar  

Banko, W., Grant, M. L., Jabot, M. E., McCormack, A. J., & O’Brien, T. (2013). Science for the next generation: preparing for the new standards . National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) Press.

Barrett, B. S., Moran, A. L., & Woods, J. E. (2014). Meteorology meets engineering: An interdisciplinary STEM module for middle and early secondary school students. International Journal of STEM Education, 1 (1), 1–7.

Bedar, R. W. A. H., & Al-Shboul, M. A. (2020). The effect of using STEAM approach on motivation towards learning among high school students in Jordan. International Education Studies, 13 (9), 48–57.

Bybee, R. W. (2010). What is STEM education? Science, 329 (5995), 996–996.

Bybee, R. W., & Fuchs, B. (2006). Preparing the 21st century workforce: A new reform in science and technology education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43 (4), 349–352.

Cheng, Y. C., & So, W. M. W. (2020). Managing STEM learning: A typology & four models of integration. International Journal of Educational Management., 34 (6), 1063–1078.

Google Scholar  

Duran, M., Höft, M., Lawson, D. B., Medjahed, B., & Orady, E. A. (2014). Urban high school students’ IT/STEM learning: Findings from a collaborative inquiry-and design-based afterschool program. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23 (1), 116–137.

English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3 (1), Article 3.

English, L. D. (2017). Advancing elementary and middle school STEM education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15 (1), 5–24.

English, L. D., & Moore, T. (Eds.). (2018). Early engineering learning . Springer.

Erduran, S. (2020). Nature of “STEM”? Science & Education, 29 , 781–784.

Friedman, A. D., Melendez, C. R., Bush, A. A., Lai, S. K., & McLaughlin, J. E. (2017). The Young Innovators Program at the Eshelman Institute for Innovation: A case study examining the role of a professional pharmacy school in enhancing STEM pursuits among secondary school students. International Journal of STEM Education, 4 (1), 1–7.

Gallant, C., Bork, P., Carpenter-Cleland, C., & Good, D. (2020). Examining the impact of a 2-day scientific conference on high school students’ interest in STEM and confidence in attending university. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 20 , 376–387.

Han, H. (2017). The effects of mathematics-centered STEAM program on middle school students’ interest in STEM career and integrated problem solving ability. Communications of Mathematical Education, 31 (1), 125–147.

Han, S., Capraro, R., & Capraro, M. M. (2015). 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.

Helvaci, S. C., & Helvaci, I. (2019). An interdisciplinary environmental education approach: Determining the effects of E-STEM activity on environmental awareness. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7 (2), 337–346.

Hoeg, D. G., & Bencze, J. L. (2017). Values underpinning STEM education in the USA: An analysis of the Next Generation Science Standards. Science Education, 101 (2), 278–301.

Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. A. (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research (Vol. 500) . National Academies Press.

Irish Department of Education [IDoE]. (2020). STEM education 2020: Reporting on practice in early learning and care, primary and post-primary contexts . Author.

Julià, C., & Antolí, J. Ò. (2019). Impact of implementing a long-term STEM-based active learning course on students’ motivation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29 (2), 303–327.

Kang, H. K., & Kim, T. H. (2014). The development of STEAM project learning program for creative problem-solving of the science gifted in elementary school. Journal of Gifted/talented Education, 24 (6), 1025–1038.

Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3 (11), 1–11.

Kloser, M., Wilsey, M., Twohy, K. E., Immonen, A. D., & Navotas, A. C. (2018). “We do STEM”: Unsettled conceptions of STEM education in middle school STEM classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 118 (8), 335–347.

Lamptey, D. L., Cagliostro, E., Srikanthan, D., Hong, S., Dief, S., & Lindsay, S. (2021). Assessing the impact of an adapted robotics programme on interest in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) among children with disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 68 (1), 62–77.

Lesseig, K., Nelson, T. H., Slavit, D., & Seidel, R. A. (2016). Supporting middle school teachers’ implementation of STEM design challenges. School Science and Mathematics, 116 (4), 177–188.

Master, A., Cheryan, S., Moscatelli, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2017). Programming experience promotes higher STEM motivation among first-grade girls. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 160 , 92–106.

Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., Jackson, C., Miller, M., Walcott, B., Little, D. L., Speler, L., Schooler, W., & Schroeder, D. C. (2014). Developing middle school students’ interests in STEM via summer learning experiences: See Blue STEM Camp. School Science and Mathematics , 114 (6), 291–301.

Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M. S., Wang, H. H., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Roehrig, G. H (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. In Ş Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. E. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices (pp. 35–60). Purdue University Press.

Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013). Teacher STEM perception and preparation: Inquiry-based STEM professional development for elementary teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 106 (2), 157–168.

Newton, L. D., & Newton, D. P. (2014). Creativity in 21st-century education. Prospects, 44 (4), 575–589.

Park, M. H., Dimitrov, D. M., Patterson, L. G., & Park, D. Y. (2017). Early childhood teachers’ beliefs about readiness for teaching science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 15 (3), 275–291.

Park, W., Wu, J. Y., & Erduran, S. (2020). The nature of STEM disciplines in the science education standards documents from the USA Korea and Taiwan. Science & Education, 29 (4), 899–927.

Perignat, E., & Katz-Buonincontro, J. (2019). STEAM in practice and research: An integrative literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31 , 31–43.

Ring, E. A., Dare, E. A., Crotty, E. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2017). The evolution of teacher conceptions of STEM education throughout an intensive professional development experience. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28 (5), 444–467.

Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM Education, STEMmania. Technology. Teacher, 68 (4), 20–26.

Skilling, K. (2020). Shifting and shaping student beliefs about STEM education, pathways and engagement through integrated project experiences. In Y. Li & J. Anderson (Eds.), Integrated approaches to STEM education: An international perspective (pp. 251–270) . Springer.

Stohlmann, M. (2019). Three modes of STEM integration for middle school mathematics teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 119 (5), 287–296.

Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., Boeve-de Pauw, J., et al. (2018). Integrated STEM education: A systematic review of instructional practices in secondary education. European Journal of STEM Education, 3 (1), 1–12.

Vasquez, J. A., Sneider, C., & Comer, M. (2013). STEM lesson essentials, grades 3–8: Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics . Heinemann.

Wan, Z. H., Jiang, Y., & Zhan, Y. (2021a). STEM education in early childhood: A review of empirical studies. Early Education and Development, 32 (7), 940-962.

Wan, Z. H., So, W. M. W., & Hu, W. (2021b). Necessary or sufficient? The impacts of epistemic beliefs on STEM creativity and the mediation of intellectual risk-taking. International Journal of Science Education , 43 (10), 1–21.

Wan, Z. H., So, W. M. W., & Zhan, Y. (2022). Developing and validating a scale of STEM project-based learning experience. Research in Science Education, 52 (2), 599-615.

Zhan, X., Sun, D., Wan, Z. H., Hua, Y., & Xu, R. (2021). Investigating teacher perceptions of integrating engineering into science education in Mainland China. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19 (7), 1397–1420.

Zhou, S. N., Zeng, H., Xu, S. R., Chen, L. C., & Xiao, H. (2019). Exploring changes in primary students’ attitudes towards science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) across genders and grade levels. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18 (3), 466-480.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The Education University of Hong Kong, Ting Kok, Hong Kong

Zhi Hong Wan & Winnie Wing Mui So

Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

Lyn English

Oxford University, Oxford, England

Karen Skilling

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhi Hong Wan .

Ethics declarations

All the authors are not Editorial Board Members of the journal.

Ethical Approval

This article does not involve any human participants. Ethical approval is not required.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Wan, Z.H., English, L., So, W.W.M. et al. STEM Integration in Primary Schools: Theory, Implementation and Impact. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 21 (Suppl 1), 1–9 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-023-10401-x

Download citation

Received : 31 May 2023

Accepted : 31 May 2023

Published : 20 June 2023

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-023-10401-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Creating Accessible Spaces for Experiential Learning in an Online Environment

• Peter Gimby University of Calgary
• Christopher Cully University of Calgary

The switch to online learning required a creative solution to allow for the experiential learning outcomes of the program to be satisfied when access to physical spaces and equipment was restricted. This paper describes a collaborative process between technical and support staff as well as research and teaching faculty that led to the creation of meaningful experiential learning opportunities for over one thousand stakeholders. The implemented solutions included the development of hardware and software, the creation of documentation and training procedures for teaching assistants and designing a support system for the students.

Author Biography

Ania harlick, university of toronto.

Ania Harlick is an Assistant Professor, Teaching Stream at the University of Toronto, and an Adjunct Senior Instructor at the University of Calgary.  She considers herself an accidental physicist with a passion for education. As her primary responsibilities are teaching university courses, most of her research focuses on implementing modern pedagogy into the design of course and laboratory components. As far as she is concerned, she has her dream job. 

Copyright (c) 2024 Peter Gimby, Wesley Ernst, Christopher Cully, Ania M Harlick

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License .

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following:

Authors retain copyright and, from 2021 onwards,  grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution License  (CC-BY-NC) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

Before 2021, a CC BY-NC-ND license applied to all articles.

Developed By

• Français (Canada)

Information

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

Papers on Postsecondary Learning and Teaching

ISSN 2560-6050

International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research

A widely indexed open access peer reviewed multidisciplinary bi-monthly scholarly international journal.

Volume 6 Issue 3 May-June 2024

Submit your research paper

Decentralized Planning and Service Delivery in the Education Sector in Pakwach District Local Government: An Analysis of Primary Schools in Pakwach Sub-county

CrossRef DOI is assigned to each research paper published in our journal.

IJFMR DOI prefix is 10.36948/ijfmr

All research papers published on this website are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , and all rights belong to their respective authors/researchers.